The Duran Podcast - NYT, US waged COALITION WAR against Russia

Episode Date: March 31, 2025

NYT, US waged COALITION WAR against Russia

All right, Alexander, let's talk about this New York Times article, very long article called The Partnership, the Secret History of the War in Ukraine. This is the untold story of America's hidden role in Ukrainian military operations against Russia's invading armies. Alexander, I had the misfortune of reading this article, long article, I'm sure that you have also read this article. Your thoughts on this New York Times post, which they claim they've interviewed, they interviewed 300 people to put this article together. and they've basically given a history from their side as to what happened in this conflict in Ukraine. So lots of things to say. Firstly, one of the most mendacious and manipulative articles I've ever read in the New York Times, but nonetheless, in some ways, a very informative one.

I mean, let's start with the subtitle, the untold story. This is nonsense. It's been told many times. Just watch, go through all of our various programs on our channel. And you will see that we've set it all out in minute detail, going back years. There is nothing actually that is substantively new here. And that's the first thing to say. It all depends on where you go.

Of course, if you get all your information from the New York Times and from mainstream media, then this will be new to you. But if you've been coming too old to the Duran, then quite the opposite. Nothing here will be substantively new to you. That's the first thing to say. The second is that I think it was about two weeks ago. We did a program on the Duran, you and I, in which we discussed that this talk about this having been a proxy war between Russia and the United States, a war in which they

were each playing sort of chess with each other. through fighting each other through proxies. Like Vietnam was a proxy war or Korea was a proxy war or, you know, Angola was a proxy war. This is actually a misdescription of the conflict. This was a coalition war, a coalition of several Western states against Russia, of which, by the way, there have been many in history. Napoleon's war in 1812 was a coalition war. Several European countries fought alongside France and invaded Russia in 1812. The same was true, of course, about the Second World War.

In fact, many people don't want to accept that there were lots of countries that fought alongside Germany in Russia at that time. This is another one in the series of coalition wars that have been fought by various Western states against Russia. So the Americans provided command and control, they provided most of the weapons, they provided the intelligence, they did the military planning, all of this we said in that program we did about two weeks ago. The Ukrainians provided the infantry and the soldiers, though it's worth pointing out that there were quite a lot of Western soldiers involved in the fighting too, people from Poland especially, but other. other contractors and people also sent to fight in Ukraine. And of course, other Western states also were key members of this coalition, Britain especially. Britain was also involved in command and control issues. And Germany has played a big role and on a lesser scale, so has France.

So it's all confirmed finally in this New York Times. article. It tells us that most of the operational planning wasn't done in Kiev. It was done in Vizbaden by the Americans. It shows the depths to which American generals merely cavalie, the general who's in overall command of NATO, General's, you know, Donald Hugh and others like that. I mean, that they were actually planning and conducting the military operations. And they were getting the Ukrainians to basically carry them out. And it also shows something else, which again, we always suspected and we always knew, and we've talked about this in many programs, that a lot of the actual push for sending more and more weapons to Ukraine did not come exactly from the Ukrainians. Of course,

The Ukrainians were always asking for more weapons. But the key people who were demanding the weapons all the time were these same American generals who were effectively commanding the Ukrainian forces. It was they who wanted the M-Tripple-7s. It was they who wanted the Haimars missiles. It was they who insisted back in 2022 on supply of the attackers missiles. And what was constantly driving this unending demand for more and more weapons to be sent to Ukraine was the tactical situation.

So, for example, the Russians quickly adapted to the Haimars. They relocated their headquarters away from the battlefronts, out of range of the Haimars rockets. They established their headquarters in all sorts of places. The American generals who wanted to strike. at the Russian headquarters in order to kill Russian generals, just to make that absolutely clear. They then started demanding the attackers because the attackers placed those headquarters within range.

The attackers could reach them, whereas the Hymars couldn't. And we've also discovered something, again, that we also knew that there were people in the Pentagon who were never keen on this, members in the Pentagon thought this thing was getting completely out of control. They said that far too many attackers missiles were being sent to Ukraine, but that the Biden administration, Joe Biden himself, basically went along with every single demand that the American generals

and the others were making. Lloyd Austin. Exactly. So, yeah, the attackers were sent, the F-16s was everything. in order to win this war. And this is the other thing that comes out very, very clearly from this article. This is not a war about defending Ukraine or fighting in order to achieve a negotiated outcome. It was a war that was intended to defeat Russia militarily, to defeat the Russian army, to in fact destroy the Russian army. Ultimately, with the objective, now this isn't said in the article, but it's absolutely clear if you read the article, with the objective of achieving regime change in Moscow.

It was a war intended to defeat Russia. Now, the article basically stops in 2024. And there's an awful lot, as I said, of lying here. I mean, I use that word quite, you know, purposefully. because what it doesn't say is that the Russians out-generalled the Americans completely. The Americans, for example, were behind this offensive in Heurzon region in the autumn of 2022. It clearly was not intended merely to retake the city of Hearsan. The plan was to destroy the Russian army of West. of the Dnieper, the Russians pulled back before that happened. They were always a step, one step ahead of the Americans. It goes into great detail about how the Russians completely complicated and unbalanced the whole American plan to start an offensive in Zaporosia in 2023. The

Russians started this offensive in Bahmert. They eventually captured Bahmert. It shows how the Russians were able to exploit differences between the Americans and the Ukrainians about this. It shows how the Russians completely defeated the Americans who were involved in the operation in Zaporosje as well. It is a consistent story, if you read this article through, of military failure. Not a single one of the military operations that is a consistent story, if you read this article through, of military failure, of military failure, that it describes actually achieved its intended objective. The Russians were never defeated in the way that these generals, these American generals and their political masters in Washington wanted. And the result was that after 2023 from 2024, things begin to go increasingly wrong.

nobody quite knows quite what to do. In 2024, there's the decision to launch deep strikes into Russia. There's no real plan as to what that would lead to. There's a desperate attempt in this article to pretend that the Kusk operation was entirely Ukraine's idea. And there is also a desperate attempt to transfer. all the responsibility for the systematic military failures on the Ukrainians. So, it was Sirskyy was doing his own thing. Zelushny was doing his own thing.

They weren't following the advice of these wise and clever American generals, Cavalry and Millie and Donahue and all of the others. So we had all these wonderful, beautiful, well-constructed, well-thought-out plans and they weren't executed properly because the Ukrainians basically went off and did their own thing, which if you follow the events of the war closely, you know that that is absolute nonsense. And, well, in spite of all of that, ultimately, if we just kept on doing this, it would have all turned out right in the end. But then along comes this terrible man, Donald Trump, and he brings this whole, thing to an end. So it is a terrible article. The detail of it is both very disturbing. The violence

and the cruelty of it, the killing of the straightforward killing of Russians, the gloating over the killing of Russians is horrible as a description of the tactical situation, of the battles. You have to actually take a step back and see how ultimately this is a catalog. of failure, failure after failure after failure. But the overall admission that this was not a proxy war at all, but a coalition war led by the administration, the Biden administration, a neocon war against Russia is there. I mean, I don't like to say this perhaps quite in the way that I'm going to, but our analysis of of the war, right from the first day, has been comprehensively vindicated by this article.

Yeah, in a strange way, it's been vindicated by this article. Well, in an upsetting way, actually. I mean, it's not something one wants to see. But, you know, people talk about World War III. My God, we got very, very close to this, because this was ultimately a Biden administration an American war against Russia. Yeah. And I think the key to what you said is that if you were following this war closely,

if you had been watching a channel like the Duran over the last three years, you would be able to see right through this article. Yes. And to realize that this article is full of lies. Yes. If you were not following the Duran, and I'm talking about millions upon millions of people, and all you're reading is CNN and BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post.

A lot of this information would be very new to you. And the picture that the New York Times is presenting is one of a Biden victory over Russia. If only the Ukraine generals and Zelensky's gigantic ego and his hubris. always looking for the big win, if only they had not gotten in the way of this Biden victory. I mean, that is the picture of this article, Biden and his team of Kavoli, of Austin and Donahue, who's the Superman type of general. That's the picture that they paint of General Donahue. They were easily, easily defeating Russia. Yes.

And the article even makes the Russian military look like just a bunch of lost buffoons. I don't have another way to describe it. Clueless, the Russian military completely clueless. The American command easily defeating the Russians for the first two years. And then the Ukraine generals, they start disobeying orders. They start coming up with their own ideas. The 2023 offensive, the counteroffensive in the south, it was going to be the final defeat of Russia. It was all over.

The strategy was completely laid out by the American side. Everything was set. And then Sierski decided he wants to focus on Bahmuth. Sirski then argues with Solutioni. I don't know. Zelensky wants big wins. All of this chaos ensues and the counteroffensive, which was going to be the defeat of Russia, the defeat of Putin. The regime change that Biden had wanted. It was all over at that point. That's the impression that you get from this article. So when I read this article, I thought, you know, this is basically the New York Times. running interference for the Biden administration,

basically saying that everything that Biden did was 100% well-calculated, well-thought-out, focused on achieving the goals of defeating Russia, and everything was very well managed and administered. But to the wild card was Ukraine, the wild card was Zelensky's ego, the Russians are just not even at the level, not even remotely close to the level of the U.S. military. And Donald Trump is now in office and he's basically handing the win to Russia, to a Russian side that if Biden would have been in office today, a Russian side that that would have never stood a chance against the superiority of the United States and of their NATO partners.

commanders command. Your thoughts. You're absolutely right. That is exactly what the article does. It admits, I mean, let's be quite clear about this. I mean, it cannot ultimately conceal the fact that all of the military plans for defeating the Russians fail, that every single battle, in no battle is the objective of defeating the Russians ever achieved. On the contrary, It's the Russians ultimately who come out the winners again and again and again. But of course, you cannot have the blame, or Millie, Austin, Cavalry, Donahue, or of course, the saintly Biden himself. By the way, Sullivan and Blinken aren't even mentioned anywhere in the article, nor are the British barely mentioned. Well, we'll come to the British in a moment.

But I think I want to correct you there. I think Blinken was mentioned once. Once. And in a good way, in a way where, because I think this is going to add to the point that you're making, I believe the exchange was something along the lines of Ukraine wanted to do this, but Blinken immediately corrected Ukraine's generals saying, you don't understand the Russians like we understand the Russians. Absolutely.

It was, of course, of course, Blinkin was proven right. Exactly. That was the reference there. Go on, sorry. But this is where this is, but you're absolutely right. The blame ultimately is with the Ukrainians. It's the Ukrainians who didn't do what they were told. They were given all these wonderful plans and they messed up.

You have to actually, first of all, can I just say? I mean, this is an absurd concept from the outset, given that it's the, Ukrainians who are there who are actually having to do the fighting, obviously their commanders, their generals have to actually adapt themselves to the real situation, not the situation that the staff way off in Vizbaden, imagine. So if the Ukraine is Germany, by the way, right? Vizs-Badden is in Germany, absolutely. I know it.

I've been there. Just to say, I mean, yeah, anyway, let them put that aside. But anyway, for example, there are things about how the Ukrainians have been held off by just two tanks in a Kershon region at one time. Well, I mean, that may be how it looked in Visbaden, but almost certainly many more things going on in that particular battle than this New York Times article says. It's the same about Roboto, you know, that they're held up by a single, was it, company of Russian troops. Again, it's not, it's almost certainly a caricature of the realities. But even if you read the article carefully, if you drill through, you immediately start to see the cracks,

even in its own accounts. So, for example, one of the major stories, one of the major themes is that the reason the Zaporosia offensive failed is because the Ukrainians diverted too many forces to trying to recapture Bahmert. And by the way, we now have the first admission that part of the objective was to actually capture Bachmut in the summer of 2023. Well, at the same time, just a few paragraphs before, there is the admission that there was actually an agreed plan to attack towards war. because that was going to divert Russian forces from Zaporosia to the defense of Bachman. So you could see that actually the genesis of the plan to attack

Bachman came from the planning team in Visbaden. What actually happened, though, is that clearly the battle in Bachman became much more intense. than had been expected. The Ukrainians were obviously having more problems than had been expected. And that was what, instead of drawing Russian forces from Zaporosia to Bachman, ended up drawing Ukrainian forces from Zaporosia to Bachman. In other words, the original plan itself was wrong. And the same goes for the whole plan, you know, for the Zaporosje offensive, the Herson offensive. You get many other examples over the course of this article. If you look carefully, you can see that the problems always were in the original plan.

And there is never any recognition or credit given to the Russians for the fact that the Russians constantly shift. and adapt and prepare to hold back, that they're always finding ways to cope with whatever it is that the Americans are throwing at them. And it is the Americans are throwing at them. And it's always purely the Americans and the Ukrainians. The Americans, all wise, all knowing, all brilliant. Ukrainians all over the place, narcissistic, egocentric, vein. There's a particular animus, by the way, towards Sirsky.

There is clearly these generals, for some reason, American generals, really don't like Siersky very much. But anyway, because he's Russian. Well, because he's Russian, exactly. I mean, they even call him the Russian general at one point. So, but never any acknowledgement that, in fact, it is the Russian general. the Russians who know what they're doing, are able to adapt, are able to adjust their front lines and their dispositions. They know when to, they know when to retreat, they know when

to advance. They always, and I come back to what I said, they always out general the Americans in the end. Yeah, there's never a Russian victory. The New York Times never talks about a Russia victory. It's always a Ukraine mess up. Mess up. The Ukrainians, they just messed up the Ukrainians. They didn't listen to what we were telling them. That's the story of this article. Russia never won. Russia is incapable of winning. But if only the Ukrainians would just do what we told them, then we would have had Crimea. And that's what the article basically is saying. We would have had Crimea. if the Ukrainians just listened to what we were telling them. That's the story of this article.

Just to give an example of that, it's absolutely clear now that the purpose of the autumn 2022-Hurzon offensive was to destroy the Russian army group in Kherson, west of the Dnieper, and then cross the Dnieper and march on Crimea itself. I mean, that's completely clear. The Ukrainians messed up. That the Ukrainians messed up. It's not that the Russians carried out an orderly withdrawal. The Russians were clueless.

The Russians were clueless. Exactly. Yeah. Let me ask you a couple of questions, quick questions. When you put together an article like this, and this is a sincere question, I'm asking this, would it have been proper or possible for the New York Times to have gotten if they really wanted to document the history of this conflict. That was their sincere intention. Would it not have been proper for them to try an interview Russians? I'm not saying it's possible

to have gotten interviews with Russian military or government officials. I don't know if that would have been possible. But perhaps Russian analysts, Russian experts, I don't know. Would that have been the right way to go about this if you really wanted to get a clear picture of this conflict? Absolutely. Of course, that is what, if you want to do a proper study of the war, you needed to do. And by the way, it is not impossible. All of these people, there's lots of them.

I mean, they would certainly be available to speak to and to get information from and to interview. They're absolutely available and accessible for interviews. Some of them are deeply suspicious and disliked the West intensely, but they are constantly talking and chattering. And of course, that's what you want to do. These people always want to get their ideas and their message across. But of course, the New York Times is not interested in doing that

because it is not giving us a true account of the war. It is constructing a defense for the Biden administration and for the military officers, especially by the way for Austin. Austin is the other person who's presented as this. solid, steady person. I mean, that's how he's thought. Genius. Exactly.

For all of these people who conducted another coalition war against Russia and one which failed and has failed utterly. The Europeans, their belief that they can defeat the Russians, NATO, Europeans, collective West, the neocons, they continue to believe even to this day that they can defeat the Russian military. I think this article explains why they continue to believe that they can defeat the Russian military. Absolutely. Can I just make a few points here? I mean, one of the things about this article is that it cuts the Europeans out completely. I mean, they barely feature. we're told early on, for example, that when Ukrainian soldiers were sent to Wiesbaden in 2022,

right after the war began, by the way. I mean, you know, this idea that the U.S. was only gradually became involved. It's absolutely not true. The Americans were directly running things, literally from the first day. But when the Ukrainian generals in civilian dress were sent to Vizbaden, they were protected, British special forces. It's there. But the role of the British is never mentioned. Ben Wallace a little bit. Ben Wallace, one particular British general. But notice of the Klinke operation, the attempt to relaunch the Zaporosia, 2023 offensive with a new offensive across

the Dnieper, which we know was largely planned and prepared by the British. That's not mentioned to talk this article. I mean, it's just another episode which is deleted. If you understand that this was a coalition war, that there was a agreement, a decision made clearly before the start of the special military operation, because it can only have been that way to actually conduct an agreed war against the Russians, to break the Russians, to defeat them in Ukraine. Going back to that article that West Mitchell, you remember I've discussed it many times, wrote in the national interest in August 2021, you lure the Russians into a war in Ukraine, you defeat them there that creates a crisis in Moscow, you then establish a government that is

controlled by you and then you split Russia away from China. I mean, that was clearly the strategy. the Europeans are absolutely in for all of that because this is their opportunity to get their hands on Russian resources to solve their Russian problem, this problem that Europe supposedly has, that it's got this very powerful country on its eastern borders. Anyway, the Europeans are absolutely in for this. They are part of this coalition. They are providing equipment, material to the extent that they can. Intelligence, the British are clearly involved in command decisions. So given that they are themselves involved in the war to the same extent that the Americans are,

if this war ends with a Russian victory, they are defeated. And that isn't something they want to face because it is a defeat for them. It's not just a proxy war that they can walk away from because they know and they know the Russians know that they were parties in the war and that they were defeated in it themselves. By the way, the article confirms that the Americans were guiding the high mass missiles, that they're guiding the missile strikes into Russia, that they're helping with the drone attacks. all of these things and not just the Americans, the Europeans too. Now, the other thing is, so they don't want to admit that they've lost, but the other thing is this, they still believe, they have to believe, in the enormous power of the United States. And they still imagine that if this thing continues long enough, American power must prevail.

The coalition must prevail, because if we cannot, where are we? Yeah, I just wonder if I agree with you. I wonder if you're like say you're a prime minister or a president of one of the EU countries. Whatever, Greece, Portugal, it doesn't matter. And you're getting information like what was outlined in this article. You're also probably thinking this is easy to defeat Russia. Yeah. Russians can't even compete with us. I mean, you know, if once again, if the Ukrainians would just listen to us, then this would be a walk in the park. I mean, that's, that has to be

what you're thinking. If, if this is the type of information that you're getting and you're some prime minister in an office in, in Madrid or something, and you know, you're just getting this information, you're probably thinking, why are we not winning? This is so easy. Cavoli, Donahue, these guys are rolling over the Russians. Yes. Yes. Despite the fact that, to repeat again, they failed to win a single battle. That's not what they're telling you.

I know, it's what we're saying. By the way, by the way, notice again that there's very little said about the Russian withdrawal from Kiev, which again leads me to, I mean, it's another reason to accept the Russian version that this was a, Agreed withdrawal, not military success. But let's put all that aside. In terms of all of the other battles, not a single major success, everything ends badly. But of course, these generals are brilliant, cavalry is brilliant, Donahue is brilliant, Austin is brilliant. So, of course, it's a walkover because the Russians are all over the place.

They're bumbling, they're incompetent, they're drunk, they're corrupt, all of those things. So it is. It's going to be a walk in the park. The only problem is that these Ukrainians, they just are a little bit too wild. They go off on all kinds of tangents. They don't do what they're told. They are almost actually as bad as the Russians are. Yeah, good point. Exactly. That's exactly right. A final question, and I think probably the most important question, how does Putin, his administration, when they read an article like this, which they're going to read this article, they're going to probably study it very much in detail. What do they think when they read an article like this? What are the Russian people? And there's going to be a lot of Russians in Russia who are going to read this article? I this article is going to be translated as well into Russian, and it'll probably be distributed in Russia by various popular media outlets, or at least summarized by all of the major media outlets. What do they think when they read an article like this? When they read that the United States

was targeting Russian military facilities inside of Crimea, inside of Russia, pre-2014 Russia, when the United States was responsible for attacking civilians in Sevastopol, for example, the beach, the beach in Sevastopol. That was the United States behind all of that. When it was the United States that wanted to defeat Russia, this was never about Ukraine, it was about the United States, not only defeating Russia, destroying Russia, dismantling Russia, breaking Russia apart. That's what the article is. It doesn't, like you said, it doesn't. say it, but that's what it's implying. That's what it's hinting at. What do the Russians say? What does the Putin administration say, especially now that you have negotiations with Trump? How do you, how do you negotiate with the United States? How do you normalize relations with the United States after an article like this is published? Or is the article's goal, is one of its purposes to make sure that there is never a normalization between Russia and the United States? How do you How do you forget everything that this article says, which is that the United States was out to destroy you and using Ukraine to destroy you?

Just to add on to that, if you're a Ukrainian general, if you're in the Ukrainian military, if you're a Ukrainian citizen, what do you think as you read an article like this, which is basically saying, you're the reason that we as the collective West, the superior, Collective West, you're the reason we didn't defeat Russia. Well, indeed, I mean, good questions. I mean, the first question... These are hard questions. These are difficult questions, but... They're not actually, I mean, the first question... I was thinking about this last night.

Yeah. These are the questions I wanted to ask you. And honestly, Alexander, as I was reading this article, I was very upset. It's a very upsetting article. I... You know, you may know something. You may have worked it all out. But, Xen, as happened with the

business over USAID, having it all set out like it is set out in the New York Times, does upset you. I mean, it may be what you have already known or had already worked out, but it is really, really horrifying to read it like that. And if I was a Russian, if I was Putin and I read this article. I would say to myself, well, this is a war against Russia. We all knew that. But here it is the Americans talking about it. And they're not just talking about it.

They're bragging about it. There is not a hint of contrition anywhere in this article. There's not a glimmer of self-doubt about what the Americans were doing, whether this was a proper and right thing to do. On the contrary, it's talked about it's this wonderful partnership built on trust. Of course, the trust eventually broke down because the Ukrainians were all over the place. But there is never any suggestion that this was anything other than a proper and correct and wise and right thing for the United States and the Western powers to do, to try to defeat Russia, destroy the Russian army, kill as many Russians as possible,

overthrow the government in Russia. What it must do in Russia is it must reinforce the view which already exists there, that you cannot trust the United States, that you cannot trust the West, that the West is completely hostile and that any concessions are obviously unacceptable and that only victory will do. You mean the Medvedev? That is the view. The Medvedev. I mean, in fact, I'm sure Medvedev will be showing this to Putin and we'll be telling

Putin, look, you see, I was right all along. I mean, I'm sure Putin knows all of this too. But the point is not just the information in the article, but its entire tone, the fact that, as I said, there's no, there's no regret. I mean, that there are certain things, you know, people were a bit worried that if we push the Russians too far, they might resort to nuclear weapons. Not a glimmer of evidence of that, by the way. The only thing is that they apparently picked up a comment, you know, some kind of discussion with Suravikin, who badly thought, you know, the top of his head, well, maybe nuclear weapons might be the way. I suspect, by the way, that was what got sort of vacant sacked. I'm sure the Russian leadership found out about that,

and that was why he was sad. But there's no evidence that Putin himself ever considered nuclear weapons. But anyway, put all that aside. Those are the only glimmers of doubt that you actually see in this article. The idea of trying to win a battlefield war against Russia to achieve a victory against Russia. That was never in fact something that the authors of this article or the various contributors to this article appear to have thought in any way was a thing that might just possibly be wrong. So I think that's going to harden feelings in Russia. And I think that this article will have. have that effect. I don't think it's intended, by the way, to wreck negotiations. I see it more

as an attempt to, as I say, create a defense for the Biden administration and for all of these various generals, Millie, Covely and Austin and all of the others. But the effect might be that. Now, as for the Ukrainians, well, now they can see quite clearly the extent to which they were being used, because that's what this article says. Not only. used, but made the scapegoats for their own defeat. I mean, what was it? Meersheimer said about them being led along the Primrose path to their own destruction. Well, you have it outlined there in extraordinary detail.

And at the same time, when the disaster eventually comes, it was the Ukrainians themselves who brought it on, because they didn't listen to a great and wide, advice to abandon Bachmann, to press forward across the NEPA in 2022, to do all of the wise and clever and great things that we, the great American generals, British generals, by the way, thought they should do. Well, again, the Ukrainians reading all of this, if they have any sense, they should be very, very angry. I'm going to conclude by one. last government, after the Second World War, there was a whole deluge of memoirs that appeared written by German generals who were defeated by the Russians on the Eastern Front. And the

tone and the content is exactly the same as this article. We would have won. The only reason we didn't win was we were getting all these irrational orders and odd decisions by the mustarciard man back in, you know, Astonberg and Berlin or wherever he was. It had been left to us. We were far superior to the Russians. We now know all of this is, all of this was completely untrue. But it's the same alibis, the same story, the same narrative can see that has been peddled again in the New York Times to explain why America has lost in New York. Ukraine. Yeah, just a final point going off of what you said. I wonder if this is why the attacks against Russia will never end. Because the West just refuses, whether it's World War II and what you

said right now about the German memoirs or whether it's this article in the New York Times, it just seems that the leadership in the collective West will never accept the fact that they cannot defeat Russia. in this conquest war of Russia, trying to capture Russia, they always lose. And they just can't seem to admit that the reason they lose is because when it comes to fighting Russia in Russia's sphere, they can't do it. They're outmatched. But they just never admit this. Or they refuse to admit this.

So, I mean, we're just going to repeat this. over and over again, this process is going to be repeated forever. It just makes me wonder, what does, what does Russia have to do to finally put it into this? What does the U.S. need to do? Maybe the Trump administration or a different administration, are they capable of finally putting this thing to bed, ending this? Trying to conquer Russia is over. We're done.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, that's my question. What do they need to do? What needs to happen so we can put an end to this once and for all? I'm going to say, I think the only thing that will finally end this, and you're absolutely right. This is the cycle. I mean, the Russians achieve a victory. There's a period of very unsatisfactory peace. Eventually, a new Western coalition against Russia is put together. It then starts another war against Russia. It is defeated. The whole process starts all over again. And this has been a recurring cycle ever since the start of the 19th century, basically, ever since Napoleon.

And we've got coalition attempt after coalition attempt. The Crimean War, by the way, was in some respects another example of this. We now know an awful lot about the Crimean War than we have up to fairly recently, by the way. And we now know that basically what happened in the Crimea war was that the Russians fought the West in Crimea to a standstill and that the plans that the Western powers had, which were immensely ambitious as a result were never executed. So, I mean, you know, there's been much miswriting about the Crimean War. I'm not going to do I devote myself into this. Anyway, in order to break this cycle, I think only one thing can happen. And that is that Russia must establish itself as richer and more economically successful

and therefore stronger than the West. They were probably closer to that point than we have ever been. But so long as people in the West, in Western Europe, which is really the heartland of this. I mean, the people who led the Biden administration into this disaster were the neocons who have their roots very much in Europe, just to say. But until that happens, until there is a perspective, a perception of the Russians as economically successful and rich and powerful

so that this sense of superiority that Westerners have over them can no longer be maintained. I suspect we're going to have this recurring cycle of cold peace followed by another attempted coalition will continue to recur. My own guess is actually that we are pretty close to that point. The world has changed. The world is much bigger than it was. China is a big economic power. It's got none of these hangups. India is wrong. We're probably coming towards the end of this cycle now. But for it to be finally and conclusively over, people in London and Paris must accept, must know that people in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and indeed Pern, Nova Cibiric, can ever and elsewhere live lives at least as good materially as those that people have in the West.

Yeah. Bricks is getting richer and the collective less is getting poor. I guess that's the exactly. That's the trajectory that needs to be established in order for this to end. Exactly. So long as the Russians look appear to be poor, they appear inferior and therefore vulnerable. Yeah. Okay, we will end the video there. The durand. Dot locals.com. We are on Rumble, Odyssey, Bichy Telegram, Rockfin, and X. Go to the Duran Shop, pick up some merch like what we are wearing in this video. Update. The link is in the description box down below.

Spring 15 for a 15% discount on all merch from the Duran Shop. Take care.