The Duran Podcast - Patriot games. 500% Sanctions debacle

Episode Date: July 10, 2025

Patriot games. 500% Sanctions debacle

All right, Alexander, let's talk about Patriot Interceptors, Patriot Air Defense Systems. What does the U.S. have in terms of patriots? What do they not have? What is Trump looking for to give to Zelensky? What is your take on this Patriots story with the United States and Ukraine? There's two things to say about this. First of all, there is a critical shortage of Patriot missile interceptors. We've now had the figures.

They've come from the Guardianable places. Somebody in the Pentagon has obviously decided that they have to provide a explanation of what the situation is. They're nervous about talking about this to the American media, so they pick the Guardian. But I've no doubt this information is correct. The inventory is down to just 25% of the Patriot Missile Interceptive. receptors that are needed. We've also now been provided with production figures. The production figures are slow. They are not good. There is no real sign that there's going to be any big increase in production of Patriot missiles anytime soon to make up the shortfall. Ukraine is

absorbing more Patriot missiles faster than the United States can produce them. And the United States now has a crisis in the Middle East. The Iran situation is completely unresolved. There could be a return to conflict with Iran. Well, probably not within the next few weeks or months, but eventually, probably before the end of this year, it is a high possibility, even a probability, perhaps. And of course, there's also a strategic crisis in the Far East with China, where the United States is in confrontation with China over Taiwan. There are not enough Patriot missile interceptors to go around. That is the reality. The problem is that Trump himself finds it impossible to come out straightforwardly and say this. So over the last couple of days,

he's twisting and turning. Firstly, we had the announcement from the Pentagon that they were suspending deliveries, pausing deliveries, not canceling deliveries, but pausing deliveries of Patriot missile interceptors so that they could build up stockpiles in the United States. The same with 155mm ammunition, the same with high-mass missile ammunition as well. So that came from the Pentagon. The Guardian has provided us with an account of who made that decision and how, that it was, there was a recommendation by Old Rich Colby. It was authorized by Stephen Feinberg, who is the deputy Secretary of Defense. Hegg says absolutely was involved in the decision. I have no doubt at all that Trump was. Trump has played an extraordinarily

complicated game. One day he says that he didn't know, that it was all done without his knowledge. Now he's basically saying that he did know. I mean, he's playing all sorts of games about this. Then he seems to be going along with the decision. He talks to Putin. He tries to get Putin to Greece's Fyre. Putin obviously says no. He speaks to Mertz and he talks to Zelenskyy. He then sort of says that Ukraine will get air defense, rather defensive weapons. Then we're told that he's going to send 10 Patriot missile interceptors out of the batch that was stopped, which was 30. The whole thing is chaos. And now he's talking about these.

He's asking the Pentagon whether they can spare another Patriot missile battery. asking the Pentagon this to give an assessment. The simple fact is, the United States is desperately short of Patriot Missile Interceptors. Trump, who never ceases to talk up, the US military and its capabilities, finds that incredibly difficult to accept. And he is creating confusion, where on this issue, most of all, there should be none. And by creating confusion in the way that he's doing, he is communicating more and more clearly to more and more American adversaries around the world, not just the Russians, but first and

foremost, the Chinese and the Iranians, the fact that the United States is actually short of Patriot missile interceptors. That article in The Guardian, as I was talking about, was an article which I am sure the Pentagon left to itself would never have wanted to disclose. Right. I agree with you. He's showing the world that the United States has no air defense systems. Maybe it has for the U.S. Some air defense, but it doesn't have any more patriots to give to anybody.

and it's pretty bizarre, embarrassing, maybe as a better word, to have the president of the United States going around asking for one, one, one patriot system. If anybody has, does anybody have a patriot system that we could possibly give to Ukraine? And he has Mertz turning him down. He's calling Zelensky, and he's explaining Trump. The Guardian article says that Trump, had to explain to Zelensky why he was unable to get him the patriots that Zelensky is asking for. Trump is explaining to Zelensky. When I read that, I was shocked at what I was reading. This is peace through strength.

This is the problem of his whole peace through strength narrative is now he's starting to understand that the United States does not have unlimited power, unlimited ability and capabilities to produce. an infinite amount of weapons, unlimited money. Trump has moved from MAGA thinking, America First Thinking, to neocom thinking. Absolutely. And he needs to reverse course. Otherwise, his presidency is completely shot. I entirely agree.

Now, let's just take a few steps back. And I think we need to make this point. If he had done that which we were talking about back in August of last year and had simply walked away from Ukraine at the start of his presidency, he would not be in this situation now. It is as simple as this. The reason, the ultimate reason why the United States is running short of Patriot Missile interceptors is because the Ukrainians are launching them faster than the United States can produce

them. We've been saying this. Brian at the New Atlas has been saying this. There's all kinds of people that have been saying this for years, years actually, since Patriot Missile Interceptors first started to be delivered to Ukraine by Joe Biden and Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken in the spring of 2023. And the Pentagon even then was giving warnings about this. If Trump had made that decision at the start of this year and said, stop, we're not prepared to go on supporting this conflict, which is not in the direct interest of the United States. He would still have been able to project this image of peace through strength. I agree with you. That was a bad slogan anyway. He could have focused on the United States, rebuilding its military forces, sorting up industrial

problems, and he would not have been in this embarrassing situation in which he is in now. Not only is he putting his entire presidency in jeopardy over this and creating increasing concerns amongst his base, which you can see all the time. You can see the sub-currents of discussions taking place. He's basically lost Tucker Carlson, just to say. But he is now telegraphing to the world, the far from the United States being strong, on the contrary, it is running on empty. Yeah.

The United States cannot handle an attrition war with Iran. How is it going to handle an attrition war with Russia? Russia is now launching 720, 750 drones in a day. And the reports are that Russia is going to be producing 1,000 drones every single day. And who knows how many missiles they're producing? And who knows how many orejnics Russia's producing, mass producing, not one or two, orejnics like six months ago, mass producing Oresniz. Exactly.

The bottom line is that the United States is not capable in keeping up. with Russia. How's it going to keep up with China? But Trump is, Trump is, is continuing to put his foreign policy in the hands of Keith Kellogg and even worse in Lindsey Graham. Yes. Yes. Lindsay Graham is really running things. The United States of the United States, exactly. So now he's now, apparently Trump is, instead of telling Lindsey Graham and Blumenthal that this, This bill that you're proposing is a complete, is foolery. I mean, we've already seen the sanctions don't work. We've been trying to impose tariffs on all kinds of countries and what you're proposing

cuts completely against our tariff policy. I mean, you seriously propose that we're going to impose 500% tariffs on China, for example, because they're buying Russian oil. when, and I can say this, I've never had some information from within China about this, that the Chinese are still restricting exports of rare earths. They're keeping careful track of what rare earths are being used for. They're monitoring whether they really are going to car factories, as some people are asking in the US as opposed to military industries and things of that kind. So the Chinese have that enormous card to play. And besides, they have all kinds of other cards to play on the trade front as well. And the United States has just done a trade deal with them. Is the United States going to tear that all up simply in order to satisfy Lindsay Graham? Trump should have told Graham, this just doesn't work.

It's absurd. It is a piece of idiocy. I am not going to have anything to do with it. Instead of which, we're now going to get the sanctions bill, Trump wants to have the carve out. He's going to say that I should have control. I can provide exemptions to sanctions. Well, I think that is probably what he's going to have to do. I mean, he can't stop China from buying Russian oil. He probably can't stop India from buying Russian oil. He probably can't stop Turkey from buying Russian oil. And they're the big importers of Russian oil.

How about the United States buying uranium from Russia? of the by United States, buying uranium and Russia and all of that. But again, he's simply creating more problems with himself because Lindsay Graham is going to get his bill. And then Trump is going to start making these exemptions. And Lindsay Graham is going to go on the chat shows and the television channels. And he's going to start criticizing Trump. And we'll have the thing going backwards and forwards.

and there'll be more situations where ultimately the neocons had the advantage over Trump in the publicity battles. You know, there is this constant theme that you find in so much of the media, the mainstream media, about, you know, Trump being this, you know, overpowerful, overstrong dictatorial president. The truth is the exact opposite. I mean, he is constantly, constantly. giving, retreating where he should stand firm. I am so glad you said that the persona that he wants to project is that of a strong, tough president. We saw that in the CNN audio files that were released the other day, of which the White House is not disputing, and which I personally believe that he did not say those things

to Putin and Xi. But what it does show is it shows a Trump who wants to present himself as the ultimate tough guy, the ultimate strong man. But when he's actually trying to get stuff done or taking a position, he always finds himself flit-flopping or having to retreat or having to just go along with whatever Lindsey Graham says or back in the day, whatever, Bolton said. I mean, he's constantly or having to explain himself to Zelensky's. He came to the White House, insulted the White House. Assulted the United States, insulted Trump, insulted Vance. And now you have Trump calling Zelensky and explaining to Zelenskyy, why I can't get Patriot Missiles to you, Volodymyr.

I mean, he presents one image, which people, a lot of people like that image and they buy into the image. But the fact is that he can't hold his ground. No. On anything. No. At least foreign policy wise. No, absolutely. No.

I mean, exactly. And I think this is, this is, it is alarming. base. It is, in fact, alienating more and more of his base. And it's only going to get worse than this point on, I think, because probably we will get this sanctions bill. The Russians are not impressed, they've said so. The Chinese are not impressed. They've said so. So he's going to have to carve out these exemptions because there is really no alternative option. And instead of looking strong, he's going to look weak. Lindsay Graham is going to say he's weak. He's on foreign policy. And he's going to look weak altogether because he's basic going to say,

why are you going along all the time with what Lindsay Graham wants? They're already saying. Yeah, exactly. So can you explain once again? We talked about this in a video we recorded last week. I asked you the question, what if Trump goes scorched earth? He He agrees to adopt Lindsey Graham's 500% secondary sanctions, which is just really an embargo on China and India and other countries. Anyway, I asked you what does that mean for the United States in the world if Trump goes along with it? He's going to go along with it.

He'll put in the exemptions. He'll try to resist actually implementing these sanctions. Eventually, under pressure, he's going to implement all of it or a part of it, whatever. He'll be pressured and he'll go along implementing these 500% sanctions in one form or another. Maybe he can put it in his draw and not implement it for a couple of months. But like you said, he'll get the pressure. He's on that escalator now. He's way up on that escalator.

He'll get the pressure from the neocons and he's going to have to start implementing this thing. Rand Paul has warned him about it. Many other analysts and politicians have warned him. about it. Don't implement these 500% sanctions. It's stupid. It's idiotic. It's dumb. It's going to destroy the U.S. economy. What is the implications of implementing Lindsey Graham's sanctions? If he does that, as I said, it is going to completely unravel his entire economic policy in the United States, which is already looking actually shaky. I mean, the economic numbers for the moment are looking reasonably strong. But again, it's.

early days in his presidency, and there are problems. I mean, there are certainly problems starting to creep up on the inflation front. And there's more and more worries that the United States is heading towards some kind of eventual budget crisis, because the deficit seems to be expanding constantly. So, you know, he's already got an economic policy, which, I mean, It's not an irretrievable situation. He can find, he can attack and he can maneuver. But if he actually goes along with these tariffs, then of course he's, did this bill, then in effect he's become a prisoner.

His economic policy has become a prisoner of Lindsay Graham's foreign policy obsessions. And eventually, there would have to be a chaotic retreat. I mean, the Chinese would stop exports of rare earths. There would be massive problems with good trading goods would basically seize up. The price of oil and of energy would seize up. There would eventually be a chaotic retreat. But, I mean, the effect would be to destroy his presidency and his reputation. And it would completely alienate once and for all and forever his political base.

So, I mean, that is what would happen. Can you just explain what is Lindsay Graham thinking he's going to achieve with this 500% secondary sanctions on China and India and other countries, this embargo of Russian. It's Russian oil, Russian energy oil and uranium as well, which the US imports from Russia. What is Lindsay Graham's idiotic strategy in all of this? I mean, what is you looking to achieve with this? I think what he wants, above all, is to pose as the strong man so that he can get reelected in, was it, a year and a half's time. I mean, he's up for re-election.

And he wants to project to the voters in South Carolina that he's still, you know, the major influential, powerful senator who dominates foreign policy and shapes foreign policy in the United States and that he's able to have this enormous influence on the president. And he also probably calculates that taking this line is going to keep his donor base happy because apparently there are a lot of the big military companies of production facilities in his state and they are major contributors to his campaigns. And there are other people there who support him to Charles and that kind of thing. I doubt that it goes much further and beyond that with politicians, the objective to get reelected when it comes over the horizon is always central to their concerns.

And I think this is basically what it is with Lindsay Graham. I do think he's really planned through or thought out the longer term effects of this. And I doubt that this is true. I suspect this is also true of the people in the Senate as well. What are the things to say about senators and Congress people in general is that I get the sense that they don't really have much of an understanding of the realities that the United States is facing now. I don't think they really grasp that Russia is not the gas station masquerading as a country. I think many of them are still stuck on that idea. They still believe what they read in the media.

They still believe a lot of what the intelligence community is still telling them about how fragile and brittle Russia is. They can't quite get their minds around the fact that China is now the world's biggest manufacturing power. They are reassured all the time when they hear about the bricks and even think about the bricks, which is not very much, I suspect. But when they do, they probably go to all the articles that reassured them. under the bricks doesn't really mean anything or anything of that kind.

With politicians, parliamentary politicians especially, local politics trumps everything else. And when I mean local politics, I mean the imperative of getting reelected. Yeah, but the Europeans, Macron, Mertz, Zelensky as well, they're pushing for this 500% sanctions plan as well. So I'll ask the question again. They must be thinking that this is going to do something to Putin's war machine to the Russian economy. I mean, what do they think of this is going to actually do to Russia or to China or to India or

to Russian oil or exports or uranium? How are they connecting 500% sanctions to some sort of victory over Russia? So where is the connection in all of this? Well, there isn't. Again, I mean, I think that this is another thing to say. I mean, I do think they're making that kind of analysis. I think that for them, the sanctions now has become an end in itself. They want the United States to continue to roll out sanctions.

They want Europe to continue to roll out sanctions. for them to start pausing sanctions or even to start easing sanctions would be not just a complete admission of failure, it would be an admission that they're not as powerful as they want the world to believe and as they want to believe themselves that they actually are. And that is very, very difficult, I think. If you go to Ian Proud, the British diplomat, who we've had on our program several times, now Ian Proud was the person who was in charge of sanctions policy. I mean, he was the person who was signing off on the various sanctions.

He was trying to get people to understand. This isn't working. It doesn't make sense. He knows more about sanctions than anybody in Britain. And what he found, and he's written about this, and he's talked about this, including on our programs, is that people just didn't want to listen to any of this. They just were closing their ears and shutting their eyes and still clinging on to the idea that this is going to work, that Russia depends entirely on oil, that this is what fuels Putin's

war machine. If we can somehow find a way of stopping that, then that will force the Russians to compete and we will have won the war after all. Is this going to cause price increases? Yes. More inflation? Yes. More complexities in the entire process? Yeah.

If it's implemented in the way that people say. It's difficult to see how ultimately it works. I'm asking questions assuming that this is going to be implemented. Yeah. That's why I mean, it may not be. Yeah. But even if it's, even if it's passed with all the caveats that Trump wants and it's not implemented, it's going to create a degree of unsubmented.

of uncertainty, and that will mean that we will have higher energy prices than we otherwise would. People always get this wrong, by the way. They always say to themselves, well, the price of oil is now 80%. People were talking about, you know, 200% oil prices, if sanctions have been imposed. Well, no, actually, the question is not what is the total price of oil, which depends on many, many different factors, supply and demand and all of those sort of things. It is whether oil prices in any particular economic situation would be lower if these sanctions were not in place than they actually are. So let's assume that we get a recession in Europe. I think in Europe we already are in recession, by the way.

I mean, what is deindustrialization, if not a type of recession? But let's say we get a deeper recession. Let's say we get a deeper recession in the United States. The price of oil will fall because there's less demand for oil and that will mean that the price of oil is going to be less than it would be if we were in a period of economic growth and certainly a lot less than it would be if we were in a period of a boom. But if we have these sanctions, the price of oil is not going to fall as far as it lodged. would. And that's even if they're not implemented, because as I said, there will be that uncertainty. There will be that nervousness in the oil markets, which tend to push oil prices

up further. People will probably want to stockpile as well. And that will mean that more oil will be taken out of the market than would otherwise be the case. And that higher oil price is going to have an impact on the economies of the West, it would mean that there would be a slower return to recovery than would otherwise be the case, because the price of oil would not be fully adjusting for the fall in demand. So because of that, when demand starts to increase, it collides against the higher oil price. And of course, the oil price will then continue to go to go up further and that would mean lower growth overall. So that is the reality of what we're looking at. It's what we've been seeing play out in Europe since February 2022. In Europe,

energy costs have been consistently higher, much higher than they would have been if there had not been the decisions that were made back in 2022 to stop Nord Stream to start. to stop importing Russian gas and all of those things. If the thing, if oil and gas from Russia were flowing to Europe normally, as they had been doing before 2020, gas prices, energy costs in Europe would be significantly lower now than they actually are. And we would have less of a recession, less of a, less of a recession problem. And of course, Germany's industrial base would be doing a lot better. How did the tariffs factor into this as well, Trump's tariffs?

Well, right, because of course he's now imposing tariffs all over the place. And this is another point to say, because 500% tariffs sounds incredible. But if you start imposing 50% tariffs, as he's now threatening against Brazil, for example, The reality is Brazil is going to divert its exports from you. I mean, there comes a point where it's, you know, you go past the point of no return. I mean, you know, 50% tariffs and might not be that different in their effect from 500% tariffs. It depends on what Brazil is exporting to the United States. So 50% tariffs from Brazil is going to make problems again for the United States.

Brazil is a major agricultural exporter. It also exports oil, by the way. And it also, I believe, exports things like steel, all of which the United States is using. Inevitably, in time, this is all going to be inflation. And the same is true. I mean, you know, if you impose, if you stop pushing up terrorist against China all over again, or Vietnam or India, well, India is not an exporter, but other economies that are exporters, inevitably that is going to start closing down world trade and pushing up total prices.

Yeah, but India is purchasing the Russian oil and refining it and then selling it so India would be facing the 500%. Well, exactly. I mean, unless, of course, you did a carve-up and all went along with the fiction that it's not Russian oil at all, which is what the Europeans have been doing up to now. I mean, you know, probably, probably they will continue to go along with the fiction, despite all of the pretence to the contrary. But the point is the aggregate effect of tariffs, not the 10% tariffs that were the tariffs which we ended up having in April.

Now, those 10% tariffs, as I said, make a kind of, I mean, they're coherent. They have a kind of economic logic behind them. I mean, they're people who believe in free trade. They're people who believe in protection. I'm not going to get into a debate about that. But 10% tariffs, which overall are not going to be a massive disruptor on world trade, 50% tariffs, a situation where there's tariffs on one country, which completely. different than tariffs on another country, a completely chaotic situation, and you throw sanctions

as well into the mix, it's inevitably going to have an effect on world trade, and it's going to accelerate the development of the BRICS because people are going to want to create workarounds, and there is an obvious workaround, which is BRICS. Now, again, there's been a summit meeting of the in Brazil, and there's been attempts to sort of downplay its significance. But if you look at all of the various decisions that came out of that summit, again, it's building on the conceptual breakthroughs that were made in Kazan. We are getting further and further to that position when the bricks create payment and trade mechanisms with each other that bypass the sanctions and the tariffs that the Americans are creating.

If you're going to be the big disruptor in world trade, world trade will have to continue, but it will continue without you. Just a final thought to wrap up the video. With the responsible government, a government of adults, they would use the tariffs as a way to help their economy. They wouldn't weaponize tariffs. I mean, you've said it many times. Tariffs could be one of the tools that a country uses in order to benefit its economy in whatever ways they're thinking of doing, for example, in trying to maybe bring in additional revenue or to bring a manufacturer. bring back to the country. Under a responsible adult government, tariffs can be used properly

to benefit the country. The problem that has happened now with the Trump administration is that the tariffs have become sanctions and they've been weaponized. The tariffs on Brazil really don't have much to do with trade. At least that's how I see them. This is just a way to punish Brazil because of Bolsonaro, because of bricks, for various reasons, they're now saying 50% terrorists because you're not falling in line. So they've weaponized tariffs in much the same way that they weaponized sanctions, much the same way that they've weaponized the USDA. And this is just going to accelerate the shift away from the United States, from the collective

west, from the dollar system, from the dollar reserve, from the rules-based international order, all of these things. from the institutions of the West. That's all Trump is doing with these tariffs now. He's, he's not using them as a way to help the US economy. He's using them now as a way to punish countries. And he's saying it because he's posting on true social, leave Bolsonaro alone, and then the next day, 50% tariffs. Absolutely. And he's done the same with South Africa. He's done the same with all kinds of other countries and he's going to be continuing to do the same. I mean, so he's weaponizing tariffs now. He's weaponizing tariffs.

And there is an incredible degree of incoherence because he imposed tariffs of 20% on Vietnam and 40% apparently on transit goods from China that are exported to Vietnam and then re-exported from Vietnam to the United States. Apparently unaware of the fact that his own negotiators have actually apparently negotiated lower tariffs with those particular types of goods, with China itself. So that China is now able to export them more cheaply. I mean, it is very chaotic because it is becoming increasingly, exactly as he said, weaponized. Now, your point about using tariffs protection to build up your domestic economy is exactly

what the United States did in the late 19th and early 20th century. And if you go back to the literature of that era, which is extremely extensive, I mean, the Americans at that time really did have adults in the room running the government and thinking about these things. And they were just in government, by the way. I mean, they were also in Wall Street. They were also in the big industrial groups at that time. They all said the same thing. Never weaponized terrorists. never go down the road to reciprocal tariffs. Tariffs should never be used in that way. They should

always be used. You can find it. It's very clearly set out. They should always use them for one purpose and one purpose only, which is to build up the US domestic economy. In fact, they actually were saying at that time that that is the proper Republican policy with tariffs. I don't mean aligned with the Republican Party of that era, though as it happens, the Republican party of that era was the party of terrorists. They meant that it was the Republican policy because it was consistent with the principles of the United States as a republic, a democratic republic that you build up industry, you're not out there to punish countries and to bully them and do that kind of thing.

terrorists, they said, was completely inappropriate and wrong thing to do. Other types of economic coercion, completely the wrong thing to do. You had tariffs for one purpose only, which was to build up the domestic economy. There's no sign that that's happening or that it's been done anymore because, as you absolutely rightly said, the tariffs have now become completely weaponised and they just become another type of sanctions. It's just sanctions. It's, it's, it's, Its tariffs, tariff policy and sanctions policy has merged. And that's another thing about Lindsay Graham's bill. The Americans of the 19th century would have been appalled by it for that very same reason,

because it treats tariffs as an instrument of sanctions. In fact, it makes the two the same. All right. We'll end the video there. The durand. Dot locals.com. We are on X. We are on Rumble.

We are on Odyssey. And of course, the Durand. Dot locals, they already said that. I think I already said that to Dran. Dot locals.com. Go to the Duran Shop. Pick up some merch like what we are wearing in this video update. Take care.