The Duran Podcast - Post Swiss summit Ukraine conflict w/ Jim Jatras (Live)

Episode Date: June 18, 2024

Post Swiss summit Ukraine conflict w/ Jim Jatras (Live)

Okay, we are live with Alexander Mercuris in London, and we are happy to have with us once again, the great Jim Chattas. Jim, how are things going? Great here at an undisclosed location in rural Virginia, God's country. I agree. I agree with you. Virginia is absolutely beautiful. Alexander, Jim, before we get started, let's just, uh, say a quick hello to everyone that is watching us on on rockfin hello to everyone on rock fin

hello to everyone on rumble and odyssey as well as youtube and the amazing chat on locals the duran dot locals dot com hello to our moderators tish m zaryel who else peter i know you're i think i saw you Peter in the chat. I'm not sure. Anyways, Arial, Tisham, and myself for sure are moderating today. And everyone can follow Jim on his Twitter account, his Twitter X account, which is a must follow. I have the link to Jim's X account in the description box down below. And I will also add it as a pinned comment as well when the live stream is over.

definitely go follow. Jim on Twitter X. Alexander, Jim, we had the Swiss Peace Summit. So let's talk post, post Swiss Peace Summit and what's next. Alexander, Jim, let's get rolling. Absolutely. So Jim, I'm going to go straight in. What did you think of this extraordinary peace summit? Is it going to bring peace to Ukraine? or some people think going to bring more war to Ukraine. Of course, if you read the newspapers here, it's, you know, a small step in the direction of peace. All these important world leaders from around the world came. 92 of them, it said. Well, you know, they all came and they talked with Zelensky and they were very, very serious about supporting peace.

And they issued a communique, which was a masterpiece, in my opinion, of language. distorted and manipulated language. I mean, one of the most extraordinary diplomatic documents I've ever read, but then, of course, you've probably read Penny more than me. What was your overall view? I'm going to just give you an insight to what I think. I think this is a massively important, clarifying moment. It demonstrated once and for all that most of the world outside what is called now the collective West,

that most of the world has had enough and is walking away. But anyway, Jim, what was your thoughts? As I said, you've got much more experience of this than either of us do. Well, for some reason, regarding what happened in Switzerland, the term clown show keeps coming to mind. You know, I coupled with the Putin non-ultimatum, which of course was issued just as the clowns, show was meeting, I somehow feel that somebody has hit the fast forward button in terms of events.

I think we're moving toward a number of clarifying points here. Part of it is not only the communique itself, which is my good friend Sergei Trichovich has noted on Chronicles, is really a vote for more war from these people, which is the only direction they can possibly think in terms of. And also, as we were discussing before we came on, just the absurdity of the signatory on it. The European Union signing in three different places to boost the numbers, the council, the commission, and the parliament, the ecumenical patriarchate for goodness sake, which is not even a state, unlike the Vatican. I mean, you know, the thing was a total flop. And we knew that even before they met. The communique itself is simply, it seems a sort of a pastiche of

earlier Zelensky supposed peace plan, which is really a demand of unconditional surrender from the Russians and some elements from the Chinese peace plan omitting some of the most important issues that would have to be resolved for any kind of peace. So look, I think we can put this thing in the rear view mirror very quickly. The real issue is what issued from, real issue is what came from Moscow. And that is Mr. Putin's proposal, which predictably was dismissed by the Western Powers. And I think the feeling I have about that, Alex and Alexander, is that it looks very similar to me to what Moscow did in December of 2021, where they laid down their markers with two proposed agreements, knowing they were going to be rejected, and then said, okay, it's time to move.

And I think that's what we're looking at now. As you know, I've had some concerns that the Russians being guided by rational, restrained, cautious people would be succored again into another kind of a Minsk-type deal, another kind of truce that would be used as some kind of a breathing space for more war by Kiev and its Western sponsors. And I think Mr. Putin made it pretty clear that that isn't going to happen. that they're not looking for a truce, despite all the fluff we've been hearing for weeks now about, oh, Russia really wants to cease fire. I think they're laying down a marker saying, all right, this is your last chance. They issue what Scott Ritter called the Odessa moment. If you want to keep a functional state, if you want to keep Odessa, you want to keep O'DESA, you want to keep Kharkov, you want to keep Kiev, this is your last chance, and this is what you need to do by actually not just promise,

but beginning the withdrawal of your forces from the four oblasts, which are now part of the Russian Federation. And if you don't do that, something very dramatic is going to come next. And I don't know what that's going to be. You know, Gilbert Doctro says maybe they'll decapitate the Ukrainian government, which they may do. They would destroy a flattened Kiev, which I can't imagine they would do, that the Russians would engage in such an act of vandalism as to destroy the mother of Russian cities. but I think the chances that they're going to wrap this up sooner rather than later are growing. And frankly, I think that's going to save a lot of lives, a lot of Ukrainian lives.

I think it would also lessen the prospects of an uncontrolled escalation of a conflict. One of the concerns I've had all along is that the Russians are proceeding very cautiously and incrementally because they don't want their irresponsible Western partners to do something crazy. And I think they're coming to the realization that the longer they keep this window of opportunity for meddling open, the more likely they will keep escalating. Whereas if that window closes and there's no more functional Ukrainian state, unless they're totally suicidal, they're out of options. Unless they're going to launch a direct attack on the Russian Federation,

which I don't think even they're crazy enough to do. They're out of options for escalation. So I hope and pray that they're going to wrap this up quickly, and we will see a final resolution of this conflict before the end of this year, hopefully before the muddy season sets in in the fall. But I can't be sure of that. Again, you know, I always am concerned about the fact that when you're dealing with spiritually, morally, intellectually, rational, and normal people,

they don't really understand the kind of psychopaths they're dealing with on the Western side, the kind of display we saw here in Switzerland recently. I agree with everything. Can I just make a few quick points? Firstly, a point which has been almost completely overlooked. I mean, when I say almost completely overlooked. I haven't seen anybody comment about this. But the day before Putin gave this speech to the,

the Foreign Ministry Board. He had a meeting with the top military commanders. Now, this is a, this was very strange because we know about this meeting, because it's mentioned in the Kremlin website, but we're not fully told

he was there, apart from, you know, the Defence Minister of the Chief of Staff, but he had this meeting. We're not told where this meeting took place, whether it was in Kremlin or in Rostov, what the command is, or whatever it is. And the Kremlin gave us nothing.

They just informed us that this meeting happened. They said that plans were discussed, but there was no transcript, no readout, no photographic study, nothing. So that looks to me, I have to say, it's like a council report. I mean, that Putin went to speak to these people and said, look, this is what I'm thinking of saying tomorrow, what are your plans, what are you going to do?

and probably this has been talked about for quite a long time now. And they laid out their plans. The Kremlin did say that after hearing them in sort of a plenary session, he actually then spoke, Putin spoke, with the individual commanders who briefed him about their individual plans as well. So this is a very important meeting, but as I said, completely not talked about just before that meeting with the Foreign Ministry Board.

And it seems to me to tie in exactly with the point. you've just made. The second thing I would say is that about rationality, and here I have to say that you, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a touchy subject with me, because people always tell me that, you know, when I discuss and analyze these events, my problem is that I also assume a level of rationality and, and sheer simple logic that in, you know, on the Western side, no longer exists anymore. But if you read Putin's comments, not just the one he's made at the foreign ministry board, but, you know, a lot recently, he's fed up. He's just had enough. That's my end sense of it. I mean, he's utterly exasperated. He used the words in a press conference he did in Tashkent,

this unending escalation. He used those very words himself. He talks about how he himself, he himself, has been repeatedly tricked. He said not so long ago that he no longer trusts anyone in the West anymore. So I get the sense that, you know, yes, he's done everything he's can. He's gone as far as he can beyond where many people in Moscow

probably thought he was wise to go in trying to meet the West halfway. But he's also had enough. I mean, that's my view. I mean, I didn't it. I didn't want to add anything there, but I read all his big public speeches. And that's certainly the impression I came away with. No, I agree with everything you said.

And another indication, I think the Russians are finally getting their ducks in a row is, remember a few weeks ago there was the meeting in Minsk. I think just before that Putin was in Beijing covering all his bases, but he was in Minsk. Also, there was Mr. Yanukovych. and Mr. Putin has made it quite clear. They don't consider Zelensky anything at this point. I suppose provisionally, their hold in the Rada, the parliament is still some kind of an entity that they could talk to. But as I understand it, their mandate expires in August.

And I don't expect they're going to be having legislative elections between now and August. I think at this point, it's pretty clear that the integrity of the Ukrainian state is now something that not taken seriously in Moscow. I could even see the unveiling at some point of a replacement provisional government for what's left of Ukraine, maybe involving Mr. Yanukovych, the last really legitimate constitutional president of Ukraine, maybe people like Mr. Medvedich or Azarov and other former figures from the Ukrainian government who are in Russia now. I could see something like that happening. So I think there's all sorts of possibilities here that we have not envisioned. I also think the Russians are taking to account

what's going on in the Western countries. We saw the parliamentary elections that were a disaster for the existing governments. As you've pointed out, Alexander, Mr. Macron, is called snap elections with the idea that he can somehow turn this around. I agree with you. That's unlikely to happen. the situation in Germany is also quite perilous, although I'm quite concerned that if the current government falls, it's not likely to involve the AFD. It's going to be the Christian Democrats who are even crazier than the existing red-green coalition. So, you know, we're not out of the woods yet. And, of course, then we also have to take into account what's going on the United States. I think the indications that Mr. Biden is going to be put out to pastor, sometimes

before the election that he will not be the nominee are growing. But on the other hand, even if Trump wins, I don't expect that's going to involve the fundamental change in American policy, assuming, by the way, this has not resolved itself prior to January of 2025. So the sense of chaos, really, in the Western political system is just advancing as the prospect of an Afghanistan-style humiliation of Western policy is growing in Ukraine. So, you know, there are a lot of moving parts here. And like I said, things are moving with such tremendous speed at this point.

I mean, the other thing I wanted to say just about Putin is that the contrast between his speech to the foreign ministry board are incredibly what carefully structured, closely argued, all his facts at his fingertips. every point leading logically to the next one. Very loyally, again. I mean, he is a trained lawyer, and again, for me, it shows. But, you know, everything very structured and methodical and carefully laid out and all the points in their right place

and all the rest. And the speeches we got both of the G7, and the speeches by the European leaders especially and Kamala Harris, in Lucerne was just, and it's just amazing. I mean, the other thing is, are they all using the same speech writer? Because sometimes they were saying exactly the same things as each other,

right down to the same turns of phrase. It was, I thought it was spooky, actually, as if somebody had told them to say this, that, you know, be careful in every speech to mention the fact that Ukraine is the victim and that Russia is the exact, the aggressor. I mean, the same point, repeating itself again and again from leader, after leader, after leader, after leader, and then they're trying to win over the global South, or the global

majority, as perhaps we should now call it. And they say these extraordinary things. I mean, Duda comes along and says Russia is the prison house of the nations. We must basically break it up. We must incite all of these other people in this country, in this prison house to repel and break away. Completely oblivious that you have countries like Brazil, India, South Africa, all of them, countries with multiple ethnicities and all of that. All of those same kind of concerns are they hearing all of this? And they're saying to themselves as well, who is really the aggressor here? Who is the victim? Do these people understand what they're doing?

Are they having the scripts written for them? This, I mean, rewrites for me everything I've ever understood about diplomacy. I mean, how did they imagine that they would win support by talking like that? Well, I think they're counting on who, I think what did Winston Churchill say about the best argument against democracy, is spending five minutes talking to the average voter. Maybe they think that people are just stupid and that they can keep churning out that, you know, you're right. It sounds like it's program phrase. Russia's unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It's like a standard. I think there's a button on the keyboard that can just push to spit out that phrase. I don't know if we're talking,

we're looking at some kind of artificial intelligence program or just natural stupidity. I mean, It's some balance between the two things. And even at that, and you still saw in Mr. Putin's speech that he is still open at some point in the future to reestablish a relationship with Europe and maybe even with the United States. But I think he realizes that cannot be done with the current leadership. And that's really, again, thrown the ball back at our court where any of these countries, you look at that, you know, okay, we had the clown show in Switzerland. and we had the clown show at the G7,

Sunak, Doe, Biden wandering off, not knowing where he is, I mean, for crying out loud. You know, I mean, it's making a caricature of what democracy is supposed to be. You know, not that there aren't problems with the theory of democracy in the first place, but what it reaches this level of farce. You really don't know what to do and what the prospects for recovery are. Well, indeed, absolutely. I completely agree with that.

The one thing I'm going to say is this. I mean, we've had more statements today in Britain. We have this dreary election today. But Farage, the only person who could be said to be some kind of a politician, he's now come out and made some statements about the war. And he said that there have to be negotiations, that the alternative to negotiations is catastrophe. and he was asked whether that means territorial by concessions,

territorial concessions by Ukraine, and he appeared to acknowledge the possibility of that. And, you know, he's attracting a lot of attention, in one sense is a lot of support. People in Germany, and I've spoken to a lot of people in Germany now, they tell me that amongst younger voters, Ukraine was the absolute top issue, even ahead of immigration, for example, that they are now worried and frightened about what's going on in Ukraine,

and the way of the drift of events there. And of course, in France, it's probably trebly so. I mean, Macron has completely miscalculated. And at the moment, and of course, you know, one doesn't know what they will do if they ever come into power, but it looks as if he's the centre in France will cause itself the centre, is collapsing. and what caused itself the left and what perhaps still is in some form the right. I mean, they are now basically agreed, at least publicly, that this unlimited escalation,

this policy of unlimited escalation must end. And they are the blocks that appear to be winning support. I mean, I've heard Le Pen's party is now searching to about 40%, the left block is now about 25%. And the center, Macron's block, is crumbling. So, you know, there is pushback in Europe. Whether there isn't the U.S., I don't know. We'll get to the U.S. in a second.

I mean, I think you're right to point at France as really the pivotal country here. I mean, you know, the old phrase when, you know, Paris- sneezes, Europe catches cold. And I think if things change in France, we will see a wave go across the continent. You know, of course, you pointed 40% for the national rally. I don't know that that will give them control of the legislature.

If it does, especially if the left is going to side with what's left of the center to uphold Macron, he may hang on, and we could see the current policies hang on. As I say, in Germany, I'm not optimistic that even a change in government would yield anything positive. But again, this is going to take some time. You know, the other wildcard here is that things may blow up in the Middle East before they blow up in Ukraine, in Europe. The war cabinet is no more. It's clearer than ever, I think, that Mr. Dantanyahu sees his only way out of the mess he's painted himself into

is to provoke direct conflict with Hezbollah and try by hook or by crook to get the Americans into a direct war with Iran. Of course, the Iranians would be backed up by the Russians and the Chinese. You know, this thing could get kinetic, as they say, on a global basis a lot sooner than we think, before even things work out in Ukraine. And then when it comes to America, I mean, you know, I had to tell you guys, if you're looking for the change to come first from America rather than Europe, stop. because our political system is so sclerotic.

And even within the Republican Party, the gulf between the old guard that still has a lockhold on the elected official class in Washington is, and between that and the more populist wing that supports Trump is still so great. And the other thing that worries me is that even if Trump wins, and by the way, I don't think he will. But even if Trump wins, the prospect that he will simply make all the same mistakes he did last time, people, his administration with all the wrong people like he did the first time around is very, very high. The idea that he will actually change fundamentally the direction of American policy in a way that then would encourage similar changes in Europe. Don't count on it.

I agree, actually. I'm not sure the Trump is going to win. And secondly, I'm not sure that he's going to change the policy. After all, he switched on the $61 billion aid package. Yeah, yeah. He might switch. And he gave Mike Johnson cover to do that. Exactly.

That's right. Yeah. So, you know, it's, and, you know, there's always with him, the not only his mercurial, character and his willingness to say odd things out of the one side of his mouth and then the other is you never know who he's listening to and who he talked to last. And it just, I just don't see that that's going to be much help. I mean, that said, I mean, look, I support the guy. I don't see anything else on the horizon that can change things. And, you know, so that's just the way it's

going to have to be. But, and that's, you know, it's, I just, I just don't see how. I just, I just don't see how electoral processes, as we've understood them, can address the kind of crisis we're seeing in Europe and in America today. Do people in Washington, I've asked this question many times, understand how bad the situation geopolitically has now become? Now, I was checking this morning some of the voting figures in the General Assembly on the 2nd of March, This was directly after the Russians began the special military operation. At that time, 141 countries supported a resolution, a General Assembly resolution, condemning, using that word, condemning the Russian invasion, it was called, of Ukraine, demanding the immediate, saying that the invasion was illegal, demanding the immediate

withdrawal of Russian troops, demanding that the Russians recognized Donets and Lugansk, again, as part of Ukraine is a very, very strong resolution, drafted by the way, probably with the help of the US, but drafted by the Ukrainians and presented by them. 141 countries supported it, five abstained, five voted against it, 35 abstained. This time we get this communicate from Switzerland, which is incredibly convoluted in its language. It says nothing about aggression, illegal war, invasion. It avoids all that kind of language, even though the implication is there.

And it gets the support of 77 countries. 77 actual states voted for it. I mean, let's forget about the European Union and the European, the Council of Europe, and the ecumenical patriarchate and those things. Just 77 countries voted for it. All of them, essentially, allies of the United States, apart from a few who once suspects are basically hostages.

Countries like Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, even Turkey, as opposed to, well, Turkey's probably a bit different. I mean, they like to play. They try to run with both the hair and the hands, as we say, in the UK. But anyway, the point is we've gone from that position in March 2022, where there was big support for Ukraine and the West and widespread condemnation of the Russians to this situation now, where it has collapsed and where it's basically the United States,

the clown show in Switzerland, everybody talking to each other, and no one else, everyone else, all the big hitters, the Saudis, the Arab states, only one Arab state signed up, and that was Qatar, and they had special reasons for signing up. All of the Arab states refused to sign, apart from Qatar. Most of the world had 193 states of the world, just 77 voted for it, and it's basically the collective West. Do people in Washington understand this? Do they realize that they're going in, that they're going in, that, diplomatically, they're going in reverse. They're actually going backwards. Somebody once said, I forget who it was.

It's hard to make a man understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it. And I think that's what we're talking about in Washington. And, you know, again, on the positive side, if we're going to look for some hope of optimism, it's in the global democracy, so to speak. It's each country recognizing the realities on the ground, where its interests lie, and more and more countries saying, you know, on the uns, I don't want to be involved in this and taking a hike and drifting from the Euro-Atlantic camp to the bricks camp.

I think that's the direction things have to go. And the faster things go against the global American empire, the gay, the Eurolantic camp, whatever you would call it, the more those realities will sink in with these countries. this thing will atrophy. In Washington, however, I think we have essentially three camps. We have the leadership of both the Republican Democratic parties, which are back to Clown Show. They simply are a function of the deep state, of their corporate masters, their donors, and so forth, the NGOs, all of the think tanks and the media that are, all they know how to do

is repeat what they've said before. They cannot see reality because it basically admits that they've been wrong about everything. And, of course, they can never do that. Then you have on, you might say among the sort of the Lumpin Americanos, the true blue Americans, good-hearted people, Trump supporters. They also don't understand this either because they have this naive faith that America is always right. A lot of them will be very critical of the federal government when they see things in their own lives and their own homes, you know, tax economic policies, things like that. But somehow they think that what America ventures abroad, it's all mom and apple pie, and we're still the good guys,

partly because they know absolutely nothing about the outside world. And then on the left of the Democratic Party, the kind of people you see demonstrating on Gaza and this and that, by the way, who never demonstrated against what we're doing in Ukraine, but they'll demonstrate on Gaza. You know, this is just sort of a reunion in some ways of the BLM, Antifa, you know, Afro-Asiatic Islamic wing of the Democratic Party, the squad, that kind of progressive wing, who also have some knowledge about things to the outside world. Well, they care about it like Gaza, but not when it comes to, say, Ukraine or what we're provoking with China on Taiwan or something like that. And I suppose you could say there's a fourth group, and I don't know how large it is.

have just checked out of the system entirely. They don't care. They don't vote. They've realized, perhaps correctly, that voting readily doesn't change anything anyway, so they don't bother. But when you boil it all down, you've got people who either don't know anything about the outside world, or if they do, they're still totally in lockstep with everything they've done before and cannot admit failure.

This is a huge problem, because one sense is that face, preserving face is now becoming a very big factor that you can't negotiate, you can't accept a fee. Do you get the sense that there are some people who would, if anything, rather see Ukraine go down than negotiate? Because I do. I certainly think there's people like that in Britain who, from their point of view, a negotiation, one in which we make concessions is for them an even worse outcome. than a military defeat in Ukraine. Because the military defeat, you can blame on all sorts of people, you can blame it on Trump, you can blame it on European voters,

you can say that, you know, we haven't understood the enormous danger that we're facing from the axis of evil and all that. But concessions might be a much more difficult thing to swallow for people like this. What do you think? Because certainly, as I said in Britain, I get the same, where we have our own. pack of neocons, if I can say that. That's certainly the impression I get. Well, absolutely. Let's remember that plan A for Ukraine really was not what we've seen over the last two and a half years. It was the expectation that the Russians, when they came in,

of course, we did everything possible to provoke them to come in. The idea, I think, was that they would come in with a kind of a shock and awe campaign that would defeat the Ukrainians very quickly in terms of their main military forces and then settle in for an occupation where we could then create Afghanistan and bleed the Russians white and destroy them that way. I think they still imagine, and I think they were somewhat surprised when the Russians came in on tiptoe, as Mr. Aristovic said, and with this very limited operation designed to produce some kind of a negotiated solution, which of course hasn't happened and will not happen. So I think in a way we're shifting back to what their plan on expectation was, which is the Russians, okay, fine now. Let them defeat the Ukrainians. And we'll believe them like that way then. We'll support, you know, the Ukrainian equivalent of the Mujahideen and have another Afghanistan for the Russians, which, by the way, I don't think is going to happen at all once this war is over. But that's where they think because, again, they still think that the masters of the universe. They still think that NATO is the thing that, you know,

keeps the Americans and the Russians out and the Germans and the other Europeans down. And I don't think they quite realize that when this thing goes south, and there is a military defeat of Kiev, that and what I think is going to be the functional extinguishment of the Ukrainian state, that that will be the end of NATO and maybe the end of its concubine, the European Union, that these structures will no longer be viable. and they'll again, I think they're more powerful than they really are. I agree. And I think partly the reason they don't want to negotiate is that they don't want to give any hint even to themselves

that they might not be as powerful as they. No, that's right. And for them, bleeding the Russians is an objective at its own right. Again, if you're thinking in terms of mastery of the world, you look at the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, any country, in North Korea, whoever, as an obstacle to total global domination. They still think they're the masters of the world. And hurting Russia, hurting China, hurting Iran is something valuable for its own sake. Who cares about the Ukraine? Who cares about hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians? They're just means to an end.

Yeah. What about China? Because, of course, I mean, there's this narrative being spun, that the other reason that Russians are winning in Ukraine is because the Chinese are backing them. There's hardly any evidence ever provided for this claim. It's just something that is endlessly asserted. But now we've had statements from the United States that they're going to extend secondary sanctions to Chinese banks. And there's an article in Business Insider that China might be locked out of Europe economically if there's an article, they go on supporting Russia. And then there's an American admiral

who talks about creating a hellscape for the Chinese Navy in Taiwan. And there's even an article which says that Xi Jinping told Ursula von der Leyen. I'm very skeptical of this article, by the way, that the Americans are trying to go to him to attack Taiwan, and that's not what he wants to do. I believe that.

I don't believe that he said it to Ursula von der Leyen, by the way. Anyway, I mean, what is America, I mean, do the Americans really plan to get into a conflict with China at the same time that they're losing a conflict with Russia? Again, does this make any kind of sense? Is there anyone who does the strategies, who adds up the numbers, who looks at the fact that they have a manufacturing industry bigger than ours is? Much bigger than ours is. that the combination of their manufacturing and Russian resources is going to be huge. Does anybody sit back and think about these things?

I think they think about them, but I don't know how they think about it. Like, for example, Steve Bannon, it was a principal in Trump's administration, was adamant we're going to be going to war with China in the next few years. Why he thinks that, I don't know, why that's desirable, I don't know. And you do find a lot of people in Washington who think they're clever who say, well, you know, somehow if we can dispose the Russians, we can turn our guns on the Chinese and shift our focus to the Pacific. At the same time, you saw their pathetic pleading with the Chinese to distance themselves from the Russians so that we can destroy the Russians and then concentrate

on destroying you, as if the Chinese are too dumb to figure this one out. You have people like Vivek Ramoswamy, who's, I understand it, is close to Trump, who basically thinks that if we can somehow improve our relations with the Russians and offer to lift the sanctions, you know, we'll give them a little come hither look and they'll come drifting into our camp and turn against the Chinese, and that's a deal that they'll take. You know, again, they think about these things, but they think about them in totally unrealistic ways. Look, I'm not an economist, but to the extent to which we have hollowed out our manufacturing capabilities, which, by the way, same thing with the Europeans, this is why primarily they're

losing the war in Ukraine because we don't have the manufacturing base. Maybe we should be grateful for that to tell the truth, is that we allowed first decades ago the Germans and the Japanese to supplant our domestic manufacturing base and then the Chinese. I don't know which it hurts more. the Western countries, particularly in the United States, we could not rely on Chinese imports, or the Chinese, if they had to reduce that export market, I really don't know. But either way, they cannot hurt the Chinese financially and economically

without totally devastating what's left of the American economy because we rely on those imports. So I don't know what they're thinking, or if they're thinking at all, or they're just emoting as they do with so many other things. I mean, you work with the American government. When was there any planning done once upon the time? I get the sense there was.

I mean, I remember Nixon and Kissinger. I mean, you know, they were complicated people, but, I mean, they were clever people. They seemed to know what they were doing. I remember, you know, Reagan and, you know, the people that were working with him in his government and his team. and again there was a lot of dysfunction and disorganisation, but you could see a policy emerge, and it was, by the way, successful policy in the end. Is there anything like that now?

Is there anybody at the centre of power, where it's all the threads together, gets the information, makes the decisions? Because in my opinion, and I say this, as somebody who's been a manager, without a decision maker, without an ultimate decision maker, who you can hold to account as well,

everything inevitably goes wrong. Everybody does whatever they want to do. So you're going to have some people who want to go off to China, some people who want to go off to Russia, some people who want to focus on the Middle East. You're going to have all kinds of people doing all kinds of things in every single department, probably not talking to each other,

engaging in bureaucratic, battles with each other all the time over resources. But that's what happens when there isn't someone in control. Is there anybody in control? The president doesn't seem to be. You know, you remember in the final stages of the Soviet Union, they really couldn't make a whole lot of decisions because you had a big, dumb dinosaur that could only operate on the lines that were dictated by ideology decades ago.

And even smart people, and there are a lot of smart people in the system, really couldn't shift out of the narrow confines in which they found themselves. And I'm afraid that that's the situation in the United States. States, look, you know, as old as I am, I came into the service of the State Department at the tail end of the Jimmy Carter administration, was at the Soviet desk during the Reagan administration, later on in Capitol Hill for many years through the 90s, the Balkan wars, all the rest of that, the beginning of the Iraq War. And I could only think of one instance where somebody in any discussion I was ever a party to in any of this talked in terms of a hard-headed economic or

benefit for the United States. And that was on the eve of the Iraq invasion where somebody at the office of the Secretary of Energy talked about all the great oil fields. We're going to steal from French and Russian interests and turn over to American companies. Everything else, when you hear people saying, well, this is really a clever plan to bring Europe's manufacturing base over to the United States. No, none of these people have ever shown any interest in building the American manufacturing base, why would they want to steal Europe's and why is that a good way to go about doing it? All of these discussions simply take for granted that American global domination is a benefit for its own sake, that if we can take Ukraine away from Russia, that makes Russia a lesser

power, eventually you can break Russia up. Why do we want to do this? Because America good, democracy good, human rights is good, free markets is good, you know, just as the Soviet Union who had to be peace, progress, and socialism. We're democracy, human rights, and free markets, and we never questioned what that means or how it actually benefits anyone or how ends and means relate to one another. I've never heard any discussion

of the kind of realism that you describe. Because the other side does. That was the other thing that came across to me from Putin speech. I mean, whatever your feelings about Putin, I know a lot of people have many feelings about Putin. But firstly, he is clearly in control and he thinks and the government around him does. By the way, it was very interesting.

It was a very interesting speech in that it revealed quite a lot about internal discussions for the first time. I mean, it mentioned the fact that he has to report decisions and get the agreement of his own security council to things that he decides. And he hinted, for example, that over certain of the. actions that they took, such as the siege of Kiev, for example, there was disagreements with the military and the security services. So, you know, he talks in that way, it's very unusual for a government, for the leader of a government, to admit to those sort of disagreements. And to my mind, it's a sign not only that he's fully in control, but that he's also fully in charge, which is not quite the same thing. I mean, he talks, he consults, he plans, and he moves ahead.

And this is where I think it's a little bit of a, obviously having a realistic frame of mind and assessment of the world as it is, is a virtue. It helps you come to rational conclusions about things. It can also be a detriment, though, when you project the same realism on other people. I mean, I've been dealing with Russians and Ukrainians and a lot of other people for many decades. And sometimes it's very frustrating when you get this kind of a cynical, okay, we're all men of the world. We know how the world works. The Americans are just pursuing their interests. Yes, yes, yes, this looks unreasonable, but we'll get to a little horse trading later on and settle this.

And they don't seem to realize that there's no there. There is no rationality behind these people. there is no horse trading, there is no realism, that what you see is what you get, that their minds of this nomenclatured are in the cloud somewhere, a cloud cuckoo land, and there is no horse trading to be done. The Americans are not just pursuing their interests. These people would not know an American national interest if it walked up and bit them on the buck. They just don't have that way of looking at the world because their world is the la la land in Washington, and the third. think tanks and the money that's sloshing around that goes to the to the military industrial complex the way the media works the think tank that is their world not joe six pack out there

in fly over country jim jasper thank you for your exceptional answers to the questions i've put to you i'm going to hand over to alex i'm sure you've got questions from the uh viewers thank you very much thank you yes we do have questions for jim so let's uh jump right in into it from Zahir. What kind of drones is China supplying to Ukraine? Do you know, Jim? Do you know Alexander? I don't know or even are. Well, what is happening is that you create, Ukraine is buying from China commercial drones, which the Ukrainians are converting to use for military things. I'm sorry, Ukraine, exactly. Ukraine, exactly. It was Ukrainians. I mean, this is the paradox of it is the Ukrainians who are using Chinese drones.

apparently. This is the story, not the Russians. So I mean, you know, this whole business about, you know, double use web things, technology going from China. I've heard like DGI, like commercial. It's good. Yeah. Like commercial commercial drones. Commercial commercial drones, exactly. I mean, you know, but this, of course, nobody talks about that. It's all about what the Chinese are giving to the Russians. You know what the Russians, well, not the Ukrainians are buying from the Chinese. From Latimerow. Hello, gentlemen. A question for Jim. Why in his opinion did Turkey and Serbia sign this Swiss agreement? Thank you. Well, I think Alexander addressed that. Serbia, in a way, is a captive country. And I think they choose their battles very carefully. I don't know if they always choose them the right way, but they do choose them carefully, Mr. Voucher. Mr. Erdogan, who knows. I mean, he's a very, very clever, uh, careful.

who has his own priorities. I can't answer that. Tish M. says, Mr. Chathras, who is running our regime into the abyss? I, you know, it'd be nice if there were about three or four people you could name, but I don't think you can. I think it's, as I say with the analogy to the late Soviet Union, it's a collective leadership of people of very mediocre personal talents in most cases who are connected to a history, of, you know, kind of a winnowing process as they get promoted to make sure that they're loyal servants of the machine in which they're essentially clogs. And I don't, and that's, that's one reason we have a total lack of responsibility of anyone for anything because, uh, they, they just

keep doing what they do day in and day out and the machine plods along the way it's been programmed, and the people within it just play their role within it. Matthew asks, ultimately, where is this heading? Is Putin going to manage this to keep this just in Ukraine, or are we heading to a wider war? If, as I believe, but I'm not sure, but I believe the Russians are shifting over to something decisive that will wrap this war up, let's say by the fall sometime before the mud really sinks in, I think it can be wrapped up a decisive humiliation, inflicted upon the West, the effective end of the Ukrainian state, and the prospect of uncontrolled escalation will stay under 10%.

If this thing is still going on, say, a year from now, I think we pass the 50% mark and the chances of a wider war increase steadily after that. Let's take a couple of more questions. Latimerow actually also chimed in on that question. Jim and Alexander, says it's not about Putin, your question should be addressed to the collective West. When are they going to stop escalating with regards to a wider war?

They're not. They will, they will after, you know, with fits and starts, we can't do that. We can't do. Okay, let's do that after all. They will, they will keep escalating as long as there is an opportunity for them to do so. And that's why, in my opinion, for their sake, for the Ukrainian sake, for our sake, the Russians need to close that window. As long as that opportunity, opportunity for escalation exists, they will continue to escalate. Close that window. From Elaine, let's not forget that Churchill also famously said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. What on earth would he have thought of today's mad world do you think? Well, I would agree with Churchill on that, except I would have stopped

his utterance before the word accept. It's that, you know, the question with democracy isn't so much as it good or bad, but does it exist at all? I mean, let's face it, all governments are oligarchies of one sort or another. The only question is, who are the stakeholders of the table? And in democracy, they pretend that the voters are when they get a choice of a handful of candidates that have been coughed up by whatever oligarchic interests have been pleased to offer them. You know, I don't want to sound too cynical.

Look, I'm a monarchist anyway, so I don't know that, you know, I really have a stake in vindicating Mr. Churchill on this. Alexander, your thoughts? What would Churchill? Can I just, I mean, Churchill is a, I am not, certainly not an unequivocal fan of Churchill. I'm Greek after all. He did things to Greece, which I would not approve of for all kinds of reasons. And he was an imperialist, and he was a colonialist, and he was a colonialist, and he was. a person who absolutely belonged to the aristocratic oligarchy

that ruled Britain that had ruled Britain at that time. But he was half American. And he was half American, but he wanted to preserve that system. I still think that if there was a man like Churchill in power today, which by the way is impossible, the system would never allow someone like Churchill to rise to the kind of position that he had. But I think if there was someone in power like Churchill today, The world actually would be a lot safer because contrary to what is always said about Churchill,

he was absolutely a realist about foreign affairs, absolutely somebody who believed in balance of power, in security arrangements, and it is not well known, but in the last period when he was prime minister in the early 1950s, He made a concerted and serious effort to end the Cold War. This was after his famous Iron Curtain speech, but he actually wanted to open up to the Russians. He said this is a very, very dangerous situation. He was also worried that as a result of the Cold War, Britain was losing its freedom of action.

He was very concerned about the whole situation that existed. He reached out to Stalin, with whom he had a certain relationship, then things were slowed when Stalin died, but eventually he was able to persuade Christchief and Eden to come to London, but of course by that time, Churchill's own position in London had collapsed and the Americans were dead opposed to him anyway on this.

So ultimately he failed. But just to finish again, if Churchill could be resurrected and brought back into Downing Street, he would be completely again. the direction of foreign policy today. Those who invoke Churchill to support the kind of war that we have now, the kind of policies that we have now, are getting him completely wrong.

And I say that as somebody, as I said, who's not an unqualified admirer of Churchill by any means, and as someone also who had some, not I never met him, obviously, but I knew he's bodyguard very well, who was with him, every day and he had much, much to say to me about him. Soap York says, sadly for America, D.C. today is akin to London in 1775.

Elected representatives largely do not reflect the will of the actual people. I don't know. I think that's pretty hard on London 1775. I mean, you did have, pick up on what Alexander just said. You did have a serious. people in London in 1775. By the way, I would certainly include King George in that, too. I mean, a much underrated ruler in many respects. And again, I go back to my other analogy. I don't think we're talking about London 1775. We're talking about Moscow of 1987 in a sense. It's just I just think it's a different kettle of fish. Again, I would agree with that completely. I think, you know, I think, you.

Yes, 1775, London was a corrupt oligarchy. It was an intelligent, highly dynamic oligarchy, made up of incredibly clever people. George III, Charles James Fox, William Pitt, any number of others you can name it at that time. Enormously interested in the arts, enormously interested in power politics. Many of them, by the Marquis of Rockingham,

Many of them, for example, divided about whether to oppose or support American independence, some sections of the Whig Aligarchy actually supported American independence, for their own reasons, because they were worried that ultimately Britain would be absorbed by the colonies that were growing too fast. So they had that worry too. They were clever enough to think in that way. So, I mean, I think that you're comparing an intelligent, clever oligarchy, however corrupt, and however unconnected to the masses, with the oligarchy we have in the United States, which is equally corrupt, perhaps, certainly not so clever. Yeah. Jim, can we do two more questions? Sure. Is that cool?

All right, great. Elza says, gents, is there a time limit for taking back the signature on the Swiss? summit document i think today one country one more country did it oh really how many if actually rwanda was today they took it back is is there a limit can they just take it back or do you guys i can't see why it would it would be it's just a communique it's not a treaty or a formal document at that sort it's just a statement and if the country says hey we don't stand by that statement anymore who's going to tell them they can exactly and one final question jim your thoughts on Biden and the debate and a lot of the rumors about the debate being a make or break for Biden.

I've heard this suggestion. The day to be before the, yeah, the convention. Right, right. You know, first up, I've always been to the opinion that they will remove him before the election. Not that they can't win the election with him because I don't think it's a real election, but they have to make it look good and he doesn't look good. Now, I would have thought that they would probably remove him around all, or September for health reasons, of course, and then make the big switcheroo, probably put

Gavin Newsom in. They may, there's, I've heard the suggestion, they may want to see him humiliate himself in the debate and then use that as the reason to remove him and also make Trump look bad for beating up on a sick old man and reduce sympathy for him in some way. I think that's a risky scheme. If I were them, I would do before the debate, what is it, the 27th of June? But I don't really know. I am increasingly confident, though, they will remove him that Kamala Harris will not be the nominee.

There's talk that if Gavin Newsom is the guy they want to plug in, then they shift her over as governor of California, which they can easily do. I mean, I don't think her getting her to step out of the way is a big problem. She's a team player. Maybe she gets to become president for a short period of time, a caretaker. I'm too busy, you know, running the transition. they can do the appropriate pardons for Hunter or whoever, and then find some way to put somebody who's a credible standard bearer in the fall

so that they can do whatever they need to do to make sure Trump loses. That's my guess of how this will work. Fantastic. Garland Nixon says, great conversation. Hello, Garland. Hope you are going to be. Well, great to see you here with us. And we will end it there with a comment from

Was Forced to Make It on Odyssey, He says, this dude is very smart. Does he have a channel? I don't know. Just Twitter. I rely on you guys. He has a Twitter X account. I have that link in the description box down below.

And I will add Jim Jatra's TwitterX channel account, whatever you call it, as a pinned comment as well. Jim, thank you for joining us on the Duran. One last thing I wanted to say in a few weeks, my. One first and only book will be out called I Try to Warn You. It's a collection of my writings for the last five decades for what it's worth. And I hope people will read it. I don't expect to make any money on. I don't really care about that.

But I hope people will read it. And as far as not having a channel, yeah, I am, as we say in Spanish, disposable. If people want to have me on their channels. So it's, you know, I'm around. Bill, you like to have you. We're delighted to have you, Jim, and I will certainly read this book. Just to say. Thank you.

And let's get you on, Jim, when the book is released so you can talk about it. Thank you, too. A recorded video so that you can talk about the book. I think a lot of people will be interested in it. Thank you. That would be great to have you on. All right, Jim Jotras. Thank you very much.

Fantastic. Excellent. He is one smart dude. I agree with our friend on Odyssey. Absolutely. Alexander, let's just go through some of the comments and questions and we'll wrap up the stream. From Elaine, without the Duran, I'd be pretty much in the dark. Thank you, Elaine.

Ricardo Alfonso says, I give you money. Thank you, Ricardo, for that. Zahir and the drones, we answered that. Tish M says Russia and Chinese leaders are 4D chess masters versus Collective West's remedial math. I think, fair enough. Summer of 1970 says at the Durant community is the best. Thanks. Thanks.

Yeah. No, I was going to say, I can't disagree with that low schoolman. Just as just to say, who can. John Scott, thank you for the Duran membership. Thank you again, John Scott for the grant membership. What else? I think you again, John Scott, for that. Let's see.

Matthew, we answered. Aladdin Moreau. The Churchill question. That was a good question. We answered that. The Black Cat, thank you for the super sticker. Chris Shipley, thank you for the super sticker. Jeff, Thickford, thank you for that super sticker.

Akhrman, thank you for the super sticker. I am Valentina. How are you doing? Bottom line, there is nothing we can do from I am Valentina. There is nothing we can do, bottom line. Well, I think there's a lot we can do. We can talk. We can inform people.

We can discuss things with our friends. And we remain an island of sanity, I think, in an ocean, a swirling ocean of chaos, you know, warmongering. I think, you know, things are moving in our direction. I think that is what the European Parliament elections showed. I think the fact that the French, and by the way the British elections are not going as planned either is also a sign of this. The fact that Farage has just said what he said, for example, about Ukraine. He's not saying that because, you know, Ukraine is at the top of his interests. It's because he senses where the currents in British opinion are flowing.

And no one in Britain is more sensitive to that than him. Exactly. And Sparky says, Newsom Kushner, 2024. Well, perhaps. Perhaps. Not impossible. All right. Final thoughts, Alexander. Let me check to see if there's any more questions. Final thoughts and we'll wrap it up.

It's a brilliant program. Can I just say, I mean, Jim got it absolutely spot on. I mean, we have an unintelligent oligarchy. I mean, they talk about, you know, the struggle between autocracy and democracy. It's a struggle between governments where there is genuine accountability. because a leader like Putin is as strong as he is because ultimately he is accountable against an unaccountable

oligarchy that is decaying. And just as we said in our pre-programmed discussions, however absurd you think these people will go, they managed to get more absurd still. I could not believe it when I saw, for example, that the European Union had signed this communicate three times

Parliament, the council and the commission three times they signed it and they wrote in the Council of Europe to sign it as well I mean it's just you know it's just as you said to add a few numbers

to what was a pathetic turnout anyway. No wonder Rwanda now is that's like they're probably I mean they can make They can read it. They can work it out. I mean, it's just, it's just incredible. And who are they fooling? Are they fooling Putin? They think that he can't read a list? I mean, are they fooling C-Shing-Bing? NBS? Who is this tricking? I mean, it's just, it's just astonishing themselves, ultimately, themselves. So that the media can put out a title. So the BBC can write an article which says 103 countries and institutions sign up to the, the Swiss Peace Summit, Communique.

Yeah. That's the title that they want. Yes, exactly. And I'm surprised it's only three. Alexander. I would expect 10, 15 human resources department, the IT department. I'm surprised they didn't sign it. But bear in mind that the European Union is made up of the same states

inside the communicate, you know, themselves. I mean, they are in effect double signing. They're not double signing. They're triple signing. They're triple signing because there's signing for themselves and they're signing through the European Union. It's crazy. It is not.

And if you read the, and if you read the communique itself, I mean, the language, you know, is so twisted and involved. By the way, just to repeat a point there, when people use twisted language, by definition, they're trying to trick you. And in this case, they think it's so badly that he just comes across as absurd. Yeah.

Zoltan, thank you for that, super sticker. And Samuel Moroni says, I think Russian annexation of Crimea has been counterproductive from a strategic point of view. It has not deterred NATO from getting closer to Ukraine. Well, I don't think the Russians did it just for a strategic point. point of view. They did it because people in Crimea wanted it and feel themselves Russian. And I think people in Russia would not have accepted any other outcome. I mean, I remember the mood in 2014. And I think it was a very, very strong mood. And I think the Russians did what they felt they had to do.

And Jean says none of today's governments are democracies, quite the opposite. Actually, democracies are leaderless by definition. Today's governments are purely authoritarian. Yeah, I agree. All right, that is the stream for today. Oria says, wow, he really is smart. Always such great guests. Thank you. Thank you for that.

And Carol says excellent live stream. Thank you, Jim Jadis and the Duran. All right. Thank you, everybody, for joining us. Thank you to everyone that watched us on Rockfin, on Odyssey, on Rumble, and on YouTube. And a big thank you to everyone that is in. in the locals chat, the durand.locals.com. Definitely check out our locals community.

The link is in the description box down below. And thank you to our moderators. Zareel Tish M. T. Jordan. And that's it. Nigel Green says, love the show, lads. Keep on going. Keep on keeping on. Thank you, Nigel, for that.

and Elsa says, EU four-time signing will scare Putin. And Tabernak says, what benefits does strategic ambiguity give to Russia? Well, it doesn't. That's the final question. It doesn't. I mean, they've never engaged in it,

if I'm going to say so. I mean, if you read Putin's speech, it's crystal clear. There's none of that strategic ambiguity that Macron engages in, and there's none of that twisted language that the communicate uses. All right. On that note, on Tabernack's question and strategic ambiguity, take care, everybody.