The Duran Podcast - Russia-NATO Domino theory to secure Ukraine money

Episode Date: December 8, 2023

Russia-NATO Domino theory to secure Ukraine money

All right, Alexander, let's talk about a tweet from Tucker Carlson, connected to Project Ukraine and Lloyd Austin, and the funding to Project Ukraine. Let me read you what Tucker Carlson posted on Twitter X. The Biden administration is openly threatening Americans over Ukraine in a classified briefing in the House yesterday. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin informed. members that if they don't appropriate more money for Zeletsky, quote, will send your uncles, cousins, and sons to fight Russia, end quote.

Then Tucker says, pay the oligarchs or will kill your kids. And this tweet has received quite a lot of attention. Elon Musk replied, he really said this, question mark. Vivek Ramoswamy also chimed in on this post from Tucker Carlson. I have no doubt that this is true. This absolutely sounds like something the Biden White House or Lloyd Austin would do or say to Congress because there is just a general freak out, a general panic that is gripping the Biden White House from Biden to Austin to Blinken to Kirby.

so I have no doubt that Austin told Congress, if you don't give money to project Ukraine, then our sons and daughters and cousins, they're going to have to fight the Russians. Because the narrative is that once Russia wins in Ukraine, then they're going to invade all of Europe, all of NATO. That's a narrative. And they've actually said this in the past. They've kind of circled back around to this narrative about Russia invading Europe and recreating.

the Tsar Empire or the Soviet Union or even going beyond that, capturing France or something like that. So this is a narrative that they've recycled. I have no doubt that this is true. But I don't think it's a shocking revelation. It sounds like something Lloyd Austin would absolutely say to Congress in order to try and get them to pour money to Project Ukraine. Just one final note, three, four days ago, Austin was saying that Congress should give money to Ukraine because it would be good for American jobs. So we've gone from good to American jobs to invading Europe. Anyway, what are your thoughts? Well, I think most likely it was said.

I mean, we've had some indirect confirmations about the kind of things that he was saying. I mean, there's one of the people who was there, who was House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCall. he said that Austin said to the Congress people that was very likely, if they didn't pass funding for Ukraine, very likely that it would lead to US troops fighting a war in Europe. This is a direct quote now. If Vladimir Putin takes over Ukraine, he'll get Moldova, Georgia, than maybe the Baltics.

And a couple of days ago, there was an article in the Financial Times, which Gideon Rackman, who's very well-connected, journalist, said that people in the US, in the government, in the US government, in the offices in the US government, and are worried that by the end of 2024, Putin might be threatening the Baltic states. And then we had John Kirby also talking about these flesh-creping things, you know, that Putin's appetite will grow with the eating if he takes Ukraine and you'll be able to move on. advance into all kinds of other places. So, you know, I think that Austin did say it. And I think it's also very much of a piece. I mean, it's, it's, if you watch that program with, that we did,

our, with Colonel Wilkins, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Colin Powell's chief of, chief of staff. And we did on the Durant. Wilkison said, you, he gave a, he gave a sense of what these people are like. to deal with in interpersonal reactions when they're thwarted, they become extremely angry.

I mean, there is no, hell hath no fury, than a neocons scorned, if I can say it like that. So, I mean, I think this is exactly what happened. What it tells me is that the administration's narrative is coming up against a lot of resistance, and that as you might expect, given that he is a leon, he lost his temper.

And I think other people in the administration are losing their temper. But it's clear now that this is becoming an issue in American domestic politics that there's a strong group of people in the Republican Party who are outright opposed to further funding from Ukraine. There was a vote in the Senate

where the Senate refused to move forward with a procedural motion for funding for Ukraine. One senator who is generally aligned with the Democrats, he's an independent from Vermont, voted with the Republicans against further funding for Ukraine. I personally believe that eventually, because, to be straightforward about it,

most people in Congress are either outright neocons or people who generally accept neocon. narratives, they will authorise some funding for Ukraine. But what it shows is that there is a huge amount of resistance now within Congress to this issue. And of course, when we see this new version of the domino theory discredited, when, you know, the Russians win in Ukraine, and as everybody now expects that they will, when, you know, the Russians finally defeat. Ukraine, and none of these terrifying things that we're hearing about actually happens. Well, then at that point, all of these people will try and forget the fact that they ever said these things. The other thing I would say about this particular episode is that, to my mind, the really big thing,

the thing that's really worrying the administration, more even than the fall of Ukraine, is the fear of what will happen in the election. And again, going back to that article by Gideon Ragman, there was apparently people telling him from within the Democratic Party, within the DNC, that they're worried that unless this funding gets through, then in January people will be starting to talk about Joe Biden as the man who lost Ukraine. And that's what they really want to avoid.

this whole thing now is an exercise in keeping Ukraine going until the election. We've been saying that now for probably a year, actually, haven't we? I mean, because you have guys like Sullivan, who is a campaign guy. He's not a diplomat. He's not a national security expert. He's a campaign guy. Nothing wrong with that. That's what he does.

That's what he's always done. So for him, he's thinking campaign. You know, 2024. What are the prospects of Joe Biden being reelected and defeating the evil orange man? And Biden's poll numbers are sinking. He's, CNN came out with a poll, actually. I think his approval is at like 37%. It's like an all-time low. And this is CNN, who's very pro-Biden White House. But he's the man that lost Afghanistan. He's the man that's lost to the Middle East. He's the man that's lost Ukraine. And Joe Biden, when he, when he came into the White House, he was touted as being the foreign policy genius. I mean, that was his expertise. Biden was what was the man who was a foreign policy expert specialist. And now it turns out,

he's a foreign policy idiot. I mean, there's no other way to describe it. He's completely taken the U.S. off of the international stage. I mean, the U.S. is internationally is at an all-time isolated low point. Yeah, I mean, you absolutely. You can't argue it.

But it's no surprise. What I want to just quickly say is what you said is no surprise that they're thinking campaign because many of Biden's guys that he put into these top positions are people who come from his campaign or the Hillary Clinton campaign machine. Completely expected.

Absolutely, but you see, this is, I mean, coming back to your point, this whole situation has ultimately been created by the administration itself. I mean, this is the thing to say. Way back in December 2021, the Russians weren't talking about, you know, conquering the Baltic states. or anything of that kind. They were trying to get the Americans to agree not to expand NATO into Ukraine.

Had Biden come along and said to Putin at that time, you know, as President of the United States, I could tell you, absolutely, the United States has no plan or intention to admit Ukraine into NATO, and I do not expect any administration that succeeds mine to change that position. And we can then discuss and negotiate about further security guarantees,

and we will make sure that the Ukrainians implement the Minsk agreement. Now, had he said all of that, he wouldn't be in this situation now. But of course, he went down the rabbit hole. He said that, you know, Mato membership for Ukraine is non-negotiable. He said that he put together this massive sanctions power. that was going to turn the rubble into rubble and caused the Russian economy to collapse. He provided all those vast weapons to Ukraine in enormous numbers. He pushed the Ukrainians, and we've had a massive article about this in the Washington Post,

about how his people egged the Ukrainians on to launch their offensive in the summer. And it's all fallen apart. The rubble wasn't turned into rubble. economy in Russia isn't in a state of collapse. The offensive failed disastrously. The Russians are now on the offensive. So what he's now doing and the people around him are now doing is they're dusting off the old domino theory from the 1960s. It's a whole row of dominoes. We must fight in Vietnam because if we don't fight in Vietnam, we'll be fighting in the Philippines and Indonesia and Thailand and who knows where, because the, you know, the communists will move on and take over all of those places.

And we are going to do the same. We're going to do the same. We're going to have to do the same this time. If Ukraine goes, then Putin will come after Georgia and Moldova and the Balthick states. Now, I have to say this. I mean, this is reckless politics. I mean, talking to Congress people in the kind of way that Lloyd Austin, is said to have spoken to them, in effect, threatening them.

I can't imagine that that's going to make them look more favourably upon Lloyd Austin. And I don't think any of them seriously believe this either. And I'm going to say something else. Some of them. Some of them. The ones who will be predisposed to believe it are the ones who probably will ultimately support this anyway. I would have thought that amongst those who are now against funding, this is going to harden their opposition and it's probably going to expand it. Remember, the Republican Party is split.

So a lot of Republicans are hardliners anyway on foreign policy and military issues. So they would probably be predisposed to go along with this anyway. But the others who are not, the ones who see through this, are going to be. feel insulted and hardened. And as I said, you're going to probably see this expand. And by the way, it's not just Lloyd Austin, who's talking in this extraordinary way. John Kirby was talking in exactly the same way also, you know, that American troops may have to be sent to Europe, if, you know, if this funding doesn't

come, because Ukraine will then fall and all of that sort of thing. So, you know, remember Biden's... himself brought this all about. He refused to conduct proper diplomacy in 2021 and 2022. And ultimately, this is just the usual narrative, dusted off from the 1960s. We've heard it many, many times before. It's always proved wrong. There's no reason to think it's right. This done. In fact, I can confidently say that it is not right this time, but it shows you how desperate they're getting, how frightened they're becoming, because this is desperation, this is fear, because everything that they've tried up to this point with respect to Russia and project

Ukraine has gone wrong. Yeah, I mean, Biden's been emotionally invested in this project for many, many years, in Ukraine in general. I mean, he's knee-deep in Project Ukraine. And I was reading the indictments against Hunter Biden, his son. And of course, all the articles, they talk about Burisma and Hunter's involvement in Burisma and the money that he received from Burisma. It just reminds me about the history that Biden has with Ukraine. I imagine it's a history that many people in the U.S. government and Congress have with Ukraine. I mean, they're financially invested in Ukraine. Their donors are probably financially invested, definitely financially invested in Ukraine. The Biden White House,

the Biden family obviously is connected to Ukraine. We had, we had the Trump impeachment was, was connected to Ukraine. And this phone call he had with Zelensky. And then you have the Sullivan's, the campaign guys who are, who are like, you know, let's just fund Ukraine so we can get Ukraine over the 2024 finish line. And then, you know, we could each go our, we can all go our separate ways. And, you know, we don't even have to talk about Ukraine anymore. We can forget about it. But at least let's, let's not have it collapse while it's on our watch. That's what they're concerned about. And then you have the hardcore neocons who have this, this, this hatred of Russia. They want to see it destroyed at all costs, even if it means destroying the United States

of America, which is what's happening. The U.S. is being destroyed. has been destroyed on Project Ukraine. So, I mean, it's like a perfect storm of, of, of, of, of, of, misery and, and a catastrophe. It's, it's unbelievable to see this unfolding. But, the domino theory, let's talk about that. Let's, let's, let's, let's go down that rabbit hole. My first question to you, what does it matter if Russia defeats Ukraine for the collective West for NATO? What does it matter for the United States? States. Is there, is there some sort of a treaty? Is there some sort of an alliance? What's the big deal? That's my first question. I mean, everyone's saying, oh, my God, Russia's going to take

over Ukraine. What does it matter? Answer that. I'm going to ask you a couple more questions about this whole domino theory argument that they're using. On that point, of course, you're absolutely right and Boris Astoria's, the German Defence Minister, was asked that precise question are we allies of Ukraine? And he said no, we are

not allies of Ukraine. So I mean, in the West, as you absolutely rightly say, has viscerally, the Biden administration is viscerally invested in Ukraine. But this is the point that many, many Republicans

are making. This is not ultimately a matter of direct American interests. The only reason it has been made so is because of that visceral, emotional, financial investment, which has already been made in Ukraine. The fact that all these people have become so involved in Ukraine and the neocons of all these extraordinary projects around Ukraine. This is why Ukraine has become important. It is important to them. It is not necessarily important to the United States, nor is it existentially important to NATO. Save, of course, that the more, the bigger the investment you make in Ukraine, the bigger the ultimate defeat is going to be. And of course, at some point, and, you know, we're probably already now past that point, by the way.

The defeat when it comes is going to be of great geopolitical significance. The world will see that the United States has taken on Russia and it's lost. But of course, again, there were warnings about this. I mean, no less a person than Barack Obama said. Don't meddle in Ukraine. The Russians will always have escalation. dilatory dominance there. But again, the Biden White House,

the people around him didn't listen. And that's why we are where we are. By the way, on the question of pressure, the fact that these people are so emotionally invested, there's another bizarre twist to all of this, because, of course, Austin himself has just been to Kiev. He met Zalusinie there. He met Zolensky there.

And he's now getting shopping lists from the Ukrainians that are absolutely off the scale. Zillusioni asked him for, 17 million shells, which Austin had to tell him is more than exist in the world. He wanted $400 billion of assistance. There's now been apparently another request from Ukraine. They've now moved beyond F-16s. They want F-18s and they want C-17, you know, big jet transport planes. They want pretty much everything. And they say, this is what we need to win. Well, if they need all that much to win, and it's, as I said, on an impossible scale, how can the United States get Ukraine

to win? What's $60 billion going to achieve when the Ukrainians themselves say that they need seven times more? It makes perfect sense, actually, if you know the region. why not? Why not? Why wouldn't Ukraine ask for for FATs and 400 billion? 800 billion? Why not? They're probably sitting there and they're saying, you know, we're getting crushed anyway, so we might as well ask for everything. They've given it to us in the past. I mean, that Washington Post article actually said that there was a time when Ukraine said we need a thousand vehicles and the U.S. gave them 1,500. So why not ask for all this money? you never know. They're, they're so desperate. They're in such a panic. And the, the Ukraine

government, they see this. They see that they're in such a panic. And they see they're going to pay a very heavy political cost. They say, you know, just, just ask for everything. Ask for it all. And these fools may actually give it to us. That's what they're probably saying. But I mean, you know, what are your thoughts about that? And then I want to ask you another question. You know, why would Putin invade the Baltic tornado? Well, exactly. Why? What's the reason?

I'm going to try to think. What's the reason? And why would he after they've been telling us that the Russian military is 50% weaker because of the conflict? And Russia is the second best military in Ukraine, not in the world, in Ukraine. So, you know, it seems to me like Russia is very, very weak. and they wouldn't be able to even last a day against NATO, given everything they've told us about the Russian military. I don't know.

Your thoughts on what I said. Well, on the first question, of course, the Russians have repeatedly said that they have no interest in invading the Baltic states. As for what happens in Moldova, remember, there is a major internal crisis there. There's an internal crisis. There's a simmering internal crisis in both Georgia and Armenia. But these are separate things. And again, why the United States should be worried about Georgia and Moldovia

and Armenia is a big moot question. But as to the Baltic states, the Russians have repeatedly said that they have no interest in attacking them. And I think that is true. All the indications are that that is true. Why would the Russians want to go into the Baltic states? The Baltic states are tiny. There are no great economic significance. they are probably another just absorbing from the Russian point of view

another problem. The Russians are not wanted there, except by some Russian speakers maybe in some of the Baltic states, but nowhere near enough to really create an important critical mass. And the whole thing just doesn't make any kind of sense. It is in fact completely ridiculous. This whole narrative of Russian expansionism, which has been conjured up for,

decades, going way back into the Cold War, makes no sense either. I mean, it is an absurd one. But of course, the point is that the American neocons, the neocons in the United States, can say it because they know that they will never be challenged over it. And what you described, by the way, about the Americans being asked by Ukraine, impossible amounts of equipment last year, and then to their astonishment getting it. And then, of course, they can say to themselves,

well, if the Americans are going to give us so much before, well, why not just double and tripled and quadrupled that? Well, that is exactly true. That is exactly right. But from an American perspective, that takes you straight back to the costs, sunk costs, that you were talking about.

And going back to your other point about the Russians being weak and demoralized and broken, well, Lloyd Austin, right at the start of all of this, was telling us all that the objective was to weaken Russia. And we see that instead of weakening Russia, it's apparently made Russia stronger

so that they're now able to advance into Europe and Europe would tumble like the Holy Roman Empire did before Napoleon. It doesn't look like it's made Russia weaker. It looks like it's made Russia much stronger than it was before. So on that logic, if you continue to send more weapons and more men and more money and all that to Ukraine, all that you're going to do is you're going to make Russia stronger still. I mean, you know, if you apply logic to this, all of these arguments, that Lloyd Austin and Kirby and all of the others come up with make no sense at all.

They collapse under the weight of their own absurdity. But since when did neocons do logic? You know, hey, I'm just repeating to you what the mainstream media and what these neocons have been telling us, which is 3% of our defense budget has destroyed 50% of the Russian military. So I figure, you know, 50% of the Russian military is destroyed, I don't think it would be that hard for NATO to completely wipe out the other 50%. That's what they were telling us. I don't know. Now it seems like they're changing things around.

But, you know, what do we know anyway? Let me give you. What that just tells you, by the way, is that in reality, they know the truth. I mean, what they were saying, what they were saying before, they knew, they always knew that it wasn't true. And I think we need to make that point, by the way. it wasn't true. They were lying. They were lying. Which means, of course, that we can trust everything that they're saying now. Yeah, exactly, exactly. That's the point that, I mean, yeah, I'm being sarcastic of bit. Okay. I think we understand, you know, where we're getting at.

But let me provide some, let me give you some pushback on the Russian expansion thing, because I think this is the argument that they would make to you about invading the Baltics and, you. invading Poland and conquering Paris and who knows, Alexander, the Russians may end up in London. Who knows? They may be right outside your door. But, you know, let me give some pushback. What a neocon would tell you what someone at Fox News would say is, oh, well, Putin annexed Crimea, and he annexed Zaporosha, Herzon, Donetsk, Lugansk. Those are four regions, Nikki Haley, by the way, if you're watching this video. So, you know, those are the four regions that you should, you know, make a note of.

But that's what they would tell you. So they would say, well, you know, Putin did all of this. So why wouldn't he go after Poland? What would you say to that? Well, the fall. And Georgia, throwing Georgia as well, because they bring up Georgia from 2008 as well. And I think that that needs clarification also. Yes.

Well, if we, if we first of all discuss Crimea, the four regions, all of these places. The point is these are historic Russia. They were places, there are places where Russian is spoken as the first language. They are very much part of the Ruski-Mir, which is the Russian world. Poland, obviously, is not part of the Ruski-Mir. Neither, for that matter, is Lithuania, nor, by the way, is Georgia. So there is already that fundamental difference. and if we're talking about the four regions and Crimea, this all goes back to the original Ukraine crisis, the decision to bring Ukraine into NATO.

And the fact that the Russians are in Crimea and in these other places is precisely a spin-off from the crisis of 2014, the coup that happened in 2014. And the fact that there was already, by that point, an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO, which the Russians always said, always said, was a red line. I mean, the CIA director, Bill Burns, can confirm that. We've seen his telegram. So given that this is so, I don't think that Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, all of these places, certainly not Poland, are remotely comparable. From a Russian perspective, of course they never look at Russian perspectives.

This is a purely defensive operation. It is to keep NATO away from their borders and to protect the interests and rights of Russian speakers. And the mess that the West has created in Ukraine is what has ultimately brought this about. I mean, to extrapolate and say that because the Russians have occupied Crimea that they're planning to march on Warsaw is a ridiculous theory. Now, about Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the important point to make about those two places, those two regions, is that the Russians have not annexed them.

Again, there was a war when Georgia went against a decision of the Security Council, broke its own secure broke its own ceasefire all of this was detailed at length in a report done for the EU which has of course been memory hold but anyway never mind

Georgia launched an attack on South Ossetia attack Russian peacekeepers there or as I said recorded fact and the Russians responded and what then happened is that the Russians came to an agreement afterwards,

after this five-day war. They said, you know, let's sit down and talk about the future status of these two regions, these two breakaway regions from Georgia, South Ossetia and Abhazia, and the Western powers all agreed to that. And then Georgia said it he'd agree to it, but Sakashvili changed the language of the agreement. after it had been reached in order to make it clear that Abkhazia and Southerstetia would remain part of Georgia, which went against the regional agreement, and the Russians at that point said,

well, in that case, we're just going to recognize the independence of these two regions, which have not, by the way, been annexed into Russia. Just saying. Sakazvili, the McCain protege. Well, indeed, and of course the current Georgian government is true. trying to rebuild relations with Russia. So, I mean, you know, talking about Georgia as being threatened, I mean, the Georgians at the moment,

at least the current government in Georgia, doesn't want to hear this kind of language coming out of Washington because they want to re-establish some kind of long-term connection to Russia, which they see as essential in Georgia's economic interests. So, you know, going off of what you said with regards to the four regions and Crimea, and given the trajectory of this conflict, you would have to say that Odessa would definitely be part of the Ruski Mir. And there will have to be some sort of a solution to Transnistria. and most likely it will be a solution imposed by the Russians on Moldova. This is going to be the end game.

In one form or another, something like this is going to be the picture when all of the dust settles. Absolutely, that's entirely correct. But let me stress again, to the extent that that is expansion, expansion. It is expansion which bad American policy has brought about. But it is inevitable now. There were many, many opportunities going all the way back to 2014 and before to find some kind of long-term, sustainable, peaceful resolution to this problem in Ukraine, which would have satisfied everybody, or at least satisfied everybody's core in.

interests. What you instead... They had it in Minsk. They had it in Minsk, exactly. I mean, it could have been done. It could have been achieved that way. And Minsk instead was sabotaged. Ukraine didn't abide by it. And instead of getting Ukraine, telling Ukraine, look, this is a UN Security Council resolution

that you're going against. This agreement has been ratified by the Security Council. It's an agreement which your president signed that was brokered by Germany and France. You've got to implement it. Instead of doing all of that, the Americans and the British and eventually the Germans and the French facilitated Ukraine sabotage of the Minsk Agreement. So, you know, there we go. I mean, it's entirely a product of bad policy decisions that we are where we are.

And conjuring up fantasies of the Russians marching on Paris. It's just ridiculous now. Everything that we've been told about this crisis has turned out to be wrong, and that is wrong also. All right, we'll end it there. 2014, the Obama, Biden, White House and the coup with Newland and Hyatt and Klitsko and all of these characters who are still floating around. Oh, absolutely, but you could go back further still. I mean, you can say that the point when it all really started to go seriously wrong was in 2008 when NATO disregarded Russian warnings and extended an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO,

despite the fact that a majority of people in Ukraine, around three quarters of the people then, were opposed to Ukrainian membership of NATO. So, I mean, you know, this is in fact the point where it all really starts to go horribly wrong. Yeah. It's NATO expansionism. It's not the Russian expansionism. It's NATO expansion that is the problem going against agreements, reached with the Soviet Union and then with Russia at the end of the Cold War. All right.

We will end the video there. The durand.com. We are on Rumble, Odyssey, bitchchut, telegram, Rakfin, and Twitter X, and go to the Duran shop. 20% off. Use the code the Duran 20. Take care. Thank you.