The Duran Podcast - Russia wins Swiss summit. NYT resurrects Istanbul ceasefire

Episode Date: June 18, 2024

Russia wins Swiss summit. NYT resurrects Istanbul ceasefire

All right, Alexander, let's talk about the Swiss peace conference. And let's discuss this debacle because that's what it was. A complete disaster. Not even Kamala stayed. Not even Kamala decided to stay. She gave her speech and she left. She was God. Olaf Schultz bolted.

He was God. What a disaster. What a complete disaster. What are your thoughts on this Swiss conference? We do have a communique. We have some countries that have signed up to this very watered down communique. We have a lot of other countries which just didn't even bother signing the thing. It was an embarrassment and Ukraine would have been better off.

The collective West would have been better off not doing this thing. That's my opinion. They should have avoided this thing. But they went through with it. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the Swiss peace? conference. I entirely agree with your last point. What this conference has actually done is that it's proved the extent to which support over the Ukraine issue has drained away from the West. Now, compare what happened in the first weeks of the Russian advance into Ukraine back in February,

March 22. We had a vote. the UN General Assembly. I think it was something like 150 states voted to demand the unconditional immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine. It was a Western-backed resolution. Of course, some important countries abstain, like China and India, for example, but nonetheless, it did signal widespread shock and disapproval of what the Russians had done. Well, they now decided, you know, two and a half years later, to have this conference. And they never completely explained what its actual purpose was supposed to be. Initially, it looked like it was going to be a peace formula.

The idea was, the original idea was, that, as I understand it, that the Russians would be invited to attend, but they would not actually participate in the actual discussions. They'd be there in a room in part of the hotel complex in Lucerne. Well, this conference was taking place. All of the other countries would attend. It was expected apparently the 160 countries would come. Invitations were sent to 160 countries.

And at the end of this, there would be, a communique, which would in effect enshrine Zelensky's peace plan, then the Russians would be called in. The communique would be presented to them as a kind of ultimatum, and they would be told that this is the united position of the international community, and that unless Russia agreed to accept it, it would be internationally isolated and well all sorts of other things at that point would have followed. That seems to have been the original plan and the Swiss were roped into it because Switzerland is supposedly a neutral country and they contacted the Russians the start of this year. They said, look, can you come along? Obviously you're going to be invited to this peace conference. This is

nothing to do with the process of discussions that were launched back in August last year by Jake Sullivan with a first meeting in Copenhagen. This is a completely new initiative. We're anxious to hear your views. We want you to be there. And the Russians were very suspicious from the start, and they asked what this was all about, and they became clear what the arrangement was going to be. and then at that point, and Lavrov gave a very interesting interview about this. He told the Swiss, you must be absolutely joking. We're not prepared to participate or take part in anything like this.

As far as we are concerned, we're not invited, and we're certainly not going to attend simply to be handed ultimatums. So that was what the Russians said. So they said that they were not going. Now, at that point, I mean, trying to stage this at all was a mistake. mistake. But the moment the Russians said that they were not going, the right thing to have done, which had been to call the whole thing off. But no, they decided to go ahead with it. And the person who apparently insisted that they go ahead with it was Zelensky. And there were reports that in April, Western governments tried to contact him. There was a meeting with Western ambassadors. in which Zelensky was told this conference isn't really working. Fewer and fewer countries are attending.

There's growing opposition to what we're trying to do there. Apparently, he went absolutely hysterical. He threw a tantrum. Again, we know about this from the Russians. And he insisted on going ahead. And I think the main reason he insisted on going ahead was the one you gave in a program that we, did about a week ago in which we also discussed this conference, which is that putting aside

the question of whether there was going to be support for his so-called peace plan, he wanted a conference to take place. He wanted all the major leaders there because his own position as President of Ukraine is now in question. The Russians are openly saying that he's not the legitimate the president of Ukraine because he cancelled elections. And he wanted the embrace of world leaders in order to show to the world and to the Ukrainian people and of course also to the Russians, that yes, he is the internationally recognized and supported president of Ukraine. So the peace conference, so-called peace conference, went ahead. And of course, support drained away. China said it wasn't going.

Other countries, a whole slew of countries said they weren't going out of the 160 that was supposed to attend. Only 92 sent representatives, which is already a steep reduction. Important countries like Indonesia, for example, Egypt simply refused, and of course China, simply refused to send anyone at all. Biden and the Biden team decided that he's. shouldn't go at all either, despite the fact that he'd just been in Italy and Apulia at the G7 summits, there would have been easy to just to take a short flight and at least attend one of

the sessions in this conference in Lucerne. But anyway, they pulled him away and sent him back to the United States where he bombed at a Donus conference and had to be helped away by Obama. But that's another story. We'll talk about that in other. another day. So the Western governments, the European governments, of course, all attended. Most countries around the world either stayed away or sent minor officials, just representatives, who didn't participate. Zolensky then went to Saudi Arabia and apparently the Saudis had decided not to go, but he went twice to Saudi Arabia. He pleaded with MBS for a Saudi representative to go. The Americans chimed in. The Saudis eventually sent their foreign minister.

Anyway, something like 92 countries and international organizations, which means, of course, entities like the European Union went there. They had a discussion. All the Western leaders said exactly the same things. In other words, it sounded as if, as I said, in one of my own programs that they were working, they were using all using the same script writer. A few EU and NATO leaders dropped the mask and said things about the Russians, which was so extreme about decolonizing Russia and breaking it up that I think that that will have lost even more. support for Ukraine and for the Western powers. And then, of course, they came up finally with a final communique, which was immensely pared down from what had been originally intended. And

they claimed that 80 countries signed it and not 12 didn't. And of course, the 12 that didn't included countries like Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Thailand, all of those countries. Anyway, they refused to sign it. They pretended for a while that Iraq and Jordan had signed it. It turns out that they haven't. So out of the 92 that finally attended, only 78 signed this communique, which basically says very little. The only really interesting part of it is that it apparently requires the Zaporosia nuclear power plant to be returned to Ukraine, which again, I mean, is so far-fetched and absurd that it almost makes no sense at all. And of course, to add to the trouble, Putin on the day before the conference was, you know, convened. He addressed the foreign

Ministry Board in Russia, he gave a colossal speech. I mean, it's one of the most impressive that he's ever given on foreign policy, providing in a whole examination of the entire state of international relations and relations in Europe. He then set out what the Russian demands were for the conflict, for the end of the conflict. He said that Ukraine must withdraw unconditionally, withdraw all its troops from the four regions, Zaborosia, Herzon, Donetsk and Lugansk. There can then be a ceasefire, but the basis upon which the conflict will settle

will be Istanbul plus. Ukraine loses the four regions, plus Crimea, agrees to no entry into NATO, agrees to demilitariae and to denazify. In other words, all the things that he's always said. And of course, apparently the first day of the conference, instead of people discussing Zelensky's plan, they were apparently all quietly, you know, huddled together talking about what Putin had said. So Putin, who didn't attend, dominated the conference. More countries stayed away than attended. and of those that attended, only a certain number were prepared to sign off to the final communique,

and even amongst those countries that attended, all the big global South leaders, Modi, Lula, Ramaphosa from South Africa, MBS, they refused to go. So, an absolute shambles. And we've seen support for Ukraine fall from, you know, around 150 states, which is what voted for the UN General Assembly resolutions at the start of the war, to 78. And that 78, that includes countries like Hungary and Turkey, which basically signed up to this communique because of the pressure that they're under Serb. too, by the way. And of course, we know that they're not really on board either. So what it has done is it has demonstrated, again, the complete collapse of support for project Ukraine around the world and of the extent to which most of the world is now quietly realigning with the Russians. A disaster. Completely useless piece of paper, the communique. If Hungary or Serbia,

signed up to it. You know, they really have nothing to lose. They signed up to it. So what? It's meaningless. And they get the pressure of the U.S. off of them because I'm sure that they were putting a lot of pressure on these countries to sign up to the communicate. So why not sign it? It's meaningless.

And you get some space from, from U.S. pressure. The big winner out of this conference, even Ukraine, even Ukraine, parliament members. members have admitted to this was Russia and Putin because everyone was talking about Russia and Putin and his real peace ceasefire proposal, or at least a starting point for negotiations. You may think his position is maximalist. You may think his position is too generous. It doesn't matter. He put out a real proposal to begin negotiations.

So what the U.S. should have done and Ukraine should have done is they should have countered so that you can begin some sort of dialogue and some sort of process. They didn't do it. They rejected Putin's proposal outright. I'm sure the Russians knew that they would. And Russia turned out to be the big winner out of this entire conference. Zelensky turned out to be the real big loser. Switzerland turned out to be the real big loser. And I'll, I'll give you another theory idea that has come my way. The other winner out of this conference from the Ukraine side of thing was Yermak, Yermak, who showed up there, had some meetings with world leaders, presented himself as the real, the real man who's running Ukraine, while the conference was very. very much about about soothing Olensky's insecurities, easing Olensky's insecurities, and everyone realized

that he's very insecure about his legitimacy. And so a lot of the world leaders were there to calm him down. Yermak came into the conference and he was talking business. Yes. So I think there's something there that a lot of people are not talking about, but Yermak actually came out ahead in this

conference, he came out as the guy, he revealed himself, in my opinion, as the guy who is really making the decisions in Ukraine and can make the decisions going forward in Ukraine, maybe even possibly to get to a ceasefire. I don't know. This is just a theory, but what do you think about that? I absolutely agree. I mean, this conference, which was supposed to reaffirm Zelensky's leadership of Ukraine, has instead undermined it. I mean, it's made him look ineffectual. And it's exposed again, his inability to work with world leaders. So Yermak had to come along and to do it for him.

But even though we've now seen who the real power in Kiev is, it's important to understand a point about Yermak. Yes, he's a masterful and apparently dominating man. He's not, however, particularly popular. it seems, with the big power holders in Kiev itself. He has no support, as far as I can see, amongst the wider population of Ukraine. And of course, he's only there because he is Zelensky's chief of staff. If Zelensky goes, Yamak has no constitutional role at all.

So it's, he looks strong and he is a kind of winner. relative to Zelensky, but of course his position is very brutal. And this is where we come to the massive cynicism of the whole affair, because apparently what Zelensky and Yermak were doing, both at the peace conference, well, let's call it peace conference, the summit, the Swiss summit. What they were doing at the Swiss summit and in the weeks before is that they've been going around telling everybody, the Americans, the British, the Germans, the Europeans, the Swiss,

global South countries, that yes, at the moment, things on the front don't look so good. But we're getting all these new weapons from the Americans, the F-16s. Congress has authorized this new aid package. We're getting more funding and support from the Europeans as well. We're undertaking some great mobilization. In 2025, we will be able to go back on the offensive. and we will be able to push the Russians back, and we will recapture much of the ground that we're losing at the moment, and perhaps drive the Russians back even further. And if you stay with us, if you go on supporting us,

then we will be in a position to force the Russians to accept our terms. Now, I think anybody who is familiar with what is actually, going on on the battlefields and on the actual situation in Ukraine knows that that whole narrative is delusional. But I'm reading it increasingly in the media in the West. There's article after article that's been published about it. There's one in the Financial Times, for example. And that article in the Financial Times finally revealed the fact that it is coming from the Ukrainians, that it's the Ukrainians who are spreading this narrative. And when we talk about the Ukrainians, it's obviously Zelensky and Yermak. And that's the story they spun to the global South countries to try to get them to attend to this conference.

That's the story they're spinning to the Americans and to the Europeans. And of course, it just prolongs the war because it makes, it enables, it enables us. Zelensky and Yermak to reject negotiations on the basis that Putin proposed. And the reason they're doing that is because even though they know that eventually they're going to lose, because I'm sure Yermak understands that, they also know that if they start negotiations and ember wall, they, Zelensky, but also Yermak, will immediately lose power. that their entire political position in Ukraine at that moment will collapse, so they have an incentive to keep the war going.

It's a terrible, cynical situation. And the problem is no one in the West seems to have the intelligence or the courage or perhaps even the understanding to call time on it. No, they're definitely trying to buy time. that's obvious. And even Kuleb put out a statement of the foreign minister. And he said pretty much the same thing that there's going to be another conference. And a lot of countries are not talking about a Swiss peace conference part two. I don't know if it's going to be in Switzerland as well, but they're saying another Swiss peace conference. And they're saying that the point of this next conference is to invite Russia and to try and get to some sort of a ceasefire or some sort of a negotiated settlement or at least begin the process. of a negotiated settlement. And Kaluba in his statement, he said that in the next conference, that's when Ukraine will have some sort of negotiating leverage.

And I'm sure the narrative will be, you know, once the second conference wraps up, and it's also a debacle, the narrative will be, well, in the third conference, we'll get some leverage. And when they mean leverage, they talk about pushing the Russian, what you said, pushing the Russians back and forcing Putin to accept Ukraine slash the U.S. is terms. So, yeah, they're trying to buy time. There's no doubt about it.

The question is, is are they trying to buy time to prepare for their exit? Or are they just trying to buy time to figure out what to, what to do in order to remain in power, in order to try and inflict some sort of a defeat? against Russia, which could bring them to some sort of, of a negotiation, spin it in a way that they could say, okay, we finally got the leverage that we wanted because of this tactical victory that we just had. And so now we can enter negotiations. It's just difficult to see where exactly, or why exactly they're trying to buy this time. Well, I get to say this, this is based on my own experience from, you know, the work I used to do, having to advise

people. People who find themselves in no-win situations often do try and spin things out for as long as they can. And they do so in the hope that something will turn up that will transform the situation in their favour. And along the way, they not only rationalise as to what it might be that will turn things around for them, but they also rationalise, try and rationalise and give different reasons for their own motives. So on the one hand, I can imagine perfectly well, Zelensky and Yeah, and Marx saying to each other, well, we've got to go on fighting because we need to keep fighting in order to save Ukraine. They can say that too. At the same time, they can be saying to themselves, well, we need to keep this thing going for as long as we possibly can, because we need to

sort out our boat holes and to get as much money out of Ukraine as we possibly can too. They keep can believe or say to themselves these totally contradictory in different things, not exactly at the same time, but say on the same day. In the morning, they'll say one thing, on the evening they'll say something else and they'll oscillate between one and the other. And of course, it's not just Yamag and Zelensky, but all sorts of other officials. some of them probably more cynical and tough-minded about things than Zelensky and Yamaka. But a lot of them will be saying to themselves, make as much money as I can now, because in a few months I'm out.

And I'm hearing stories, and I believe you can confirm this, that in all sorts of places around the world, in all the usual safe havens, you suddenly seeing floods of Ukrainian money appear. I say Ukrainian money, but of course it's not really Ukrainian money at all. It is money from Ukraine. And again, it has been completely not reported upon, except for one article that I've seen in the Financial Times, but Ukraine's moratorium on debt repayment on its money. repayments to its bondholders is due to expire in August and the Ukrainians are now coming to

the bondholders and are demanding a 60% haircut, a 60% haircut, even from the bondholders, even of course, as they are demanding that the West give them even more money for the $50 billion loan that we talked about the other day. And Zelensky, again, is going around talking about the $300 billion in Russian funds that have been frozen. So you could see what's happening. I mean, you know, at one and the same time, they're probably telling themselves, we must, you know, go on fighting because if we don't do that, the Russians will swallow us. at the same time they're saying to themselves.

Let's get as much money out of this country as we possibly can. Yeah, it's also about self-preservation. I think all of these guys, even Yerbach, Podoliak, Zelensky, they can easily turn out each other because it's all about self-preservation. So they may all have, they definitely will have different motivations in order to make sure that they can survive this best that they find themselves in, and they'll easily sell the other guy out. easily. For this, I have no doubt. But yeah. They have no sentimental feelings for each other.

Of that there is absolutely no doubt what, no doubt at all. Yeah. So let's cover two more. Let's cover two more topics. I would like your comments on these topics connected to to Project Ukraine. Why do you think the New York Times published the 2020? Istanbul agreements and all the documents, the notes, the related documents to the main agreement. Why do you think they published that document on the very same day that Putin gave out his terms for beginning negotiations? It is a very interesting question. By the way, one document, as I understand it, well, what I could see was omitted. which is that, of course, as the New York Times admitted,

the security guarantees and many of the provisions did not cover certain specific areas of Ukraine. And of course, they didn't tell us, they didn't provide the document which told us which those territories were, but I can tell you that it was the Donbass. And not, as some people are saying, the Donbass, according to the 2015 front lines, it was the entire Donbass, in other words, the oblasts, the two regions, Donetsk and Lugansk.

I know that because at the time back in 2022, in March 2020, April 2020, all of the details of these negotiations. The entire range of agreements was basically leaked to the financial times by Ukrainian negotiators who put massive positive spin on them. They wanted to reveal the extent to which supposedly the Russians had made concessions. By the way, and just in parenthesis on this, going through these documents themselves, it's clear that those Ukrainian officials who were talking to the Financial Times in 2022, from memory, Podoliac, another one of Zayat, Olensky's AIDS was one of them, were definitely putting a positive spin on what Ukraine had agreed to. They were making a lot of their concessions to the Russians, went a lot further than the, you know, they were saying at the time.

But anyway, let's put all that aside. Why is this all being published now? It is a very, very good question. Now, I think, and this is my own sense, because I can't really see. any other explanation of this. I think the real purpose of publishing all of this material now is because some people in Washington, in the Pentagon especially, but probably in the intelligence community, wherever, in the permanent government of the United States, now understand that the war in Ukraine is lost and they do want negotiations. And they want to highlight the fact that the were draft

agreements almost reached in Istanbul, in March and April, and they want to, in a kind of a way, reach out to the Russians and say to the Russians, well, can we go back, please, and talk about something of this sort. Notice that this all came out at about the same time that Putin himself was talking about the Istanbul process being the basis for any future negotiation. So the Americans, or some Americans are saying to themselves, well, maybe this is what we need to do. And it's important to clarify what those future, you know, what that Istanbul agreement that Putin is always talking about, what that all means. But then of course, Putin then has come forward and said, well, what we actually agreed in Istanbul in March, April 2022, does not reflect any longer the actual realities on the ground. So it must be adjusted.

And I suspect that it could be that what caused Putin to clarify that, to make that statement, to set out his ideas so precisely, is maybe that he's had some word that some people in the United States are in fact trying to find some way back to Istanbul, the original Istanbul. and that was why they published all of the Istanbul materials in the way that they did. So it looks to me as if some kind of discussion between the Americans and the Russians is taking place. But the Russians are saying, look, if you think we're just going to go back to Istanbul, then you are wrong. It has to be Istanbul plus. we're not prepared to negotiate on any other basis.

That was my conclusion as well, by the way. That's how I saw it. I actually saw it in two different variants. There were forces in the U.S. intel community or the deep state, permanent state, whatever, in the United States that said, okay, we need to find a way out of this. So let's publish the Istanbul Agreement

and see if we can start to find some common ground with Russia. And I even thought about it being taken a step further where even sort of neocons, pro conflict with China, neocons may have even pushed us to say, okay, we need to really wrap up Ukraine because we have to move on to Taiwan and China. So let's get this stuff out there and let's try to find some common ground with the Russia's because we are losing time with China and Taiwan. So, I mean, I was thinking along those lines as well. I think I think that it's absolutely correct given that the G7 and I was thinking, I have to say, I was thinking the same because the G7 communicate. We talked about this and the fact that the US is now positioning itself

to impose sanctions right across the board on the Chinese financial system. And they're going to use secondary sanctions in order to do that. The Europeans have now been strong on, into imposing tariffs, big tariffs against Chinese EV cars just shortly after the Americans did the same. We've had

an incredibly strong response from the Chinese government. There was a ferocious article yesterday in Global Times basically saying that the entire G7 communicate is an act of hypocrisy and is an attack on China

and that the Chinese simply won't accept it and won't stand by and let themselves be steamrolled over. And then there was that very weird story about Xi Jinping telling Ursula von the Lion of all people that the Chinese, that he felt that the Americans were trying to go to China into a war over Taiwan,

but that he wouldn't fall for it and that he wouldn't let himself get drawn into such a conflict with Taiwan. I have two problems with that story which has appeared in the Financial Times, by the way. The first is, I think it is inconceivable. The Cysian Big would say something like that to Ursula von der Leyen of all people.

I mean, that is, you know, he would not share that kind of private thought that he has with someone like her. He might say that to, well, I don't know, Maloney, for example. I doubt that he would, by the way, but I cannot imagine that he would have said something like that to Ursula. And saying what he said to a Western leader

seems to contradict the official Chinese position, which is that Taiwan is a red line for China, and the China won't sit on its hands and let, you know, the independence, course that the current Taiwanese authorities are pursuing, you know, take its course. And Xi Jinping has been saying that in public forum after public forum and in meetings that he's had, repeated meetings that he's had with Biden, with Blinken, with all sorts of other people. So why would he want to undermine, undercut his own red line?

It seems to me more likely that this story has been spread because the hardliners in the United States, the anti-China hardliners in the United States do want to escalate against China, and they want to reassure people in Europe especially that the Chinese are bluffing. And I think this is really what this is all about. So you could see a pivot in near-con focus towards China. and that means finding some way to get out of this mess with Ukraine. So plausibly, they're now floating Istanbul as a basis for negotiation with the Russians. That has provoked this colossal speech from Putin.

Putin says, well, Istanbul simply won't do. It has to be Istanbul plus. But notice that Putin isn't just saying it's, It doesn't just stop at Istanbul Plus. It has to be a security, a restructuring of the security architecture right across Eurasia, which means, of course, that the Chinese must be involved. And that will be completely unacceptable to people in the United States, to these neocon hard lines that we're talking about in the United States. So what Putin is again signaling is that no way.

are the Russians going to throw the Chinese under the bus? The Chinese stood by them, and they will stand by China. All right, let's do one more, one more question, and we'll wrap up this video. What are your thoughts on the comments from NATO and Stoltenberg referencing their, referencing the fact that they're going to get their nuclear arsenal ready or something like that, and what else did Stoltenberg say? They have 300,000 troops ready to go in the conflict with Russia and all of these statements from Stoltenberg. What are your thoughts there?

Well, what they tell us is that all of this talk that we've been getting from the Europeans and NATO and some people in the United States, that Putin is simply bluffing when he's making all these, giving all these warnings to the West, that there are some people in NATO and in Washington in particular who understand perfectly well that he is not bluffing and that the Europeans, some people, maybe not the Europeans, some people in the NATO system are now becoming increasingly alarmed. And of course, probably what has provoked the latest alarm bells are the reports that the F-16s are going to be based in Romania rather than Ukraine.

The Russians apparently have been threatening, well, not apparently, they have publicly threatened, that they will strike at the F-16s in Romania. If those F-16s participate in the fighting in Ukraine, if they take off from Romanian bases and go into battle against the Russian Air Force in Ukraine, that the Russians will strike. them, that the Russians have been carrying out nuclear drills and saying that, you know, if the West intervenes in Ukraine or does things like that in Ukraine, they are ready. And some people are saying, well, my goodness, I mean, Putin clearly isn't laughing. We're in a very, very dangerous situation.

Indeed. So we've got to show to Putin that, in fact, we are strong too and that we can counter equally what he is doing. So I think this is where it comes from. I think this is actually a sign of alarm. And yes, you know, NATO has 300,000 troops. I think some said that the total number of NATO forces in Europe numbers around 500,000. Putin has said that, yeah, that's right. That's what he said, yeah. That's right.

Putin, of course, says that the Russian army that's fighting in Ukraine now numbers 700,000 men. Except most of it is not fighting in Ukraine. It's only, you know, a fraction of that force that's actually involved in the day-to-day fighting. But, you know, that there are now 700,000 men there. I think people in NATO understand perfectly well that Western armies, ground armies, are no match for this far more powerful, better organized, battle experienced and hardened Russian force. and that some of these NATO armies, you know, are really just exist. They don't exist on paper, but they're not really battle ready.

The British army is not battle ready. So, you know, so I think they understand that too. And the talk about nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons, they have to be very, very careful about, because of course if that intensifies, if they go on trying to sort of balance Russian warnings with their own warnings, that could spike alarm in Europe. And of course, I've heard Kavok Amassian told us this in the live stream. We recently did with him.

But people in Germany have also told me that the single biggest factor in persuading young people in particular to vote for the IFTA in the European. parliament elections. The one that came up most often when people were, younger people were spoken to, was the conflict in Ukraine and the threat to peace in Europe. So it's a dangerous game that, you know, the native people are playing. But as I said, the fact that they've given these warnings of their own and talked about the fact that they're thinking of putting their tactical nuclear weapons at a higher readiness level. What it shows is that they understand perfectly well, that the Russians are not bluffing, despite all the bluster and pretense that we've been seeing

from all kinds of people in the media. And by the way, I think that is a good thing. If they realize that the Russians are not bluff, then it's more likely that they'll pull back. Yeah. All right. We will end it there at the durand.com. We are on Rumble Odyssey, butchew, Telegram, Rockfan, and Twitter X and go to the Duran shop. Use the code, Football, 24 to pick up some football merch. Take care.