The Duran Podcast - Russia's final warning to Macron and Cameron

Episode Date: May 7, 2024

Russia's final warning to Macron and Cameron The Duran: Episode 1901

All right, Alexander, let's talk about what is happening in Ukraine, what is happening in France, with Macron. Macron also met with Xi Jinping, and Ursula was also hanging around there. But we could talk about the French ambassador and the UK ambassador being summoned to the Russian foreign ministry. We talk about Russian warnings or ultimatums given to. the French ambassador and the UK ambassador. We could talk about the French Foreign Legion troops.

Maybe there are French Foreign Legion troops in Slaviansk. Maybe there are not. Let's discuss everything that happened over the last couple of days. A lot of stuff to talk about. Of course, the non-strategic tactical nuclear drills that Russia announced as well, which is all connected to everything that we're about to talk about. And also we could touch upon Jeffries' statement, House Democrat Minority Leader Jeffries' statement about Ukraine and boots on the ground and pro-Pukin forces in the U.S. Congress.

So where should we begin? Because there's a lot of the ground that we need to cover. I think we need to cover the ground of the last couple of days because this has been a momentous series of days. And yesterday was, in some respects, a terror. day. Now, I say all of that. Note that the media, the mainstream establishment legacy media, is barely covering any of the things we're going to talk about now. Let's start where it started. It kicked off with two articles written by Stephen Bryan in Asia Times, one on the 28th of April,

one a couple of days late, I think on the 4th of May. The one on the 28th of April was about NATO flooding Ukraine with so-called advisors who are going to be in fact special forces troops who are supposed to be fighting the Russians in Ukraine. And Stephen Bryan made some comparisons between that and the war in Vietnam where exactly the same thing happened. The United States prepared the way for the intervention of its ground force. official intervention of its ground forces in the war of Vietnam by first sending so-called advisors who were really special forces combat troops. And Stephen Bryan, who I ought to say is somebody who has worked in the US government. He's a very serious man. He's somebody who should

be taken extremely seriously. He's a critic of the Ukraine war. But he's someone at also with good contacts in Washington, in the intelligence community, in the national security world. So he's somebody who is well-sourced about what he's saying. Anyway, Stephen Bryan said that there's now strong possibility that after the election, if he's re-elected, President Biden will formally sign off on intervention by US ground forces in Ukraine. And then a couple of days later, we had a second article for Stephen Bryan. Now, note that in neither of these articles, as Stephen Bryan gives links to his sources,

but I'm confident that he's not just making all this up. Anyway, he said that France had officially sent troops to Ukraine. These were the French Foreign Legion, a regiment of the French Foreign Legion, 1,500 men, is being dispatched to Ukraine, and an advanced party of 100 troops has already arrived in Ukraine in Slaviansk, which is one of the key towns still under Ukrainian control in Dombas. And these troops are going into Ukraine specifically again to fight the Russians. This is a combat deployment.

So those are those two articles by Stephen Bryan. At the same time, we had statements by David Cameron, the British Foreign Secretary, former Prime Minister, that Ukraine is free to use any weapons that Britain gives it in whatever way it chooses, which, of course, implied that Ukraine is free to use a storm shadow missile. to launch strikes inside what even Britain recognises as Russian territory. So really disturbing information. Troop deployments by France, troop deployments ultimately by the United States in the form of advisers, suggestions that after the election the United States is going to formally declare a intervention

of some kind in Ukraine. And words from David Cameron about missile strikes on Russian territory. And then shortly after that, we got Hakim Jeffries, the major Democrat in the House of Representatives, the leading Democrat in the House of Representatives, making some extraordinarily strong and abusive kinds, about Marjorie Taylor Green and the Republicans, but also saying we've got to fight the Russians,

we've got to defeat the Russians in Ukraine because if we don't, if Ukraine isn't able to defeat the Russians and its front lines collapse, then the United States' its own military might have to fight the Russians itself. It was a slightly ambiguous language wording that he used, but it did seem to be, when you look at it with all of the other things, again, soft, us, are preparing us for the possibility that there's going to be a U.S. military intervention in Ukraine. So the Russians see all of this and they react massively. There is a huge Russian reaction that played out over the course of yesterday. So firstly, we had an announcement that the Russian Defence Ministry is beginning drills with tax.

nuclear weapons. And the statement from the Russian Defence Ministry says that this is being done specifically in connection with these provocative statements by Western officials. And it's clear that it's Macroll, who's been talking about interventions in Ukraine. It is David Cameron about the missile strikes in Ukraine. I think we have to throw in Hacking Jeffries as well. well. So anyway, first of all, tactical nuclear weapons. And then shortly after we get news that the French and British ambassadors have been summoned to the foreign ministry. And they're both given a massive dressing down when they arrive there. Now, we don't know exactly what the Russians said to the French. But we do know how the French responded. Firstly, the Elyze Palace denies

that there are any French troops in Ukraine. Secondly, the Elyze Palace says that France is not at war with Russia or with the Russian people. Thirdly, the Elyze Palace says that they recognise Putin as the president of Russia, and they have no intention of achieving regime change in Russia. And then they also say that they're going to send their ambassador, the French ambassador, to attend Putin's inauguration today. So that's France. All the signs are a big climb down from France. We don't know how the British have reacted to the meeting between the Russian.

Russian foreign ministry and the British ambassador. There's been no word from London. And with the exception of one article in The Guardian, no reporting of any of these events in Moscow or of any of this, the fact that the British ambassador was called in. The entire British media is preserving complete silence on this. The one article in the Guardian was completely factual, very unusual. but the Russian Foreign Ministry has told us what they said to the British ambassador. They said if British missiles are launched against Russian territory, the Russians will consider Britain is directly involved in the war in Ukraine and the Russians then reserve the right to retaliate. against British military installations and bases in Britain itself and to go after the British

military everywhere else in the world. I've been incredibly strong. So the British, they receive this. I mean, it's not a warning. It's an ultimatum. Radio silence from London. And then we have other countries starting to weigh in first poland says that they're not going to send troops to ukraine and have no plans to do so italy which has been unhappy about macron's statements for some time also weighs in they say that they have no uh plans to send troops to ukraine and in fact they go even further they say it's completely ruled out and um they also say by the way that the sanctions have failed this is the Italian Defence Ministry, that there needs to be negotiations. First time Italy has spoken in those terms.

And then the United States finally weighs in. It says that they recognize Putin as the president of Russia. So they're not seeking regime change in Russia. You can believe that or not as you please. There will be no American troops sent to Ukraine. You can believe that or not as they please. But that is what they said. So a crumbling of the West in the face of an incredibly strong Russian response to these articles

published by Stephen Bryan and to Macron's statements and Hakeem Jeffrey's statements and all of those. Now, I'm going to say this. I come back to Stephen Bryan. I am convinced he definitely had sources for what he wrote. I think what the Western powers were doing is they were floating trial balloons. They were testing the waters, partly with the Russians, partly with their own populations, their own voters, starting to prepare the ground for some kind of military intervention in Ukraine. and the Russians, however, reacted with incredible force,

and they're now in full-scale retreat. Are the French troops in Ukraine? Almost certainly. Are they there officially? Probably. But I suspect that the French are going to call off, for the moment at least, the major plan, any plan that they had, of announcing the fact that those troops were there.

We're going to go back to the fiction that these are mercenaries or contractors, that kind of thing. And once again, this attempt to get it slightly over, you know, the horizon that these troops were there. They're going to go underground again. And that's what happened yesterday. Really big use. Russians calling the West's bluff. But please remember what the West doesn't want, what the United States doesn't want, what the United States doesn't. want is a major crisis with threats of use of nuclear weapons before the presidential election

in November. If Biden is re-elected in November, the mood may shift, the situation may change. And all of these ideas which seem to have been shelved for the moment might be revived again. But an extraordinary day yesterday, a nail-biting day, and the fact that there's this echoing silence about it across the mainstream media in the West, in itself tells you that something very big happened. Yeah, I wonder what the Russian foreign ministry told the UK ambassador and the French ambassador. Boy, yeah, what an incredible day yesterday. One of the indications that the UK may be backing down, Alexander, is stories that came up this morning. I don't know if you caught any of them at the time of recording this video. I'm not sure when we'll publish this video, but this morning we had stories talking about how the Crimea Bridge is not a military target.

Let me just read you a title from the Independent.independent. Independent.co.uk. I believe they're the first ones that ran with this story. Satellite images show Russia no longer using Crimean Bridge to supply troops in Ukraine. That's not coincidence, is it? No, it's not coincidence at all.

And it sort of hints that any plan to go after the Crimean Bridge, at least for the moment, at least today, maybe, which is the day of, well, it's an important day in Russia. At least for the moment, that's been called off. And it is not a coincidence because I suspect that the Russians made specific, gave the British specific warnings in connection with any planned attacks on the Crimean Bridge.

So it's been well known for many months that the Russians are not using the Crimean Bridge for military logistics purposes, that military logistics go to Crimea through the railway lines that the Russians have built across the land corridor from Donne, from Russia through Donbass, and Zaporosia region into Crimea. So this is nothing new. But that article in the independent gives every impression of having been planted. It's a sign that London is also backing down. And the fact they chose the independent, by the way, is, in itself important because the independent is a mainstream broadsheet newspaper but it's smaller than the others it's not quite as you know big as the guardian times or financial times or the telegraph it's also

much much newer and it's a way of making this statement in serious way is going to be read by serious people by the political class in London. But at the same time, by running this story in the Independent, you're also avoiding giving it too much attention

because it's not a newspaper with an enormous international or even British readership, which is again consistent with the whole policy of keeping this story as quiet as possible. Well, the key

independent the Kiev Post, they did pick it up. Of course they did it. Well, that's Ukraine. So I think that that, yeah, exactly. So I think that tells us that that could be the Kiev independent post also signaling to the Zelensky regime back off with the Crimea upbred stuff for now. I mean, everything can change in 24 hours. Absolutely. Absolutely. Who knows? But for now, it does seem like these warnings and this ultimatum that the Russians gave to France and to the UK is working. for now. We always have to say that because, you know, who knows. But maybe the story in Asia Times, maybe the goal of that story of that story was to try and not only see Russia's reaction, but to try and push through another Russian red line.

because the collective West does have this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this belief that Russia's red lines can be, can be thrown out, can be, can be, can be passed at any time. And Russia's continuously, uh, putting, putting down red lines, but they never act on the red lines. And to, to an extent, I mean, Russia's never specifically said what those red lines are. I mean, to be honest, Russia has never said, this is a red line. That's red line. the West defines red lines throughout the last two years they've put down these Putin red lines even though these these weren't Russia's red lines they attribute them to Putin and then they pass the red lines you know um attackums are a red line and we're going to send attack us to Ukraine even though Putin never said attackums are a red line he's warned against them but he's never said if you send attack him is a red line so maybe a part of this this article that may have been fed to Asia Times. I agree with you.

This was probably fed to Asia Times, even though there are French troops in Ukraine. I'll think anyone denies that, called them mercenaries, called in French Foreign Legion, whatever. Maybe part of this was to see if they can break through another red line that they have defined, which is troops getting to the front line,

Slaviansk. I mean, we're talking front line of the action, and you're having French military. there. I mean, what do you think about that? That is exactly what the Russians thought, which is why they reacted in the way that they did. They saw that the West was in fact testing their red lines. Now, their headlines obviously consist of ground troops. They've said many times as Western ground troops enter Ukraine. They will be attacked by the Russian military. They, they undoubtedly, they undoubtedly, outtedly made that clear yesterday over the course of their meeting with the French ambassador.

And they also made clear to the French ambassador that if that required Russia using tactical nuclear weapons, they would do it. So they've asserted their red line there. Now, you're absolutely correct about weapons deliveries. The Russians have never at any time said the delivery of any specific type of convention. weapon, not nuclear weapon, nuclear weapons are clear red lines, but they've never said that any conventional weapon supplied by the Western Ukraine is a red line. They've never said that Haimars, M-Triple-7s, Abraham's tanks, attackem's missiles are a red line. But Putin has said recently that if there are missile strikes with Western missile,

missiles on legally recognized Russian territory, Western countries should be aware that the Russians have the similar capability to launch missile strikes on the territories of Western countries that have supplied those missiles. Now, that was, to my mind, that was a clear warning and a sign of a red line. Now, the Russians reaffirmed that yesterday in the strongest terms. So again, they undoubtedly saw this as testing a red line, and they asserted again very strongly and very vigorously their red lines. I'm convinced that is what those Asia Times articles were. I mean, I should make it clear. I think that Stephen Bryan, by the way, I've never had any contact with, but Stephen Bryan is a serious person. I am convinced that he was writing in complete good faith. He was undoubtedly being fed

this information by some very senior sources. And the intention was to see how the Russians would react to the challenging of their red lines. That was what the Stephen Bryan articles were all about. That was what the David Cameron comments were all about as well. And as I said, the Russians came down incredibly hard. I mean, they came down. They came down. with a sledgehammer. And I think the West has been stunned, actually, by the Russian reaction. I think that they probably expected strong protests from the Russians' public protests. They perhaps didn't fully expect their ambassadors to be called in and lectured in this very, very tough way. And as he said, one would have loved to have been a fly on the wall

over the course of those meetings. And of course, they certainly didn't expect the nuclear weapons drills, which were clearly done in order to reinforce the message that was given to the ambassadors. By the way, it is a certainty that the Russians have also been in touch with the United States. And note that today the US ambassador is going back to the United States, we're not told that the ambassador is going for consultations with the US government, but one suspects that the ambassador is carrying a message from the Kremlin. There are a very, very strong message from the Kremlin.

So a lot was going on yesterday. By the way, the other thing that was undoubtedly going on yesterday was that the phone lines between the Western capitals must have been busing. there will have been lots of people phoning each other, lots of anxious and worried conversations going on. Macron having to deal at the same time with the fact that he's in meeting with Xi Jinping, which must have made the whole situation even more awkward. And of course, he knows he's been humiliated, which he has been by the way. And he's been humiliated even whilst Xi Jinping is there present physically in Paris, in his capital. But there will have been phone calls,

messages sent, anxious conversations, probably recriminations as well. The Italians are making it absolutely clear that they had no role in any of this. It looks like they've been advising against it. You can see that they are weighing in now and saying that, you know, this has all been unhelpful. I even heard it said that, you know, the Italians said, you know, our ambassador wasn't called in. for we want to make completely clear what our position is about all of this, which is that we're not in any way sending troops to Ukraine. So you can imagine the Italians coming back saying, look, you put us in this position, you know, you're fools,

and you shouldn't do this kind of thing. So there would have been recriminations, arguments, quarreling, but eventually they all realized that they had to back down. Yeah, the Russians also issued a warning about the F-16s. I don't know if you want to cover that briefly as well. But answer me this question as well as you cover the F-16s. There are a lot of hardliners in Russia, maybe Medvedev who would come out and say, and Medvedev did issue a statement, by the way, a very hard, hardline statement.

But there are a lot of hardliners in Russia who would say it's about time. It's about time that Russia issued these warnings, these ultimatums. they were long overdue. What would you say to that? Right, well, I mean, let's first of all deal with the F-16s. Now, the F-16s, when they were designed, were designed as dual-use aircraft. So they can drop conventional bombs. They can also drop nuclear bombs as well. And what the Russians said yesterday was that as far as they're concerned,

these are nuclear-capable aircraft. because of that if they operate from Western bases from bases in Europe the Russians will consider themselves entirely at liberty to attack those bases because these are nuclear weapons

and they put the nuclear capable aircraft and therefore they pose a threat to Russia so again the warning the threat that's being made here it's very clear if these aircraft operate from Ukraine, well, the Russians will hunt and destroy them and the basis from which they operate. But if these aircraft operate from Romania and Poland, they will do the same. They will hunt and destroy them in Poland and Romania as well, and they will go after the basis. Now, this is important because the F-16s are said to be very tricky aircraft to operate, because they're very high maintenance.

There's issues about whether the Ukrainian bases are really in a condition to operate them. And there's been lots of speculation that the real plan all along has been to operate them from Romania and Poland. So it was another big warning from the Russians that was made yesterday. And we'll see whether it's heated and how it plays out. Now, coming to the hardliners, this is, of course, something that Putin has faced for pretty much. the entirety of his presidency. There's been continuous criticism of him from people in Russia who say that he has been too soft with the West. This isn't you. And by the way, it is the only criticism of Putin in Russia that, in my opinion, gains actual traction. You actually hear

Russians who normally support Putin also make this criticism of him. So he doesn't want to to be obviously criticized by these people in that way. But what I think this shows is that Putin who has absorbed this kind of criticism up to this point himself feels that these people were right all along and that when they say take the hardest possible line, that is what he and the Russian government should do. And by the way, those people who have been making this criticism will today feel vindicated because we see that these Russian warnings and these ultimatums, because that's what we got yesterday, have actually.

had the effect that they wanted them to have. For now, for now. Let's see how the neocons react. Let's, yeah, we're in very dangerous waters. Oh, hugely dangerous waters. Yeah. Yeah. But let's go to the United States. Let's talk about the statements from Jeffries. I agree with you about Biden. If Biden is reelected and Ukraine is still going on, the conflict, the proxy war in Ukraine,

then I have no doubt that the Biden will. White House. The people in and around Biden will escalate to the point of war with Russia. I think that's a very real possibility if Biden is reelected. But okay, let's wait and see. We have until November 24 and a lot can happen and a lot can change up until November 24. So Jeffries gives an interview, I believe it was, to 60 minutes. And he talks about Russian, he talks about U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine to fight the Russians. But my sense of the interview and the statements for Jeffries is that it wasn't really so much about U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine.

He uses that talking point, which we've heard many, many times. This is nothing new. Jeffrey's saying this is nothing new. McConnell has said it. Graham has said it. Everyone has said, if we don't. support Ukraine. If we don't give more money, that's the key. If we don't give more money, if we don't approve 61 billion, if we don't approve $30 billion, if we don't approve $50 billion,

whatever amounts they've given over the last two years, if we don't give them these weapons or that weapon or these attack them or that attack them. Well, then we're going to have to possibly maybe, perhaps send U.S. sons and daughters to fight the Russians. So, I mean, I think that Jeffries was just kind of repackaging this narrative about U.S. boots in Ukraine, this threat about U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine in order to make the case that we have to keep on funding Ukraine. You have to keep on sending money to Ukraine. You have to keep on sending weapons to Ukraine. And I think even more than that, Jeffries was building on the foundation, building on the narrative

that there are pro-Putin forces in Congress. And so we have to take them on. And he uses the word pro-Putin, a lot, actually. So I think he's kind of moving this narrative as we have elections, moving the narrative of pro-Putin is controlling Trump. Pro-Putin is controlling Marjorie Taylor-Green, pro-Pooten is controlling MacGetz, MAGA, America First. So I think he wanted to further that along as well.

So what do you make of this? I completely agree. I've seen the interview. It didn't seem to me that it was really of the same kind of comment like the one we got from Cameron or the ones we've been getting from Macron. It was a rather badly prepared election, you know, the thing that interview that he gave, which is intended to provide talking points for the election. that the Republicans are soft on Russia, that Marjorie Taylor Green is a Russian agent, that there's a pro-Russian faction within the Republican Party, that the President himself and the Democratic Party are heroically defending the courageous Democratic West against these dark forces both in Russia and in the United States itself. And we need to go on supporting the President and giving Ukraine money,

because if we don't, you know, we'll have to fight them over there, so it was not to fight them over here. I mean, it's that kind of, it was that kind of thing. The problem was, and this is where Jeffries, I think, was unlucky, was that, of course, the timing was disastrous. Because he said all of this, which, as I said, I don't think was intended to be part of all of it. He said all of this in the context of all of these other events, the Stephen Bryan article. radicals, Macron's comments, Cameron's comments, all of that. So the Russians, as I said,

are not interested in what Jeffrey is, you know, they're not passing his words in the way that we would do. They're not worrying, concerned about the context. They see this as another comment talking about sending troops to Ukraine. So they came down, as I said, like a like a sledgehammer, as much I suspect on him in private as on the others.

And, you know, the United States, the White House has actually repudiated him. I mean, they actually said that, you know, statements made by people in Congress about boots on the ground aren't wrong. There is no plan to have boots on the ground. That's not the intention. I don't believe that, by the way. I think there most certainly is a plan or something. least a discussion about sending boots on the ground to Ukraine after the election. I think that definitely is there.

But Jeffries's comments having a way backfired because they've pushed the White House to issue a strong public denial, at least a public denial that boots will indeed be sent from the United States and go on the ground. Ukraine. Now, one of the members of the community on one of the threads in one of my videos, actually made I thought a really brilliant point, which is that, you know, the French, the British, the Americans, they've been talking about the polls, they've been talking about strategic ambiguity, keeping the Russians guessing. The problem is, and what these people didn't realize is that the Russians don't do strategic ambiguity. They see these comments. They say this is a threat.

So we're going to respond. And we see how strategic ambiguity has massively backfired. It's caused the Russians to reinforce their red lines and to do so in the most public way with three, threats of nuclear weapons use, and it's forced all the Western leaders into retreat, and we've again forced the United States, the Biden administration, before an election, to say there will be no boots on the ground in Ukraine. Now, the importance of that is, of course, that's what Biden is saying before the election. If the election comes and Biden is re-elected and signs off on boots, for the ground, on the ground in Ukraine,

then that is an issue that might come, those words that he's made before might come to haunt him, which is exactly what happened with Lyndon Johnson over Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson, in the run-up to the 64 election, again gave the impression that there would never be US troops sent to fight in Vietnam. After the 64 election, he sent troops to Ukraine, to Vietnam, and it was brought up and used against him all the time. So that's, that's something else that the administration now has to think about. Yeah, let me just make a final point

on what you just said. Europe is doing strategic ambiguity. I think the U.S. is, is completely absorbed in politics and the elections. I think they're really thinking strategic ambiguity like the Europeans. Everything that's coming from the U.S. to me is at least at this moment at time is going to always be about the elections. Whatever statements you hear are going to be election focused. And for me, Jeffries, what he said, we got to remember, this is a pre-recorded interview. It happened to air at the time when these statements were made. He could have made these statements two, three days ago. We don't know when the different parts of the interview were recorded from CBS News. So this was just bad timing from a media publishing, from an airing of

the show perspective, 60 minutes, I believe, is on, it airs on Sunday evening or Monday evening. So, I mean, they conducted the interview, maybe took place over a week's time span. They air the show on Sunday or Monday. It's time to hit with cavern statements and I'm good on statements and all of this craziness happening in Europe and all of this strategic ambiguity happening in Europe. This whole strategic ambiguity thing is beyond stupid. It's strategic stupidity is what it is. And for me, the U.S. is everything coming out of the U.S. is all about the elections.

I completely agree. Strategic ambiguity is absolute stupidity. You are not ambiguous about war. I mean, again, one, one. us whether these people who are playing these games, Cameron, Macron, you know, Jake Sullivan, who's clearly the mastermind, if that's the right word, have any idea of what they're doing. Because of course, strategic ambiguity as they're playing it, from a Russian point of view, looks, as the Russian said yesterday, extremely provocative and very threatening.

So the Russians felt obliged to respond, and they responded in force. So playing this game of strategic ambiguity has ended up humiliating Macron, Cameron, the British government, embarrassing to some extent, the US government. And it's all that it's achieved. is to harden the Russian red lines and to make very clear that the Russians are prepared to use nuclear weapons if they're pushed too hard in Ukraine.

Now, I cannot understand why that was a clever thing to do. It wasn't a clever thing. It was a stupid thing to do. And you mentioned Medvedev, who, as you absolutely rightly said, published a statement of his own yesterday, and it was a pretty strong statement as well.

But he actually called the Western leaders imbeciles. I mean, I think the Russian word used was actually even stronger than that. But he called them imbeciles. This is imbecilic. This is stupid. You don't tell someone that you might attack them or not and keep them guessing about that. I mean, it is so foolish. It is beyond belief.

but this is what we have. This is the quality of leadership we have today. So to wrap up the video, a couple of words about Xi Jinping meeting with Macron and Ursula also at the meeting. It's kind of connected to everything that happened the other day with France and Russia

and everything that was taking place because all of this was happening while Macron was meeting with Xi Jinping. In France, Ursula's obviously there to keep an eye on Macron. I don't think that's any secret there. She's there to babysit and watch over Macron. What are your thoughts about, real quick, what are your thoughts about this meeting?

Well, I think that when it was originally planned, which is presumably some months ago, Xi Jinping was coming to France and he was probably hoping that Macron's the only Western leader at the moment, you know, serious Western leader, a leader of a major Western country who seems to be prepared to work with China and, you know, with whom Xi Jinping has had good meetings. So I think the original plan was for Xi Jinping to try and find to build on this relationship with France

that he thought the China had. What has happened is events have overtaken it. And we've now seen Europe taking any likely, you're not, United States, an increasingly hard and strong line against China. China's been blamed for de-industrializing Europe, as you commented, I think, when we last spoke. I mean, this is now the youth theme that China must stop exporting. Its economy is too big, so it must make it smaller in some way. That's what capacity is, apparently. And of course, Macron. taking this extremely hard line on Ukraine,

I think Xi Jinping would have wanted to try to sort of calm Macron down and make him seem a little, you know, tell him, you know, cool down. All that you're saying isn't helping. But from what I, all the indications are that the meeting didn't go well, that Macron are humiliated, an angry Macron, was not at the best mood to receive Xi Jinping. Now, yesterday, by the way, Global Times, which is Chinese newspaper published in English,

and which is to a great extent addressed to an international audience. They published an extremely strong editorial about the United States. They said, look, Blinkin was here in our country 10 days ago. Look what's happened since then is everything is going from bad to worse. The United States and the West are at a crossroads. It almost gets the sense that the Chinese have had enough, that they're washing their hands of the whole affair. They've been making various attempts to get through,

both to the Americans and to the Europeans. And I think that the events of the last couple of days have probably made them feel even more strongly that this is a loss cause. So Xi Jinping goes to France. He has an uncomfortable meeting with Macron. He then goes on to Serbia. He goes to Belgrade.

I think he's there at the moment, actually. He's commemorating the attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. An important event, far from forgotten in China itself. But he didn't need to go there. He could have sent another Chinese. official. The fact that Xi Jinping is involved in the commemoration of this event in Belgrade,

I think again conveys to the Chinese people to the Chinese public, that the Chinese government has come to the conclusion that the West is more than just an adversary. It's an outright enemy. And he's going to go on from Belgrade to Hungary. He's going to meet Orban. you can see what Xi Jinping is now doing is he's checking out with China's allies

in Europe Hungary and Yugoslavia Serbia rather under an awful lot of pressure and Xi Jinping is telling them look you've got you've got China at your back we're there

we support you whatever the EU does we're there for you if you need this all right we will end it there the durand dot locals com we are on romeball odyssey but shoot telegram rock finn and twitter x and go to the duran shop pick up limited edition merch the link is in the description box down below take care