The Duran Podcast - Senate $61B to Ukraine to stop Trump in 2024

Episode Date: February 13, 2024

Senate $61B to Ukraine to stop Trump in 2024 The Duran: Episode 1828

All right, Alexander, let's do an update as to what is going on in Ukraine. We have $61 billion, which is trying to make its way to Ukraine. It's moved through the Senate. It'll go to the House. Most likely Johnson will turn that money down. He'll send it back to the Senate, and we'll probably go through the same song and dance again. Who knows what will happen there. we have the collective west media talking more and more about how ukraine is running out of weapons

running out of ammunition the new york times is saying that ukraine is uh running out of soldiers and it's now trying to mobilize soldiers under under 27 years old and this is a very controversial bill that is making that is making its way through the ukraine parliament and of course you have everything that's going on on the front line in uh have defka is that's probably the most important area on the front line at the moment. And things are not looking good for Ukraine there either with the new commander in Syshevsky, someone who is very aggressive and who appears to be doubling and tripling, quadrupling down on holding the city of Avdefka.

So what is the situation? in Ukraine. Well, let's start with the battlefield situation because to remember, that is what ultimately drives everything. I mean, if the situation really were in stalemate, if we had the kind of stagnation in the war, the people like Zelensky are now talking about, a situation where there isn't an pending military crisis, all of the other things that we were talking about, you know, Zolluzni, Siersky, the rush to get the bill through the Congress, the mobilization law, all of that. People would be much more relaxed about these things. The reason they are in, there is a sort of growing sense of panic, is precisely because there is a military crisis on the battlefield.

And it's not just focused on Abderafka. This is an important thing to understand. This time last year, we were talking a lot about the Battle of Bachmann. And what was actually happening at that time was that elsewhere, the front lines were actually pretty static. The Russians were not attacking. They were building all their huge fortifications, reinforcing their troops and preparing for the Ukrainian offensive, which was to come. And the Ukrainians for their part were working with the West about repairing. for their summer offensive, which, as we know, they launched eventually and which turned out

disastrously. So when we were discussing the situation in Ukraine, the battlefront situation in Ukraine, this time last year, there was only one big battle going on. And that was back, Bachmann. There were Russian missile strikes that were taking place on a regular basis, as there are still. But Bachman was the only place that was being fought. for. This is not the situation now. The Russians are attacking right across the combat line. And just to give an example, over the last couple of hours, it's been lots of news pouring in about another Ukrainian collapse, this time near that town of Marinka, not far from Avdewka, which the Russians captured a few weeks ago. They completed the capture of it a few weeks ago.

and they're in the process of mopping up a series of villages near Marinka, Georgievka, Novomichaelovka, Pabieda, once they capture those villages, they're in a position to cut off supplies, or they're threatened to cut off supplies, to another important Ukrainian town to the south called Vuglada. And if that happens, then, as I said, Ukrainian defences at the south of Dombas start to collapse. So there's major battles going on there. There's major battles going on further north.

So the Russians are now pushing again very hard. Near Bahamut to the west of Bahamas, they seem to be pushing the Ukrainians very hard towards the Bahamut. Now, again, there's tidying up that in the process. of capturing to further villages in that area Bogdanovka and Ivanovska. The Ukrainians are trying to defend. Losses in the Bahmuth area are extremely hard, Ukrainian losses. And of course there's also fighting going on further north. Liman, Kupiansk, the Russians have made major advances in that area recently.

And there's worries that they might start something more. something more. But, you know, the battle that everybody's talking about is Avdhaevka. Now, the Russians have penetrated deeply into Afda'aafka from various places. And remember, this is a relatively small place. It's a town of 12,000 people, of 32,000 people, sorry, before the war. So it's relatively small, it's relatively confined. We're not talking about a huge place. It's smaller

than Bachmann and it's much smaller than other places that the Russians have captured previously like Severodonets Lizzy Chansk Marupol. So the Russians have penetrated deep into central Avdavka from the north.

They penetrated deep into Avdewka from the south. By some people's estimates, They already control around a quarter of the town, and they're also tidying up, again, Ukrainian fortifications that exist around the town, and they've concentrated large numbers of troops there. Because Abderfka is attracting so much attention,

and perhaps because it is also a place of strategic significance, though I saw the first article the other day in the British media saying that it was only of symbolic significance. Remember how they said that about Bachmuth and now saying that about Avedevka again? Anyway, Zelensky and his new commander, General Searski, have apparently decided that Avedevka must be held at all costs. They're doing exactly the same thing that they did in Bahmuth.

And over the course of the last few hours, we've started to see again a big pile up of Ukrainian brigades in the Avdyevka area, all being rushed there to try to prevent Avdavka from falling. And this is, of course, causing those brigades to suffer enormous losses because the Russians have complete air superiority in this area, an overwhelming artillery superiority also and there are already complaints that this is a new meat grinder just as bachmuch turned into a meat grinder for the Ukrainians this time last year of d'evka is on the brink of doing the same thing now i have had a number of private emails about this most of them make the obvious point that this is

again, Siersky Zelensky, wanting to avoid a PR defeat, which is what would happen if Avdavka fell, and also worried about, some people worried about, you know, its potential strategic significance. Well, I've received today another very interesting email from someone, from I can't disclose who he is, but he's somebody who's been very, you know, provided very interesting information in the past. And he says that one other reason why these units are being, Ukrainian units

are being rushed to Afdivka is because they are the units made up principally of the hardline nationalists including units like the third brigade, which

was the Azov, is Azov. That's the Azov regiment recreated. And Zilluzni, who had connections with the hardline nationalist tyrant in Ukraine, was holding these units back. And they are seen by Zelensky and Siersky as being in some way personally loyal to Zalusni. So they're being rushed into battle in order to keep them away from Kiev, where they might potentially become involved in any kind of political.

crisis that might happen there. Now, I don't know whether that is true, but it is certainly an intriguing idea. Yeah, could I push back on that a bit? I think there's some truth to that, but I would imagine that these types of units would understand that they were being used. I mean, I would imagine that's illusion. He still has contact with these units, and he would tell them look, they're trying to destroy you guys, you know, because you're obviously loyal to me and they're afraid that, you know, they would, that these units could turn on, on, on Zelensky. It's possible. I mean, I can understand it, but I don't know. I'm thinking about that. I'm, I'm just a bit skeptical that, that they would go along with something like that.

It goes, it comes along with some further information, which is that apparently the, uh, commanding, of all of these units are being changed. Yeah. So there is apparently a thorough purge going on of all of the middle ranking and senior commanders within these units. And, you know, it's possible that this is the plan.

You know, you talk up, Abderfka, you say this is the key battle now. We can't have all of these important units in the rear doing nothing very much. It's essential. al-Afdavka, so we send them there. But you're absolutely right. And by the way, and this is where I think we now come back to that article in the New York Times. And there's been other articles now, I think, also about

this. There's one in the Kiev Independent about massive manpower shortages experienced by the Ukrainian military at every conceivable level. But also growing resistance to conscription within Ukraine, with protests now starting to spread to villages in Western Ukraine, in Galicia, in other words, the most nationalist areas. And the people in those regions are the people who are also likely to be providing most of the soldiers who go into these units that are being rushed to Avdavka and the way. that they are being. And, you know, it might be that you're starting to see sort of disaffection, starting to filter through between the units, the people back home and all of that. Anyway, I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but it is certainly an intriguing thought.

And there is clearly mounting tension in Ukraine itself. Just to clarify, we're talking about the Azov guys. I mean, the Azov guys. I'm making it a bit more simple than it is, but we're talking. about the far right Azov, of which they are loyal to Zillusini. And these are the same far right units, which Zelensky fears the most. So you could say that one of the ways to deal with these units is to send them to Avdivka. That could be, the argument could be made there. Obviously, as you noted, if you're going to get rid of Zilluzni, you do have to purge the military of

whatever people are loyal to Zalusia. So he's going to have to do that. Zelensky's going to have to do that. And Siersky is going to have to do that. So this is a very dangerous time for Zelensky to be quite honest, because Zalusni and these commanders and these units, these Azov guys, they know what Kiev is up to. I mean, you know, if you're a member of one of these units,

you know that Zelensky is sending you to Avdekka in order to get rid of you. I mean, that's obvious. So this is a very dangerous moment in time for the Zelensky government. And you also have political parties, which are not so united with the Zelensky government anymore either. We're starting to see a fracture in the unity between the different political parties in Kiev as well. And a lot of that is due to this mobilization law. Of course, how things are going on the front line. Yes.

This is exactly what. I mean, the political situation in Kiev is becoming fractured. So there's Poroshenko coming out, making speeches in the parliament, basically calling for Zelensky to resign. And of course, as we discussed in a recent program, Yulio Timoshenko circling and making her own points. And of course, Vitalikl, the mayor of Kiev, also making his own contributions. So it is a very tense time.

And if you read those articles, which are appearing in the US media, the New York Times, ever, you do get the impression of growing tension within Ukraine itself, that there is now a tipping point coming where either people become demoralized and feel that the war is being lost, and that makes them less willing to be conscripted and all of that. Or, which is, you know, the two are not immutile exclusive. They become increasingly angry, and they take out their anger against Zelensky, at which point his political opponents, Klitschko, Poroshenko, Zaluzny, Timoshenko,

they're all there circling and ready to make moves, and of course, disaffection in the army itself, or at least amongst parts of the military. is growing as well. There's a very, very tense situation. Is this the right time for Zelensky to be going on a road trip? Because I heard in the lead up to the Munich Security Conference, which I think is going to be taking place either end of this week or next week. Zelensky is going to make another tour of Europe in order to ask for more money and more weapons and to talk up military production facilities in Ukraine and taking on the Russians in five years' time and all of this nonsense. But, you know, I'm a lot of, you know,

I'm just wondering if this is the right moment in time for Zelensky to leave Kiev, given the circumstances that existed in Ukraine at the moment. I mean, it's a good time if you're one of these opposing parties, these opposing factions, it may be a good time to make your move. What it did. I mean, maybe. I mean, he would probably say that it is the best on, if, you know, when the situation in. in Kiev becomes very hot. We've seen this happen many times. He tends to leave.

And there are two advantages to him for him from this. One is that he shows the people back home, that the West still backs it, the Europeans still backing. And of course, that's absolutely critical. All of these people, Borischenko, Klichko, delusioning himself,

Timoshenko, know that without the backing of the Europeans, especially given that there are so many uncertainties about what will happen in the US without the backing of the Europeans. I mean, the whole situation just implodes. So that's one thing. So he shows off the fact that, you know, he's still got the backing of these people in Europe. But the second thing is, of course, he's personally safe.

So there is a move whilst he's away. He's not caught up in it. And, you know, don't discount that. That would probably be a factor. get the impression that Zelensky is someone who whenever the situation in Kiev becomes tense, his instinct is not to stay, but to leave and to go on his travels, to pack his bags, and go around the European capitals. I mean, we've discussed how aimless many of his trips historically have been. Yeah, he feels safe in the arms of Sunak and Makron and these guys.

I imagine they provide a certain. comfort to him. You mentioned that another reason for Sierskis and Zelensky's decision to try and hold on to Bahmoud is the money situation, the $61 billion from Congress and the weapons situation. Obviously, you can't have a retreat from Avdivka. If you're Zelensky, you can't have a retreat from Abdifka, you can't have the fall of Abdifka, while at the very moment Congress is debating, giving you $61 billion. That would be catastrophic. And I also imagine because the media and PR is so important to Zelensky, you also don't want this retreat from Abdifka or fall of Abdufka as you're approaching the two-year anniversary of the special military operation. So I imagine these are pretty important factors for their decision to try and hold on to.

have, Diffca. Absolutely. No question about this. And of course, the election issue is an important one, because his term constitutionally ends in May. Elections were supposed to have been called for March. Of course, all of that has been cancelled because he's announced that there's, you know, going to continue to be martial law. Marshal law, the martial law, the provisions apparently say that there can't be parliamentary elections whilst there is martial law. They're less clear about the status of the president. But of course, if the war is being lost and he is still serving, he's still there beyond his term, then of course his opponents are likely to make that an issue.

And of course, if Avdavka is lost, it will be very difficult to argue that the war. war is not being lost. So it becomes particularly important to hold on to Afda'evka and to do everything possible to try to retain it. So that is one factor. But of course the other factor is the United States. And of course it's essential to say that without the United States, this whole thing collapses. 80% of the weapons Ukraine has received come from the United States. At least 80% of the Western weapons Ukraine has received come to the United States. The United States bankrolls Ukraine. The European Union does what it can, but the European Union is in deep crisis. It's not able to do significantly more than it is doing. And again, the United States has been

the US, which has been providing most of the funding. And if US aid is significantly reduced or even withdrawn, then the whole situation becomes unsustainable. And everybody knows this. Zelensky knows it, Zoluzni knows it, Sirskyy knows it, the Europeans know it, everybody knows it. They may be pretending that Ukraine can go on fighting without American aid, but everybody knows that it will start to collapse and collapse very fast. We're getting reports. The ammunition situation is now catastrophic. The manpower situation is catastrophic. There's no missiles, air defense missiles, apparently due to run out in March. Here's the thing. which of course people don't want to talk about,

which is that of course, the Biden administration, for its own reasons, wants to get the $61 billion package to Ukraine past. Republicans in the Senate have split. So the McConnell faction has been supporting this, but we can now see that that consists of 17 senators. The remaining senators, the remaining Republican senators, who are the majority, over 30 of them, are either voting against

or some of them in the last vote abstain. And senators like Johnson and J.D. Vance are becoming increasingly critical. And J.D. Vance is now writing to all members, Republican members of Congress, pointing out that the way in which the current appropriations bill is drawn up. up. It looks like an impeachment trap that's been laid for President Trump if he is re-elected in November and tries to stop Ukrainian aid. I'm not saying it would be an impeachment trap that would succeed, by the way, but anyway, J.D. Bans is saying that. So, one gets to sense that Republicans, most Republicans, are becoming increasingly wary of this. and

Johnson, Speaker Johnson, will probably oppose it. But let's assume that all this is wrong and that it is put to the House and there is a majority in the House, which there is, by the way, funding for Ukraine.

And this bill passes. The reality is it will keep the thing going for a few more months. But we've known, had information from the man in the Pentagon who is in charge of equipment issues. And he's confirmed that artillery shell production has only increased from 14,000 shells to 28,000 shells in the United States per month.

Ukraine says it needs 6,000 shells a month. The American arsenal, the shells, has been massively depleted. So the United States isn't producing enough. You say 6,000 shells a month? Sorry, 6,000 shells a day. That's what Ukraine is. Ukraine is 6,000 shells a day. We're looking at 4.5 days.

That's monthly U.S. production, just enough to cover Ukraine's full needs for 4 and a half days. Add in the Europeans, you can probably stretch it. to five. It's not enough. And that is the underlying problem. And the same man has said, look, we can increase shell production to a certain extent. We're hoping to do more of that next year, but he's explained all the enormous problems. You know, we've got the steel, apparently, but we don't have a lot of the things that we need to make the explosive charges. This is all going to be very difficult. It's not certain we can produce the number of shells that Ukraine would need even next year. And perhaps not at all. Not about, he's not even, I mean, it would be 80,000

shells a month. That's the plan for next year, which is just over 10 days of what Ukraine needs in a month. Not enough still. But anyway, but he's not even confident, it seems, that he can achieve that. But in terms of air defense missiles, the situation is actually worse because show production in the United States is made by a state-owned factory. The Pentagon can do some things there. In terms of missile production, that's done in the private sector. There is no search capacity. And missile production is all tanked out. And all of it is allocated either to the US military or to US allies and there just isn't enough there aren't enough missiles to spare. So even if Congress comes around and passes this thing, it will buy Ukraine some more weeks or months, but it cannot change

the underlying problem. And I don't know whether Zelensky's illusion, all of these people in Ukraine really understand this. One senses that they're sacrificing lots of, of people to fight on in Abderafka in part to impress the United States without understanding that in fact, however hard they try, the ability of the United States to continue to support them is coming to an end. Yeah, they still haven't realized that the U.S. is going to drop them sooner or later. But I think the main question to ask you, I think the main question that everyone should try to think about is does does the 61 billion and these increases in weapons production does it get Ukraine over the November 2024 mark is it enough to get them past November

of 2024. And if you're McConnell, does funding Ukraine and getting some money to Ukraine also work to damage Trump? Because every article that you read, which is connected to the funding of Ukraine, always talks about how Donald Trump is sabotaging Ukraine and how Donald Trump is influencing these Republicans and how it would be a massive defeat to Donald Trump if this money goes to to Ukraine. So does, is this enough? Is the 61 billion? Is it enough to get Ukraine through November 2024? And would it be enough to to derail the Trump train? This is the $61 billion question. I don't know. I think anybody can say that can say definitely. I'm going to make two observations about this. I think first of all, you're absolutely right.

the entire purpose of the $61 billion appropriation is not to win the war in Ukraine. I mean, that is lost. And I think everybody in Washington, who is not sleeping on the wheel or has their mind in some other place, they understand that by now. It is to get the election won and to prevent the orange man returning to the White House. This is the underlying overriding. This is the real concern for the Americans. It's also, by the way, increasingly, the real concern for the Europeans as well.

That is why they're still backing Project Ukraine. Because they don't want a debacle before the election, which might derail Biden's still existing re-election hopes. The problem is, anybody knows for certain whether this would be enough. And the huge risk is that if it is not, if you suddenly see a collapse, you get this appropriation and the money is provided.

And more shells are sent. And Ukraine collapses anyway because there aren't enough air defence missiles and there aren't enough men. And there's political problems in Ukraine. And the Russians take the actions that they do. And here I just wanted to make one, further point, which is, of course, Ukraine piling up its best troops to defend

Afdevka, facilitates the Russian policy of aggressive attrition. They're now going to be able to get their hooks on Ukraine's best military units. They're going to be able to grind them down. So by the summer, they're ground down. With the Russian army getting bigger all the time. Well, we don't know what the Russians are planning for the summer. And they're clear that they are not working to American political timetables. They mean, they're absolutely clear. But if there's a big Russian offensive in the summer and there

is a collapse, despite the $61 billion aid package, having been rushed through, or, you know, arms twisting, got through Congress, then of course, Biden is in the worst of all worlds, because his alibi has gone. You know, the Congress provided the funding. And not only is he gone, but then Trump is in a position to say, look, I wonder this would happen. You just Biden just threw good money after bad. Yeah, the risk is that this would make Trump stronger.

If the scenario that you just said actually plays out, the $61 billion goes to Ukraine, and the Russians do their thing and the collapse happens in Kiev, Trump comes out stronger, McConnell comes out a lot weaker, Graham, Romney, all of the rhinos come out a lot weaker. And Biden is finished. I mean, so this is a big risk that they're taking, but do they really have a choice? They don't have any other choice. No, they don't have any other choice.

If you're the Biden White House and you're the Mitch McConnell's, this is what you've got left. Well, it's correct. I mean, because again, they've ruled out negotiations. Putin in that interview with Tucker Carlson, he made it, you know, he said very clear, look, if Zelensky scraps the law, if the Americans want to talk, I'm prepared to sit down and I'm prepared to talk. But immediately, the White House, one of its people, speaks anonymously to the media, comes back and says, you know, this war is going to end with negotiations, But of course, the negotiations they're talking about are negotiations,

which would amount to terms for Russia's surrender. That's the only conception that neocons will accept. So he said that. It's going to be any negotiations. But Putin isn't interested in negotiations. And, of course, he's absolutely not interested in the kind of terms that the Americans, that the Biden White House and Zelensky are, demanding. So they've ruled out negotiations. I mean, the Russians say they're prepared to negotiate.

The Western powers, the Ukrainian, say we're not prepared to negotiate. So given that that is so, given that they've cut themselves off from that option, you're absolutely right. It's all they have. Get the $61 billion through, send whatever shells and missiles you can spare to Ukraine, keep your fingers crossed that the mobilization law will provide some more men and hope that all this is enough to keep things together till November because they haven't got anything else left. But my final question to you is the Europeans are in the same boat. I would say that the Europeans, they understand that this war is lost and they're probably even more afraid of Trump winning the election than the McConnell's and the Democrats. So for them,

it's also the same type of thinking. Just Zelensky last until November 24. Let's hope to God that Trump doesn't win the election. And then we can decide what's going to happen after 2024. But let's not get Trump into the White House, especially given the comments that he made about NATO the other day. So, I mean, for the Europeans, for them, it's also the same dynamic. Let's get past November 24 finish line. Let's get Ukraine over this finish line. And God help us, let's not have Trump win. Because for them, you know, we're talking NATO. You're talking all the money from the United States. I mean, you know, you want to talk about a political class of people that feed off of the United States. Well, you know, the European political class and they're scared

to death that they may lose that. You're completely correct. This is absolutely true. They are in a state of total panic about this. I mean, until a few months ago, they were in denial about the whole election issue. I mean, they still believed that Biden would come through in some way. They say to themselves, look, it's impossible for Trump to succeed with all of these cases against him. And he has so many negatives.

and all of that. Now, it's becoming increasingly clear that, you know, Nikki Haley is not going to dent him. He's going to get the Republican Party nomination. The cases that have been brought against it seem to be falling one by one. The Supreme Court looks overwhelmingly likely to rule in his favour on the disqualification issue. And, of course, we've had this disastrous report from special counsel, her over the issue of the classified documents about the president's condition, and that absolute complete train wreck

of a press conference that he gave. So the Europeans are now in panic, and they're saying, my God, there's a real chance we could get Donald Trump. And he's even talking about, you know, if we don't pay up for our own defense, then the United States might not come to our rescue. In other words, that NATO is in effect cancelled.

And this is completely freaked them out. By the way, can I just make the obvious point? If you follow the logic that the Europeans are applying, then a European country that is in NATO but doesn't spend any money on defence at all. If it's attacked by Russia, you know, there's nothing. to defend itself, it's still entitled. It still has a right to be defended by the United States.

Now, this isn't something, I think, that Americans, I'm not talking about the political class in the United States, but most Americans would accept any longer. And I think that regardless of what happens from now, from this point onwards, one of the things about Trump's comment, is that it smoked the Europeans out. It showed the extent to which his point about free riding is a valid one. There's even articles appearing in the British media that make that very point. There's one by Simon Jenkins, for example, in The Guardian today. And there's been others making the same point as well.

Yeah, well, I mean, you got to the heart of the issue here with the Europeans. I mean, they've been freeloading off of the United States for decades now. How do you change course if you're Germany or if you're France or any of these countries that have been benefiting off of the U.S. dollar and the U.S. government. I mean, all of a sudden, this guy, Trump is going to get into the White House and tell you, well, now you've got to spend 3% of your budget or 2% or whatever on NATO. And you've only been spending 0.5%. I mean, and you've been getting all the benefits. and this has been going on for 30 years, you look at this guy, Trump, and you say, are you out of your mind? Let's get Biden back in the world. Let's get someone else in the White House.

You know, I mean, it makes sense. Trump is right in what he said. But for the Europeans, the EU political class, you're talking about their money. You know, you're about to take away their easy money, not even their money. And the U.S. is money that has come to them. And it's been easy for them for the last 30 years. It's been very easy for them. I mean, this is profoundly shocking.

I mean, you saw that when Trump was president, how utterly dismayed the Europeans were that the Americans might be leaving. I mean, you know, they were in an absolute panic about it. There's that famous photo in which there's Trump with his arms folded, and there's all these European leaders, and they're furious and at the same time very frightened that the Americans might be going away.

But, you know, they do have. the Europeans, if they take a step back and think about it, they also have another option, which is that they can grow up and become nations again and actually stop thinking in that kind of way. You're shaking your head and you're absolutely right to because, of course, they're not going to do any of that. I'm joking, but the political class in Europe is never going to think in that way. but it is important to make that point because when European leaders come and say that there is no option, you know, we have to stick with all these current arrangements and, you know, we can go on, we must be allowed to go on free loading off the Americans indefinitely.

It is important to make it clear that, in fact, alternative options do exist. They can become free nations. they can follow their own interests, they can negotiate with the Russians, they can't reach understandings with them. This is a situation that doesn't benefit the people of Europe at all, as we see. It benefits the political class amongst them, and we mustn't conflate the political class, the interests of the political class, the European political class, with those of Europe as a whole, or rather the European nations as a whole. Okay, I don't want to make this video too long,

but let me take it from the other side of the argument. So the Europeans will come along and everything that we've just said, and they'll say, what are you talking about? We're freeloading off of the United States. The U.S. doesn't let us have sovereignty. They've got their military bases on our territory. They blow up our pipelines whenever we want to talk with Russia. So what do you expect from us?

we have to free load off of the U.S. because the U.S. won't let us have dialogue with any other country or pursue a sovereign policy. So, I mean, I guess it's, it is a very strange situation. It is a very strange. What would you say to that? Well, I will simply say this, that yes, the Europeans is absolutely true. I mean, this is the price they pay for their dependence on the Americans, the fact that they have all of those bases, that they're told the, the Americans what they can do and what they can't do. All of those things. It's true. You know, the pipeline's blown up, all of that. But again, it's the choice the political class in Europe

has decided to make. They want to free load from the US. They want the money from the US. They don't want to increase defence spending. They don't want to raise taxes or cut into their welfare systems. They want all of that. And if the price is, you know, unswervingly following the US into whatever reckless adventures it gets itself into, which the Europeans, by the way, nowadays tend to encourage, well, that's the price the Europeans up to now have been prepared to pay. I mean, what they could end up with, of course. It's not impossible. is that the Americans do decide eventually

to walk away in disgust because the Europeans have been freeloading. And in the meantime, the Europeans have destroyed their industries, cut themselves off from energy, antagonise the Russians, darn out all of those things,

paying the price to keep the Americans in, only to find the Americans in disgust, walking out. So the Europeans could end up with the worst of all worlds, I'm not saying that's likely any time soon. It's not impossible. No, I think you're 100% right.

I was thinking about this issue this morning. And to me, that seems to be what the political class in Europe have realized as well, that this scenario that you just laid out is very possible. And I believe that this is one of the reasons that we see the Europeans talking about how they're going to shift to military production. and they're going to combine all of their their capabilities together into one one big European Union that's producing weapons. This is going to be their new industry. This is going to be their big plan. We're going to create a Europe that's producing weapons, making ammunition, making missiles, building tank factories.

This is how we're going to approach the next five or ten years, given the fact that you could have Trump in the White House, Ukraine could lose, and we're going to have to, instead of talking to Russia, which they're never going to do now, they can't possibly have dialogue with Russia. Instead of talking to Russia, we're going to build a European Union that's going to be the number one weapons manufacturer in the world. That seems to be their plan. That's going to be the engine for their economies going forward. I mean, once again, you look at the articles and that's what you see shaping up. Oh, the rhetoric is absolutely there and the declarations. and all of that. The reality

is that weapons production in Europe is an absolute standstill and the militaries continue to decline. I was reading an article today in The Telegraph by Tim Collins, who's a well-known

ex-military officer in the UK. And he now writes for the Delhi. telegraph. And the title of his article is, Britain no longer has a military. That's it. In other words, the military situation, the military picture is not improving. It is deteriorating. And the reason

it is deteriorating is because the very EU structures which are making it impossible for the Europeans to sort out their relations with Russia also make it impossible. for them ultimately to engage in this kind of military production that they're talking about. I mean, it's, I mean, I don't want to go into the whole detail of this. But remember what I, about shell production, for example. Shell production, there's been, there is no unification in Europe on shell production. It remains done by private companies on a sort of small scale.

And every European state continues to have its own artillery production. And the shells are not always interchangeable, which is astonishing, even when they're of the same caliber. Now, the European Union actually up to now has not only tolerated it, it's like this. It's actually liked it because armies, strong armies, are symbols of states. they make states strong and the European Union doesn't like strong states, as we've discussed so many times. That's why we have all of these ideas about creating European armies and EU army and all that. But of course, that is running into a whole set of other problems. Yeah.

All right. Let's end it there. The durand. Dot locals.com. We are on Rumble Odyssey, but shoot, Telegram, Rock Finn, and Twitter. X and go to the DRAD shop, 15% off all T-shirts. Take care.