The Duran Podcast - Starmer agenda, defeat and destroy RUSSIA. Part 2

Episode Date: January 21, 2025

Starmer agenda, defeat and destroy RUSSIA. Part 2

All right, Alexander, let's talk about what is going on in Ukraine, and let's start things off with Kirstommer's visit to Kiev. We have a 100-year deal, bilateral deal, between the UK and Ukraine. We have in that deal talk statements, statements, about the UK having some sort of a military presence in Ukraine, having some sort of a naval present in the Black Sea, the Kremlin has responded to parts of this bilateral agreement between the UK and Ukraine. Of course, you have the UK and Kirstammer, once again putting out statements urging the incoming Trump administration to keep committed to Ukraine,

to keep the money flowing to Ukraine, and it's only through the escalation to Ukraine. that the collective West in the United States will be able to put the Zeletsky regime in a better position for some future negotiations. Inflict as much damage as you can to Russia and to Putin and that way you can put Ukraine in a better position further down the road for possible negotiations. That's the argument that they're making to Trump.

And here you have Kirstammer, who has now emerged, He has probably passed Macron, once upon a time it was Macron, but now Kyrs Stammer has emerged as the number one cheerleader for the war in Ukraine and for the Zeletsky regime. What are your thoughts? Absolutely. Now, I have to say, Stama went to Kiev. He signed off this document. It's not actually technically a treaty.

It's more a sort of memorandum of agreement, but it clearly sets out what the ultimate intentions of the British are. And by the way, this whole trip, that agreement has been barely discussed here. I mean, you see almost no discussion of it in the media here in Britain. I get the sense of the political class are absolutely united behind it.

And when you read the agreement and when you listen to what Stahner is saying, It's absolutely clear that what he's interested in, what the British are interested in, is not peace in Ukraine, not a settlement, a diplomatic settlement of the existing war. It is the absolute complete, unequivocal defeat and perhaps even ultimately destruction of Russia. Because you look at this document. And what does it propose? It proposes 100 years of military technical cooperation between Britain and Ukraine. The British are supposed to build up Ukraine's military industries.

They're supposed to share technology. They're supposed to provide the Ukrainians with security assistance. The British are ultimately going to establish bases in Ukraine. And that's made fairly clear as well. They're going to patrol and alongside the Ukrainians, with the Ukrainians, not just the Black Sea, but also the Sea of Azov. This is that stretch of sea that there is between Crimea and the rest of Russia, where the city of Marupol is located. Now, the Russians, of course, control the Sea of Azov. They took control of the Sea of Azov back in 2022. So all of that, all of that must be reversed.

as well. Then this agreement and all of the other things that Stama said, see to look forward to further terms that are going to be exacted upon the Russians going on beyond that. And there's also talk from Stama again, and he went about it quite openly and publicly, about deployment of British forces to Ukraine. Actually, well, they were described as peacekeeping forces in Ukraine. But then we had a follow-up article after his visit from the Daily Telegraph, which clearly was briefed by Stama's people after Stama's visit. And in that article, it says quite straightforward. It's obviously put there by Ukrainian officials, but remember, these are Ukrainian officials who are talking directly after the meeting between

Zelensky and Stama, and Stama's visit. It's a British newspaper reporting on the results of a summit meeting between the British and Ukrainian leaders. It talks about the fact that if the Russians renege on any ceasefire, then the Western powers should be prepared to fight the Russian army in Ukraine. They should be prepared to launch missile strikes, not just limited missile strikes, but conduct a missile and air offensive right across Russia itself, the world's biggest country, they should be prepared to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, excluding the Russian Air Force

from fighting, from continuing the conflict in Ukraine. So, in effect, what Stama is proposing is something that can only become possible through the defeat of Russia. And the mechanism is clearly set out in the Daily Telegraph article. Get a ceasefire. Insert British and French and other European troops. The ceasefire will, of course, break down. Then you have an all-out West Russia war. The Ukrainians have said what they expect.

No-fly zones. a missile strikes deep inside Russia, unending war of that kind, engineer Russia's capitulation and defeat. And then Ukraine becomes essentially a permanent British and Western ally brought ultimately into NATO itself. And this agenda is obviously, completely inconsistent with any plan towards achieving peace in Ukraine. I mean, if Trump is led into supporting this agenda in any shape or form, then there is not going to be peace in Ukraine because the Russians, of course, will never accept it. And the British obviously must understand that.

But then the article goes on to say that it's a sense. that Trump delay any contacts with the Russians. Why? They said that he should until Ukraine is put in a better military position. And when the negotiations do take place, they should not just be between the Americans and the Russians. Other parties should also be equally involved in the negotiations. other countries should be at the table. And the country that specifically mentioned is Britain. And of course, the British will come to those negotiations with this agenda set out in that document, which Starrma signed, whilst he was in Kiev, with the objective set out in that article,

that is set out in the Daily Telegraph. This is not an agenda towards peace. It is an agenda towards further war. And I think the Americans, Trump and people like him, need to understand that. And they need to keep the British very, very far away from any discussions that they have with the Russians. I would say after Christopher Steele and Trump's first term, I would hope that Trump and the Trump administration understand that the political elite, the establishment in the UK is definitely not Trump's friend. That's for sure. And it seems like the political elite in Britain, their goal is four years of chaos and war.

I mean, that seems to ultimately be, they don't want stability. They don't want the Trump administration to focus on America first, the America First agenda. they want the United States continuing to invest in the UK and in Europe. Invest in the war machine in wars and keeping the wars going with Russia. That's what they want. Why? Why does the UK establishment, more than any other country in Europe, as I said, they're even surpassing macron. They're even surpassing macron now. Why, why Why do they hate Russia so much? Why do they want to destroy Russia?

Why do they want to balkanize Russia? This never ends. This has been going on for what? 100 years, 100 plus years? What is there a problem with Russia? Does this go back to Tsar Nicholas? Is there something there? Is it connected to orthodoxy?

What is the reasoning behind this? They can't let it go. They really cannot let it go. He cannot let it go. We're 100 plus years. My God, let it go, British establishment. I know. Well, this is it because if I could say, there's apparently a study by a Harvard academic from

the 1940s, which I have not been able to find and read. I'm trying to get hold of it. But apparently it has looked at this whole question of this British obsession with Russia, which never seems to go away. And he traces it back to the 1840s. I think it's incredible. We're talking about that sort of time. What happened?

Well, what happened in the 1840s? Russia was at that time the most powerful country in Europe, as it is today, continental Europe, I should say. The Russians were instrumental in defeating liberal revolutions in Germany and Austria, Hungary. the British took that very, very badly. They were very, very worried about the growth of Russian power at that time. And to say bluntly, and this is a bit of revisionist history from Minga, they engineered the Crimean War. I mean, I think that this will be denied and rejected by many historians in Britain,

but the more we learn about the origins of the Crimean War, the more clear it becomes to me that this was basically British project all along. And we have gradually, over the last couple of decades, learnt what British war aims were during the Crime and War and surprise, surprise, they were the break up of Russia. I mean, this is a sort of, you know, endless, unending fixation that the British have been intervals when things have been slightly different. There were, you know, obviously the First and Second World Wars, there was a rather better, calmer period in relations between Britain and Russia during the 1960s, I well remember. But ultimately, we always seem to revert to this. But there is this extreme Russophobia in Britain, which I have some difficulty myself understanding. I've never really been able to understand why.

the British establishment is so, you know, obsessed with this. It is also undoubtedly the case that what the British are seeking in the conflict in Ukraine is not peace, but victory, victory in which they finally achieve that obsession that they've always wanted, hankered for, the taking apart the destruction. of Russia. But I think ultimately, what is driving all of these diplomatic initiatives of the British, their attempts at the same time as they're trying to completely subvert Trump's peace agenda, because he does have a peace agenda in Ukraine, they're simultaneously seeking a massive trade deal with the United States and are trying to persuade Trump to agree to that. What they're trying to do is they're

trying to keep the Americans in Europe. This is their ultimate obsession. Keep the Americans in Europe because without the Americans, Britain, more even than the rest of Europe, loses its position as a country that can still exercise some degree of global influence, at least in the imaginations of the British political class. If without the Americans, Britain reverts to being a relatively small middle-rank power on the fringes of Europe. And of course, that isn't something that they want to see. And if you can't keep the Americans in Europe indefinitely, and I think they're starting to understand that that may not be possible, then at least manipulate the Americans so that the Americans do that one thing which you hanker for most of all, which is the

destruction and end of Russia, which will then leave Britain as a strong power on a fragmented European continent. So, I mean, I think this is really what this is all about. It's, in my opinion, borderline lunatic. If I'd say probably it is lunatic. Certainly, it's delusional. Anybody who knows about the actual situation, the military situation in Ukraine, in which the Russians have achieved further advances, significant further advances over the last, well, since certainly since we last spoke about the military situation

in Ukraine. Anybody who knows the military situation in Ukraine, anybody who knows the military situation in Ukraine, Anybody who knows about the way in which Zelensky and the government in Kiev, their position is imploding, anybody who is looking at what U.S. policy is really about and what Donald Trump is really thinking knows how wild and absurd all of this ultimately is. But the British can't let it go, exactly as he said, and they're going to drive on this. And given how obsessed and fixated they are, it becomes particularly important for Trump and his people to keep a distance from. Yeah. Yeah. The argument that you have to give Ukraine more weapons and more money so that they can inflict some sort of damage to Putin and leave them in a better negotiating position is just absurd. The more this war drags on, the slower this war goes, I mean, we've been saying this,

I think for three years now, the slower this war goes, the worse it gets not only for Ukraine, but for the collective West. The last thing they should want is for this war to move slowly. For Russia, it seems the slower this war goes, it seems like things are getting better for Russia in a certain sense, economically, militarily, it seems like they're getting stronger and stronger. Yes. The slower this goes, while the West is getting weaker and weaker. Yes. Now, of course, you know, the war is horrible in that there's so many hundreds of thousands of

people that are dying, but it doesn't seem like Russia is in a rush to... to fold. Nor should they, because they seem to have all the leverage. I'm still trying to wonder what Trump could possibly offer Putin. This is the one thing outside of the security architecture. But anyway, maybe you want to address that. I mean, we've kind of talked about that at length. The whole concept of trying to drag this war on and on, longer and longer,

is just doing more harm to the UK, just as more harm to Europe and more harm to the United States. What do you make of the articles from the telegraph, an article from the telegraph, I believe it was written by David Axe, who has been covering Ukraine, where he talks about the closing up of the Baltic Sea now, Finland, Estonia, and they're looking to bot. I think the word he uses is bottle up, the Russian Navy. I mean, you know, it just keeps. on provoking. Yes. It's just constant provoking of Russia.

And then when Russia does something, they cry about it. Yes. I mean, it is an absolutely insane idea. I mean, again, if you look at the Baltic Sea, which is the most powerful country by far bitisarily on the Baltic Sea, which is the most powerful Baltic power? It is, of course, Russia. I mean, we talk about, you know, the Scandinavia, for example, but, you know, some Petersburg, the entire Leningrad region, all of that, not mentioned Kaliningrad, I mean, in industrial

economic population terms. They're far stronger. The Russian Navy is far strong. And remember, the Russians in the Baltic cannot, don't just have their Navy to call on. They can call on their air force, their missile forces, their army as well, if it were to come to a war. Again, bottling up the Russians in the Baltic Sea can only be done if the Americans are continuously involved in it. And that is something that all the Baltic leaders fully understand. It's what the British understand when they come up with projects about, you know, with the Ukrainians,

about, you know, involving, setting, you know, trip wire forces and missile wars and no-fly zones. They know perfectly well, they can't do that by themselves. They need the Americans involved. And again, this is what this is all about, get the Americans permanently patrolling the Baltic Sea to counter the Russian Navy. why would the Americans want to do that? That is the question that Donald Trump is saying to himself and the people around him. Why does the United States need to be committed continuously to patrolling the Baltic Sea? When it's the Baltic states, the Finns, the Scandinavians, the Baltic states themselves,

the British ultimately, who are refusing to come to some kind of general understanding and agreement about the Baltic Sea and how to conduct navigation there. And what does Trump have to offer Putin over Ukraine itself, to be clear about this very little? But over the longer term, looked at in a more, in a more, in a deeper sense, we're in deeper sense. discussed as issue of spheres of influence and that kind of thing. And Trump can say to Putin, look, we understand that you have your interests in certain regions. We have our interests in ours. Let's come to an understanding. We understand that you have interests in the Baltic Sea. We also understand that you have interests in some places in eastern and central Europe and in

Central Asia. We will respect that. You respect our interests. in other places, and let's leave it at that. And that's a much better understanding. There's a much better arrangement and a more workable arrangement for the future than these, I mean, crazy plans about trying to bottle up the Russians in the Arctic. I would point out, by the way, that it is only a fraction of the Russian, in the Baltic, sorry, in the Baltic. It's only a small fraction of the Russian Navy, which is in fact located in the Baltic.

The major part of the Russian Navy is located in two other places. One is the Arctic in Murmansk and those sort of places. And the other is in the Far East in Vladivostok. But I mean, the idea of closing, shutting down the Baltic is an absurd one. And we are now seeing the Americans again starting to pour cold water on this idea. The Scandinavians started arresting Chinese and Russian ships. They were spreading stories that the Russians had been cutting undersea cables and doing all that kind of thing. We now have an article in the Washington Post that straightforwardly contradicts this story.

They say it was just an accident. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Just a final question to wrap up the video. The Russian military, it's now reported from Ukraine media, actually, from Ukrainian officials. That Russia is now, I believe, 4.5 kilometers from Did he be? Petrovsk Oblast, that region, which means that the Russian military is closing in on the Deeper river. Exactly.

Exactly. One of the questions I saw actually a couple of times in some of your videos, some of our videos, was, and we've said this in the past, but I think it's worth you explaining again. Why you believe that it's a huge game changer once the Russians reach the Deeper? Why is it so important in this war for Russia to reach the Deneb? What changes so drastically when they do reach the Denebur? Because they're close. They're getting closer. They're absolutely very, very close.

Again, you need to go to the map and see where Ukraine's major population and industrial centers are located. Okay. One is the Dombas, but the Dombas is lost. The other is a cluster of places in the south-west of Ukraine around Odessa, stretching all the weight of the Wolf. But apart from Odessa itself, this is essentially a more rural, light economy area. The major industrial, economic, political heartland of Ukraine is in a series of important cities that are strung out along the NEPA.

One of which, of course, is Kiev itself. But there's Kiev, there's Kremlinchuk, there's NEPRO, there's Zaporosia, all of these places. Now, if the Russians reach the East Bank of the Dnieper in this central region of Ukraine, then the economic and political life of Ukraine is effectively paralyzed. Ukraine cannot function as a state if the Russians are over on the other bank of the Dnieper from NEPRO. By the way, I mean, I should say NEPRO is like all of these cities. It's got places both on the east and on the west bank.

Zaporosje, by the way, is mostly on the east bank of the Dnieper. But if Ukraine, if the Russians get here, it's... It's like it would be like a heart attack, a cardiac arrest for the whole of Ukraine. As a country, it would not be able to function anymore. Any idea of reconstructing Ukraine with the Russians on the east bank of the NEPA is unreal because this is exactly Ukraine's, where Ukraine's demographic and economic heart is located. All right. We will end the video there, the durand. Dot Locals.com. We are on Rumble Odyssey, pitch, Telegram, Rockfin, and X. Go to the Duran Shop, pick up some merch like what we are wearing in this video update today.

The link is in the description box down below. Take care.