The Duran Podcast - Starmer war summit. Coalition of willing to fight Russia

Episode Date: March 3, 2025

Starmer war summit. Coalition of willing to fight Russia

All right, Alexander. Let's talk about the meeting in London. The coalition of the willing has been formed, Alexander. Interesting name that Stammer chose, the coalition of the willing. It was a war summit. It was not a peace summit. It was a war summit. It's basically the Europeans saying that they want the war to continue, but they do not know how they will pull it off without the United States. States. That's pretty much what the summit was about. And so the plan is that they're going to present another plan to the Trump administration, at least Macron and Stamer. Other countries that participated are not so hot on the idea of escalating with Russia, even though they talk a big game, for example, Poland. They are saying that they're not going to contribute troops to the plans of Stommer. But all in all, I think you have a very muddled and confused picture coming out of London from this meeting of European leaders, of which the Baltic nations were not invited. You have Stommer talking about boots on the ground and fighter jets in the air and ships in the sea

and stuff like this. You have Macron talking about hundreds and hundreds of billions of euros being dedicated to Project Ukraine, putting another plan together to present to Trump. You have Ursula talking about military spending and turning Ukraine into a porcupine, a defense porcupine. And then you have other countries who are just not so into this. I would say Poland and perhaps you could say Germany is not so hot on the idea of sending troops into Ukraine. Though they all want to escalate with Russia.

They all want to go to war with Russia. They all want to destroy Russia. They just want the United States to do it, and they don't quite know how to convince the United States to fight Russia in Ukraine. Anyway, your thoughts on the meeting in London. I think that's exactly right. I have to say, in some respects, it's a very bizarre summit. It was a very, very bizarre summit because it shows political leaders who are at one of the same time utterly, you know, reckless, I mean, wanting to drag Europe again into a war, to escalate the war,

to create an even bigger crisis between, you know, Western Europe and the Russians. So that's one side of it. But also leaders who are completely delusional. Look at the way it began with Kirstama, the British Prime Minister, literally, literally embracing the Zelensky curse. He comes through, he comes from Washington. Zelensky comes from Washington. He's had this utterly disastrous summit meeting with Donald Trump in the White House, which has been, by the way, deeply misreported here in Britain. I mean, most of the conversation has not been reported at all, and we've been given edited clips of it, which have led many people

to think that Trump and Vance were bullying Zelensky, which, as I said, is completely didn't misunderstand the whole dynamics of what happened. But anyway, somebody who is now obviously damaged goods, to put it mildly, with the Americans who are the absolute, dominant, overwhelming stakeholders in this whole thing. And here we have the Prime Minister of Britain. He comes along and he hugs this man. We see, as I said, what happens to people who get too close to Zelensky? All you need to do is to follow the elections, the pattern of the elections across Europe and indeed the United States and see what happens to people who become too close to Zelensky and to the Ukrainian cause.

But that's what Stam elects to do. and that they call together this summit meeting, which is happening in London, which has roughly the same cast of characters as the summit meeting that Macron called in Paris two weeks ago. And they come up with exactly the same plan, send troops to Ukraine and get the Americans to provide a military guarantee that if those troops get into trouble, the United States will start World War III and go to war with Russia, something which the Americans have absolutely clearly said they will not do. So we have a situation where the Europeans are saying that they want to send troops to Ukraine. They're talking again about a ceasefire. The Russians have emphatically said that they're not in the business of negotiating ceasefires and they're not

prepared to accept troops in Ukraine. So that puts the Europeans on a collision course with the Russians. And the Europeans also say that they want an American backstop, American security guarantees, promises from the Americans that they will come to their rescue when they get into trouble with the Russians. And the Americans have made it absolutely clear that they do not want to give any of those things and will not give any of those things. And the Russians can't stand Zelensky. The Americans now are furious with Zelensky. So we see these European leaders.

They're going straight into collision with the two most powerful countries in Europe, both the United States and Russia. They seem to be intent on picking a fight with both. I mean, it's very bizarre. It's very, very reckless. And they get to presumably try to do all over again what Macron and Stama failed to do last week. They're going to go to Washington at some point, try to persuade the Americans again to give this backstop. I don't myself see the Americans changing their position here.

I think the Americans are very, very angry. And I think the Americans have worked out what the Europeans are about. Why would America want to go into World War III? Why would this administration want to go into World War III in order to enable the Europeans to live out their near-con dreams? And you're absolutely right to single out the expression, coalition of the willing. Where did we hear that used before? It was used by Bush and Blair at the time of their invasion of Iraq. It is near con language.

And one would have thought that that experience would be reason enough to avoid using that term. And here we see, Starmor comes up with it all over again. Yeah, so Stammer put out a statement after the meeting. And he basically talked about all of the things that Russia will know. never go for. And he also talked about all the things that really the United States doesn't have an interest in either, or at least the United States knows, is not up for negotiation. He talked about UK boots on the ground. He talked about some sort of a peacekeeping force of ceasefire, UK boots on the ground. He talked about investing in Ukraine's military and building up Ukraine's

military. He talked about Ukraine sovereignty, which he meant getting the territories back. These are all things that have been categorically, that the Russians have said no. They've said, we're not even going to discuss these things. And the United States has said, this is not even realistic. Why does Stammer harp on these issues? I mean, what's his goal here if all the parties that are currently negotiating, or at least two parties that are negotiating the United States and Russia because Ukraine doesn't want to negotiate, if they've said that all of these points that Stammer has brought up are just not even part of the

discussion, why does he insist on making it part of the discussion? Well, I'm going to say this straightforwardly. I mean, I know there's all sorts of people who believe that the British are playing some kind of, you know, complicated, cunning game here. I don't think so. I think with Stama, I've said this many times. I think what you see is what is there. I don't think there's anything more. I think he's absolutely fixated with Project Ukraine,

and I think he wants to keep Project Ukraine going. And he still believes in his immense diplomatic skills and believes that he could somehow turn the Americans around. There's also, and I have to say this, there's also this rumor that is circulating, which is perhaps more than a rumor, that the Europeans and the British in particular have signed all kinds of deals with the Ukrainians, ready to extract minerals in Ukraine and that he wants American protection to enable the Europeans to do that. And supposedly this whole business with the minerals extraction deal and the American one, that's all part of this. I don't know whether that is true. I mean, it could quite easily be true. But the point is, fundamentally, viscerally, the British cannot give up on Project

Ukraine. They, to a great extent, inspired it, they believe in it. They see it as the mechanism to keep the Americans in Europe. And this is, let me repeat again. I've returned to this point time and time again. This is the ultimate priority. This is the European concern that the Americans are going away and that the Europeans will be left. to deal with the Russians by themselves, with each other by themselves, without the Americans to hold the ring, and will be shown across the world to be these middle-ranking powers that were great ones, but are great no longer. That is the ultimate obsession that the Europeans have.

And, I mean, they're very, very frightened about this. They're trying to get the Americans to stay. but also emotionally, viscerally, they are too invested in Project Ukraine to give it up. And I think in the Stalmers case, he generally believes in it. I think that all of the leaders that were at this event, they all want to escalate. They all want to see regime change in Russia. They all want to see Russia broken apart. They all want to plunder and pillage Russia.

I think they all want this. And they'll use Ukraine to do this, and they'll use Ukraine to the very last person to do this. I don't think any of the leaders has a problem with that. I just get the feeling that the UK and France, France to a lesser extent, but the UK absolutely wants war with Russia. Yes. At least the establishment. They feel like they've got to go to war with Russia. And I believe it's, I agree with you that this is more than a rumor about this 100-year deal.

But I think it's more than just the minerals and stuff like that because we know that the mineral value is really not that much. I think this goes back to this UK aristocrat establishment desire, obsession to control Odessa, to control Crimea, to have a presence in the blacks. I think this goes back 100, 200 years. You know better than I can. That's just my sense of things. So for me, I feel like the UK establishment, the UK aristocracy, they have this sense that, you know, know what, we need to fight Russia. We need to get in the ring with them and get this over with. Yes, the UK against Russia, duking it out, finally ending this two, 300 year obsession that we have,

but let's have the U.S. sent to the fighting for us. So one quick, I just want to add one more quick thing before you talk about this. I just want to say that I feel that the EU wants the same, but, I mean, they wanted to Russia, but Ursula and the EU's aims are more tilted towards a slush fund for defense spending. And of course, the Eurobonds and stuff like that. I think that's where they would like to, or at least that's where they see the silver lining to this disaster, is Eurobonds more centralization. And they can do that in the form of a military spending slush fund.

So I just want to say that. They all agree. They're all in agreement. destroy Russia, regime change Putin, Balkanize the country, but the UK really wants to fight the Russians. While Ursula is saying, yes, we want to fight the Russians, but you know what, let's create these slush funds

and let's get some more money into Brussels and let's get the Eurobonds going and stuff like that. I just think there's a slight difference there in their objectives. I think that's absolutely true. I mean, there is a difference in, there is a difference in objective. but there's a unity, for the moment at least, on tactics. And that's the thing to understand about this.

Now, about the British having an absolutely unhealthy, morbid fixation with Russia, that is absolutely true. It goes back hundreds of years, as we've discussed. I'm going through a huge book by Harvard professor, Professor Greason, who discussed all this back in the 1940s. And even then he was concerned about it. So absolutely, there is this British obsession with Russia. It is, I mean, if you came to Britain, I mean, the way it dominates the media here, the media landscape, and how no real dissent to it is allowed, is, it's really quite troubling.

I mean, I won't go into this. But I think you're absolutely right. But let's talk about the fact that they do agree on the tactics. They both want war, or at least the disson. of Russia. Regime change there, the overthrow of Putin, going into Russia, seizing the resources, putting, if not Navalny, who's of course dead now, someone like him in charge of whatever there is, or perhaps even breaking the place up completely. Absolutely. All of them are agreed about this. This is fundamentally what all of them want. The trouble they have is that they know that without the United States,

That is impossible. They're revoked to risk World War III to achieve it, but they need the United States to come alongside and to do it for them because they don't have the military power, they don't have the political weight, they have no ability to do any of these things. And I come back to the Munich Security Conference of February 2022, because previously, previous administrations, Obama, very cautious, slippery man that he was, he had too much understanding to get drawn into that. He said that we're not going to take on the Russians in Ukraine. They have escalatory dominance there. Donald Trump wasn't into it at all in his first term and he really wasn't for it in any way. What then happened during the Biden,

period was that there was the alliance between the American neocons and the Europeans, because they were both united in pursuing this objective. Suddenly, it looked to the Europeans as if the Americans were coming on side and this campaign to destroy Russia, which, as you said, is their wet dream, was going to come true. You saw this extraordinary outburst of euphoria when they're all seen to happen. in February 2022. I can remember them. They were intoxicated.

They were drunk with expectation that it was going to come. There was this huge relief that finally the Americans were going to stand up to the Russians and smash them up and the Europeans would move in and take over. And now, of course, the horror that it didn't work out. The Russians proved tougher than anybody expected and more resilient. And the Americans are warm. walking away. So you see this extraordinary shift. They're now absolutely horrified by all of this. And they're coming and they're coming up with proposals, which are not really proposals.

You know, send a few thousand European troops to Ukraine, talk about sending your own typhoon fighters, all of that. It's just bait once more to draw the Americans into the war with Russia. into war with Russia, to get the Americans to go back to February 2022, but to escalate beyond that to actually press forward, start the conflict with Russia. Macron has been agitating to do that ever since the fall of the D'Arafka in February last year. And Stama has now joined him and is taking it further still. And you're absolutely right. That's that's what this is all about. Now, as you correctly said, the British are fixated about Russia. They have this obsession with Russia that goes back all of these hundred years. The European Commission, I think they're equally hostile

to Russia about they hate the Russians. But as you also rightly say, from their point of view, this is another crisis. You can't let it go to waste. You're going to float Europe bonds. You're going to set up defense funds, you're going to talk about a European army. None of this will happen. But in the process, the path towards deeper European integration will take, you know, you'll move forward much further along that path. And that's what the EU is up, basically, about the EU centre is all about. And some of the member states are looking on, some of them, like Maloney, very cynical about this, playing a rather complicated double game. Sanchez in Spain basically agrees with Ursula.

He's right into this, but he's supported by some left-wing parties in Spain, who are dead against this whole project. So he's got to worry about that because he doesn't have a stable coalition, and he knows that other people in Spain are against this idea. In Germany, they've had an election. where the parties that oppose these moves have gained significantly in strength. So there's no unity behind this in Germany either. So some of the member states, very skeptical, very dubious, the polls, as you rightly say,

who understand and know the Russians, but a lot better, despite the fact that they're so antagonistic to the Russians, or at least publicly so, they actually have a much better sense of what the Russians are really about. So they're not prepared to risk it and go to Ukraine. So behind all the platitudes and all the surface and as I say coming up with the same project time and time again and expecting a different result, even as the Americans drift away, you can see that the cracks are there just below the surface. Maloney actually mentioned that they exist. Yeah. The whole EU idea of building up defense

spending, pouring in hundreds of billions in defense spending and building up this EU army, producing artillery shells,

building facilities, stuff like that. We've been down this road a hundred times already over the past three years. They can't even

put together a million artillery shells. They've tried this. And they created a slush fund. And they told the member states to put whatever artillery shells into the slush fund, and then they would get reimbursed,

and also put money into this slush fund, and the EU would pay them back. I mean, they've gone through this entire thing with trying to build up military defense spending, weapons, stockpiles, and they failed over and over again. They haven't failed just a little bit. They failed a lot. I mean, spectacular, catastrophic failure. So this idea, this notion that Ursula is going to put together this massive, big fund where all of this money, hundreds and hundreds of billions is going to go into this big defense mechanism where Europe's going to turn Ukraine and all of Europe into this military porcupine, as she calls it, it's nonsense. This is money. This is a wealth transfer. It's money that Ursula is going to take from the European citizens, transfer it into Brussels,

and then the EU kleptocrats are going to start eating away at these funds. And they're now even talking, once again, about the $300 billion, which will also just be a grift. They're going to take that money, if whatever even exists of that money, whatever's left of it. And they're going to take that and pocket it as well. your thoughts on that, even though, I mean, you explained a bit about it, but I wish you would explain also a little bit, a couple of minutes on why the UK is so obsessed with Crimea and so obsessed with Odessa. What gives them the right to lay claim to these territories? What gives them the right to be so obsessed with historic Russian land? What is this obsession with the Black Sea that the UK has to the point where you have a bonehead like Stammer talking about putting UK boots on the crown?

The UK would just get absolutely pummeled by Russia. They wouldn't even last a week. No, they wouldn't last a week. I'm not exaggerating. No, you're not exaggerating at all. as Donald Trump pointed out to Stama in the Oval Office. I mean, he did it in the form of a joke. Well, a funny question. But you saw how everybody laughed. Everybody knows this. Well, you know, Professor Grierson to go back to his book, takes it back all the way to the events of the 1820s and 1840s.

Out of the Napoleonic Wars, two great powers emerged. One was Britain. The other was Russia. A whole literature was created in Britain. Much of it, you know, about based on Russian documents, which is fabricated. This is all the old story. You know, the words are old. It wasn't old then, but of course, it's the original story about Russia. Well, did take over Europe? You know, most of the myths about Russia that we hear about today, you know, there's this

trav, tyrannical, autocracy. see, this miserable and horrible place. It all originates in that time, miserable and horrible, and at the same time, unbelievably aggressive and incompetent and all of that. So it has got hardwired into the British system ever since then. And the key thing to understand about this issue for the British in the early 19th century is that it was all about the Black Sea. It was about the Russians advancing on Constantinople and taking over Constantinople,

something which, by the way, they briefly had plans to do in the 18th century, but then they dropped them. So, I mean, it was not actually, by that time, even a Russian objective any longer. But that the Russians would take over Constantinople, that they'd break the Ottoman Empire. That would then put the Russians in a strong position where they could advance and wrap up Central Asia and ultimately even march on India itself. I mean, if you know about the realities of the 19th century world, you would know that that was a complete fantasy. And you would also know that the Russians actually never entertained any of these bizarre ideas.

There was never any such plan. There was no great game, you know, the famous great game that the British and the Russians supposedly played out against each other in Central Asia. and all of the rest. The British was sending spies and agents into Central Asia and doing all of these kinds of things to take on the Russians. The Russians were barely aware that they were even there. But it wasn't even something the people in St. Petersburg, certainly, you know, the Tsar at that time wasn't getting up in the morning and asking what was going on in Central Asia. But the point was the British got hardwired with all of this. It was focused on the Black Sea

on Turkey, on Istanbul, as it is today, on Odessa, because Adessa was going to be the launch point of all of this, Sevastopol, which is the big threat. And of course, the British went there, remember, in the 1850s. And it seems that they've just not been able to get any of this out of their system at some deep level. It's still there. Now, that may seem very, very weird, but you've got to understand something about the way Britain works. In Britain, you have all of the formal structures that you see, you know, the parliament, the political parties, the elections and all of that kind of thing. But Britain also has an enormous informal politics that shades into its deep state as well. And if you look at the sort of key families that run things in Britain, and I'm not going to name any names, because in Britain we have very strong laws about doing this.

But if you look at them, it's the same people. It's the same people who were running things in the 1840s. They are there. They're there in the intelligence services and the foreign office, well, to some extent in the foreign office. And they still dominate and are able to shape these perceptions. So I'm afraid that's where it comes from. Now, the other thing that has happened since then is that, of course, Russia has remained a great power, despite all of the blows that it's absorbed over the last 150 plus years. Britain has not.

So what has happened is that because Britain is no longer a great power, it is stuck with the same set of ideas. that it had when it was a great power. It's still trying to finish off the battles that weren't finished and won back in the 19th century because that's really as far as they got. And they haven't got other things like the Americans do that are keeping them preoccupied in other places. So they're basically stuck on all of these ideas.

Mr. Grisselson's book, is a brilliant book, by the way, and very, very well worth reading. and it does explain an awful lot. So I've explained it. There's no rational explanation behind all of this. There's no threat to Britain from Russia. The Russians have never invaded Britain. They've never sought to go to war with Britain.

To the extent that either country has sought to conduct wars against the other, it is always the British who want to come after the Russians. It was the British who invaded Russia in 1854 during the Crimean War. It was the British who sent an expeditionary force to Russia during the Russian Civil War after the Russian Revolution. It's always that way around. So there's no actual threat to Britain from Russia. The Russians have a high opinion of British culture, you know, Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, all of that.

The British, however, stuck where they are, and they can't move on because it's the empire that was and that empire simply will not die. So they're following the old policies of the empire and they can't and they can't let go of them. Now, I mean, you can also find all kinds of other things, you know, ideas about mineral wealth. The British were heavily invested in the Russian oil industry through BP and all of that. But I think there's always this visceral obsession that is always there just under the surface. And whenever there's a crisis or an opportunity, it comes bubbling up to the surface. Now, what was the other thing that you were asking me about? I just mentioned the EU, the slush fund and how they've gone at this building, building artillery shells and building up a military.

They've tried this in the past three years over and over again to no avail. I have been going through EU plans to achieve great things since the early 1990s when I first started to, when the EU started to become the EU. It stopped being the European economic community and it became the EU, morphed into the EU. And I can remember plan after plan to do this and that. The EU, if you look to the plans of the early 1990s, they were supposed to have the most productive economy in the world. Productivity in the EU was going to be the highest anywhere. They were going to be the economic losses. You can go back, you can find all of those plans from before.

Then there was another plan about 20 years ago, that they were going to be the leaders by, I think it was 20-25, actually. They were going to be the leaders in digital technologies, the absolute leaders in all of these things. They were going to have huge industrial programs. They were going to have all of these things come together. And of course, they never managed to do any of this. And they never will. Because the whole structure of the EU works against it. Let's be straightforward.

I mean, if you are going to start setting up big industrial projects, industrial processes across the EU. You know, rebuilding factories, employing workers to work in those sort of factories, building up an engineering and management class to operate those factories. At a fundamental level, it's just a step back and think about what that means. You would be creating structures within the European Union that ultimately, would be hostile to the European Union. I mean, inevitably so.

You would be creating, you know, social demographic groups within the European Union, who historically a patriotic focused on their own countries, want to pay taxes to their own countries, believe in France, Germany, Italy, all of those kind of things. So the EU anyway is going to be viscerally against them. But also, if you look at the Commission, the EU Commission itself and how it is organized, you can see that there is no capacity there to create these kind of long-term planning structures that would be needed to pilot and navigate

through such a program. Once upon a time, Germany could do it, France could do it, Italy could do it, Britain could do it. But they cannot do that anymore. And the whole economic and political structure in Europe, which has been intentionally created over the last 50 years, works against it. Yeah. What money, what energy? With what energy? With what energy?

With what leadership? With what leadership? Who's going to plan this? I mean, we come back to this. I mean, the Europeans have talked incest. about creating their own social media platforms. There's been project and plan to do this one after another. It never happens.

It cannot. I mean, anything, if you're looking at Germany, as has been pointed out by many, many people, including in Germany itself, Germany in technological terms, compared to other countries, has been going backwards. backwards. I mean, it used to be a leader in aerospace, in rocketry, as we all remember, in advanced computers. So the first computers in the world were created in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Just saying radio electronics, you name it, the Germans are nowhere in any of these things today. I mean, they basically reduce to the car industry. And the car industry is also falling behind now. So there is no capacity to do any of this. There's no energy, as you said,

the energy is all about green energy. That's the great plan at the moment. We've seen that it's not really working. But the point is anyway, it's not even really about achieving these things. The European Union is all about process. It's all about money. It's all about circulating the money. It's all about meeting together and coming up with these pompous declarations and at the same time it's about centralizing power. That is its real objective. That is what it is actually hardwired to do. Industrial processes such as you do in China, Russia, and still to a great extent in the United States, that's not something that the EU is at all about. The EU has never created a personality like Elon Musk, who, whatever you think of here.

Built Tesla, built Starlink, built SpaceX. They've never done anything like that, and they never will. Yeah, I agree. There's going to be no big EU military industry that's going to eventually fight Russia, as Ursula is talking about. She just wants hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to put it in these funds. which is something that she's good at. Give her credit.

She's good at creating funds and then she's good at distributing the money from these funds and then never talking about it ever again when people talk about investigating where the money went. She just says, I don't know,

I have no idea where the text messages went. Let's not talk about it anyway. It goes worse than that. I mean, you know, if you come back and you ask her, where is the money gone? Well, you're a Putin apology. Yeah, exactly.

You're a Putin talking points or whatever. This is her strength. That's the language. Yeah, that's her strength. So let's wrap up the video with the final question. Let's go back to Trump. The minerals deal, from what I understand, is off. They're not interested anymore. Yes. But Zeletsky is now saying that he will sign it. He actually said that he will even, once again, he said, I will resign. But we have to get NATO. We're in NATO. I will resign. If we're not in NATO, there's going to be no elections. I'm not going to resign. I'm not going to go anywhere. That's essentially what he said. And he said now he's ready to sign the deal. Yes. Does the Trump White House give it another go? I think it would be, it would be such a mistake to give this another go. But do you think they approach Zelensky again and say, okay, let's sign it. Let's go at this one more time. Let's do the minerals deal. Let's then use it as leverage against Russia. That's what Trump was talking about. Let's save your country, all that stuff that Trump and Vance were saying before everything broke down. Do you think? think that's going to happen, or does the Trump White House finally do the smart thing, which we said they should have done six months ago and avoided all of this? Just walk away. I agree.

Walk away from it all. I agree. And they've got a great opportunity, by the way, to walk away now. A great opportunity. Yes. Now, my sense is that that is exactly what they're doing, by the way, that they are walking away. All of the messaging from the moment is that they're not interested any longer in the mineral extractions deal. Now, I've come to my own view about the mineral extraction deal, which is separate from this idea,

though I think there is probably some truth, that, you know, the Americans have worked out that the British and the French and all the others had all of these deals already done. And it was basically an attempt to embarrass the Europeans about this. And I think there may have been some element of that. But I, the overwhelming sense I have got is that for the Americans, for the Trump people, The mineral extraction deal had become a test for Zelensky's good faith. Was Zelensky really interested in negotiating a settlement, a peace settlement with the Russians? Was he really interested in negotiating with the Russians and accepting American mediation and American brokering of such a peace settlement? If so, then he should sign the mineral deal because at that point it makes sense.

because you can't develop minerals without peace being returned to Ukraine. Or was he on the contrary, somebody who's not really interested in the minerals extraction deal? As such, he's not really interested in building up the economy of his own country. His real objective is to keep the United States involved and drawn into the war. And what became absolutely clear to the Americans on Friday is that it's the second. He doesn't really have any belief in the mineral extractions deal. For him, the only point about the mineral extractions deal is that it's a bribe to get the United States to provide security guarantees to Ukraine, which could involve the United States

in a conflict with Russia, in effect with World War III. And that was what Trump and Vance, what made them so angry in the Oval Office, because they saw Zelensky once again relitigating the whole topic of the minerals extraction deal, holding out for these military guarantees from the Americans. And the Americans said to them, you're not interested in peace. You're not really about peace at all. You have no real serious intention to commit your country to be. peace. All you want is to bribe the United States so that we give you these guarantees so that you can go on with your war against Russia. So that is my understanding of where the Americans are coming from. Now, if I am right, then their position, which is that they're not going to go back to the

minerals extraction deal, at least while Zelensky is there, my understanding. My understanding, understanding, I think, is consistent with American intentions. And I think that they will simply reject all proposals from the Ukrainians or from the Europeans on Zelensky's behalf, you know, to do so. They will say to the Europeans, look, until Zelensky can persuade us that he really is interested in peace, we're not interested in this. We've said we're not give guarantees. He's got to accept that he is not getting guarantees before we sign this. Yeah. Yeah, I think you're right, actually. I wouldn't be surprised. Just a final note. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump had the Trump team was talking to the Russians and the Trump's in the Trump team said, are you guys interested in peace?

Are you guys interested in negotiating? And the Russian team said, yeah, absolutely. Look, we've always said, We're interested in negotiating. We're always open to talk. Yes. And then they said to the Trump team, but Ukraine is not interested. Zelensky is not interested. Well, how do you know a Russian team? You know what?

Just go put this minerals deal there. And you'll find out exactly what we've known for not three years, for 10 years. Just go ahead and float out these ideas. And you'll see Zelensky is going to screw the whole thing up. and that's exactly what, because he's not interested in peace and that's exactly what happened. Exactly. So I think that's the conclusion the Americans have reached. And that is the important one.

That is the overriding one. For them, the minerals deal was a, as I said, was a test of good faith. Zelensky has failed it. So since they've concluded that he is without good faith, they've no interest in continuing with the minerals extraction deal. And they're going to move forward, I think, to slowly, we're not slowly, probably quite quickly, disconnect from Project Ukraine. And you know, the U.S. can negotiate with Russia. And I've read reports saying that they're now accelerating the negotiating process with Russia and the meeting between Trump and Putin.

And they can talk to Russia about all kinds of things without even touching Ukraine. Yes. And they'll talk about Ukraine. I'm not saying they won't. but they don't need Ukraine to sit down at the table across from each other and discuss things. This is the absolutely key point that people don't seem to understand. The meetings that have taken place between the Russians and the Americans up to now, obviously they talk about Ukraine, but it's not the only thing they talk about.

There was a very successful meeting in Istanbul between the Americans and the Russians on Friday. They've unblocked their embassies. The embassies will once again, both embassies will once again get reconnected to the local banking system, which is important. They will have ambassadors in their countries. And they're now talking about restoring airlings. Commercial? Commercial air links, absolutely. That's the next step forward.

Boy, is that going to put Europe in a box? Well, absolutely, yes. Right? Yeah. What does Europe do? What does Europe do, exactly? Exactly. If you start having flights between Moscow and New York.

Exactly. Yeah. What do they do? What do they do? That's my question to you. What do you think they do? Well, throw another fit and another tantrum. What do the airlines say?

Well, the airlines will be absolutely furious. They'll be saying, why are we being, you know, crushed in this way so that Stama, Usula, Mouts and Macron can strike a problem. because that's what it is now. You're going to see more and more of this. East German companies in East Germany are now saying, you know, for God's sake, hurry up. Let's get us reconnected to the Russian pipeline, gas pipelines again.

So, you know, you're going to see more and more of this. And I'm going to say something else. If this process of normalization, that's all we're talking about, by the way, normalization between the Americans and the Russians, not alliances or carving up the world between them, or anything of that. But if this process accelerates, you're going to see more and more European states by themselves going to Moscow, starting to cut deals. For the moment, it's only all ban and Fizzo who are ready to do this. But before long others will, the Italians probably at some point will.

I mean, I could quite easily imagine Maloney doing it at some point. and we'll start to see the whole thing begin to crack. So it's not a sustainable position that the Europeans are taking. But of course, in the meantime, they will throw a tantrum when airline links. If they are restored, I mean, it hasn't been agreed yet, if airline links are restored, commercial flights are restored between America and Russia, as I said, there'll be tantrums, anger, more talk of betrayal, and Zelensky will be wheeled up to just, to talk about, you know, what a sad day this is.

And Stama will probably make some more statements or other. But with every step the Americans are taking, the cracks in Europe will widen. Yeah. That's the path to peace. It's so simple. Just normalize relations with Russia. And then everything else will just kind of fall into place in a way. Yeah.

Bear in mind that it was hostility to Russia that caused the war. The war did not create the hostility to Russia. It's the other way around. The war is a product of it. We will end the video there. The durand.com. We are on Rumble odyssey, bitch, you, Telegram, RockFit. And X, go to the Duran shop, pick up some merch like what we are wearing in this video.

Update the links in the description box down below. Take care.