The Duran Podcast - Trump foreign policy, chaos or realpolitik w/ Aaron Maté (Live)

Episode Date: February 11, 2025

Trump foreign policy, chaos or realpolitik w/ Aaron Maté (Live)

All right, we are live with Alexander Mercuris in London. And once again, on the Duran, we are very happy to have with us. The one and only, Aaron, how are you doing today? I'm great Alex and Alexander. It's great to join you. I'm a daily watcher of the Duran. So what a wonderful thrill for me to be a part of it, a part of a stream for a day. So thank you for having me.

Thank you for joining us. And we are looking forward to this show. Before we get started, Aaron, where is the best place for people to follow your work? Thegrayzone.com. I also have a substack, Aaronmatea.net. And a podcast I co-host with Katie Helper or Useful Idiots. Useful Idiots Podcast.com. Great show yesterday on Useful Idiots.

It's fantastic show. I will have all those links in the description box down below as well as a pinned comment when the live stream is over. Before we get started, Alexander and Aaron, Let's just say a quick hello to everyone that is watching us on locals, on Odyssey, on Rockfin, Rumble, YouTube, and a big shout out to our amazing, awesome moderators. Thank you to our moderators. Let's get going, Alexander, Aaron. We got a lot of geopolitics to get to.

So, gentlemen, the floor is yours. Well, absolutely, and nobody better to discuss it with Dan Aaron. I should say that I first got to know Aaron, I mean, to learn about Aaron and to appreciate his work during the Russia Gate's madness, if I can put it like that, is one of the very, very few sane voices out there. And I remember he'd going through painstakingly, all this extraordinary material that was being poured out at that time,

and just taking us through it and just unpacking it. So it just doesn't, it isn't what it seems. And here we are. And now we've got Trump. He's in the White House again. He's been there for three weeks. Everything seems to be changing. We're seeing events unfold at, you know, blistering speed.

But it's very difficult to tell exactly what is going on again. I mean, is this all for real? Is it just a fractional battle between different factions in Washington? I mean, I think that is one interpretation, that nothing really is. changing. It's just one group of people pushing out another group of people taking over. Things like USAAD will continue, but just under new management basically and with a redirected focus. Or is this something bigger? Is this perhaps a response to the enormous changes that have taken place in the wider world and an attempt by some people in Washington, by the government there,

by the new government there, to try to respond to these changes. But perhaps without having a very coherent idea at the moment of what they want to do or where they're going. Or in the third theory that I've also seen, is this a strategy. Do they know that their opponents are out there, that they could do again what happened in Trump's first term with Russiagate? So the idea is you attack them from all directions at once. You create a kind of atmosphere of bewilderment and chaos. You keep everybody of balance and then you move your agenda forward. But in that case, what is the agenda?

So these are three possible theories. I mean, you can come up with all kinds of others. But Aaron, let's go over to you. I mean, you've heard what I just had to say. I mean, do you think there is method to this? Do you think that there is, if not a plan, at least some kind of direction that we're heading towards? Or is it a mass of improvisations and perhaps a settling of scores, as some people are also saying? I think it's a bit of all the above.

And it depends by the issue. So, for example, is there a coherent plan behind Trump saying out loud that the U.S. is going to take over Gaza and not allow Palestine? Palestinians to return? Is that a deliberately thought-out strategy? Is that trying to box Netanyahu in, as some people have speculated? I don't think so. I think that's just Trump crudely expressing what's on his mind and expressing his beliefs and expressing the whims of his top donors, like people like Mary Madelson, who don't see Palestinians as having the rights of self-termination and have been devoted to the longtime Israeli project of undermining Palestinian national rights. And so Trump is just sort of saying out loud what he thinks should happen there with no real plan. to actually take over Gaza is if you'll ever send troops there. So that's where I don't think there's a method to the madness. But in other areas, in terms of putting Elon Musk in charge of cost cutting and going after these specific programs, there is something factional there. And that comes a lot, I would say, from Russiagate, you know, like which you mentioned.

A lot of these institutions that Elon Musk is now going after and Trump is going after, they're part of this sort of global so-called disinformation intelligence nexus that was used to undermine Trump. A lot of these experts that have received money through, you know, through U.S. government cutouts were part of that, you know, broader structure that did fuel into this Russia gate scam, which framed Trump as a Russian agent and which fearmongered about fictional Russian interference in the election and a huge industry was created out of that. And that was used to undermine Trump. It was a part of his first impression. impeachment when he was impeached after pausing weapon sales to Ukraine while asking Ukraine to look into the corruption of the Bidens. And so that definitely is factional. And there is an element of revenge there. That was a major factor in Trump, I think, appointing someone like Cash Patel who helped expose Russia Gate to head the FBI. And it's someone like Tulsi Gabbard, who's been

very critical and skeptical of U.S. intelligence claims to head the Office of National Intelligence. But then there's also just, I think, a traditional Republican thing going on where you have tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. Trump is talking about not touching and, in fact, maybe even increasing Pentagon spedding. While also claiming that Elon Musk is going to cut costs at the Pentagon. But what are the odds of that when Elon Musk is a Pentagon contractor who makes a lot of money off of the Pentagon's massive budget? So yes, in a certain, in a Russia gate context, in the context of lawfare being used to undermine Trump for a long time, it wasn't just Russia gate, then you had the raid on Mara Lago by the FBI. All those cases brought against them. The really trumped up case in New York about hush money payments that Trump's detractors thought was the end of his political career because he was found guilty for some stupid campaign violence, finance violation that no one cares about.

there is going to be some settling of the scores there. Another hand, a lot of this is just traditional Republican politics, favoring the wealthy, cutting social programs. Going into USAID, is he really going to take on the regime change apparatus of USAID? Or is he going after more the low-hanging fruit of like gender programs and, you know, so-called woke stuff that is an easy target? On the latter question, is he going after the regime change apparatus? I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm skeptical that he actually will.

Can I just say something, which is that regardless of what the motivations behind this are, we have learned an awful lot over the last three weeks about the way in which some things work. Now, it's well-known fact. My wife is an academic. One of the things that she has noticed, if I should not notice, I mean, it's impossible to avoid experiencing over the last seven, 10 years is this sudden explosion in the disinformation industry that has happened. I mean, every university pretty much in Britain, well, we live is involved. It's pretty much, I believe, the same in the United States.

In Europe, in Germany, where I also have connections, it's even worse, if possible. This disinformation industry is not a disinformation industry in the sense of attacking disinformation, It is essentially a mixture of a propaganda and censorship machine and a very, very potent one. All of the people involved in it all talk with one voice, which has really been quite extraordinary. And suddenly it seems to have been cut off at the root. And it's difficult to convey to somebody who hasn't been close to it in the way that, as I said, anybody in academia can understand. How disorientated and alarmed and frightened these people suddenly are. And I'm going to go back and say,

I think this did actually originate ultimately out of Russia game. I mean, no doubt a lot of was going on before. You know, regime change apparatus was there before. But it became this huge industry during Russia game, basically as a response to the first election of Donald Trump. and certain ideas of foreign policy that he expressed at that time. So have you anything to say? What are your thoughts about this?

I mean, isn't it any? Motivation's interesting, but revelations, extraordinary. Yes, I would add a British element to this, too, because I think also there was an element of Brexit in terms of motivating this whole disinformation craze and blaming Russia for everything, because Brexit, just like Trump's first victory, was also a rebuke of the establishment.

in the UK, this sort of, you know, financialized economy and people, you know, especially when economies aren't going very well. It's easy to find scapegoats. And given that our propagandism doesn't allow us to look at our elites and their reckless decisions and going to war and spending money favoring the wealthy and fueling conflicts abroad, it's very easy to demonize immigrants. And that's what happened, I think, with Brexit, along with genuine distaste with the establishment in the UK. And then you saw in the UK there was this effort to blame Russia. There was that whole investigation by parliament into Russian interference in Brexit. And it took a very, very long time.

And of course, after all the sphere mongering declarations that Russia was behind Brexit, of course, what do they find in the end? Nothing. They found nothing. And then, of course, when that happens, then someone can blame Russia for the fact that they found nothing because Russia hid them their interference so well. And so blaming Russia has been used by the neoliberal establishment in both the UK and and the U.S. for neoliberal failures. And that's what Trump also arose out of. Trump took advantage of the fact that people hate the establishment

for taking them off the country after war for deindustrializing the U.S. And rather than looking honestly at that, our elites here from Hillary Clinton on down came up with the conspiracy theory that Russia was involved in a giant, sprawling collusion scheme with Donald Trump. And meanwhile, the U.K. fed into the Russia-Gate scam

by giving us Christopher Steele and UK intelligence officials were warning their counterparts in the U.S. about Trump and his fictional ties to Russia. And what's funny now is now you have UK intelligence officials freaking out about Tulsi Gabbard and trying to warn Trump not to appoint her as if Trump is going to listen to the same people

who took part in framing him as a Russian agent on top of the fact that UK has a history of taking part in intelligence scams like IraqDs and the dirty war in Syria. So in that recent, I expect, I agree with you. That, that hustle, that scam of disinformation, blaming everything, everything on Russia, given that it was weaponized against Trump and his movement, and not just in 2016, also in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter claiming that

the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop was, in fact, all the work of Russia, there is going to be revenge for that now. There is going to be payback. And to the extent that that racket, that disinformation Russia gate racket intersects with, you know, hegemonic U.S. interests, that being exposed is a good thing. I welcome that. I welcome all sunlight on that. I just don't think ultimately someone like Donald Trump, who now is talking about blowing up the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, who's talking about getting Ukraine's mineral wealth and, you know, making Russia pay a heavy price through sanctions, not someone who's fundamentally committed to undermining U.S. Gemini. He's committed to undermining the aspects of it that have been used to undermine him.

And to the extent that happens, I think we'll learn a lot more interesting stuff and it'll be interesting to watch. But a fundamental realignment, no, I don't see that. I mean, it's important to remember which people, everybody is forgetting that Trump actually did try to conduct regime change in a few places. He specifically tried in Venezuela, for example. I mean, the whole Guido affair, which people don't talk about. But of course, that was law in his time and with his support. I mean, he was not in any way embarrassed about the fact that he was trying to overthrow

the government of Venezuela. It's just that that particular regime change operation didn't succeed. This is one thing I wanted to say, and this is before we move on to other things, and that is that what I do sense is that this thing, this vast regime change disinformation, apparatus did begin to develop over time a kind of motivation, a kind of purpose of its own,

in the sense that it was barely under control of anybody in Washington anymore. I've been reading with enormous interest what you've been writing at the Grey Zone, and people at the Grey Zone, have been writing about Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a country that interests me. I remember the uprising that took place there back in the early 70s. And of course, we have lots of people. from Bangladesh here in London. And it's quite extraordinary to see how it was all done. But at the end of the day, I couldn't really see the purpose of it. Anybody who knows about Bangladesh will know that this was not a government

that was in any conceivable sense hostile to American interests. And I almost got the sense that it was done because this is what the people who run, these things now do. It's their business. It's what makes them money. It's what keeps them occupied. It's become a kind of professional operation. And of course, they get very angry with anybody who comes along and says, well, you shouldn't do this thing because it undermines, if you like, their own livelihood and their own sense of purpose and their idea of themselves. So I just wanted to throw that out because I do think that there is a sense now in which we've gone beyond the old type of regime change operations that the CIA used to run in the

60s. It's become a kind of industry in which there are people who are beneficiaries of it. Anyway, that was my thought. Oh, it's a huge industry. And if you play along, you get promoted. In academia, you get promoted. In media, you get promoted. There's all these fake disinformation groups. There's a long list. What do they actually do? They put out these fake studies about Russian bots and narratives that contradict the U.S. line in Ukraine. That's all disinformation.

It's a racket. It's a giant racket. Yeah, people who want to have careers, who want to have opportunities, they want to get ahead. There's so many incentives to play along with it. And again, because, unfortunately, for them, it was used to frame a sitting president as a Russian agent. It's going to have problems now.

If there hadn't been Russia gate and Trump hadn't been framed by them, I don't think they'd be in as much trouble. But unfortunately, they went all in with this and why? Why were they so hell-bent on taking part in this? Again, there was the imperative of just, you know, demonizing, scapegoating Russia, blaming it for everything. That helps fuel tensions that lead to war, which is profitable for the military industrial complex. But also with Trump, people just lost their minds. And I saw this with Russiagate, the willingness of smart, informed people who have long been seen. skeptical, the national security state, willing to go along with this moronic conspiracy theory

that Trump was conspiring with or being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin and that Russian email hackers and bots and social media ads that nobody saw had brainwashed millions of people into not voting for Queen Hillary Clinton. People believed it because Trump just broke their brains and they couldn't handle his, you know, I understand people have good reasons to oppose him. he says xenophobic, misogynistic things. I mean, I get it. But they were willing to suspend their critical faculties to go along with something so dumb.

It ultimately, actually, by the way, I think helped them because if you're Trump and you're there and you're cutting taxes for the wealthy, you're making life wealth for your rich friends, what bigger gift to have your opponents, then to have your opponents focused on a dumb conspiracy theory rather than trying to organize an effective opposition, which is what Democrats have become.

And why Democrats are so ineffective now because people are tired of them. All the fear mongering about Trump is Hitler. He's a Russian agent. All these things. People have tuned it out because they're just bored of it. It doesn't land. So Democrats are in a real crisis now.

And Trump's in the driver's seat. I mean, he is. And they're taking advantage of this opportunity. I completely agree. What it has ultimately done is that it has made him far more powerful. And it has also exposed within the system. the sort of agencies that he needs to attack. And I think that's partly what's happened.

Now, if we could actually, because I think Russia again isn't the source of much of this, because one of the other effects of Russia again was that he caused an enormous crisis in international relations. Because the United States essentially was telling, saying that this country, us other country, this other nuclear power had interfered

in its domestic politics. And in the last weeks of Obama's administration, as the Russians never forget and always remind everybody, hundreds of Russian diplomats were expelled. Russian embassy property was seized. The whole, as you said, media propaganda war against Russia was unleashed. And everything has inexorably followed from that point to this complete crisis in relations that we have now. And, well, Trump back in 2015, 2016, 2017, was actually talking about better relations with Russia. And he seems to be making some kind of an attempt to resume a dialogue with them again.

It would be difficult to overstate the degree of skepticism and distrust of the United States that you find in Moscow now. You spend any time, which I do, reading the Russian media, listening to what Russian officials are saying, the degree to which the whole relationship is in crisis, almost irretrievable up crisis, cannot be exaggerating. What do you think? Is Trump serious about improving relations with Russia? Does he have a plan to end the war in Ukraine? At the moment, the Russians don't think so, by the way. But what is your thoughts about this? What is he aiming ultimately to do here? If you go back to the fall of 2017, which is like the peak of Russia gate, that's when Robert Mueller is issuing his dumb indictments that were really disingenuously worded to make it look as if he was uncovering a conspiracy of like evolving all these Trump campaign associates, George Popidopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort.

Trump said at the time something very prescient. He said, people will die because of this. People will die because of Russia gate. What he was saying was he was making an. impossible. This hysteria in the U.S. about Russia, this fake claim about Russian interference was making it impossible for him to fulfill one of his campaign pledges, which was to get along with Russia. On the campaign trail, he freaked out USA leads because he said, I think it would be a good thing if we cooperate with Russia. I don't want to have World War III over Ukraine. And people

who have made their careers around demonizing Russia, confronting Russia, couldn't handle that. And that was a major factor in Russia Gate, which is to box him in. And Trump, unfortunately, did not stand up to them policy-wise. He tore up at the urging of John Bolton, the INF Treaty, which I think was a major factor in Russia's decision to invade Ukraine, trying to impose by force the terms that had been destroyed, in part by Russia Gate, by trying to come to a new security arrangement as a result of the void left by Trump leaving the INF Treaty. Trump also sent weapons to Ukraine that Obama wouldn't send. And although he encouraged Zelensky to make peace with the rebels in the Donbos, he didn't put his weight behind it.

And he was boxed in. And now after so many years later, he's back in office, you would think now he's back in office. You would think now he could finally say, all right, you guys had your time. You've had your, you know, your Russia crazed policies have been a disaster. I even went along with them once. I did what you wanted. I tore up the INF Treaty. I didn't push Ukraine to implement the Minsk Accords.

Look at the mess we're in now. This will be the time to do it. And he has the political capital now to do it because he's no longer being boxed in by Russia again. In fact, the Ukrainian official recently told the Financial Times that if Trump now feels resistant to accusations that he's a puppet of Russia, then we're in trouble. Because this Ukrainian recognized that that was a tool that could be used to box Trump in. But will he actually do it? it's a great question given what he said so far publicly he's a mixed bag on the one hand you know on the positive side i think he called biden's decision to let ukraine launch long range western missiles into russia he said

that was a bad decision he said i wouldn't have done that and he talked recently and i i know you i know you've discussed this about how russia has understandable concerns about nato expansion which for a u.s president is unprecedented some u.s officials have said that before of course back in the 1990s, a number of top officials warned about this. George Keenan on down said that NATO expansion would be a disaster. But Trump for a U.S. president, at least for a U.S. political figure in a very long time, for him to say that is important. Another hand, though, what's he talking about in terms of ending the war?

He says it has to end, but then he's saying, we want Ukraine to give us control of their mineral wealth. And he's threatening more sanctions on Russia. That was one of his first claims after he took office. So he's a mixed bag. My sense from speaking to people in the Trump camp is that he's still actually deciding what he wants to do. He doesn't have very much time. And I think this is a thing that perhaps people in Washington more widely need to understand.

And I'm not just talking here, by the way, about Ukraine itself, where the war is taking a certain direction, which we discussed many times. But it is. I mean, the Russians are advancing and they will continue to advance. and nobody should be under any illusions about this. But the Russians themselves, they were very badly burnt by Russia gate. I mean, this is, this rankles. I mean, it does rankle.

They were very, very damaged by what happened in the first Trump administration. They've also experienced, you know, the attack on them as they see it that took place over the last four years with Ukraine, with the massive sanctions, with all. of this, they also remember, and you're absolutely right to point this out, about the INF Treaty,

the pulling out of the, the scrapping of the INFNF Treaty, one of the major factors that concerned them, and they've spoken about this, was the possibility that the United States might install intermediate nuclear missiles in Ukraine itself. And that was something that they talked about with the Americans, and they never got pledges that it wouldn't happen. So the Russians have been looking about this. They've, they've experienced all of this. They're coming up with a president who doesn't seem to know his mind because that's what I think they are thinking. And they are saying to themselves, this relationship with the United States isn't going anywhere in the end. We can talk to the Americans, but ultimately we have to think about establishing other

relationships with other places, other countries with China, with India, wherever. And as for the Americans, we can't work with them because they're not agreement capable. And in the long term, it's actually dangerous for us to become involved with them. So the window of opportunity to shift the relationship, to put it back on a more even track, which I think America needs actually and the world needs, I think that is actually a very small window. And Alex yesterday found this latest comment by the Russian deputy farmer minister Riyarbakov,

who's a very senior man. And he actually used that expression, a very small window of opportunity. And he says it's absolutely, it's entirely up to the Americans, whether they use it and whether they use it properly. So they need to get their act together very fast is they want to retrieve this relationship at all.

But that begs the question, do they even want to retrieve a relationship? Anyway, many points. What are your... And one point I've heard you... One point that I've heard you make before is that a big question over Trump is, is he going to go to Congress

and ask for more money for weapons? Because that's ultimately what would keep this war going. Ultimately, the weapons will run out. I don't see Trump doing that, actually. No. After campaigning on ending the war, is he really going to go now and tell his people, yes, sorry, for whatever reason I have to go now and ask Congress for billions of more dollars

to fund this proxy war that I effectively campaigned against. Even though it's overlooked, by the way, that Trump actually was instrumental in that final package of more than $60 billion that Biden got. It was Trump that gave his blessing for that. So Trump has a very mixed bag here. But as president now, will he go back to Congress and ask for more money?

No. But will he really go back on his own policies like killing the INF treaty. Like, and also we haven't mentioned this yet, trying to kill the Nord Stream Pipeline. Yes, he basically said that the CIA, the U.S. did kill the North Stream Pipeline. But before that, it was him that was trying to kill it through sanctions.

He put heavy sanctions on Germany that Biden actually undid when Biden first took office to try to kill the Nord Stream pipeline. Is Trump going to now go back on that? Will Trump, for example, if Russia says, we'd love it if you finally took out these dangerous so-called missile defense sites in Poland and Romania, which everybody knows are there to threaten Russia. You know, the official pretext is that they're to

help defend Europe from Iran. That's what the Bush administration claimed. Everyone knows like, that's a joke. Is Trump going to be the president to take out those missile sites? I love it if he did, because why are they there? Why do we need missile sites in Poland and Romania to threaten the world's other top nuclear power? It's suicidal for everybody.

Will Trump do that? Given his record, I don't see the... Even with the political capital he has now, I don't see the political courage to be able to do that. I do see, though, him not going to Congress to ask for more money for weapons. And I don't see him making it sort of like a hard line of his presidency to not, you know, to refuse to let Russia control the parts of the Dombos that it wants. Trump does not seem emotionally attached to Ukrainian control of the Dombos,

like say Joe Biden and Anthony Blinken were, who were just ideologically committed to fueling this proxy war for as long as possible. So I guess the one major difference with Trump and Biden is I don't think you'll be seeing Trump go to Congress to ask more money to fund the war to fuel the proxy war. And if that's the case, then what are we looking at? And let me put that to you. I mean, what do you think is the realistic prospect here of how this war proceeds? Is it just a frozen conflict where there's no formal arrangement, no formal negotiation? And we just have this North Korea type situation for a very long time?

I think that if the Russians cannot do a deal with the Americans, and I think that the Russians would prefer still to do a deal with the Americans, I think that the Russians will continue moving westwards, gradually, incrementally in the way that they've been doing, and they have the resources to do it, and they have the strategic patience to do it, until they feel that they have secured their, you know, their interests in Ukraine.

In other words, they pushed NATO as far back from Russian territory as is reasonable for them to do. And that, you know, they created this, you know, protected area, putting distance between themselves and NATO. They would prefer at this time, this is my very strong sense. I do think it's a secret, actually. I mean, the Russians talk about this. They would prefer a negotiated solution to the Ukrainian conflict for one overwhelmingly simple reason, which is that they do not want a perpetual confrontation between Russia and the West. It does not serve their interests.

They want Russian Western borders secure. They don't want vast armies defending them. They don't want the constant demand on the resources. that that comes with, they don't want problems in the Baltic Sea, such we're hearing about now. So if they can get some kind of agreement with the Americans that will secure their interests in Ukraine, their territorial interests, but also their long-term security interests,

and which will stick, that would be their preferred outcome. But if they can't get it, then they will move west, and they will dictate terms and they will do whatever it is that they feel they need to do in order to maintain and preserve the security of their western borders, which given Russian history, is something which is extremely sensitive to them. Now, I've said this in several places, and several times, I don't think it's a secret. If you listen to what Putin is saying and what Lavrov is saying and what people like that is saying, you can see there what the Russians would hold out for. So there is an opportunity for negotiations.

And the Americans do have leverage if they understand what it actually is. But I'm not convinced that they do. And if they think that they can impose a solution on the Russians by threats, blackmail and bribes, then that's not going to work. Because the Russians are not going to be intimidated. And for them, security, of their western borders is paramount. I mean, that's, I think,

I think that's where we are. I just don't want to know if you want to comment on that. Well, you know, my hope for Trump is that he recognizes that listening to people like John Bolton was a disaster. Trump claims now that he never listened to John Bolton, that he just put John Bolton there because John Bolton's crazy and that helped his Trump's hand in negotiation. But that's not true.

Trump listened to John Bolton, urged him to withdraw from the INF Treaty, from the Open Skies Treaty, to try to overthrow the government of Venezuela. And so what I'm hoping now is that Trump, given that John Bolton has undermined him and has been part of this, you know, wider neo-con establishment that has tried to sabotage Trump, he can recognize that these people and their policies have been a disaster, not just for him personally, but for the world. And so I hope he can realize the mistake that it was and listening to John Bolton pulling out of the INF Treaty. But given how stubborn Trump is and how he just doesn't seem to be thinking about these things very deeply. I don't think I don't I don't see in him

the awareness to be able to recognize that. But I hope but I'm hoping is the political self-interest kicks in. He realizes that John Bolton led him down a very dangerous path. And also the Nord Stream, the campaign to kill Nord Stream. He realizes this also was not ultimately in U.S. interest because what business is it if Germany and Russia have a pipeline to to ship gas? I mean, this whole thing about America first, maybe he could take that seriously for once instead of other people's business. I just don't see in him right now the willingness to, even though sometimes he has these insights that are sensible and he says out loud. And he can see, you know, clearly where the population is. The population in the U.S. is tired of these wars or these conflicts and he's tapped into that

successfully. But will he ultimately see it through remains a very big question. And I just have to comment what striking to me in now just talking about Ukraine and is that what a complete non-entity Zelensky is. Just a complete non-entity whatsoever. I mean, this has been true for a while. You guys have talked about this, but it's never been more apparent now. What is he now, basically? He's a podcaster.

He goes on podcasts. He goes on Pierce Morgan. He says these outlandish things about getting nuclear weapons back. He's openly promising Trump, yeah, sure, take our mineral wealth. I'll do anything. He's completely humiliating himself. His support inside Ukraine is totally cratered. People are sick of him.

And he just represents the complete. tragedy that happens when the U.S. can exploit wedges inside a country. The U.S. has used Ukraine, not to defend Ukraine, not for its own well-being, but to bleed Russia. Eric Green, who served on Biden's National Security Advisor, who, sorry, who served on Biden's National Security Council specializing in Russia, recently gave an interview to Time magazine. And he said, basically, yeah, for us, Ukraine has been a success, but it's not the kind of success you feel good about because it's meant so much suffering in Ukraine. So what Eric Green was saying was that, yes,

our success has come at Ukraine's expense. And that's why Zelensky now is now a complete non-entity with no real political support, no power, and no say and really the outcome of his own country. And that's what happens when you let yourself be used as a pawn in a proxy war. And when you, unfortunately, and this is not entirely his fault, didn't have the backing from his patron in Washington to stand up to the ultra-nationalist far right, which refused to let the Minsk Accords be put into effect,

which could have avoided this whole mess. I completely agree. Can we just, because of course, Ukraine, Russia, it's only one part of foreign policy. Can I say, I agree, by the way, about your underlying analysis about the domestic policies, that they are a very extreme version of ideas that have been around within the report. and party for a very long time, and they've been taken very far. But what do you think about this whole thing that we've been discussing on? Alex and I have discussed this, this Greenland, Panama, Canada thing, all of these ideas.

We've been speculating that maybe what we're looking at is taken in conjunction with some of the things that Rubio has been saying about, you know, we're back into a world of great powers, that this is a sort of attempt somehow to create a new system in which the United States remains perhaps the most powerful and predominant great power with a very large sphere of influence. In other words, it's a return to sphere of influence policies. And we had Michael Hudson, I don't think the video has come out yet, but Michael Hudson, the academic, the economist. And he also said it will be a very predatory sphere of influence. It means about taking the resources within the sphere and helping them to keep the American economy

and the position of the United States is a great power going. What do you think of is this is this also where it's going? Again, I notice I've read pieces now in Russia where they're picking that up to and they're saying that the Americans are now going for spheres of influence, and they're talking about Yalta, a new Yalta, and the Chinese are saying the same, apparently. Is there anything like that going on, or is this again, just improvisation,

a bit like the Gaza plan, something that comes out of Trump's head, and she says one day, and can't really take back? What are your thoughts on this? This is not my wheelhouse, so my thoughts on this are pretty limited. But I will say, I was surprised to hear Rubio recently talk about a multi-polar world.

I couldn't believe a Secretary of State was talking about that. But my question is, is a career neocon like Marco Rubio genuinely serious about that? And this idea of, you know, so spheres of influence, so the U.S. reduces its global footprint. At a time when it still has the most military bases in the world, when it still controls, you know, effectively the Middle East access to the Middle East oil supply. I don't think I just based on the experience of the U.S. as the sole hegemon in the world and the commitment of people like Marco Rubio to that,

I don't see a great realignment there. And I think Trump talking about Greenland and Canada, that's more of a personal whim. He presents the fact that Canada in his mind is making, you know, is making money at the expense of the U.S. and that's why he's imposing tariffs. But the idea of him trying to annex Canada,

annexed Greenland, the Panama Canal. Panama Canal, that makes sense to me as he's reacting to what he perceives as China's role there and he wants to roll back China's influence. But this idea of them actually being committed to the multipolar world, we'll see, will they drop sanctions on like a third of the world's population?

There was some study recently that said, like some huge percentage of the world's population, maybe 30% or something, is under sanctions led by the U.S. Is that going to be rolled back? Especially Trump, who imposed more sanctions on Venezuela, on Syria, on Iran. He's now reinstating so-called maximum pressure. So do I see Trump embracing what Rubio says is the new multipolar world? Again, I have a hard time seeing it. Can we just talk about China quickly?

because of course this seems to be the priority of many people in the Trump administration. I mean, I also have to say I thought it was the priority of many people in the Biden administration and in the first Trump administration and the Obama people as well. In other words, there's been this slow, steady buildup, which is also played out in Europe, of antagonism towards China. And we've had reports that there's been more tensions today that, you know, the vice president walked out of a speech of a Chinese official and that kind of thing. What is going on? Are we going to see a new front line open up in the Indo-Pacific? I mean, there's been a lot of

talk about this, but is there going to be more energy put into this? You mentioned Marco Rubio. One of the interesting things is that Marco Rubio, for me, has been speaking to European officials. he's been very, very moderate, actually, in his language about the Russians. But when he talks about the Chinese, he talks about China's malign activities and malign influence. He uses that kind of language about them. Alexander, this is a question I'd much rather hear your thoughts on than mine. But I'll just say one thing, which is that recently in the New York Times, there's an article about the CIA and the New Direction under John Ratcliffe. And one of the things they said was they're going to focus on China.

And so, yes, you know, based on that, based on what Trump has been saying, what Marco Rubio has been saying, the, you know, real fear of China and the resentment that comes from, you know, China now being a rival economic power. That's, you know, Washington just feeds off of destroying any type of countervailing force to its hegemony. So it's no surprise to me that now we're going to see more action against China. And to the extent that that becomes a military kinetic, I mean, I'm curious. Chris, your thoughts on that? Well, absolutely. I think we are heading in that direction. I think that's partly the whole idea about de-emphasizing Russia,

de-escalating in Ukraine is all about. It's all about focusing on China instead. I think the original plan was to try and use Ukraine to weaken Russia so that detached Russia from China. Now it's a different plan. It's transfer your resources from Europe to China and try and patch up something with Russia. I think that any confrontation with China does not serve anybody's interests.

I think it is potentially every bit as dangerous as any confrontation with Russia would be. China is also a nuclear power. It's also becoming a militarily, a very, very powerful country. And as you correctly said, it has a very, very, very. large economy and its own objectives and interests which are not entirely incompatible with those of the United States. I mean, there can be rivalries, but rivalries can be managed. It shouldn't lead to outright hostility. But my sense is that that is exactly where we're going. Anyway, that's that those are my thoughts. Let's let's let's turn to the Middle East, which I know you know you you are uh,

you know, you have some what what plan if any, do you think the administration has about the Middle East? Again, there is a view that Trump doesn't want wars in the Middle East, that he brokered the ceasefire in Gaza, which came as a surprise to many people, even though that looks like it's on the brink of collapse, that he doesn't want a war with Iran, although he's back to maximum pressure with Iran,

but then he's also talking about doing a deal with the Iranians if they give up nuclear weapons, which of course they've never had. But is there a plan here as well? Is it a plan to avoid war? Is it, on the contrary, a plan to support the current policies of the Israeli government and to try to strengthen Israel even further? Is the entire plan to develop diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel? Is that what they're working?

towards. I mean, do they have a plan for the Middle East? Because if they don't, then of course, the Middle East is not going to just wait. It's going to come. And things are going to happen there. They always do. But what are your thoughts about this? I think the plan is to try to continue the Abraham Accords process, the brainchild of Jared Kushner, which basically is premised on buying off the Gulf states to sideline Palestinians and give them nothing. There is a bipartisan view in Washington from Trump to Biden with only fringes of the Democratic Party dissenting, and maybe a few Republicans like Thomas Massey, that Palestinians have no rights, that they don't have the right to self-determination, and that they're just a nuisance and should be ignored.

And that's why Trump can openly claim that Palestinians should leave Gaza and not come back, because that's just the prevailing view in Washington. That's the view of the Israel lobby, which is very, very powerful. and it's I don't see Trump deviating from that and having any plans to reverse that. I don't think Trump wants to take over Gaza

as he talks about. He's not going to send troops to do that. They just want to buy off the Gulf states and hope that they'll go along with it. Saudi Arabia has already said they won't do that. And the problem is, you know, no one will seriously consider this notion which is common sense around the world

except for in the U.S. and Israel and the establishment. The Palestinians have the right to self-determination. And if they would just recognize that, that would solve so many problems. The denial of Palestinians of the right to self-determination is at the heart of conflict in the Middle East. But because Israel is premised on denying that right, you know, was founded with ethnic cleansing, refusing to acknowledge that ethnic cleansing, refusing to let Palestinians return to their homes, and not trying to kick, and not trying to continue that process,

continue the project that began in 1948, that's the only plan. And it means ignoring the plan that's on the table that the whole world supports, the Arab states, Iran, leaders of Hamas have all endorsed a big compromise for Palestinians, which is the Arab Peace Initiative, offered formally in 2002. Israel gets full normalization from the entire region in exchange for withdrawing from the West Bank in Gaza and allowing for a Palestinian state there. For Palestinians, that's a major compromise. That's just 22% of their historic homeland. the rest of it they'd be seating to people who stole it from them. But they're willing to accept that. Even leaders of Hamas have been willing to accept that. But it's Israel and the U.S. have stood alone in blocking that.

That's why every year at the UN General Assembly, you have votes along those lines with only the U.S. and Israel and a tiny number of states voting in opposition. And there's no constituency or no powerful constituency in Washington that is willing to rethink that. And as long as you don't have anyone willing to grant Palestinians, even their own, compromise, their own minimal rights to a state in just 22% of their land, you're going to have conflict. And no matter what Trump's intentions are, even if he doesn't want to have a war with Iran, which I have no reason to believe that he does want confrontation, you're going to have

perpetual conflict as long as you continue to refuse and ignore the Arab peace proposal that's been on the table for a long time. I would just add to that with which I completely agree, by the way, that the Abraham Accords, whatever they achieved, they did not bring peace to the Middle East. The situation in the Middle East has deteriorated since the Abraham Accords. It has not improved. And so doubling down on that policy, trying to get the Saudis to agree to establish diplomatic relations, is simply doubling down on something which isn't succeeding. it isn't working anyway, even if the Saudis do agree to this, which, by the way, I don't think they will for all kinds of reasons.

Let's just finish. Let's wrap up with another question. Is this going to work? All this huge turn that we are seeing in Washington at the moment. Is this going to continue? Or is there going to be resistance starting to develop and emerge. There's already challenges in the courts that we're starting to see, and they're the first ones. Democratic parties, as you said, in great disarray. And I absolutely agree with what you said, that, you know, the Russiagate affair and many other things, the lawfare, ended up making Trump stronger. But there are reasons to think that the economy might not be very strong for very much long because many people don't think it's strong anyway, but things might get worse in the economy. Is there a point when resistance starts to come back?

And when do you think that is and who would that resistance be from? Hard for me to make a prediction, but I can express a hope. My hope is that, you know, the bases of both sides, Democrats and Republicans, can realize that their leaders have lied. to them. I mean, Trump has claimed to be anti-establishment to help the working person. Remember, he was going to tackle grocery prices. He was going to lower the cost of eggs. Now he's saying, you know, that's pretty difficult. I'm not going to do that. And why can he do that? Because he won't actually embrace, in my opinion, genuinely populist policies. He's ultimately a very wealthy

whose friends are all wealthy. That's who identifies with. That's who the Republican Party ultimately serves. And now, as they're putting a budget together, they're going to prioritize defense spending. They're not going to cut that. At least that's my prediction. And they're going to go after things like Medicaid while still cutting taxes in a way that favors the wealthy. That's my opinion of Trump's tax cuts. I know some people disagree with that. They think that the tax cuts had a broader benefit.

But it's my opinion that Trump has favored the wealthy overall with his policies. And I hope that his base can see that he's betrayed them in talking about, you know, did he campaign on taking over Gaza, for example? Was that part of his campaign platform? Michael Tracy has pointed this out. My friend, the journalist Michael Tracy, is, you know, Trump didn't campaign on this, and all of a sudden he's talking about U.S. taking over Gaza. And even if Trump is just being fanciful,

still, that's a betrayal of what he promised his base to disengage from these foreign entanglements and not do the bidding of other countries to do the bidding of the United States. And so I hope that Trump's supporters can be sufficiently disillusion by seeing Elon Musk, you know, being now put in charge of the government.

Elon Musk is not a working man. Seeing Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and Mary Madelson, all these oligarchs on stage with Trump at his inauguration, not working people. Meanwhile, Democrats, too, can realize that their leadership, which has done everything it can to avoid being a class-based party, it's embraced the neocons. It has embraced what you can call identity politics as a way to avoid being a class-based policy.

It's pushed them into these moronic scam. like Russia Gate and all these Trump lawfare cases, helping Trump in the process by keeping him in the media and by helping him burn as his credentials as being someone persecuted by the establishment because of all the things they did to him. I hope both bases can see that they've been sold a bill of goods and that that can create enough anti-establishment sentiment

to really change things. I'm not optimistic though. It's a very polarized, propagandized country. The propaganda system works exceptionally well. and I'm not feeling very optimistic about it, but that's the thing with history. You never know. Absolutely.

I once read somewhere that when change looks impossible, it's when it becomes inevitable. So let's just hold on to that. Anyway, Aaron Maté, thank you very much for coming and answering my questions and this very comprehensive and thorough way that you have. Thank you very much also for your insightful thoughts. If you just wait there a little, Alex, I'm sure, has some questions to put to you. Aaron, you have 10, 50 minutes for some questions?

Of course. Yes. Yes. Fantastic. Otto Carnage says, what a great powerhouse of a show, Alexander, Alex, and Aaron. Thank you for all your hard work. Thank you for that. Otto.

Sparky says, Aaron, could the Gray Zone help Matt or Philea produce video snippets, humorous or not to get President Trump up to speed on world issues such as Gaza and Ukraine? summing them up is essential. Matt Orfeely makes great videos, and that's a great idea. So thank you, Sparky. From ICX, Chinika says, hi, Aaron and Duran. A question for Aaron. How does the Ukraine project fit in the Greater Israel Project,

a distraction, a way to collapse Europe to open the way. Thank you for your answer in advance. I don't, I mean, to the extent there's overlap, It's that they're both U.S. proxies carrying out, you know, the dictates of U.S. hegemony. In the case of Israel, it's for the U.S. to, you know, have someone to help it police the Middle East. Israel can carry out client services for the U.S. So, for example, when the U.S. wanted to help apartheid South Africa, but that would look too bad, they got Israel to do it. When the U.S. wanted to arm death squads in Central America, but there was congressional oversight,

pushback of that. They got Israel to do it. So Israel serves a proxy role for the U.S. And so does Ukraine. The proxy rule for Ukraine is just to basically sacrifice itself to bleed Russia at the expense of Ukraine. The other overlap is that both countries have a heavy supremacist component that the U.S. has sided with. In the case of Ukraine, it's the ultra-nationalists who don't see ethnic Russians who live mostly in the East and the Donbos, Crimea, as equal Ukrainians. In the case of Israel, it's effectively now. a Jewish supremacist state that doesn't see Palestinians as equal human beings. And the U.S. has encouraged

this supremacy, the chauvinism, for its own benefit at the expense of everybody. It's been a disaster for Israelis, for Ukrainians to be guided by the supremacist ideology. But that's what happens when you're a U.S. proxy. So that's the sort of continuity that I see there. Oh, by the way, and also in both cases, the U.S. has blocked diplomacy. In the case of Ukraine, it's been the Mitzk Accords. Russia's offered to negotiate prior to invading, the peace deal that was reached after Russia invaded, which, as we know now, the U.S. stood alongside the U.K. and blocking. In the case of Israel, it's the international consensus I mentioned earlier, the Arab Peace Initiative, an actual two-state solution, which, by the way, is not a fair solution at all.

It's a massive injustice to Palestinians to have to recognize this Jewish supremacist state in any of historic Palestine. But it is, unfortunately, I think, the most practical, a realistic solution on the table. It is what the whole world supports. It's the U.S. that stood alone in blocking it. So in both cases, advancing supremacy, blocking diplomacy, fueling disaster. J.J.HW says, I would like to thank Aaron and everyone over at the Grey Zone for everything they did for Gonzalo Lira.

I and many of his friends are eternally grateful for your efforts. Let me say, I didn't do enough for Gonzalo Lira. You guys did. You guys kept his name. in the news so did my colleagues at the gray zone maximum with all that i regret that actually i did not speak out more i just i didn't fully get gonzalo's story been honest with you i didn't i didn't understand it and um i it's it's to my great shame and uh you know recently there have been some emails released uh at the department of state some foia uh um some freedom freedom of

information act uh releases about the internal communications about gonzola lera and it's just so shameful what happened to him and i so i thank you guys you got for speaking out for him and I apologize I didn't say more. Well, can I quickly say, Aaron, I think that you're absolutely right about the tragedy and horror

of what happened to Gonzalo, but I also think you have nothing to apologize for, just to say that. You guys did great work at the absolutely. Thank you, JHW for that. Nikos, this is a five-parter for Aaron,

and Nico says people won't like it. Nicos says Trump is the best choice we have. So is Tulsi Gabbard. The Arab nations and Israel are driven by their primitive, obsessive, backwards religion. Even in the 21st century, they continue to fight because of it. Turkey is an example as they kept us Greeks from progress for 400 years. You want us to support terror Arab groups like Hamas despite their crimes. While my views on Iran and Saudi Arabia have seen,

softened and Palestine deserves to be recognized in the real world they are not the priority. We are on the brink of a Russia-U.S. nuclear war and Trump is the only one who wants to prevent it. The world will still be here if the situation in the Middle East continues. That's the reality you ignore. All right. Well, there's a lot to discuss there and I'll just try to be concise. I'm no fan of many of the Gulf states of Turkey. A lot to criticize them for, I think, what they did in Syria, you know, fueling a sectarian al-Qaeda-dominated insurgency, for example, was a massive crime. And I think on the question of Palestine, they speak out of both sides

of their mouth. Turkey, for example, makes a lot of money, facilitating energy sales to Israel while still talking about the rights of Palestinians. So anyway, plenty to criticize Turkey and other states in the region for, but on the issue of Israel-Palestine, they're not the fundamental problem. Jabotinsky, an early Zionist leader, who actually I recently earned was a friend of my great-grandfathers. He said, about 100 years ago, he said, Zionism is a colonizing adventure, and therefore it stands or falls in the question of armed force. And that's what I think is the fundamental problem. Zionism is a colonizing adventure. I'm very sympathetic to the idea of a Jewish homeland based on the persecution of Jews, which my own family knows very well. But there's

no right to do that at the expense of anybody else. In the case of Palestine, that's what happened. Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians who already lived there and the refusal to address that fundamental crime, the refusal to do anything to address even the minimal rights of Palestinians, as I said earlier, to even grant them a state in 22% of their historic homeland, which is what Palestinian leaders, including members of Hamas, have already accepted. That's the root of all problems right now in the Middle East. And until that problem is addressed, you're going to have more conflict. I will say on Tulsi Gabbard, since she was mentioned,

something very historic happened recently at her confirmation hearing where for the first time in a U.S. government setting, somebody read out the email that Jake Sullivan wrote to Hillary Clinton in February 2012, in which in which Jake Sullivan wrote to Hillary Clinton, Al-Qaeda is on our side in Syria. And Tulsi Gabbard read that statement as part of making the argument that it was a scandal for the U.S. to side with an al-Qaeda dominated in urgency inside Syria. And it's amazing to me that, you know, more than a decade after that email was

written for the first time somebody finally said it out loud. When really the shit, as Tulsi Gabbard said, it's a scandal that after 9-11, 10 years after 9-11, we sided with Al-Qaeda inside of Syria. And because Tulsi Gabbu refused to side with al-Qaeda, she was attacked and smeared as a Russian agent. And something also, something historic also happened, which was for the first time the U.S. government setting, someone also mentioned the OPCW whistleblowers, these brave inspectors who called out the corruption that happened in the OPCW's investigation of an alleged chemical attack in Duma and whose findings were censored because those findings undermine the narrative that Syria carried out a chemical attack in Duma.

And Tulsi Gabbas for the first time mentioned the OPCW whistleblowers. And it's important because their existence is completely censored in our Orwellian media system because their findings totally undermine a very key pro-war narrative that has been used to justify warfare and sanctions on Syria. So Tulsi Gabbard, to her great credit, although I have many disagreements with her, told the truth about the dirty war in Syria, told the truth about the censored OPCW whistleblowers,

and I'm very grateful that she did that. And it is historic that she'll be confirmed. Someone like her is, she looks very poised. I believe today, actually, will be confirmed. And that is very historic that someone willing to call out these intelligence deceptions will now be overseeing the intelligence community. Yeah.

And you did a lot of a lot of great work. the best work on the OPCW. Absolutely. Absolutely. As we all remember. Yeah. John Roberts says, thank you, Aaron,

for all your sane reporting on Russia Gate. What do you think of Trump's nominees? Any hope there or just more of the same? Well, the question there is, can one individual really do anything in this really entrenched system that we've been talking about

for this discussion? And no, I don't think Tulsi Gabbard to Cash Patel is going to oversee a sweeping overhaul of all of these intelligence agencies. But look, would I rather have someone in there who's been right on these really important issues and had the courage to stand up to the national security state? Of course. It's important.

And despite my disagreements with Tulsi Gabbard on many issues, especially Israel, I'm not going to overlook the importance of someone who called out the CIA working with an al-Qaeda-dominated insurgency now overseeing the CIA. Hey, that's very important. It shows that Tulsi Gabbard has shown at times real courage and real willingness to take risks for the truth. And because she wants to see a more sane policy, I think that's very, very significant. And so I can't overlook that. Also, Cash Patel, who was viciously attacked across the spectrum because he took on the FBI's deceptions in Russiagate.

And there was all, there's a huge effort to show he was wrong, Adam Schiff was right. nobody makes that argument anymore. And to the point now, where it was so funny, Cash Patel is a confirmation hearing a few weeks ago. Adam Schiff had the opportunity to question him. And for years, Adam Schiff had argued that Cash Patel was wrong about the FBI's reliance on the steel dossier, the FBI lying to the surveillance court as part of Russia Gate.

And so Adam Schiff had every opportunity to challenge Cash Patel on what Adam Schiff thinks that Cash Patel got wrong about Russiagate. But not to my surprise at all, Adam Schiff didn't bring up Russiagate once, not once. This issue that Adam Schiff had made the top issue of Trump's first presidency that had spent so much energy on, he couldn't bring himself to challenge Cash Patel on it because he knows that Cash Patel is right.

And so the fact that now Cash Patel is overseeing the FBI, an agency that, again, he helped expose, was fraudulently investigating a president as a Russian agent. That's very significant. And, you know, if we can't expect sweeping systematic change, at the very minimum, we can expect some sunlight, some disclosure on all the lies we've been fed about Russia Gate and maybe other issues too. And these are two people, Cash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard, who do have a record of telling the truth about intelligence deception. So hopefully in their roles, we'll be seeing more disclosures that can come out that can help inform the public about how we relied to on these really important issues.

Elza asks, Aaron, do you have an opinion about the Auschwitz event without Israel and Russia this year? So this is a reference, I think, to the liberation of Ashweds being commemorated without the presence of Israel and Russia. Yeah, without the presence of Israel and Russia, yes. Well, the exclusion of Russia is just part of this really unfortunate revisionism that seeks to erase the sacrifices of the Soviet Union in. in defeating the Nazis. You know, Trump recently said that we defeated the Nazis with the Soviet Union's help, which, you know, I can laugh at, but if you're a Russian, that's, it's so offensive. I mean, the sacrifice they had for that to be completely diminished.

And that's because of geopolitical factors now. It's just people don't want to acknowledge Russia as a country with a legitimate history, with legitimate concerns, with reasons to fear a hostile military alliance on its border, with reasons to be worried about Nazism inside of Ukraine. And so as a part of the effort to diminish that, now we have to go and diminish their contribution, their role, their singular role in defeating Nazism. Without them, the Nazis would not have been defeated.

So that's that. And then with Israel, you know, there's something really sad to me about a state now acting in the name of the Jewish people, now being so isolated around the world and Netanyahu now being indicted by the ICC for war crimes that they can't participate in commemorating the Holocaust.

And to me it just speaks to the tragic history of Israel in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the Jewish people ended up emulating the practices in some ways of the Nazis. Gaza to me is a death camp. Of course, we have not seen, and we hopefully never will see, the industrial scale killings that we saw on the Holocaust.

To me, there's nothing that rivals that. But Israel, with their supremacist ideology, with their actions in Gaza, turning it into a death camp, has unfortunately emulated the Nazis that Israel was supposedly founded as a, you know, to ensure never again. So there's something very tragic about that. Stephen Temis says, great to see Aaron.

And Samuel Moroni says, let's face it, is the two-state solution really still possible today with almost one million colonists in the West Bank, Israel would face a civil war? Your thoughts? Well, what's the alternative? And again, why should we accept the presence of these illegal Jewish supremacist settlers who come from places like where I am now, Brooklyn, New York, on what the world recognizes to be Palestinian land? Israel is a state. Again, I don't think it's a state. Again, I don't think it's a state. It's a just state. I don't think Israel has the right to exist. I think it's proven that with its actions. It's a supremacist state. And just like apartheid South Africa, I don't think it should exist.

But the fact is, it does exist. It has recognized borders. Nobody recognizes Israel's borders as extending to the occupied West Bank. So the best compromise for me is to accept what Palestinian leaders have already accepted, including in Hamas, people like Ismail Hania have already accepted this, a Palestinian state in the West Bank in Gaza, which means that Palestinians just get a tiny sliver of what their land is 22%, which means no illegal settlers in the West Bank. And look, if the world, if Israel's top sponsor of the U.S. stopped halting, stop giving it all this unconditional support and basically said, we're not going to back you up until you would remove all these settlers. And if the Israeli army withdrew from the West Bank,

Would these settlers stay there? If they did, if they're that fanatic to say, then that's their problem. And if Israel has a civil war over it, that's their problem. But the alternative is this occupying power continues as it is, terrorizing people in the West Bank, destroying Gaza, making it unlivable. That's not tenable either. So if Israel has to have a civil war over it and if illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank have to have a tough time leaving, that's their problem. They have no right to be there. Sparky says, Aaron, it's said people are like the five people they hang around the most.

Does this offset or negate the friend's close enemies closer theory in Trump's administration? I don't quite follow. What's the point here? Am I supposed to think that because Trump has some decent people like, you know, or some reasonable people like Tulsi Gabbard around him that. Yeah. Yeah. Well, look. Maybe things will get better.

I mean, hey, listen, it's certainly better than what he had in his first term. John Bolton, Mike Pompeo. Right now there is more heterodox thinking inside his cabinet. RFK Jr. comes from the Democratic Party. So does Tulsi Gabbard. That does show that there is at least some diversity inside of his cabinet. Will that translate into changes in policy? I mean, we'll have to see.

We'll see after Tulsi Gabbard gets confirmed. Sparky says, Aaron, President Trump's been propagandized his entire life. So it's not likely to go against Israel. If he realizes the extent of the genocide, saying Israel, saving Israel from itself may be the best we can expect. Again, I don't know what's in Trump's mind on Israel, but I know who he hangs out with. He got a lot of money from Mary Madelson.

His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has openly talked about long before Trump did expelling Palestinians. That's who I think he listens to on this issue. And that's why I don't think we'll see any change in policy. And Sparky says, Aaron, tell Max and Katie to get on the Duran. By the way, tell Katie, I said hello. Sparky, Commander Crossfire asks, Greater Israel, before the end of Trump term, question mark. Well, again, let's hope not.

Certainly, I think there are people in the Trump camp who would love that. I mean, look who he's appointed. Mike Huckabee, evangelical, fanatic to Palestinian people don't even exist. That's what they'd like to have happen. The thing they're all discounting those, the Palestinians are very, are very resilient people. I've experienced this firsthand, having visited the West Bank and Gaza. There are very resilient people.

And as we've seen now with those images of people returning to what's left of their homes, this is their land. They're very connected to it. And they're not going to just take all this lying down. I will say, though, it's very difficult right now. Just obviously, to me, the fault lies with Israel, the occupying power, and its U.S. sponsor. But within the Palestinian movement, it's very hard for a national liberation movement to begin with, but especially when you're so divided. You have Gaza destroyed, Hamas

in charge of what's left of Gaza, and then you have the West Bank, which is ruled by this corrupt, ineffective, compromised Palestinian authority. And until we see a Palestinian leadership emerge that can unite everybody, we're going to have problems. And that's one of the reasons Hamas, one of their top demands when they, you know, captured people on October 7th, wanted the freedom of Marwan Barcutti, who's not Hamas at all. He's actually traditionally associated with Fata, which is part of the PLO. But they wanted him released because they recognize that he's someone who has the rare credibility among all factions inside the Palestinian camp, who actually could unite Palestinians. And that's one of the reasons that Israel doesn't want to

let him go. Doesn't want to free him is because they see him as an effective leader. He's actually talked about nonviolence. He's talked about accepting the two-state solution. This is a nightmare for Israel, which always wants to use the excuse of, you know, Palestinian extremism as represented by Hamas to refuse to end the occupation, to give up its legal settlements. So a major issue is the division among Palestinians, and that's accentuated by Israel, which has done everything it can to divide Palestinians, including by physically separating the West Bank and Gaza so that there's no, there's no exchange, that there's, that there's no free travel between the two, and to turn this movement, this already isolated national liberation movement into an even more fragmented entity.

And those conditions, it's very difficult for people to find their freedom. All right. Two more for Aaron. Colorado Watch says Trump wants to buy Gaza with our tax dollars from Israel who doesn't own Gaza. Yes. America is back. Yes.

And one more question. Where is it? Where is it? Here we go from Sparky. Aaron, General Kellogg believes. human waves of North Korean GMO super soldiers are attacking Ukrainian soldiers with shovels. Doesn't this discredit Kellogg? Should it max drop by the White House and let Trump know?

Alexander, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this because you've followed it's closer than I have. You had this claim from the U.S. That North Koreans are fighting side by side with Russia against Ukraine. And then that claim has kind of disappeared a little bit. What happened to it? And now Zelensky is trying to revive it again. says that they left another, they're coming back. This is, this is, it makes one's headspin.

As far as I am concerned, I haven't seen any actual physical, indisputable evidence that there are North Koreans actually fighting in the way that have been described in a, in Cusk, in this area, in Cusk region. Maybe there have been some, but certainly I suspect not on anything like the scale that is being suggested. Now, there is a connection between Russia and North Korea. The Russians have been importing heavy artillery from North Korea. This is indisputable.

They have been training North Korean soldiers. And the Russian ambassador to North Korea has now confirmed that Russian soldiers who've recovering from injuries have been sent on holidays and to recuperate in North Korean sanatoria. So there is a relationship. between North Korea and Russia. But I don't believe that this is the fundamental part of the war. And I don't really think that the North Korean army is involved in any significant way in the fighting.

I think if it had been, we would have seen evidence of it. To me, the fact that Kellogg is again giving weight to this story shows that he's basically out of his depths. He's not somebody who really has a proper understanding of what is needed in order to really negotiate a compromise with the Russians. He doesn't understand how the Russians are approaching this war. And he's talking to the wrong people. And what was this story ultimately? It was an excuse for Biden to let Ukraine launch these long-range missiles into Russia. That's what the official story was when Biden suddenly changed his mind at the end of his administration.

and said, okay, fine, Ukraine, you can use our missiles to fire into Russia. The official reason was that it's because North Korea had entered the conflict. So it was so obviously a manufactured or inflated pretext. When really actually, their Times had an article where they acknowledged that in this race and officials, in the Biden administration, because Trump won, because Trump won the election, they assessed that Putin was less likely to escalate if we finally let Ukraine fire these missiles. So what they were acknowledging was that this had nothing new with North Korea, but this was a purely political move that because Biden's camp lost the election, that there was

less likely the chance of an escalation if they let Ukraine fire these missiles. Completely cynical. And this excuse of blaming North Korean troops was just one more ruse by a desperate Biden administration that fueled this war and refused all reasonable steps to end it. I agree. I think that's exactly really. Commander Crossfire asks Aaron, Arab peacekeepers in Gaza, why not still? Sure. I would take any solution that removes Israel and that ends the siege of Gaza. I mean, again, remember, even before Israel began its mass murder campaign in Gaza,

the UN was warning that within a few years, Gaza would be unlivable because of the Israeli blockade that's been going on for a very, very long time. So any solution that could put an end to that, I would support. And before we let Aaron go, Sparky says, Aaron, how? How can we get President Trump to stop wasting his time watching TV news and instead watch the Duran and the Gray Zone? My sense of Trump is he doesn't have the attention span to watch the Duran or the Gray Zone because, you know, we present actual information. But I do know, you know, there are people in the Trump camp who at least watch the Duran. And hopefully some of the insight that they can pick up from you guys will make its way back to Trump.

Aaron Matte, thank you. Thank you. Alex, you go. you said that there's a, I was just going to say this is a bit of great show. Thank you. It has that much for joining us. And one more time, Aaron, before you go, where can people find you?

Again, go to the gray zone.com. My substack is Aaronmatea.net. And you're the podcast.com. And I will have all those links as a pin comment as well. Thank you, Aaron for joining us. A real pleasure. Thanks for having me. Thank you.

Thank you, Aaron. All right. Oh, that was a great show. That was a great show. Oh, absolutely. I've been energized. I've been energized. All right.

Let me find my place here. One second, Alexander. Here's a question from Sparky as I find my place that just came in. Turkey has a lot to chew with, oh, man, I lost it. Turkey has a lot to chew with Syria with Turkish army peacekeepers, helping to abide time. Can they make deals with local governments who run Syria for a few years anyway to stitch together a colonial government. Well, I've heard, and I've heard it said now from several sources,

including Professor Marandi from Iran, who's got contacts in Turkey, including contacts in Erdogan's party, that Turkey is now having big buyers remorse over the fact that they've overthrown Assad and basically find themselves owning Syria. I do that the Turks can do this. I don't think they have the resources. I don't think they have the local knowledge.

I don't think they have the influence. And I don't think people in Syria terribly like them, by the way, which is a thing that people underestimate. But I think that there's a lot of hostility to Turkey in Syria. This is what I've heard from people who know Syria quite well. So I think that the Turkey, Erdogan, are going to have a massive trouble on their hands. And there's been more articles, by the way, recently in Britain, even in the British media, which finally have acknowledged that both the economic

and the security situation in Syria has deteriorated significantly since Assets' overthrow. So Erdogan is now going to send his troops into Syria, and I think he's going to find that it's a quagmire, and I think he's also going to find that the instability and the violence, which they will provoke by coming into Syria, there's a risk that he could spread to turkey as well. All right. From Nikos, who says, Nikos says here to be fair, Duran, I'll criticize Trump.

He still threatens Russia, not recognizing the four oblasts, and he has taken ownership of Project Ukraine. My view is that he sees Russia is exhausted, as Dima has shown. Yes, Ukraine has losses, but they have an endless amount of people to exhaust Russia. So we see Ukraine gaining more territory in Kursk and catching the Russians in a cauldron in Pakrosk. What is your assessment of the battlefield and can Trump bring peace or should I give up hope? Well, I like and listen to Dima.

And I think of him as a friend, but I don't always agree with these assessments. I mean, I remember back in August when the Ukraine was first entered into Kuzk, I mean, it was all going to be a We being tremendous victorious offensive and it turned out otherwise. My understanding of the Kusk offensive, the latest one, the one that the Ukrainians launched a couple of days ago in Kusk region, is that it was a complete and utter disaster. I think even Dima is now admitting as much that it far from gaining territory, they were thrown back, they lost a huge numbers of equipment, large numbers of men, and that it failed, horribly. And as for Pachrosk, I mean, I think what is being talked about here is this little village

of Cotlino, which is to the southwest of Pachros. The Ukrainians have launched some counterattacks in that general area. There's been various people who've made all kinds of adjustments on the maps and have suggested that the Russians might be having logistical difficulties. I've heard this story in this war so many times in so many times. In so many hours, other instances. I've also been reading reports from the Russian media, and they always say the same thing, that these attacks carried out by the Ukrainians in apparently small penny packets ultimately failed, and that they've run their course, and that they have not been successful. So I don't buy this view about the military situation. I mean, you know, Dima has his views. I have mine. I'm quite confident about mine, and I don't think that he's right.

on certainly on the pro-cross situation. As for what Trump is going to try to do over Ukraine, I'm going to say this. I don't think he owns Project Ukraine yet. And if he really is speaking to Putin, I think that is perhaps a good thing. And he has been trying to row back. I mean, he's just said that, you know,

Ukraine might one day become Russian again, which is, I'm not saying that's going to happen, by the way, but it seems to be an admission that the Russians do have the initiative in the war. So I don't think he's made any definite commitments. I don't think he's worked out his plan. I agree completely with our arm on this, by the way. I think that he hasn't taken ownership of this. I think on the contrary, probably what's happening is that he's given Kellogg his chance.

Kellogg is fumbling it. And then when it's all over, Trump will do what we on the Duran always said he should do. Tell the Europeans, you own it. You take it over from now on. The United States has other things to do. With one difference, Alexander, going off of Trump's interview with Brett Bear on Fox News, he is now saying, I want my money back. I want the U.S.'s money back.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. Which is ominous for Ukraine. by the way because because of course they can't pay it back so the fact that he's talking in that way is another reason for thinking that he's not going to invest any more money in this project and on your video you made a good point last week not even last week a couple of days ago he was saying i want the rare earth minerals going forward for for future weapons payments and security

yesterday he said I want the rare earth minerals to pay us back for past weapons and money given he's completely changed the narrative on that exactly exactly exactly in again in a way that should be very

alarming for Zelensky and the people around him in Ukraine think of it in Trump terms the way he thinks it's a business businessman saying you know what we put money into this venture.

It didn't work out. Now I'm going to you guys, the people that we gave the money to, I want you guys to pay me back. Exactly. And then I'll be on my way. Exactly. That's pretty much what he's saying. Yes. Anyway, Commander Crossfire says religion is too easily thrown around as the problem in the Mideast.

The Arabs aren't calling jihad. The Israelis are simply fascists. Religion. Religion. probably the only thing keeping the region from going boom and Russia and Russia is strong sorry Russia is strong they're probably I mean I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on the theologies of the Middle East but I think you're probably right about this I'm I am sure that there are many different people with many different views about religious matters you find

fanatics on all sides and you certainly find the middle in the the Middle East, but I'm fully prepared to accept and go along with those who say that that fanaticism is a product of the conditions rather than of the underlying faiths. But as I said, I'm not an expert in the theologies, so if people want to push back, they're at liberty to do that. But that's my instinctive view. Matthew says I watched both Duran videos today. Surely the Baltics cannot be preparing to go to war with Russia. Can America prevent this? Does it want to? I don't think they are preparing to go to war with Russia. My point in my program is that some people in Russia are saying,

why are you doing this? Why are you cutting yourself off from reliable electricity? Why are you talking about closing your borders? All of this you're saying at precisely the same time as this talk about seizing Russian ships in the Baltic Sea. Is this a sign that something has been prepared in the Baltics? It's entirely understandable, given all that has happened over the last three years, that people are in Russia, are talking in that way.

And they're listening to the rhetoric that's coming out of Brussels and, of course, out of the Baltic capitals. And they're putting two and two together. And perhaps they're making five. But you can't be surprised that they are. Christopher, thank you for that super sticker. Dimitra says, thank you, gentlemen, for your hard work. Zaryl says, Aaron, her name.

is Killery Schilletton. From locals, Alexander. One second. From my info says, Aaron, why did Hamas hold Thai citizens for 400 days? Why? Maybe you could answer that. I don't think we can answer that those questions.

I mean, they went in, they took hostages. This person was there. By the way, they're also holding Russian citizens, too. Just saying. O.G. Wall says, evening. Arcane Eclectic says please hit the like button everybody. Yes. Kevin Duon, thank you for that super sticker. Sir Mug's game says, Shelley's poem, England 1819, brutal critique describes today rulers who neither see nor feel nor know, but leech-like to their fainting country

cling till they drop, blind in blood without a blow. Shelly is an exceptional poet. very political poet, by the way, a most remarkable man and one of the great romantic poets. And I think that's a very profound and insightful statement. He is, as far as I'm concerned, by the way, the greatest of the romantic poets. Some people prefer Keats, but I've always been a Shelley fan myself. Just saying. Commander Crossfire says, everyone knew about USAID. I worry for what comes next.

everybody knew, but not to the degree that we do now. It's still astonishing. You know, the thing about USAID is that I think it's fair to say that Alex and I and all the sort of people who you probably see, I mean, certainly Aaron, we all knew what he was up to. But even then, perhaps we didn't know quite how much. Some of the things that have been going on, the amounts of money that had been spread around the world.

The university departments, the media outlets, all of them, you know, repeating each other, it has been incredible. And again, coming back to what we were saying on the program, let's not get too obsessed at the moment with what Elon Musk's objectives and motives are. Maybe he's, by the way, acting entirely from principle and for good reasons. And I don't exclude that. But let's focus instead of what we're learning. What we're learning is astonishing, that, you know, that they're funding rappers in Bangladesh

in order to overthrow the government there, which they managed to do, by the way. That is incredible. Yeah, I also want to say that knowing something and then actually seeing it is quite incredible. I mean, everyone knew, but to actually see it. Absolutely. It's just, yeah, it has a whole different dimension to what's been going on. different dimension. And it does also, of course, you know, give you confidence in your own assessments. It's your proved right. And wow, have we been proved right? Yeah. Sparky says,

Aaron, Matt Orphalia should put together a video, including the clip of Huckabee, literally expressing his hope for the apocalypse in his lifetime, as well as clips from HECSeth at all for President Trump. Yeah. Well, thank you for that. I mean, I have some some hopes for Hegsef, actually. I mean, he's obviously a man on a journey, and he's now been given the Pentagon's run, which is a huge operation. Let's see what he comes up with. Sir, Buck's game says, if Trump walks away from Ukraine, then the EU makes peace. Macron gets a Nobel Peace Prize. Trump strokes out in the Oval Office. I think if Macron gets a Nobel Peace Prize, then one can definitely say that satire has ended.

That really would be completely absurd. But no, seriously, if America pulls out of Ukraine, which I think is going to happen, by the way, I think in some way, in some form, in some shape, at some point over the next three months, four months, whatever, America will be out of Ukraine. I like Aaron, I cannot imagine Trump going back to Congress and asking for more months.

What Alex said on one of the programs that we did, how can he ask for money given what Elon Musk and others are saying about, and Zelensky are saying, about how much money was embezzled? A hundred billion dollars lost. They're going to go back and ask Congress for more, so the more of it can be embezzled. I mean, that isn't, realistically, that isn't going to happen. It's not going to happen. So at some point, The Europeans are going to be left with this. Some of them are so invested in this project. And some of them, to say it bluntly, are so stupid that they will try and continue by themselves. And they will sabotage all attempts at peace. And there will be a military outcome. And the Russians will be left dictating terms.

If I have to make a guess as to where this is going, this is where it is going. Yeah. Colorado Watch says, keep up the great work, Duran. You are invaluable. Thank you. Thank you, Colorado Watch for that. And from Commander Crossfire, is the fear of China legit. China will pass the U.S. soon. I don't think it is legit in the sense that I don't think that the Chinese have a project to take over the world. I think they have many, many issues and problems and concerns of their own related to China. and I think that that's probably their primary focus.

Many Chinese point out that anyway, this kind of global expansion project that some people attribute to them is fundamentally out of tune with the traditions of Chinese society. And whenever I've discussed, I said, you know, you're talking about the traditions of your society, can that really apply to the government?

What they say to me is simply, this, the government in a country like China cannot ultimately go too far against the traditions because the people it wants to use to send a round world would be Chinese themselves and they would not really support a project of that kind. So I personally think a deal can be done. I think that the United States and China can eventually find a point of coexistence with each other. I don't think they'll be friends, but I don't think they need to be any respect. Zaryl says Biden admin gave Russia to China. Well done, Brandon.

Sure no. Toronto Brad says, respect free speech from Canada. Absolutely. Brad for that, absolutely. John Flander says, does anyone really think that the U.S. military will behave like the IDF? I don't think that, well, I'm not going to try and guess, actually. I mean, I was going to say that I don't think they would. I think if things like that ever were to happen,

I think there would be big, big opposition in America. I think there'd be a lot of people in America who would protest against it, as happened, you know, with the Milan massacre and all that in Vietnam. So I think there would be a backlash. But I'm not going to say more because I don't want to assume things before they happen. Humming, Palin, says, is Trump trying to divide Russia and China? If so, how? Well, I think he is.

I think that's always been the plan. I think if you go back to the first Trump term, I think the original idea, which was partly, I think Steve Bannons, was make up with Russia to break up this, you know, rivalry with China. play up the fact that Russians and the Chinese have not always been friends, pulled Russians back towards the West, see whether you can build good relations with them. And then, of course, that couldn't happen because of Russia gate. And then Biden came along. And then there was a completely different idea, defeat the Russians in Ukraine,

engineer regime change there, smash Russia, bring back Yeltsin, you know, Yeltsin 2, whoever that was, Navalny maybe. And that will cause policy to change. And that will break the Russian-Chinese axis. And that has clearly failed. And now I think Trump might be attempting a sort of weak aversion of, you know, of the ban and plan of the first, improve relations with Russia, stabilize the situation in Europe,

at least find some way that way to get the Americans, out of Europe, out of their commitments to Europe, so that they can focus on the Indo-Pacific instead. So I think there are all these things. My own view is the better way is to pursue simultaneously, day-tant, not friendship, that's lost now, but some kind of detain with the Russians and some kind of detent with the Chinese,

based on tough-minded, pragmatic realism. I think that is possible, with both countries. I think they each have considerable issues that they need to sort out internally. And I think they would welcome it. But, well, we'll see what Trump and his people manage. Peter Collins says,

who will take the power in Syria? Well, I'll tell you who has it now. Erdogan does. Nobody should be fooled about... I'm sorry. about Al Jolani. He is not the real leader of Syria. I mean, maybe called himself President Shahar,

but at most he is Erdogan's viceroy in Damascus. That is all he is. So Erdogan runs Syria at the moment, but I think he's going to find it more and more difficult. And I don't think that there is any clear way back for Syria. And I have to say this. I think that putting this all together, together again, recreating the Syrian state as it existed before 2011, is now going to be

all but impossible, at least in any short-term future. Sir Mug's game says, Genesis of Mossad was circa 1930s, Istanbul. Turkey and Israel have been close ever since, very close. Gola and Vraki close. Tis a pity. Two fine upstanding nations will soon be at each other's throats. Well, they they might be. I mean, don't don't over it. Don't, don't assume that simply because Erdogan makes great speeches and addresses vast crowds and says all sorts of

things about Israel that he really means it. Just saying. I would not be surprised if they do a deal of some kind eventually. I would not be surprised at all. Yeah, Erdogan's always making all kinds of deals, absolutely. Toronto Brad says, Ben Derritas did

Gonzalo dirty. Absolutely, yeah. Thank you. What happened to Gonzalo was terrible. And the more we learn, the more terrible it looks. And I'm afraid the more terrible the State Department looks, just saying. Yeah. Sir Muzgame says,

Alex, don't worry about Vance beating Zelensky. Vance has powerful hillbilly antibodies that can destroy the Zelensky curse and Zelensky's cooties. Thank you for that. Sir Muscame. Diamond, demon, jump says, good day, gentlemen. Keep up the just fight. Sadaman says, is there a brain-dead university everybody goes to?

Good question. I cannot begin to discuss the realities of the university sector, the university sectors in Europe, Britain, the United States, and what has been going on there in the last 20 years. It's a painful subject. I'm not going to talk about it, because if I did, I might start saying things that, Well, might cause problems.

Just said. Commander Crossfire says, is that the Ethiopian flag? I think it is. The second biggest recipient of USAID, threat to bricks? Well, possibly. Who knows? Is it Egypt or Ethiopia? Ethiopia.

Ethiopia is the second biggest. Yeah, I think it could be a threat to bricks, actually. I mean, the United States has had a very, very long history. of involvement in Ethiopia. So did Britain, by the way. But so has Russia, just saying. The Russians were the major allies of Ethiopia in the 19th century. In fact, many people don't know, by the way.

So, you know, we'll see. But yes, of course it's a threat to Briggs. And there will be concerns about this. And people in Moscow and Beijing will be asking questions. And they'll be asking questions that they're Ethiopian friends. My sense is that they have it under control in Ethiopia for the moment of these. Sparky says China foments harmony, the West foments chaos. Well, the Chinese often say that, of course.

Harmony is a very important word in Chinese, just to say. Life of Brian says segments on the left are photo negatives of Ben Shapiro, Israel, Palestine, dominates their judgment. I think that's true. Sir Mug's game says Xi Jinping has the mandate from heaven and makes the hearts of the middle king and makes the hearts of the middle kingdom sing sing sing

well I wouldn't go quite to quite to those lengths I mean the mandate of heaven and all that basically that kind of thinking and philosophy went out of the window in 1911 when the last emperor abdicated so I don't think that the Chinese government today

thinks in those terms. Yes, sir. Sparky says, Turkey has a lot to chew with Syria, with Turkish army peacekeepers helping to abide time. Can they make deals with local governments who've run Syria for a few years anyway to stitch together a colonial government?

I think I've already answered that, but I don't think they do. I don't think they know how to do it. I don't think they know the people on the ground well enough. And I think that conversely, in Syria, they are too well known.

The very fact that they were the former imperial overlord makes many people in Syria very antagonistic to them. Sir Muzgame says, if you want to be creeped out to the max, check out Trump's Pastor Paula White, who talks in tongues and makes Miriam Adelson look like Yasser Arafat.

I think I've seen that video of the Pastor Paula White. I think I know what you're talking about, Sir Muskin, yeah. I haven't. Nico says, Lisa with love, the Russian vlogger, I mentioned, showcasing life in Russia is going to North Korea. I'll watch this journey and the actual facts about North Korea. Yeah. Well, I'm not going to discuss North Korea, the North Korea. I've been hearing all kinds of things about North Korea for many, many,

many years. And I haven't been there, and I don't expect I will go to North Korea myself. The Russians at the moment, having a big romance with North Korea, it's suddenly the country, that's become a friend. And it's not difficult to understand why, because Kim Jong-un has taken such a strong position supporting Russia over the special military operation. And that's made many, many Russians very, very favorably inclined towards North Korea. But whether that provides an objective view of its realities, I'm not able to say. Death Dealer 1341 says, great show as always. Sparky says, make Ukraine Russia again, don't leave a rump state called Ukraine. At least it remains a NATO playground, a carpetbaggers money laundry, and a black rock property.

You've made this point before. And with every single day that passes, with every single plan that people in the West bring up, you know, peacekeepers, frozen conflicts, all of that sort of thing, the people in Russia who think like you become, there are more of them and they become more determined to see that very outcome that you've described. So I think we have to be prepared

for that possibility. I did not think, I don't think, that that was the Russian objective three years ago. But we are getting closer to the point when it might become that. Sarah Fim Gulen says,

can Trump actually make life difficult for Russia if he decides that he not getting what he wants from Russia. Is Putin concerned by this at all? Yeah, well, of course he's concerned. And of course the United States can make light difficult for Russia. I mean, there's an absolutely crazy idea floating around at the moment. It's admittedly an EU idea, apparently, not an American one, of seizing Russian ships on the high seas. You know, ships carrying oil and all of that on the high seas. Straightforward piracy, dressed up with various legal excuses. And that's just one thing that they could do. They could do all kinds of

things that could trouble and cause the Russians' problems. And of course, the Russians know all about that. Will that cause Russian policy in Ukraine to change? No. Can Russia respond to all of that? Yes, it can. Will Russia's friends split away for Russia because of these pressures? No, they won't. but to say that the Russians would welcome that kind of pressure, of course, it wouldn't be true. The reason not to do it is not because the Russians aren't thinking about it and aren't saying that this would be a problem for them. The reason not to do it is because the Russians would then respond

with action of their own, probably in Ukraine, probably within their own society, probably on the high seas, if we seize their ships, they might start seizing ours. They got a powerful navy, and they have means to do it. They might start doing real damage to undersea cables. I mean, they haven't done it yet. Everybody now, well, officially that is acknowledged.

If we get into that kind of game with a country like Russia, we're storing up enormous problems for ourselves, greater problems for ourselves than we can inflict on the Russians. The US has made it hard on Russia already. Absolutely. And look at what's happened. 4% GDP growth. All right.

Exactly. Alexander Podgachev says, I keep hearing that NATO will fall apart. Is there any truth to it? Yes. At some point, at some point everything ends. I mean, NATO will not be here forever. I think that's the first point to say.

I think it is closer to a crisis than it has been at any point in its history. I always remember the comment that Alex made before the special military operation began, that if you wanted to choose a hill to die on, NATO had to choose a hill to die on, to choose Ukraine was the greatest idiocy. And that is what they did. And they might very well die on that hill. Sparky says in three years, Russia can hold referendums about remaining part of Russia in Western Ukraine. If needed, they can donate areas to neighboring countries as long as they don't call them Ukraine.

Well, they can do all of those things. Peskov today in response to Trump's comments about Ukraine becoming Russian. He said, well, you know, plenty of places in Ukraine want to become Russian. Of course, he said, you know, the four regions have already chosen to become Russian. But you seem to hold out the possibility that other places might want to become Russian too, just saying. Commander Crossfire says, what's up with Georgia? No restoring ties with Russia. I mean, I think there's been a big misunderstanding about the Georgia thing. I never got the sense that the Georgian government was pro-Russian, just to say,

what it was was that he wanted to avoid a war and to maintain good economic. and commercial relations with Russia, which Georgia has. And then, of course, there was this extraordinary regime change attempt carried out in Georgia, which we now cost $40 million. I suspect it was really an awful lot more than that, by the way. And we're probably going to get the whole picture eventually. But for the moment, the situation in Georgia has stabilized. The government's interest will be to keep it that way and give it a year, two years time, when the special military operation ends perhaps, then the Georges and the Russians can meet and they can have their discussions and who knows what might come. Klaus Matna says Ukraine must hold new elections. The solution is

there. Well, everybody says that, except it was Zelensky himself who says it'd be entirely the wrong thing to do. Guess why? Sir Mugge, game says, should have guessed, Alexander, you'd prefer Shelley over Keats' Pope's poem. The Duncied is a doozy that also describes current conditions in the UK. A lot of people don't understand how much politics there is in English literature, by the way, particularly of that period. Life of Brian says scale of one. I should say I should say I like Pope Paulson. Life of Brian says scale of one to ten chances of Victoria Newland A gave the order on Gonzalo B will be held to account for it

Well I don't know and I don't want to make accusations which are not based on actual knowledge I mean that's my background so I don't like to do that if she did give some kind of I don't suppose it was an order but some kind of direction, which played a role in what happened to Gonzalo. I will not be in the least bit surprised. I can very easily imagine it.

Could she be held to account for it? This is where we've seen the great change that's happened in the United States now. A month ago, I would have said no. Today, I say possibly. Who knows, yeah. And from Sparky, trains left the station on China, friendship. President Trump should forget about splitting them. Also, he should learn Bricks has no plans for a currency after seeing failures of the euro. I agree. I agree on both counts.

Xi Jinping is going to Russia for the 9th of May celebrations. Putin is going to China for the Chinese victory celebrations in September. There's word that there will be another meeting between Putin and C over and above those two. This relationship is developing fast. Yeah, and Colorado Watch says, interesting times grew up to see the U.S. peak and decline. People get fooled into thinking that prosperity was the natural order. Nope, just a cycle. Fortunate enough to see it peak. People always forget about prosperity that it must be worked for. Just say, what happened

in the United States was that the people who took over took all that wealth and prosperity that had been built up over many, many decades and even centuries of hard work. They took it for granted. You see that so often happen. Aristocracies everywhere do this. This is unfortunately what's been happening to the United States. It is a cycle. Very true. All right. Alexander, any final thoughts? There's been an absolutely outstanding program. Absolutely outstanding program altogether. We are in extraordinary times. And again, just to make a point, that I made before.

Don't worry too much about what plans Trump and Musk have about what they're doing in Washington. What they're doing is important, and the outcome is important too, and overall it is very good. Just saying. Well said. All right.

Thank you to Aaron Mathe for joining us. Once again, I will have his information where you can follow his work as a pin comment down below. Thank you to everyone that watched us on Odyssey, on Rockfin, on Rumble, YouTube, and v.urand.orgals.com. And thank you to our moderators. Zareel, thank you, Peter. Thanks.

T. Jordan. Thank you so much. And I think that's everybody that was moderating. for today and we will we will catch everybody tomorrow right alexander absolutely more videos and and tomorrow i plug your i do i do my live stream on locals absolutely 4,400 hours esth uh 1900 hours london time looking forward to meeting you all there absolutely join locals and uh alexander gives a great live stream on locals real quick alexander from Sir Mugsgan, Greek ship owners

call it baptizing. Russian oil is baptized, cleansed of its sins, and now something else. Absolutely. Absolutely. And the other thing is from oilgrice.com, the price of gas in Europe

is now higher than the price of oil, which is absolutely incredible. I mean, you know, for the price of, the equivalent price of gas and oil, first time ever costs more than oil so that industrial users are now burning oil, which is a low flammable liquid in place of gas, which is a high flammable gas. I mean, it is crazy. It is lunacy. Thank you, Ursula. Thank you, Ursula. Thank you, Adelina and Abik of the

Green Party. Absolutely. Sparky says, I believe Gonzalo had a deal with the SBU. He was comfortable with that was working, but the US State Department overruled it. I, well, I've never seen any evidence. I don't believe that was going on at all. All right, anyway, thank you, Sparky, for that. Thank you to everybody, and we will see everybody tomorrow. And once again, the durand.com to catch alexander's live stream tomorrow. Take care.

Take care.