The Duran Podcast - Trump/Kellogg Ukraine plan w/ Col Jacques Baud (Live)

Episode Date: February 6, 2025

Trump/Kellogg Ukraine plan w/ Col Jacques Baud (Live)

Okay, we are live with Alexander Mercuris in London, and we are very happy and very honored to have with us. Once again, on the Duran, Colonel Jacques Bard. Colonel Bard, great to have you with us. How are you doing today? Where can people follow your work? I have a link to your book on Amazon, the description box down below. Thank you very much for having me again on your program. That's a pleasure.

I quote your, the Durand here and there when I'm interviewed by even other channels because you keep being my reference when we talk about analysis and understanding what's going on in the world of the day. So thank you to invite me again. It's great to have you with us. And before we get started, let's say hello to everybody that is watching us on Odyssey, on Rockfin on Rumble, YouTube, and the Duran community on locals, the durand.locals.com. And also a quick thank you to our amazing moderators, Peter Zareel.

Thank you for moderating. Very much appreciated. Alexander, Colonel Bard, we have to discuss Ukraine and the news that we're going to have, according to Bloomberg, some sort of unveiling of the Trump plan during the Munich Security Conference, February 14th to 16th. Interesting date that they picked, by the way. Anyway, Alexander, Colonel Bod, let's talk.

Okay. Indeed, sir. So, can I just say, first of all, I mean, it's interesting that we're going to have to wait a number for the week. to get this peace plan. It's taking an awful long time to appear. But anyway, we'll no doubt talk about that later. First of all, can I just say that it is a huge pleasure

and an honor to have Colonel Bull here again on this program. And for me, personally, if there has been an outstanding military commentator about the wall, somebody who's actually explained to me this war better than anyone else, it is Colonel Bull. I speak as somebody who has no military background whatsoever, as I've said many, many times. But reading his book, and I think it is an indispensable book, it has made me understand certain important things, which people miss. And that is that the Russian army thinks and fights in a particular way. And in order to understand it, you have to look at what the Russian army is about.

Now, if you do that, all sorts of things, which all sorts of people, all kinds of commentators, even some commentators, you know, I take seriously and listen to, things that they say, which they don't find easy to explain and understand, it all becomes much, much clearer. And I'm also going to say something. if you have read Colonel Boe's book, if you have followed his commentary about the Ukraine war closely, commentary which, by the way,

began before the start of the special military operation, I've been reading his works for years now. You would not be surprised in any way that we are where we are now. In fact, I don't know of any way. anyone who has got the underlying realities of this war and its outcome and the position that we are in more correct than him. So I want to make all of those points and I do want to again stress, please do read his book if you really do want to understand the thinking and the nature of what is now increasingly being recognized as one of the most powerful army. and militaries in the world, then please do read his book.

Now, having said all of that, I think the first point to stay, the first point to begin, Colonel Boy, other than to welcome you again on this show, is to ask you just about your comments, your comments about the situation today. I mean, I've expressed my own views about this to some extent, that perhaps you could tell us what you see is the situation that we're looking at now.

Well, first of all, thank you for the kind words and again, happy to be with you on your program. Now, to go to the question you asked, I think, first of all, everything we see today was absolutely predictable. Because we knew, since, in fact, the very beginning of the special military operation, that the Ukrainians could not achieve any kind of victory. And this is exactly what we are seeing unfolding today. The problem is what I think the only question that remains open today is to what extent we will see the... Or to what extent of whole big will be the defeat of Ukraine. I think that's the only question we have.

And I think that's the reason why you have so many countries today, even European countries, that realize that they are in dead ends with this conflict. And they try to find a way out. Because the idea of pressing Ukraine to fight against Russia, and again, that was obvious. I mean, in spring that was May June 2022, Zelensky said that from that point on, he was depending, I mean, Ukraine was depending on European aid to survive.

That was May June 22. And he knew from, and I think that comes from an interview we gave to CNN on March, March 22, probably the 20th of 22nd of March 22. He said that he asked the Americans, whether or not he would join NATO. And he asked for a frank answer. And he said to CNN, the answer was clearly no. Ukraine will not be member of NATO,

but for the public, the door will remain open. Meaning that Ukraine is living on a narrative. We knew that Ukraine was living just with Western aid. I mean, military support, financial aid and everything you can put under that label. But it could not achieve victory. So in fact, what we are seeing today is something, is just the evolution of what we had in May, June, 2022. There is nothing changed for Ukraine.

They know they will not be member of NATO, despite all the rhetoric we heard. Because at the end of the day, as you've pointed out several times in your programs, when we talk about NATO, in fact, we should talk about the US, because NATO is simply the US armed arm of his foreign policy. Everything is defined. I worked five years in NATO. I was the only Swiss working in NATO based on a special agreement between Switzerland and NATO because Switzerland is part of the partnership for peace.

And in that context, I got the position in NATO. And I have seen that basically nothing happened in NATO without the US. This is simply not thinkable to have anything happening without the approval of the U.S. So, U.S., basically, when the U.S. said to Ukraine, you will not be member of NATO. That means there will not be member of NATO. So everything we have heard since then is just a narrative, is just plain words, period. And on the military situation, we have seen this situation degrading day by day. And you know better than me all that because you made very extensive description of what's happening on the battlefield every day.

So this is exactly what we have. And we could anticipate that because, first of all, the Russians have also said that. I mean, they have, I mean, the Russians have understood the reality of the situation extremely. soon. And that also speaks for very, let's say, effective intelligence in understanding the situation, that the West has not demonstrated in any way. But the Russians have understood the situation. And they have said, well, if you help Ukraine, basically, you will never achieve the superiority that is required to win against Russia, meaning that the result is that we will simply just grind down

Ukrainian forces until there is nothing left. And remember the two objectives that were defined by Vladimir Putin on the 24th of February 2020, basically demilitarization and denazification. We can argue on the word denazification, because it's something he took from the Potsdam Declaration of 195. But in any case, the name of the game was to destroy a potential threat, as it was clearly explained in the address of this 24 February.

And that's exactly what the Russians have done. And they knew this was almost mathematically, that would happen almost mathematically. That's exactly what happened. So there is no real surprise for those who have been cautious observers and critical observers of the conflict. What's happening today is absolutely no surprise. What surprises me is that we have now the Western world, basically, because even Trump, they are discovering the scope of the conflict.

We probably come back to the issue of Keith Kellogg and all that, but Keith Kellogg did not really understand the scope of the conflict, what the conflict was about. That's the reason why we have, I think, right now, this kind of readjustment in the approach, in the Trump administration approached the conflict. And of course, the Europeans, because the Europeans were just into a kind of ideological approach to the conflict, and they refused any kind of understanding, I mean, reasonable, rational understanding of the conflict.

Today, what happens is that the gap between the reality and the not, narrative is apparent. That's exactly where we are in the moment. And the problem for the West today is how do we feel the gap? Because we have said this and this. Russia is weak and a wash machine. All this kind of narrative we have heard in a lot. And today, everything appears to be exactly the opposite of what we said. Now, how can you build a piece based on so fallacious narrative?

And that's where this is, the whole issue today is how do we bridge the gap? And that probably explained why Trump was not able, although it was probably a rhetorical figure to solve the problem in 24 hours. I mean, I take it as a rhetorical figure. But anyway, we

could have expected much more quick result in this the discussion with the Russians or even with the Ukrainians, by the way. But this didn't happen. And if we are, if we have to wait an additional week to have a more detailed image of what Trump wants to do, that means that nothing

we're ready before. That means that exactly what I and where we hear the Trump coming with the rare earth and and rare minerals and all that. That means that something is not exactly what he expected to be. And that's exactly what the strange situation in which we are today. That's my Raff assessment of the understanding of the situation. I think it's a very complete one. Can I just say, can I just start by going back to your very first point?

Because you're absolutely correct. I mean, the war was started. I mean, the real war, the one that truly began in May, June 22, when the West started to arm Ukraine in a big way, and they started to seek military victory. That it was based upon a false narrative that Ukraine would one day join NATO. You're absolutely correct about this.

Zelensky has said this. I don't think it is even disputed in the United States, actually. What is incredible to me, and I still find it astonishing, is that you start, you wage war on the basis of a narrative. I mean, a narrative is by definition, a construct of the imagination. I mean, it's something you fantasize and think about. I had always assumed, and I'd assume that military officers in the Pentagon,

in Whitehall, in the Ministry of Defense in London, in those sort of places, that on especially something like waging war, would actually look at the hard, real facts. And I still find it incredible to believe that we could have got into a conflict with Russia because we are involved in a conflict with Russia. Russia, of all countries, a country with a military reputation that goes back centuries,

and which is also a nuclear superpower, on the basis of a constructed narrative, that the people who were spinning already knew was false. I've never heard of a situation like that, certainly since the end of the Second World War, to this extent. And it seems to me, coming back to what you say, yes, you can absolutely, and if you go to your book, by the way, just to say again, you can see how mathematically, and one of the interesting things for me was

how mathematically minded the Russian military actually is. Just quickly add that. But you could see mathematically how the military outcomes would lead us to the point that we are in. But when you're creating force narratives, you are going to be, from the moment the war begins, running away from those mathematical realities, And again, I just don't understand how the militaries in the West allowed it to happen. Why they didn't come and say to the politicians.

Look, what you are trying to do simply cannot work? Well, I think I absolutely agree with you. I think the military, in fact, if we look carefully, I'm not mentioning the European military because you can say it's in existence. But remember that even the Pentagon, early November, 2003, suggested Zedensky to initiate some talks with the Russians. Meaning that, and we have seen that constantly, even if for obvious reason, the Pentagon has not been a moderate element in this conflict. But at least it tried at some points to have kind of a moderate factor. What strikes me is that I have been for several years, I was a military advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Switzerland.

And what strikes me is the total absence of the foreign affairs and the diplomacy at large when we talk about the solution. of the country, meaning that what we are seeing today seems to take the Western, especially European diplomacy on the back foot. I mean, these guys have absolutely not considered any alternative to the narrative. I can, I could understand that some fanatics, I mean, people like Mark Routé and also Sula von der Leyen, these are fanatics. I mean, simply, they are just or Kayakalas. They're just blinded by the hate of Russians.

This is just obvious. I mean, Kayakalas is what, this is almost the national culture in those countries, Baltic state, Poland, you hate the Russians. And there are probably some historical explanation for that. And okay, why not? The thing is that the whole of the diplomatic apparatuses in Europe, in partly in my country, which is a neutral country,

have not addressed any option for an alternative narrative to the situation. They all followed the script that was written. by I don't know whom. That is what we call the narrative without considering any other option of the of the I mean the idea that a good friend of mine actually was the Swiss ambassador in Kiev. I mean the two of them, even the actual one, but the one who was at the beginning of the conflict and the one who is now in in in Kiev are too good of good friends, Crudeville, and the other one, I just forgot the name.

But in any case, these guys, when they appeared in public media to make their comment on the country, they follow exactly by the slightest data. They follow exactly the narrative on the country. And for instance, I was surprised to see when we, in November 2022, My friend, again, ambassador in Kiev at the time, he said, we cannot impose the Ukrainians a solution for the conflict. They have to say their words and we cannot come behind and say, don't do that. But that's exactly what the Europeans did in April 2022. So how can he say that knowing that the Europeans have done exactly the opposite?

And that's that goes beyond the panacism. And that questions not just the quality, but the ability of our leadership to address questions as complex as this one. By the way, we have very similar issue when it comes to the conflict in Palestine. So this is a very strange situation where we are not driven by facts, but driven by narrative. And the whole apparatus, without any exception, follows the narrative. The Swiss Intangent Service just issued his report on the Security of Switzerland for 2024. In this document, which is supposed to outline the problems and the challenges for the security of Switzerland last year, but that obviously applies for this year also.

There's absolutely no change with the narrative that we hear in the papers. Even if we know that there is so wrong things that have been said about this conflict and wrong assessment and wrong understanding that lead us exactly into the situation we are and leads the Ukrainians in the situation they are. So they have absolutely no understanding. So why is that an intelligent service? I mean, it's not an intelligence service at all. This is just putting together the headlines of the papers and making a report. is not an assessment. But that shows that the whole of the establishment

has followed una voce the narrative without questioning any part of it. And today we are exactly in that, which the situation, the Western leadership at large, into a situation where we're in a dilemma. because should we follow the narrative or should we follow the reality? And if we will follow the reality, we know perfectly that as Naryshkin said a few days ago, Ukraine will just cease to exist. I mean, I think it's worth to say I think it's best useful to point out how absolutely bizarre the narrative has been.

because for the first year and a half of the war, the dominant narrative was that Ukraine was going to win. I mean, we had article after article, commentary after commentary, statement after statement, saying that the Ukrainians were winning the war and that they were going to achieve a victory. And the offensives that they launched in the autumn were, you know, decisive and that the defense of Kiev had been, you know,

the heroic victory. and that the summer offensive in 2023 was going to break through and achieve an even greater victory. And it was completely otherwise. Again, this is not said from hindsight. I want to say this again, I was reading you at the time. I remember reading at the time. You were pointing out that this is all wrong, which it was.

And it was obvious why it was wrong. But that was the dominant narrative. Every political leader in the West was parroting it. The militaries were supporting it. And then from about October 2023, it was no longer quite that Ukraine was going to win, but that there was a stalemate and that the Russians are going to be exhausted. And again, we discussed this many times on the Iran. We have a whole year of narrative, which still,

You find still remnants of it in a few places that people are starting to doubt. That, you know, the war is in a narrative that the Russians are being gradually losing momentum, that they can't maintain the advance. And you mentioned General Kellogg, and I'd like to come to him now, because if you read his famous report of April 2024, which still seems to shape his thing, he writes on the assumption that there is a stalemate underway in Ukraine, that the war is somehow in stalemate and that it's going to remain there indefinitely unless the United States can somehow

manage to persuade both sides to come together and to agree some kind of compromise, a freeze of the conflict and a ceasefire, and, well, that would basically be the end of the affair. It wasn't a stalemate in April 2024. Again, if you've been listening and reading the things that you've been saying, at which we were saying, you would know that. And it is not a stalemate now. But I think Kellogg still thinks it is

and I think he's telling Trump then. And I think the plan that he is forming is based on this completely false perspective. So we see how this narrative creation is shaping policy still. Just your comments. Absolutely. And of course, the problem is that, as you already said,

this article of Kellogg was published end of April 2024. And of course, at that time, he could not know the two prerequisites that Vladimir Putin said on 14 of June of last year. That means, A, that the four regions of the south and east of Ukraine must be under full control of Russia and the promise that Ukraine would not join NATO as a prerequisite to enter negotiation. That was made clear about Putin. And the interesting thing is that despite having this major, because this is a major thing, I mean, when you hear Putin,

I know you have read the transcript of its address to the officials of the foreign ministry in June 2024. He makes very clear these are the prerequisite and this is not to be discussed. This is just the baseline for the discussion, meaning that everything you talk will be based on that, period, meaning that coming back in some kind of plan where you may, for instance, say that you have

a Russian sovereignty for 10 years or 20 years, and then that the oblasts or regions would be returned to Ukraine or that Ukraine may be member of NATO in

10, 15 or 25 years, whatever. All that is basically excluded by Putin, but we still hear, I mean, less now than a few months ago, but still, we still hear those options for negotiation that we could put into on the table. But this is just excluded by Putin, the same as the peacekeepers. As you rightly pointed out in several programs, I mean, bringing troops to keep the peace in Ukraine. First, I have been head of the policy and doctrine of the peacekeeping operation in NATO for two years. So this is a subject I'm quite familiar with.

When you send peacekeepers, as the name says, they are people who keep the people who keep the peace. That means you still, you need to have a peace first. But when you hear what France and Britain said, it's more people who are there to enforce the peace, to oblige Russia to go to the negotiation deal, which is technically speaking, it's not peacekeeping, it's peace enforcement, which is also a concept that we have in the United Nations. But it's another concept. And you can say basically trying to enforce peace or forcing people to the negotiation table by using military force

is, in fact, war fighting. That's what we have. But when we hear the Russians, I mean, they say, okay, if you bring your troops, no problem. We'll just destroy them. I mean, that's what Medvedev used to say. He said to the French, yes, bring you guys. We'll destroy them.

Meaning that we are not solving the problem. We are just kicking the can down the road by sending troops. Because that will be just more people, and that's, I think Medvedev said something exactly like this, that bring troops in on the theater. That will be just more work for artillery, that's all. But it's not, it will not change the nature of the conflict. So meaning that everything we propose and everything that comes up with Kellogg project,

I mean, with quotation mark plan and other plans that have been come to that, are not based on the reality that we see on the ground, first of all, and the reality that the Russians have outlined, because I think the Russians are much more realistic in describing the situation. And all the plans and ideas we have seen circulating in the last couple of weeks, they are not taking into account these factors. We always try to cheat the Russians by ignoring what they say. And at the end, that we'll come to a situation,

almost the same kind of situation we had in June last year, when we had a peace plan where we know Russians to talk, because basically it was a peace plan based exclusively on what Zelenskyi had outlined on these 10 points plan. So we are heading, I mean, I hope, again, I cannot anticipate what will be published next week by the Kellogg and and Trump. But what we have seen so far is, again, ideas that almost exclude what the Russians say, even though people start to understand that the Russians are serious and they are not bluffing. And if we don't take into account what they say, they will simply ignore any proposal for discussion and continue the war.

which is at this stage totally detrimental to Ukraine, and people start to understand that. So again, this is coming back to Kellogg, what surprised me is that since last June, he didn't really append his proposal based on what the Russian said, which is quite surprising for someone who is there, basically to shape some kind of policy to address the Ukrainian conflict. I don't know what you think of.

No, I absolutely agree. I mean, I think that one of the great problems I've said this, we've discussed this, I think in our previous program with you, is that we do not listen or even think very much about what the Russians are doing or thinking. We don't understand their strategy, which is what you've been writing about. We don't look at their way of war, and we don't listen very much to what they say diplomatically. We simply come along and we present them with our ideas

and come away astonished when they say, no, this is not what we're thinking about. This isn't our ideas at all. It doesn't correspond. Now, there are reports in the United States that there is a division within the Trump administration about the war, that some people take a much more realistic view. They say that the war is lost,

that the thing that the United States must do is walk away and extricate itself from it, and that there's nothing that can be done to turn it around. But there is said to be another view, which is Kellogg's, but also Mike Walses, he's the national security advisor, which says that the thing to do is to pressure the Russians, and that will somehow force the Russians,

into making concessions and will turn the situation around. Is there anything from a military point of view that can actually change the direction of the war at this stage? I mean, what realistically can the United States do to turn the situation around? The option of sending American troops to fight in Ukraine. having been categorically ruled out in a way that I think it would be impossible to reverse. So what coercive pressure can be brought upon the Russians in military terms that could cause them to change their approach?

Well, that's exactly, I see your question. But it's almost a rhetorical question because it's right. Yeah, it is, absolutely. But I mean, I just wanted to hear you. No, no, no, I understand. I understand that. But the thing is that how can you coerge the Russians when they have all the cards in hand?

I mean, what are the cards that can be played by Ukraine at this stage? None. And that's probably the reason why we hear more and more. And recently you had this interview between Zelensky and the journalist of Morgan, yes Morgan, when Zelensky asked for having nuclear weapons because it has no cards, has no cards anymore. And that's a reason why Zelensky is coming again and again

with the Budapest memorandum and this kind of thing, which makes absolutely no sense at all. And the problem is that we left, in fact, by ignoring the Russians, especially in April 2022, as the West asked Zelensky to withdraw from the negotiation, although apparently the Ukrainian delegations had already signed the proposal that was on the table and that they had. And the West, I mean, Boris Johnson and probably others would talk about the Germans. I mean, if Putin mentioned the Germans and the French, but anyway, the Western powers asked Zelensky to withdraw from this agreement. And that was the last time in which Zelensky had really some cards to play.

And he left the card. and now it has no cards anymore. There were probably some cards, but there were not even real cards in September and October 2022 as you had this offensive in the Kharkov region and in Hirsson. But even there, I think it was not even defeats from or for the Russians, because the Russians we drew from these places before the Ukrainians. came in and therefore it was not even a defeat. But

we could have, this could have been used as a card. Instead, the Ukrainians got encouraged to launch their famous counter-offensive that failed

in the summer 2023. But since then, there's absolutely no card to play for the Russians. So how can you coerce the the Russians. And that's

exactly the problem. My view is that the current leadership in the US is still relying on some remnant of the narrative that we have talked about before to some extent.

They are still and we have heard, I mean, you had recently a tweet from Donald Trump saying that the Russians were weakened, that the economy is failing and all that. How serious was he? I don't know. It might have been some rhetoric in that, too.

But I think that for many people in Washington, they still have this idea that Russia is weakened and that there is not much behind the country. and if you want to support the military operation. What we see is what we get, but beyond that, there is not much. And my personal view, as I understand your view, is also that on the contrary, Russia has much more to offer than what delivers on the ground. And if necessary, you can have much more capabilities or capacities,

that could be used military capacities, but also economic capacities that could be used by the Russians if the war would expand, for instance. So I think there is a fundamental misconception in the West, including Trump administration, in order to approach a discussion with a realistic understanding of the situation. And we are still considering that they are weak, probably not as weak as we used to say, but still weak. The Ukrainies are weaker, okay? But probably there is NATO, if NATO or probably not NATO, but if several countries would join Ukraine,

they could probably turn the time. And if we heard what Mark Routi said recently, that he said that, the West is strong enough or Ukraine will prevail. The problem is that just the war is not, the front line is not going in the right direction. That's one of the most bizarre comments ever, actually. Exactly. But so there is still this narrative that comes to the surface.

So we haven't reached a point where people have definitely accepted that the Russians have all the cards in hand. We have absolutely no ways to exert some kind of pressure outside the idea, the silly idea of giving probably nuclear weapons to Ukraine. I don't remember. There was a Ukrainian politician who suggested, I think it was a British who suggested to have, to give Ukraine nuclear weapons. But I don't remember. That was last year. Anyway, anyway.

But beyond this, there's absolutely no card to play for the West. So we are, again, we are deeper and deeper into the narrative. The problem is that when we assess what Trump is doing, I think it must be clear, in my view, that Trump is not a pacifist. He doesn't want peace. it just wants US out of this mess because you understand that this war is a black hole that you just pour money into the hole

and that disappears however it disappears it could be because of what happens on the ground because of corruption because of whatever in any case what the money you put on this conflict is lost and definitely lost And that goes exactly against what he wants to do because he needs money to restore the grandeur of the United States. And to do that, he has to reconstruct an industrial power and industrial capacities.

And to do that, he needs money. So putting money on conflicts that bring nothing is just an economic. calculus in fact that Trump is trying to do. So, but he's no, he doesn't want to, how to say that? He doesn't want to make peace, but he doesn't want to leave the ground or to leave the theater of operation with the image of the one who has been defeated. He wants to have this image of, to have some win. And that's probably why it comes with this issue of rare earth and minerals and all that,

so that you can say, okay, we'll give you weapons. We don't care about what's happening in Ukraine. We get something that we need because he needs those rare earths because he needs to make his own supply chain more reliable because China may always cut the supply of this rare earth and things like this. So it's again, we're living Ukraine with this deal between rare earth and some weapons is good for us, and that's it. But I think that's the way we should understand that. But beyond that, I think Trump has understood that it's worthless to continue fighting.

I agree. I'm just going to ask one very, very last question. I mean, we've now had people like Patrushchev talking about the fact that Ukraine might not survive beyond the end of the year. What is your assessment of this? I mean, I'm not talking about any specific date. But if this war goes on indefinitely, given that the Russians are advancing, you know, the front line is moving in the wrong direction and all that. I mean, is it possible that the Ukrainian state could collapse? I've seen some commentaries that say that it absolutely is possible, but I would be interested to know your view.

Well, there are different factors that play here. First of all, of course, there is what's happening on the front line, the war, the actual war between Ukrainian and Russian forces in the Dombas. But there are also other things. Remember what Georgioscu just said, the candidate to presidency in Romania, he said that the part of Romania, I mean the Romanian part of Ukraine doesn't belong to Ukraine and should be recovered by Romania, for instance. And there have been some discussions since the very beginning of the conflict.

At the point, you may have other countries claiming, reclaiming the part of Ukraine where you have those minorities like the Magyar or Hungarian minority that has been mistreated for years and Viktor Orban himself has complained several times to the Council of Europe because of the mistreatment of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine. So you may have that. Beyond this and probably related to that, you have also within Ukraine, I mean the Ukrainian Ukraine, I mean the Kievian Ukraine, you have this content that develops. And I mentioned on another channel we discussed this issue. You have partisan movements that develop on the whole territory of Ukraine. You have, of course, Russian partisans, especially in the Herzloss.

region, the Kharkov and Nikolaev region. But these are ethnic Russians that are under the rule of Kiev, and they are making some kind of resistance, something like similar to what you had in France during World War II. But beyond that, you also have Ukrainians who are taking arms against the government. And you have two kinds of resistance or partisan movements that develop right now in Ukraine. You have, of course, those who are resisting or trying to resist the forced recruitment

that is ongoing in Ukraine. By the way, I remember the first, not the first, but one of the first video of Gonzalo Lira at the very beginning of the country that was early March 2022, he was mentioning the force recruitment already in Ukraine. So that means that the force recruitment is not just something that happened just now.

It's something that has happened since the beginning of the Russian operation. And you have the population that has systematically resisted to that. But now it converts into something that armed resistance with bombs. And you had, I think yesterday or the day before, you had people arrested in Kiev because they were trying to bomb or to destroy by bombing those trucks or vans of the recruitment officers and things like this.

So you have that. And in addition to that, you have another kind of resistance that have started. This is the resistance against the government. So an armed resistance, armed opposition, if you want. And we see that these three components, Russians, against recruitment and Ukrainian opposition, they are starting to merge slowly or to at least exchange information. And we know that, for instance, in Adessa, you have a movement which is called Dazor, which means watch, which is a Ukrainian movement, but it provides information to the Russian resistance.

And when you may remember that a few days ago, you had a missile that came on one of the most famous hotel in Adjadze, the Bristol Hotel, killing some foreigners there. The information came from these movements and was passed from Ukrainian movement, to a Russian movement, and this movement transferred the information to the Russian military. And last week, you had several attempts in the northwest of Ukraine, in the region of Rovno or Rivenei in Ukrainian, where you had several attempts to destroy the railways supply lines. and you know that this is a you have a railway line that connect Poland

to I mean to the center of Ukraine and that's where you have a lot of transit of ammunition and armament and all that and the the resistance which is purely Ukrainian. It's not it's the Ukrainian opposition

so they started to attack those the railways and to make some bomb attacks against the the transit convoys and things like. In any case, it shows that something is changing within Ukraine itself. And you had, in the recent time, you had a lot of changes in the leadership and all that. That's probably related to that.

And we have, in fact, something very similar to what we had in the Third Reich and the very end of the third rights where you had all these units starting to have kind of independent life, if you want. And we have a very similar situation here. So that's, I think when Patrushchev mentioned the collapse of the Ukrainian, Ukraine, it's not referring just to the military situation, but it's also referring to the domestic situation of Ukraine, which is, of course, influenced by the very poor economic situation. I mean, and especially if you have a cut in funds coming from the U.S.

or let's say probably not completely cut, but at least the funds could be shortened. And that would mean some difficulties because Ukraine lives today exclusively on external aid, meaning that if this doesn't continue, then you will have a problem. And this cannot be eternal because we know, as you have yourself, by the that several times, you have budgetary problems in every European or at least a major. If you look at the European Union, you have the Western part of the European Union, the old Europe, as Donald Rumssel would say, basically these are the donors,

and the eastern part of Ukraine are the recipient country, net recipient country from the European Union. Now, if you look at the donors side, that's essentially Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, there are net donors, in fact. And all these countries have currently a budget crisis, Meaning that if you add to the current crisis, the needs that would be required to make Ukraine surviving, I mean, that's unbearable. And that means that sooner or later, Ukraine will not have the necessary resources to continue functioning.

So if you add all these factors, I mean, I don't know if it will be this year or next year. year or so, regardless of the situation, the military situation on the ground. But if we continue on that path, it's clear that Ukraine will not be a viable state. It's not even viable today. It's just viable because Western countries afford or try to afford to sustain this country, but in essence, this is not affordable in the long run. So, Yes, I think we can see that. But I think we have to take into account all these factors. I mean, the discontent, and we see also if we see the polls and surveys that have been done by the Kiev Institute of Sociology,

they have published every month a survey on the readiness of the population to support the government. We see that this support is decreasing every month. And today you have probably half of the, when we talk about Ukraine, we are talking obviously of the non-Russian Ukraine, but you barely have 50% of the population that is probably in line with the government, meaning that the rest of the population is not in line with the government. Some of them have probably taken arms in the armed opposition. Some probably do not make kind of armed opposition, but are probably passively opposed,

meaning that in any case, the current path of the Ukrainian politics is not supported by an increasing part of the population. And at one point, this will come into, that we translate in some kind of change. And this change is probably not necessarily pro-Russian, but it's against current policy, the current Ukrainian policy. And at the end, and we see also that the readiness of the Ukrainian population to abandon those regions that are, are currently occupied by Russia. The portion of the population, which is ready to abandon, that is increasing, meaning that, of course, in March 22, everybody was a very gung-ho, and no way we abandoned those territories, we want to recover everything.

But today, again, you have probably something like 50% who say, no, we need to have those herds. The rest of the population say, well, we're not sure that we need to recover that and probably it's better to have peace in exchange of those territories. Meaning that we are leaving, I mean, the population have a growing disconnect with what Zelensky is trying to do. And that goes in the direction of what Patrushchev said. Jacques-Buh, Colonel Jabal, thank you very much for answering all these questions

in such a thorough and comprehensive way. Could you just wait a little while because I'm sure my colleague, Alex, has a few questions to put to you from our audience. And as I said, from my side, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. It was a pleasure. Thank you very much.

Colonel Bod, you have about five, ten minutes to answer some questions? Absolutely. Absolutely. Great. From Nikos, Colonel Bod, you are one of my favorite guests on Colonel Davis's channel. You always understand

the other side. Military summary reported today that Russia is dragging Belarus into the war. Is it plausible? Well, no, I don't think so. I mean, the Russians don't want to expand that, and they don't need that, first of all. I mean, what the Russians have on the ground is totally enough to sustain future conflict so they don't need to have to have Belarus. But Belarus

becomes a strategic ally because in fact it covers the northern flank of the Ukrainian theater of operation. And therefore in Europe this is probably the most

the most reliable ally of Russia. So that's why Russia wants definitely to keep Belarus. At the same time, we remember that last year Vladimir Putin said he would deploy or better said station nuclear weapons in Belarus. So that's still a part of this alliance that you have between the two countries. But I don't think that there is any willingness or any intent to involve barriers in the conflict in any way. They don't want to extend that. There is no need for that. So. Okay. Matthew says NATO should be should have been dismantled in 1991 because there was no threat

to NATO after 1991. Your thoughts? Well, absolutely. I think the thing is that NATO was built, first of all, as Jens Stoltenberg used to say, it's a nuclear alliance. It was built around U.S. nuclear power. In essence, NATO is just an alliance that make European countries under the nuclear umbrella of the U.S. and that's the reason why the U.S. is still a primus interparis into the NATO system. and that's why the U.S. still keeps this predominance in NATO. But in essence, and NATO was created just after they discovered that Soviet Union had its own nuclear weapon.

That's made the European countries to freak out and to have the Washington Treaty in April 1949. But essentially, NATO was built as a block against the Soviet Union that was considered, even if Warsaw Pact, didn't exist formally at this time. It was still considered as a block, because at that time, I mean, in 1949, the military establishment of the different East European countries were communist, most of them were communist and therefore related very strongly to Moscow. It was formalized, if you want, with the Warsaw Pact in 1955, but in essence, the NATO was designed as a block against another bloc. As the WOSO Pact dissolved in 1991, there was no point to have NATO in fact. And the vision, I think the vision of the Russians at that time was much more mature than the Western view.

The Soviets already at that time had this idea of security by cooperation, instead of security by confrontation. By the way, when I say security through cooperation, you hear more or less what used to be during the Cold War, the conference for the security and cooperation in Europe that originated from a Soviet, idea that turned out to be now what we know today as the organization of security and cooperation in Europe, which was the idea of the Soviet and the Russians that instead of having two confronting blocks, we should ensure security by just having good relations with each other. That's security by cooperation. And that's the reason why even during the 50s, I mean the 1950s, the Soviets tried or they explored the idea of being part of NATO and they asked informally to NATO to belong to NATO. Because they always had this idea that instead of being two blocks looking at each other and preparing weapons and being ready for

confrontation, it would be more fruitful to cooperate together. There are probably material benefits for that. And they revived this idea as the communism disappeared in the early 90s, and there were some attempts for the Russians to join NATO. And I remember because we had similar thoughts in Switzerland at that time, and Switzerland was contemplating in the early 90s to join this concept of Partnership for Peace. And I was part of a delegation that went to different actors to explore how the neutrality of Switzerland would be perceived if Switzerland would join the Partnership for Peace.

And we went to Moscow, and I had the opportunity to talk to the highest leadership of the Ministry of Defense in Russia at the time, generals and politicians as well to explore that. And we could feel at that time that the Russians genuinely were exploring and contemplating the idea that we could coexist. absolutely peacefully, there is nothing that oppose us. During the Cold War, you could say, okay, Marxism, communism, or you can put all the words you want, I mean, there were two different words

or two different, as we're saying, German, Welt-Unsharungen. So this is a perception of the world, in fact, that was on both sides, and you could explain why you had this, antagonism. But after the fall of the communism, Russia had not really a different view of the world than we had in Europe or even the US. The US is probably to put apart because they have an enchamanic view that the European don't have real or no longer. And that's why the Russians were ready to join NATO, not because they wanted to join a military organization, but because they thought that, in fact, we can ensure cooperation

security by cooperating better with each other in economic terms, in political terms, in military terms, in everything. So, and on several occasions, by the way, during the Afghan war, things like that, you could have imagined a cooperation between Russia and United States. States, for instance, this is, I mean, there are a lot of opportunity to cooperate in terms of security, to fight terrorism and think like this. So there is no need to have a block. And the problem is that NATO has not understood that. Even though, to be honest, I used to work for a while, I was researcher for a very short time in the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

And I had some friends there, and I met them again when I was in NATO, and a good friend of mind is responsible for the future of NATO. And we had several discussions together, and they realize, I mean, at this working level, I would say, they realize that NATO is outdated in its essence. There's a lot of people. within NATO who thinks that. I think again we have a disconnect between the working level and the political level of the organization if you want. And I with the contact I have with people my peers if you want in NATO which were colonel and equivalent, a civilian equivalent. A lot of people said NATO as it is

defined is no longer the right organization to ensure security. The problem is that with this conflict in Ukraine, this has reinvigorated the idea, this block idea. And there is a point that needs to be mentioned when we talk about NATO, is that, as I said before, you have the old Europe and the new Europe. Remember that when Jacques Chirac opposed the idea of the U.S. to go into Iraq in 2003, Rumsfeld mentioned New Europe that was in favor of joining the U.S. in Iraq. The new Europe, what is the new Europe? And those who joined the U.S. in this conflict were Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, and all that. this is the New York, and this new Europe is vigorously anti-Russian. And to some extent, and that was, I was surprised when I was in NATO,

to see the political weight these countries have in the mindset of NATO. Even though a lot of countries, I mean, you know, for Portugal or Spain, they have no problem with Russia, essentially. Their challenges are in the south of the Mediterranean. This is not Eastern Europe. And the same for Italy, for instance. But the thing is that those Baltic states and Poland have very strong ties with the U.S.

You know, I remember during the Cold War, when I was for discussions on the State Department in Washington, when we go in the building of the State Department, you have a huge hole at the entrance. We have all the flags of the world, all the countries. And during the Cold War, you had hanging on the roof, you had the three flags of the Baltic states, I mean, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

They kept those flags, meaning that the ties between the U.S. and those Baltics states is extremely strong. And today, in fact, those Baltic states help the U.S. policy when it comes to the policy again or the politics or the strategy or whatever you call it against Russia. And that, in my view, is a bad influence or bad evolution of NATO. But it's a fact. I mean, I fully agree that NATO in the form it is now should disappear and be replaced by something which is more cooperative, more inclusive in terms of countries. And that would help everybody because we spend a lot

of money for nothing and if you go even now with this requirement of 5% of GDP for defense I mean what for I mean what for how can you define I remember even in NATO by the way when I was there I was there between 2012 and 2017 and even at that time people were questioning who is the enemy you know I So this is a real question. And we have the same question in three seven points. We have an army, but what's exactly for? Because what is the enemy?

Germany, Italy, France, Austria, we don't know. But we need an army. So this is no question. The problem is that how can we justify an increase in the defense budget if we don't have a concrete threat? And we see now with the budget. trajectory crisis we have mentioned before, that we are in some kind of dead end because we want to increase defense pending. But what for exactly? Everybody understands that the conflict we have in Ukraine is a Ukrainian conflict. He's not something that will come. I mean,

again, the narrative will tell you that after Ukraine it will be the rest of Europe and like this. But nobody really believes that, especially not those, the taxpayers don't believe that. And that's why what you have with the IFD in Germany and several parties in other countries who question the intellectual ability of our leaders to accept this kind of fancy threats. The problem is that it has consequences. We create an enemy just for funding defense budget. For what? It would be much effective to have something which is based on cooperation,

that we stop this confrontational type of ideology. And we start to understand that it's probably beneficial to everybody starts cooperating in Europe, which in essence was the lessons of World War II. Soapie Ork says, as a former U.S. infantry officer and Afghan combat vet, I am surprised that all the West got the intel analysis wrong. We never understood Afghans. We would never be able to think like a Russian. Well, that's interesting. It's very interesting. It's very interesting. comment because I've been in Afghanistan. I remember when I was in Afghanistan,

I had a driver provided to me, and this guy was a Pashtun, which is essentially the same tribe as the original Taliban. And at one point I asked him, what do you feel about the Taliban? How do you feel about that? I told me, you know, we don't like the Taliban. But if we have to choose between the Westerners,

and the Taliban, we will choose the Taliban. Everything was said there. And as a matter of fact, when we talk about the Afghan conflict and you have a lot of people trying to make comparisons between the Russian war and the NATO war in Afghanistan, there's a very strong difference because I followed the Afghan war because at that time I was in the intelligence, I was in touch with Ahmed Shah Masoud.

I even wrote a handbook for him at that time, especially to fight against these small butterfly mines that were dropped by the Soviets. And I wrote a handbook, how to dissolve mines and see that this. Anyway, so I followed this conflict in Afghanistan, but the Russians, in fact, never tried, to occupy Afghanistan.

They never tried to get to control over the whole of Afghanistan. Their task was simply to keep the government active, in fact, to preserve the government. And what the Soviets

did at that time, if you look at the deployment of the Soviets in Afghanistan, they never tried to go deep into the mountains and all that. They just tried to, try to keep the major communication axes under control and the major cities. That's all. And they succeeded in that.

And in fact, when the Soviets left in 1989, the government they protected for several years or ten years. This government was kept in activity for additional. of two years, while the NATO tried to impose a government and this government that they imposed it lasted only 24

hours after the American left because that was the idea to impose a governance in Afghanistan. The Soviets didn't really do that. I mean, they just protected the government from those rebels that were at that time pundered by the U.S.

in an attempt to destabilize the outskirts of the Soviet Union. In fact, that was the name of the game. And the task of the Soviets were very limited. And they did well, in fact. I mean, there were probably a lot of crimes committed, and they probably had a lot of losses. All that is probably true. But if we look at the result at the end,

they were more effective, probably not efficient, but effective, in doing their task than the NATO. I mean, if we look at the amount of money we poured into Afghanistan, the people that we had to, Because when we talk about the losses in Afghanistan, we talk about the losses on the ground, I mean, military, uniform people on the ground. But we tend to ignore all the civilians that died in this conflict. And we also ignore all those who committed suicide back home when they came. I mean, in the last 20 years in which the U.S. was involved in both in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American,

I think on the ground, they lost something like 3,500 people on the ground. But at home, those veterans who committed suicide are between 6,500 and 7,000, who committed every year suicide. In 20 years, you can imagine the number of casualties of the war you had. So meaning that, yes, the Soviets, in fact, the Soviets, in fact, understood better the situation than the Westerners. Their intelligence about their, let's say, the strategic understanding of the conflict was much better.

And their understanding of conflict translated much quicker into structural changes in the Soviet army. I mean, the Soviets entered in 1979 in Afghanistan, Afghanistan with the 40th Army. That was an army based in Turkestan military district at that time. This 40th Army was composed with tanks, infantry, infantry vehicle, and all that. I mean, the usual structure of an army, a general army, as the Russian call it, in Afghanistan.

But two years later, this army, this army, was completely restructured. You had no tanks anymore, almost no longer APCs or tracked APCs anymore. You had wheeled APCs because they can better cope with landmine on the ground. You had helicopters, special forces, radio and artillery.

So it was completely restructured. That shows also how the Soviets were able to adjust their structure to the situation instead of getting closed into kind of a formal understanding of the country. And if you go today in Afghanistan, and I was surprised when I was in Afghanistan, I was there in 2008, 2009. I was on several occasions in Afghanistan for a project. with the European Union, but in any case.

I was surprised to see at that time how the Russians were still respected in Afghanistan. And when I talked to some academics at that time in Afghanistan and they told us, you know, we cannot forgive the Westerners for what they do.

We could forgive to the U.S. or the Americans because they are stupid and they don't understand us. But we cannot forget to the British because they know us and they understand us. So there is, and on the Russians, they were much more open because they felt that the Russians understood. And on some occasion, you had Afghanistan

asking the Russians to mediate with the NATO, in fact, during the NATO time. And I was invited to some discussions in the U.S.C. in Vienna, where you had, as a matter of fact, the Russian ambassador that was, I mean, that was, in fact, as a mediator in the issues that were confronting, both NATO and the Afghan population. So, yes, in fact, the Russians, we tend to underestimate their ability to understand people. We still have this image of this extremely rigid, doctrinal, ideological posture of the military, of politicians, and all that. But when you go deeper into the study, you will see that they are much subtle,

in much more subtle in their approach to conflict. They understand the situation much better than we do. They are not, they don't have this kind of self-confidence that Westerners do have. And in fact, even if we have probably intellectual capabilities to understand others, those capabilities are denied by the fact that we feel superior. The Russians never feel superior. There is a kind of a healthy humility when you talk to Russians that makes them more receptive to other views, and so they can understand because they are ready to accept other views,

which we are not as Westerners. It's a little bit, you know, I think our common culture of the West. I mean, we can say, I come from Switzerland, and I think Switzerland is, it's smaller than other countries, but it's not very different from others. Because we have a nice democracy, because we have a high standard, of living because this and because that we feel that we have some kind of superiority towards others. And that makes us very arrogant when we start addressing issues in areas such as Middle East, Asia, Central Asia, Africa and all that. And that makes us, let's say, we're

waterproof to other cultures because we think we have the truth. Therefore, they have to listen to us and not the opposite. And when you work in intelligence, your posture should be exactly the opposite. You should be learning. Every occasion is an occasion to learn. And you don't learn by talking. you learn by listening. And that, I think, the Russians have understood.

And that's why, in fact, when you read, you see their political decision that most probably reflect their intelligence assessment of the situation. You see that they have a much, much healthier understanding of situation, both at strategic, operational and tactical level than we do. because they don't have this kind of sense of superiority that we have. And it's interesting when since I'm on the field of intelligence. When we talk about this conflict in Ukraine, we see that intelligence, all intelligence services in the West

have been kind of instrumentalized to convey the knowledge, narrative. They have been used or mobilized to make the narrative credible. In fact, they became some kind of propaganda outlet and not intelligence organization. I mean, an intelligence organization must be absolutely candid, not naive, but candid, meaning that it had to understand the situation as it is without any prejudice. without any preconceived ideas. He should look at the reality as it is, the naked reality. And that's what he should portray to the decision makers.

The problem is that we are in the world, especially in the West, where everybody has to be exactly on the same wavelength. And if the politician thinks that the way is A, then the intelligence has to say it's A. But, you know, this is not how the world works. And we are seeing now that we are, again, as we said at the very beginning of this program, that the reality now is confronting the narrative, and we have a gap between the two.

That's exactly comes from that. It's a lack of proper and integral intelligence. Colonel Jacques Bard, fantastic. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for answering questions from the viewers. I have the link to Colonel Bard's book in the description box down below. I will also add it as a pinned comment. Thank you so much.

And may I also add my thanks and also for this actually very interesting account about the Afghan situation as well, which I've learned a lot from. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be with. with your tiny team today. Thank you. Pleasure.

Pleasure having you. Thank you. Okay. Should we answer the questions, Alexander? Well, indeed. I have a hard stop. Let's go through. Okay.

Yeah. All right. Yeah. We'll get through them. Nico says, Duran, I know you find my columns difficult, but I had to express my thoughts on what Pierce Morgan did to Tucker.

I hope you are as offended as I am. Tucker had a friendly debate with him as a friend. and this petty piece of S called Olensky to discredit Tucker by saying he works for Russia. I love the fact that Tucker told Pierce that this whole war started because Zelensky wanted nuclear weapons and that he ignored it. You moron. He literally asked for nuclear weapons in your interview. What Pierce did was disgraceful.

It was done out of malice and pettiness. And I know this because he didn't ask Zelensky to be interviewed by Tucker. Say what you want about Tucker, but he has integrity and he does understand the other side. Zelensky and Pierce are both cowardly lying hateful people. I am sorry for being so emotional, but integrity matters to me. And it's because of Pierce Morgan's lies that my younger brother hates Russia. At least we got Zelensky's racist Mario translator from this. Thank you for listening, my fellow Greeks.

One last question. We know the Ukrainian nukes lie, but could they reverse engineer the codes? right well let's start with this um i haven't watched the interview between taka carson and pierce morgan i cannot for the life of me understand why anybody takes pierce morgan seriously i mean i i i saw it it was a waste i was it was a complete waste of time it was a completely and even the views even the views reflected he got very low views for for a pierce morgan show absolutely i mean tucker carlson his head and shoulders and more about Beers Morgan.

I mean, I consider, I'm sorry to say this, I consider Beers Morgan a bad clown. I don't take him seriously. I don't know anybody in the UK who takes him seriously. I'm sure there are people who do, but I don't understand why he's given the importance and the weight that he is. And as I said, I just wasn't interested.

I am never interested in any discussion that Pierce Morgan has with anybody. And I'm going to suggest to Tucker in future, interview all the more interesting people than that. That's all I can say about this. Gallagrin, thank you for a super sticker. Marv Byron, thank you for a super sticker. Sparky says, I misstated as a result of the bloody assizes. 300 were hanged.

It's actually 500. The remaining 300 sentences were commuted. So they could be slaves in the new world. Apologies for my carelessness. Gosh. Can I quickly explain? Bloody Assizes, they were a series of court cases held in the 1680s after a rebellion against the King of England, King James II. He was a Catholic king,

very unpopular with the English people. There was a rebellion against him led by the Duke of Monmouth, and the judge of the time, Lord Chief Justice Jeffries, carried out this absolutely terrifying position in which people were hanged and deported, and it created a massive revulsion in England and led to the eventual crisis and overthrow of the king. So just want to say, explain what we're talking about here. The very important event, and this all arose from the way in which court cases have recently been conducted in Britain following the riots, or so-called riots that took place in the summer, this express trained justice in which people have been tried and sentenced, and found guilty over, you know, incredibly foreshortened periods of time.

The Black Cat, thank you for the super sticker. Hubert, 10 Abel, thank you for that super sticker. Sparky says, as a result of Kellogg's cluelessness and Netanyahu's decades of deception, come to light. Will Trump learn the MSM, including Fox News, is there to deceive Trump to popularize the term fake news? You know something? The thing to what we say about Donald Trump, I mean, you know, I've been

critical of him over the last couple of days. I'm not, you know, always a fan. I didn't like his comments about Gaza at all. But Trump learns. And I think that he's on a very steep learning curve over Ukraine. I think Kellogg has probably given him. And Kellogg probably has all kinds of mistaken ideas, exactly as Colonel Beau said,

he's clinging on to old fragments of a discreet. credited narrative. But I think the moment that the Trump people really starts to have actual contact with the Russians, Trump's views are going to change. That's my own view. Chris Morel says, the only thing Ukraine won was Eurovision and that was rigged. True enough. By the way, the Russians are now starting their arrival. Exactly. Yes. Let's see here. Ms. Texas G says, will Trump and Putin meet by the summer?

And what will the progress of the Russians be by that time? Well, that's an excellent question. I mean, I was expecting Ms. Texas G. A summit meeting, or at least a conversation between Putin and Trump, within the first days of Trump's presidency. It's probably a good thing, actually, that it hasn't been rushed. Because I think it would have been a mistake if it had been. I think we will get a summit meeting by the summer.

I think by that time, Trump will be much more up to speed with the realities of Ukraine. And what I hope will happen is that there will be a proper dialogue about security questions, global security questions between the Russians and the Americans between Putin and Trump. And by that point, it will be understood that the war of Ukraine's lost.

and that the Americans just need to move on from it. So that's what I hope will happen. Imran QQ says, can NATO be separated from Western expansionism and imperialism? Not anymore. I think if it had been closed down in 1991, as, you know, was suggested, it would have been a lot better. But preserving NATO made NATO look for a purpose to exist.

It became a grift and like a grift. And like all grifts, it has to keep expanding. So it created a crisis, and it's the crisis we have now, and the sooner it's done away with the better. Sparky says President Trump thinks that rare earth is what made Ukraine the breadbasket of Europe. I'm sure he's a little bit more sophisticated than that. William says, what's your opinion? Go on.

Williams says, what's your opinion? I just want to quickly say, I don't think Trump really takes it. this whole rare earth Lydian thing seriously. I think he was just very angry because the Chinese, just the day before, had imposed further restrictions on exports of strategic minerals.

So he came up and he said, you know, well, in future, we want the Ukrainians to give us all these things. And that's why we're going to give them weapons. Only if they do that will we give them weapons. I think it was, again, the kind of thing Trump comes up with. And I think from a Ukrainian

point of view, it's a very bad, thing because it's a play for pay, pay-for-play type transaction. And Ukraine doesn't have these things to give. So actually, it opens up conceptually the point where Trump could say, look, this isn't making any sense. We're not making a profit out of this venture. So let's close it down. William says, what's your opinion of Musk's mega comment, make Europe great again? I think if we could just listen a little bit sometimes to what the Americans are telling us, including masks, we would be a lot better off in Europe. Look at the mess we are in today. By the way, I said the same about the United States. You may not like everything that Musk is doing or Trump is doing, but look at what existed before.

And tell me, tell me that these things that they're trying to do now are really wrong. I'd say, on the contrary, there are big steps in the right direction. And we should try and at least learn from them here in Europe. Mama Alaska says US-EU used Ukraine for BlackRock M-I-C money laundering. Yes. Joe Public says, is Trump more deranged now than in his first term? I don't think he was deranged at his first term. I don't think he's deranged now.

I think he's very unusual, unconventional, eccentric politician. But I think that we should always listen carefully to what Trump says. A journalist who knows him well said that the things about Trump is that his supporters take what he says seriously, but not literally. Whereas everyone else, including his opponents, take. what he says literally but not seriously and i think that was a very insightful point i am valentina says thank you duran for all the input over the years william says as soon as the sanctions failed which they obviously had done within a month the war using ukraine was lost very true completely agree posibal says is it coincidence that since the shutdown of us a i d there's been nothing

about protest in slovakia pretty hard to protest with no money Yeah, absolutely. Can I say what happened in Slovakia was a regime change color revolution episode? I've absolutely no doubt at all. It failed and with the USAID being shut down, it's failed utterly. And with the crisis in Germany and France, which we're now starting to see, the conviction has gone out of these things, at least for the moment. Paul Walker says it's up to Russia how this conflict ends. Yes. And I think the people understand that the better action. Sparky says Trump, like many successful people, is adept at quick facts at hand processing.

Now he's given false facts by the wrong people. It was hanging around the wrong people, why he was sent to Miller. Why he was sent to military school. Well, yes, I think there is something to say about, there's some truths of this. The only thing I would say about Trump, again, is that he does learn fast. Put him in a meeting with Putin or get his people to speak to Putin and to the Russians. And he will start to assimilate that information and we'll use it quickly. He is very fast there.

And also, according to NBC, there are people in the administration who are arguing a different case, pushing back against Walsh and Kellogg. And you can guess who some of them are. Nico says I am 25. I love history and I always supported Russia through its history, but I never liked what the Soviet Union was as I despise communism. Do you think Russia is paying for the mistakes of the USSR? Well, I myself, I'm going to tell you,

I mean, this is an issue for the Russians themselves to sort out their own perspective on Soviet history is that it is a stage, their history and yes lots of things were done which were terrible and wrong and undoubtedly they're having an effect today but i think that the russians also feel that they move past it that's that's my own sense now grangach says as we speak a massive route of the armed forces of ukraine tanks and other vehicles advancing on ulanoq in the kursk region is happening slovyangrad yeah absolutely this is completely true uh the new ukrainian general general a party has just been appointed by Zelensky. Every Ukrainian general who's appointed is ordered

to carry out an offensive somewhere. They always do. Sooner or later, the offensive goes wrong, and then the Russians counter attack. That's all that's happening. Petro says with new spheres of influence in politics, will it be the same in religion? Will the Church of Russia be the main sphere of influence in Orthodox over Constantinople? As a Greek Orthodox, I'm not totally opposed to that. They wouldn't be opposed to that completely either. to be honest. I don't want to talk about this. This is a very painful subject. What has happened with the Patriarchate in Constantinople and what has done and how it's gone. It's a very, very painful subject for me. I hope my hope would be that we will get a proper patriarch, a restored

church, and that things will return to the way they ought to have been. Sir Mugge's game says, would be winning the war, if only it wasn't losing in every aspect. I can now hold any top position in the EU, NATO or the UK. You've said it perfectly. Jeff, thank you for that super sticker. Alexander says, are we at the point where the West cannot support its hegemony anymore? Well, I think the I think interestingly enough people in the Trump administration are saying this. I mean, the comments from Marker Rubio recently, which the Russians have picked up on now, by the way, about, you know, the unipolar period having ended, that the United States is one great power among several,

that it must return to diplomacy, all of that. And his admission that, you know, the United States cannot sustain the role of a global government anymore. I think all of that does tell us that at least some people in Washington have come to that understanding. Of course, they're not all the people. The neocons are still there. Victoria Newland is still there in Columbia University,

pouring out her ideas. So it's not everybody, but, you know, the ice is cracked. America is rethinking its position. And that is a huge thing. Jeff says, what is the US and the West stand to lose that is so devastating that they are unwilling to establish cooperative relationships?

Face, ultimately. I mean, that's what it all amounts to in the end. Sparky says if the EU and the UK want help from the U.S. now, President Trump should require them to start calling their game soccer instead of football. Sir Mugge's game says this April 19th is a 250th anniversary of shots heard around the world and anniversaries for Waco and Oklahoma City hijinks. Strange, very strange. Sparky says Trump should also require them to drop the metric system

and adopt the U.S. customary system for further humiliation. Paul Walker says Russians drove out, Russians drove out of Afghanistan on their vehicles. The West ran away, and we saw what happened with the flights. I found Colonel Beau's comments about Afghanistan. Absolutely fascinating, by the way. There's some very, very good books about the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, and I've always argued that it was not the routs or the defeat that people say.

And of course, the Afghan government, the Soviets backed, collapsed only after the Soviet Union itself had collapsed. The Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991 and this government collapsed in March 1992 as a result of a coup, an internal coup. So, you know, this is a more complicated story than people know. But I thought that Colonel Bow's discussion of it and explanation of how it played out was absolutely fascinating. And I learned a lot from it, though it complements other things that I'd learn from others. Stephen Walter, thank you for that super sticker. Sparky says Colonel Bod should advise Trump's intelligence services. Agreed of that. Here here. Nobody says truth seekers, free PDF books, a master in the path, Alice Bailey,

Bessent Helen Lavatsky, Benjamin Crane. Thank you for that. Sir Muggeme says the US has evolved from building over Native American burial ground to building over Palestinian burial ground. Well, I've made my own views about Trump's comments about Gaza clear. I personally agree with the view that this is a tactical maneuver intended to to pull Benjamin Netanyahu's position in Israel, which is becoming increasingly difficult.

And I think Trump doesn't want to see Netanyahu go. He doesn't want a political crisis in Israel. He doesn't want a situation where various factions in Israel could start quarreling with each other, and he doesn't want to see the ceasefire in Gaza collapse or a conflict with Iran. I understand why he might have seen. said that those things from a politically tactical point of view. I still think they were completely

the wrong things to say. I think that they risk normalizing a completely terrible thing, which is displacement of populations. And I think Trump was wrong to say them. That's all I can say. William says very interesting about Russian humility. When I was in Moscow, I was bold by the humility of the Russians and their kindness. Maybe the meek shall inherit the earth. Thank you, William, for that. Summer of 1970 says, great show and chat. Thanks.

Everybody. Thank you. Life of Brian says, just when Trump, Blaster breathes life into Canada's liberals, Trudeau fails it epically. N.D. Sings himself or the clown of the year. I think something happened with Trudeau. Sir, Mousgames says, Has the recent visitor of the White House promised Trump the contract to rebuild

the third temple out of Jerusalem, Stone, of course, very classic. Well, I think we should not, I mean, I don't think we'll ever get to. I don't think American troops are ever going to Gaza. I don't think there's ever going to be a third temple, just saying. Lipe of Brian says, I will miss Alex Trudeau's impressions. I suspect Alexander doesn't mean Michael Cain.

Thank you, Laugh, Brian, for that. Millie Mike says, thanks for all the great content. Sir Mug's Game says the German Traffic Light Coalition has turned into the traffic light collision. Young Damien, thank you for that super sticker. Klaus says Trump needs a win. Can he get one? What if Ukraine elects a new president who largely accepts Russia's terms? That way Trump can say that Ukraine did win.

Well, it's very true. And the Americans are clearly now signaling. They want Zelensky to go. I don't know there's any doubt about it, actually. Joe Public says No, no, we answered the Trump, that one on Trump actually. Fuzzy Ball says, is it coincidence that since the shutdown of USA, we answered that as well. Oh, boy, let's see.

Elsa says a big hello to Valley S. Sparky says, Valley S, I think I remember you moved from Ohio to Arkansas. Have you moved even closer? William says, I'll never forget Garland Nixon's comment that the Russians never go looking for a fight. but if you go to the Russian border looking for a fight, you ain't coming home. Fuzzy Ballsters every time the West puts sanctions on Russia, all their BRICS partners do is fist pumps, knowing that they will have access to discounted goodies.

Yeah. Paul Walker says if Mango Mussolini goes after the rare earth materials, what on earth will Ukraine trade with the rest of the world if the conflict ends? Well, this whole rare earth's thing is as a fantasy. I mean, at the end of the day, we all know who's going to control all these things, and that's going to be the Russians. They already control 70% of them. Fuzzy Ball says, because of BRICS Western sanctions against Russia are as meaningful as a septum piercing on Joe Biden. Well, absolutely.

Interestingly, and I've been saying this on my programs, and there's been more data this morning, far from things slowing down in Russia, as everybody was expecting. they're actually, the economy is actually putting on speed. It did so in December and it's doing so again in January. That has been a surprise, by the way. Everybody's thought otherwise. Elsa says the first, first the MSN wrote that Kellogg wanted to present a peace plan at the Munich Security Conference. Now they say there will be talks with Europeans.

Why? I think that this is still not being worked out at all. I think this is what this tells us. I mean, I think, again, Jack Watt was absolutely right. The fact that they're talking about putting together some kind of a plan, a week's time or two weeks' time, tells us that they didn't really have a workable plan when they started. And that's, you know, no shame, nothing wrong with that.

Better speak to the other side, talk to everybody, and then work it out. Don't rush in with an ill-prepared, Our incomplete plan that will just collapse the moment is presented. Fuzzy balls, says, can we look on the bright side? The Ukrainian mail order bright industry is booming. Never have so many fat and bald Americans got in so many hot women. Sparky says, when someone came to FDR with a difficult proposal, he'd tell them, I agree, but you have to make me do it.

So they'd stir public sentiment with outrageous statements is Trump stirring public sentiment. There's a lot of that in this. So, Celila, thank you for that super. sticker Sir Mug's game says is taking ownership of Gaza the prelude to making Israel the 51st or 52nd state solves a lot of problems. Even evangelicals will be content since Israel will remain a state. I don't think that there's anything of this kind, any, this plays any part of Trump's agenda at all, actually. I think, I think that these comments were made for a specific political purpose, which was to help Netanyahu after the ceasefire.

Matthew says Alexander should get a hoodie, made makeup, stated in capital letters on the front, be advised. J.F. Thank you for a super sticker. Soapiork says Diane Panchenko and various dissident Ukraine media reporting large anti-corruption arrests are going on today. It seems like the USAID situation has them scared. Where would an audit lead? Well, very good question.

Back to Washington, I suspect, and to some very famous names in the previous administration. Alexander says, thank you. And Fuzzy Ball says the Ukrainian mail loader bride business industry is booming. Great news for bald and fat Western men. Sparky says, did you miss my FDR super chat? I think I just got it. You know, you just thought it. You just got it.

Yeah. I think a young domain, thank you for that super sticker. I think that's, I think I got everything. I'm not sure, but I think I got everything. All right, Alexander. Absolutely. Absolutely. I have to leave.

But absolutely an outstanding live stream altogether. Great questions. But also incredible contributions. I mean, one of the most erudite military scholars, I know, bar none. just a second. Sparky says the US has rare earth minerals. I think I remember a conscious post-Cold War decision to use up other countries rare earth minerals

before the US exploited its own as civilian demand increased. My understanding is that so-called rare earths are not that rare. The problem is not, you know, the fact that there aren't that many deposits. It's extracting and processing them, which is an extremely laborious.

and capital intensive operation. The Chinese worked it out. Ultimately, the Americans could do the same. Williams says, when Putin goes, the West may have the pretext uncovered to be sensible, totally unfair and stupid and motivated by salvaging reputations, but that's what I think.

I don't believe that. I think when Putin goes, they'll be absolutely thrilled and happy, and they'll look forward to his next successor and they'll hope he's a weak person and that they can start all over again. I think that's more likely what will happen. Sparky says in the past, rare earth minerals were mainly important to the military for leading

edge equipment. So there was only enough demand to get them as byproducts or intermittently open specific mines. Yes. Yeah. Okay, Alexander, you go and I'll just do a final check and see if we got everything. Okay, so thanks everybody. Great program, if I may say. All right.

Bye. Let me. Okay. Sparky says, you got my FDR super chat. Thanks. Sorry for my lack of faith. Thank you, Sparky, for that. Did I miss anything?

Let me know. Let me just do a quick check and see if I got all the questions in super chats. Alexander says, thanks. Black Cat, thank you for that super sticker. We answered the make you're up great again. Question. I am Valentina. Thank you to rant for all your input over the years.

Slovakia protest. We answered that. But I think that's everything. All right. We will end this live stream. Armand, thank you for that super sticker. Thank you to everybody that joined us. Thank you to Colonel Bard.

To everyone that watched us on Odyssey. Fractured. Thank you for that Odyssey super sticker. Timothy, thank you for that tip on Rockfin and thank you to everyone that watched us on Rockfin, on Odyssey, on Rumble, YouTube, and the duran.orgals.com. And thank you to our moderators. Peter, Harry, Zarael, who else was moderating?

Valies, of course, Valies. Great to have Valies with us as well. And I think those are our moderators. All right, everybody, take care, and videos are coming up. So stay tuned.