The Duran Podcast - UK Starmer's push for conflict with Russia w/ Ian Proud (Live)

Episode Date: March 4, 2025

UK Starmer's push for conflict with Russia w/ Ian Proud (Live)

All right, we are live with Alexander McCurice in London. And joining us once again on the Duran. We are very happy and very honored to have with us. Ian Proud. Ian, how are you doing this morning? And where can people follow your work? Well, what a fabulous spring morning we have here in lovely UK. People can follow my work on the substack.

I'm the peacemonger. This is my kind of new title. There are plenty of war mongers, insufficient of us. us fellow peacemongers, so that's where people can find me if they want to follow my work, but also on X, of course. It's a very different. Fantastic. I will have those links as a pinned comment and in the description box when the live stream is over.

So I definitely recommend following Ian. I follow him on X and he has some amazing posts on X. So let's say hello to everybody that is watching us on Odyssey, on Rock Finn, on Rumble and YouTube and to our amazing Duran community on locals, the durand.locals.com. How is everyone doing in the locals chat? And a shout out to our moderators,

Angry Warhawk. Good to have you with us. And it looks like it'll be me and you, Angry Warhawk, moderating the chat. So, Alexander, Ian, we have a lot to discuss a lot going on in the UK, a lot going on in the summer. And we just finished the London-Ukraine summit that took place the other day. So Alexander, Ian, let's jump right into it.

Indeed, let's do so. And can I just also add to Ian's blog, you know, Peace Munger blog, please do read his book, A Misfit in Moscow. It explains my opinion very, very much. about what went wrong, why things went wrong in UK. Russia relations, especially, and of course also in wider relations between the Western Russia. You see how communications were basically allowed to atrophy and diplomacy with Russia was allowed to atrophy. And the disastrous consequences that that has led to, you can see that later, but you can see how the British embassy in Moscow was

working or not working, whichever you prefer, and how British diplomacy basically went absent without leave for a critical period of about 10, 15 years. And Ian was there. He was right at the end, the front line. So, Ian, we've had extraordinary events over the last couple of weeks. The Trump administration has now made it absolutely clear what its intentions are. We had several weeks of the beginning when there was some uncertainty, whether they would press forward and continue to support Ukraine and follow a very conventional path carrying on from where the Biden administration had left. It's now clear that is not their intention at all. They're looking to end the war. They're given all kinds of reasons why they want to end the war. In some ways, the most interesting

comments now have been made by Mike Wals, I think, who is Trump's national security advisor. He speaks quite frankly about the Americans not being willing to write blank checks indefinitely and how they're concerned about their arsenals being depleted. They have hard, objective reasons going beyond sentiment and feelings about, you know, compassion for the people who are dying, which, by the way, I don't think one should discount or write off, but they've got hard objective reasons why they want to end the war. And in the meantime, we've had massive confusion in London, in Europe about this. We had a very, very strange summit on Sunday, which appeared to be giving Zelensky more hope that Europe would come to his rescue, even as the Americans are pulling out. And yet yesterday, last night, well, last night for us, yesterday, the Americans took what I think is the final big decision, which is that they've now formally cut off, or at least as they say, paused, military aid, which I have to say makes all of these, all this, you know, war talk that we got on Sunday seem rather, rather sterile.

So where do you think we are? Where are we going? I mean, I think that we are now in the home stretch, by the way. I don't think that we're going to have a war ongoing in Ukraine, say this time next year. We've still got an awful lot to get through, but I think we are in the home stretch. There are very, very many people who are very unhappy about that, very angry about that. Mr. Zelensky seems very angry about that. But what is your general feeling about where we are? I agree with you that we seem to be in the end game right now for the war in the war in.

Ukraine, no support from US makes it very difficult for the Europeans and the British to continue to fund the war and to provide the military material and support that Ukraine would need to keep fighting. What is in any case a losing war, albeit in a very slow and gradual way, Ukraine has been losing ground for the past year, as we all know. So, you know, that pace of loss, you know, can only accelerate without the US can and material support. The Western, stopped giving free financial support to Ukraine for almost a year now. Anything that we do provide is in the form of loans. Rachel Reeves, Rachel from the accounts made a huge play of this kind of showcase agreement with Zildensky for tiny 1.6 billion loans to support the missile industry in Belfast.

But actually, that's not going to be nearly enough to make up the gap. So, you know, there is a reckoning coming. Zelensky clearly hasn't engaged with that, doesn't want to engage with that, as you correctly say. He is now the biggest obstacle to peace. You know, the summit in Lancaster House at the weekend was an opportunity for, you know, European leaders to kind of put their arms around Zelensky. But the tone I heard from that summit was two things. You know, one, people were talking about the need for a peace plan. and people are, it seems to me, on the European side,

getting on board with the peace plan. And secondly, that the Americans are very much in the lead for delivering this. So Starm is going through some radical rebranding of himself as the bridge to Donald Trump, having had a very successful meeting within last week, flourishing the letter from its Majesty the King, for a state visit and all that sort of stuff.

So Stam is positioning himself to actually kind of help the Europeans grudgingly and come to some sort of settlement of peace in Ukraine. So that's really what I saw the Lancaster House Summit, not about Europeans wanting to continue the war. That's not really a message I heard at all. But it is going to be a painful process. None of the Europeans leaders are going to say straight out that this has to end now,

because that would reveal them all to be failures and effectless, of course. So right now in comms terms, they're navigating that off-ramp for their own countries and trying their best to, you know, support Zelensky as they go along. But, of course, a risk here is that they are simply, you know, making Zelensky feel better and emboldening him to fight on because they're not actually giving him the directness that he probably needs that he received, of course, from Donald Trump. I mean, I have to say, the London summit came up with lots of rhetoric. Lots of talk about plans, talks about peacekeeping forces, things of that kind, condemnations of Russia, resounding condemnations of Russia. We've had previous statements, and not just from Stama, about how Ukraine is on an irreversible course towards NATO, which the Americans are basically saying the diametric opposite.

it. I can understand why the British would want to act as a bridge between themselves and the Europeans. But the Ukrainians are probably, or at least Zelensky, is probably taking some of this rhetoric that he's getting from London and from the Europeans. He's probably taking it seriously. Why wouldn't he? Is it really wise to come and hug him in the way that was done just outside Downing Street in that sort of way, unless you are giving him very clear advice, you know, in private, you know, that this is, we appreciate it was a bruising encounter in Washington, but you've got to understand that without the Americans,

this thing isn't going anywhere. Because I'm not convinced that happened. I'm not sure that this was explained to Zelensky. in that sort of way. And if he was, as far as I can see, he's not getting the message because his rhetoric is exactly the same

as the rhetoric we got from him in Washington, which provoked the Americans in the way that he did. Anyway, just asking that question, because I agree there does need to be some straight and frank talking to Zelensky

from his European friends. I'm not. convinced it's yet happened what do you think i completely agree with you i don't think it has happened and in fact some of the more bizarre statements over the weekend were you know vondolion saying that you're going to turn ukraine into a steel porcupine was probably the most bizarre thing that i heard but of course to to to uh zolinski in a direct way and say look look boss you know that the games up when you have to kind of settle for peace that would be completely to repudiate every that we've said to him for the past for years and would reveal ourselves to be liars and

insincere and feckless in every possible way even starmer who is admittedly new but nevertheless came in with a basically more extreme version of what the toy is doing in the absence of policy ideas of his own so he's now attached to that mast as well to suddenly you know doing a bad face would reveal him to be a liar and a coward and all those kind of things. Trump comes in with the benefit of novelty. He is new. He's been saying these things before the US presidential elections. He's saying them now.

We're not hearing anything from Trump that we haven't heard before. And actually that kind of retrofitting of the refitting of the European narrative is going to be a painful process, which will have blowback on all of these. political leaders domestically as their constituents say, well, but you said that we'd support Ukraine for as long as it takes and now we're not, you know, for example, and all the while the hugs and the constiledal porcupines and everything else is, as you correctly point out, I think, just, you know, reaffirming Zelensky in his view that he should continue and also

sort of creating in him a belief that actually it is possible to create a wedge between Europe and the US where the Europeans can somehow be persuaded to go on their own, which is a complete fantasy. It is a complete fantasy. How did we get it? I mean, how did we get into a situation where we appear to find ourselves in a position where we can't tell Zelensky straight out, you know, the truth because we would look like complete liars and fantasists and feckless and all of those things. I mean, surely the whole artist, state craft is to avoid getting into that kind of position in the first place. And yet we did. We find ourselves in that position. We've been, we've led our, we've led the

Ukrainians up the hill and now we want to, we have to find some way of leading them down the hill without humiliating ourselves and exposing ourselves for what we are. We've ultimately probably, and in fact we definitely need to find some way back with the Russians as well, because apparently, apparently the Americans are now thinking of lifting sanctions, or at least some sanctions, probably at the start of this process, but the direction of travel is clear. We at the moment are still imposing more sanctions, which is a fool's game, if ever the worst one. How did we get here? I mean, we've discussed this before in previous programs.

You've written about this in many places on your blog. But I think it would be, you know, it would be wrong if we didn't just touch on this again, because you were there at the front line in Moscow. You saw it play out. So how did we get here? Well, it really is foreign policy by the grand old Duke of York, as I've said, you know, booze into which you kind of alluded, you know, at the start. We hedged, you know, we put all of our eggs in the basket of actually kind of inflicting a department.

beat Russia, held up by a belief that because NATO collectively is 27 times bigger economy than Russia, then eventually Russia would concede having shown absolutely no signs, you know, going right back to 2008 that it ever would on this issue of NATO expansion. And as our policy progressively has been proved to fail, so we've invested in it more because the cost of failure would be greater than the cost of change, you know, changing track. So Sanctions is a classic example of that. Sanctions was linked to the Minsk T process. Lots of utter nonsense has been written about the Minsk T process,

or the deal, really, in the Normandy kind of process. But really, the core point is that actually that that kind of peace dialogue, you know, right back to February of 2015, which is the second Minskir agreement, you know, imposed requirements on the Ukrainian side to undertake negotiations with the Sepatists in the Donbass to pursue a form of devolution. And there were requirements on the septist sides. There were kind of implications for the Russian side in terms of the seating of the Ukrainian borders, part of the devolution settlement, on all those things. But there were requirements imposed. on several parties to the agreement,

and the main parties will be Ukrainians and the separatists, and the Brits and the Americans actively discouraged through their policy, Ukraine, for meeting its obligations. Ukraine faced extensive resistance from multinationalshanationalist groups that we will talk about and know about, who saw any sort of devolution in the Dombas as some sort of defeat and a failure.

That should be resisted at all costs. But the problem was, of course, that sanctions, by a dictator of the European Council from another thing about May of 2015, became intrinsically linked to the full implementation of the Minsk Two agreement. So since that time, European sanctions, on the basic American sanctions, and sanctions forever because they're trying, you know, in law, European sanctions also became permanent by virtue of this impossible link between the full implementation of the Minsk II agreement and, you know, sanctions removal,

something that was impossible for for the Russians to meet, something that actively incentivized the Ukrainians not to meet those requirements because to do so would be to offer sanctions relief to Russia, which wasn't in Ukraine's interests to see happen. You know, fast forward to today, obviously, Russia's navigated and completely reoriented its economy since 2014-2015, going through all price shocks, going through COVID, going through sanctions, going through war. So when war started, you know, Russia had adapted its total way and model of thinking about sort of

economic policy to be able to kind of deal with the sanctions impact that would surely follow on the instigation of war, such that today, you know, Russia continues to grow, it has problems, inflation and high interest rates and so on of course massive you know fiscal surplus but compared to stimulus but compared to kind of the state in the eurozone economies and in the UK economy is performing far better and the US economy is performing far better you know that in Europe Europe has become the sick man sick person you know of the world hoist on the part of its own kind of self-defeating policy choices around cutting off access to Russian gas, sanctioning everything, you know, and so on.

So, you know, the Americans now see that actually, you know, sanctions, there are so many sanctions against Russia, over 20,000 sanctions in total. You know, if there is to be a peace process, then actually offering some relief of some of those sanctions at the start of the process will, you know, provide a confidence-building measure to engage, you know, Russia in the need to continue with the process. And if you bear mind that about 87% of all sanctions have no impact at all, that, you know, it should be a fairly easy thing to do. Many of the sanctions are cultural and social sanctions,

like, you know, not letting Russia sing in Eurovision and not letting Russia compete in the Olympics. So these are easier sanctions to remove. It should be a straightforward process to kind of build some sort of sanctioned relief plan and within a peace process, I see little sign that Europeans are there yet. March will be a crunch time when their next is going to roll over as you. I heard, by the way, in fact, it's not how I heard. I mean, it's on the Russian Foreign Ministry website

that the Americans and the Russians in Istanbul on Friday discussed restoration of air links. And that I think would make a big difference. I mean, I don't know whether you got the same message as I did. but the cutting off of air links was perhaps the most misconceived sanction of all, is that it actually brought home to Russians, that this isn't just a geopolitical battle. They felt it was attacking on themselves personally. And that really did annoy an awful lot of people. So if that sanctions, if the American start restoring air links,

that will make a big difference. and it's something that Russian society in general will probably notice. I just want to, well, we don't have a huge, I don't want to get back to the diplomacy. But I was actually talking to a friend of mine who is a German businessman. And he said the big mistake with the sanctions war that the Europeans made was that they look at their various economies and they look at their GDP, and they say that their GDP in aggregate is much bigger than Russia's is. And in a sense, what they're doing is they're saying, you know, the 28 Volkswagen engines is the same as the engine of one big man truck that you're looking at two completely different things.

And that the Europeans just didn't understand that. I mean, just as a person who knows about sanctions. What do you make, what do you think of that one? Well, I mean, sanctions have actually now morphed into something that's kind of not even macro in their focus. You know, sanctioning individuals and sanctioning individual companies, you know, it's kind of so conugatory in terms of impact that you get, that you're basically getting into individual nuts and bots on the engine, not the whole engines, if that sense. You know, the only kind of engine-sized sanctions that were imposed were really the big thematic sanctions around, you know, cutting off, you know, oil, for example, access to financial markets, you know, certain export controls. Most of those, you know, Swift, most of those things that have happened already. And now we're getting into kind of such a level of incrementalism.

It just renders the whole process completely meaningless. You know, the kind of whole relative GDP is slightly erroneous argument in my view. I mean, Russia is one country. The European Union is this kind of 27 sort of countries collectively bigger than, you know, Russia. But many of those economies, as you say, are much smaller than the Russian economies. It's kind of a point of as comparison anyway. The point is that kind of Russia in aggregate is growing and Europe is not,

or if it is, it's going in a very tiny amount. Let's move on. I mean, this idea of European peacekeepers, American guarantees for those peacekeepers, troops to Ukraine, all of that sort of thing. Again, it's the kind of thing which the Russians have made absolutely clear that they're not prepared to accept NATO peacekeepers. They've talked about peacekeepers being authorized by the United Nations Security Council. They are talking to their Brazilian and Chinese friends. In fact, people don't notice. Why is this topic even being brought up when the Russians have said no? And the Americans are saying we're not prepared to provide the backstop.

I mean, it seems, again, a strange thing to say, one which gives the Ukrainians probably encouragement, but which realistically isn't going to happen. Or if it does happen, well, I've read a piece this morning in the Daily

Telegraph by Richard Kemp, who was a military officer. And he's saying, you know, if we do that, it will set us up for another debacle, like the Iraq one. So why are we even talking about this? And will it happen and will we drop it? I mean, firstly, shot at the telegraph would print that because it's been such a propaganda tool.

But anyway, let's not get into that. But, I mean, I think, you know, it is completely deluded. The Russians kind of ruled out the possibility of peace, was back in 2014, 2015, when the original crisis kind of bubbled up, when the septist tension was starting in the Dombats and all that sort of thing. They said, well, no, to OSCE, as it would have been then, you know, peacekeepers at that time. The messaging coming out to Lancaster House at the weekend was about security guarantees, and, you know, Europe providing those security guarantees.

So what I heard from that was actually having a military force, not in Ukraine that is ready to intervene, should there be a further kind of Russian invasion. You know, the big question for me is if actually there's a peace process in which Russia gets what it really wants from this, which is kind of the removal of Ukraine from its NATO aspiration, the reintegration, the acceptance at least within Ukrainian constitution, that Russian language is a legitimate language and is spoken by, you know, many people in Ukraine. And the question for me is, well, why would Russia then want to kind of renege on that, having reset relations with the US, which is by far its most important partner? Whenever you hear Putin talk, he always still refer, throughout all this time,

he still refers to the Americans as his partners. You know, why would Russia then want to just kind of renege on that and just start this whole kind of process again? I see kind of no strategic benefit to Russia in doing that. But I mean, what I heard about security guarantees from the European side was a readiness force that actually wasn't necessarily in Ukraine but was maybe in Poland of the bolts. You know, in favor of places, you know, should there be any further incursion? And if it was that, then I think that is something that it could be sold to the Russians because what they won't accept would be NATO troops, you know, in Ukraine. The UNSC, I mean, that's never going to fly if it's actually kind of, because Russia basically has a veto of that anyway, as you know.

But actually if there were some sort of UN readiness force that wasn't in Ukraine, again, that raises questions about the role of India, which is by far the biggest kind of UN peacekeeping troop contributor country in the world, you know, for example, but that's all details. Yeah. Let's move forward because you mentioned what I think is now going to be the major issue, and it is the one the Americans have identified, which is Ukraine itself. Zelensky, I mean, he clearly is very unhappy with this whole process. The Ukrainians still finding it very difficult to accept that this outcome, which they could have negotiated in Istanbul, in that they came very close to negotiating in Istanbul, which is far worse for them than the original Minsk Agreement, which they didn't move forward with, which they could have done.

What is going to happen in Ukraine? I mean, the Americans are saying, saying, well, actually, we're not trying to remove Zelensky. I mean, Trump has said that. I think others of people who said that today. But it seems to me that effectively, that is what they're saying, that they want Zelensky gone, or at least they wanted to change so completely that he's not going to be Zelensky.

The Zelensky we've known it anymore. How do you deal with this? It's going to be very, very difficult after we've let the Ukrainians by the nose. as Professor John Meersheimer says, along the Primrose path. How do we get the Ukrainians after all this, after they suffer these terrible losses to accept an outcome, which from their point of view would be a disastrous one? Just asking this, I mean,

surely it's going to be a huge backlash against the whole process in Ukraine itself. and the stability of the country, it seems to me, can't be taken for granted. Anyway, what are your thoughts about this? I think, I'd firstly say that latterly, Zelensky's been leading us by the nose. But I mean, I think, you know, what the Europeans have been discussing over this weekend is ways to kind of nudge him towards the process. Macron's idea, bizarre idea, frankly, of a one-month ceasefire. I don't know if you read the details of that.

It's a one-month ceasefire that doesn't involve actually the cessation of ground troops fighting each other, which is a bizarre form of ceasefire. But anyway, lots of ideas to kind of nudge Zelensky towards a point where he is going to agree a ceasefire that would then usher in presidential elections in Ukraine. So there's lots of talk about the sequencing of the seed fire elections, the peace process, the peace deal and all this sort of stuff. Everything's in the mix. but essentially when the gunfire stops, you know, then Zelensky then has to kind of lift martial law, elections have to take place, Aristovic is in the mix, Zillusioni is in the midst, I mean, polls, if there to be believed, suggests that Zolensky wouldn't win. But that's for the Ukrainians for the side. But it's getting, it's getting Zelensky to the point where the gunfire,

you know, stops. And I really do feel that the mood is slowly shifting, you know, when you dial out all the rhetoric and still porcupines of the weekend, the Europeans are getting on board with the fact that actually, you know, the Americans are running this process, not us. And our role is to kind of shape American thinking, rather than to kind of set out some alternative vision, which I think maybe what Zelensky wants, but which kind of European leaders can't afford.

So, I mean, I think that's where we're at right now, how soon that sees what happens. you know, remains to be seen, but I hope it's certainly within the next kind of month or so. Obviously, you kind of, Zelensky said, as he would, because he has no incentive of the, you know, fighting to stop, because that means the end of his presidency. You know, this could go on for a very, very long time. Trump has slapped him down, military aid has been paused. Every time Zelensky said something stupid and rash like that, you know, he's going to have the big, heavy hand of the Americans coming down on him.

and bringing a sort of cold dose of realism. I think that's the process we're out right now. The Americans aren't going to have the patient for long, drawn-out process, and the Europeans are having to get on board. What about the Russians? Now, the Russians are saying they're not going to accept a ceasefire. They've been there before. They've had ceasefires in the past.

They're still very, very angry, very obviously, about the Minsk Agreement and the way that that was sabotaged. In fact, they say so. They are very, very angry about Istanbul. they claim, and I've not really seen anybody contradict this, that they withdrew their forces from outside Kiev in the expectation that Istanbul was a done thing. They're saying that they've been there, they've done that, they got really, really badly burnt. The time has ended when they're prepared to accept ceasefires. They want a long-term sustainable settlement, and they want that

negotiated first. And are they going to move from that position? And why would they move from that position? given that they're winning. Well, it's a very good question. And of course, actually, what will be reassuring to the Russian side is that the Americans are leading this now not the Europeans. Because clearly, you know, the war was provoked, ironically by the American side with a kind of very hawkish policy of Biden. Trump's, you know, now in charge.

You know, all these ideas that the Europeans can come up with their plan and then impose it clearly isn't going to work. I think what is helpfully setting the foundations for a longer term peace process, peace isn't going to break overnight, it's going to be a process right, it's going to take many, many years, is the kind of confidence that's building up between the Russians and the Americans through their bilateral dialogue, how they're looking to genuinely restore diplomatic relations, open up kind of flights. You know, this goes right back to 2017 with a massive expulsion of U.S. diplomats that happened

after the Katz had built. the US had just built this huge consular services building in their embassy campaigned in Moscow. I visited it many times. It's set empty. If you're a Russian citizen wanting to travel to the US, you've got a flight of Paris to get your embassy to go to the visa to go to the US there or some other place outside of Moscow.

So I think that that much-needed process of Russia and the US returning to diplomacy, I think will improve confidence among the Russian decision makes Lavrov and others, and actually the Americans are going to have a sensible hand on this, you know, peace process, and that the ceasefire, because, you know, whether you call it peace plan, whether you call it a ceasefire, at some point that, you know, the firing has to kind of stop. That would just be the first of many steps along kind of a much clearer path over the next year or so,

with clear kind of waypoints along the way for sanctions to be lifted. and so on and so forth. So I don't actually think it's an either-or kind of process. I think the Americans are creating the conditions now in their relationship with Russia, that the Russians have the confidence and trust, you know, and ultimately diplomacy is about trust, right? To kind of, you know, engage with, you know, Trump's team to move this forward. That's what I think we're at right now. So yeah, absolutely, you know, you can't do this without the Russians. Of course not. And of course, it's absolutely been a core sort of strategy from the Ukrainian side right from the beginning to prevent the possibility of Russia even being spoken to in this process. That's been a core priority of the UK side.

Trump has smashed through that by talking to Putin on the telephone for 90 minutes. This kind of global isolation strategy that we've been pushing for the last 11 years has come to its end. think actually now that will be a massive problem with the Russian side too. Right. Now I'm going to ask this question because inevitably people are going to say why should the Russians trust the Americans here? I mean, we've had changes in administration,

changes in American policy. We had the Obama people agree the JCPOA with Iran. And Trump came in and he reversed it. Why would the, Russians assume that a policy built on trust with the Trump administration will survive for very long in the United States, given how polarized and volatile the political situation is there. Again, I just throw that question out, do you? Because it's something that I read

every day. You see it in Russian telegram channels and places like this. what makes this one different that, you know, we will make peace, but it will last and it will endure beyond this administration, beyond the personality of Donald Trump himself? I mean, I can't understate how huge the shift in the US position has been, you know, just in the past kind of month and a half since Trump came to power. It's been an absolutely seismic shift in the tone and the style and the substance of US engagement with Russia in a way not really seen since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis right back to 2014 and even late 2013 when the Americans already meddling in what's happening in Ukraine, Newland and other people. There's been a massive shift on every kind of dimension of their engagement, which I think the Russians have spoken positively about.

Trust is a two-way thing. I mean, the Americans have to trust in the Russians. The Russians have to trust in the Americans, right? It's not just a one-way, it's not just a one-way street. That starts with the kind of leader-to-leader level conversations, a really kind of grown-up conversation between Trump and Putin. And there, I think that the tone has been set in a really positive way. Trump's been saying good things about Putin,

Putin's been saying good things about Trump. They may well argue, I'm sure they do. We're on the telephone together, but there's that kind of mutual respect that just hasn't existed, you know, for the past kind of significant period of time. So look, I mean, Trump's here for four years. There's every possibility that actually,

if he doesn't completely kind of mess things up, you know, that there could be a continuation of his legacy through France and so on, but let's see, you know, what happened there. I mean, actually, you know, you've got to deal with facts, you know, right in front of you right now. And what's happening right now is an absolutely massive kind of change in the U.S. And the Russians seem to be responding positively to that. I'm going to just add something to that, which is that I've been following the American media.

And one of the most interesting things is that the people you would expect to oppose this process don't seem to be doing so in the United States. don't seem to be doing so with much conviction. I mean, I was reading an editorial yesterday in the National Review, which I'm sure you know, very vigorous newspaper on the Republican side, as aggressive as it usually can be. And yet, it speaks with sorrow about the fact that this change, this change has happened.

It doesn't really seem to be pushing back on it. And it's a point which I'd like you to just point out, which is that there isn't ultimately much alternative to this. I mean, everything has been thrown at Russia over the last 10 years, and it hasn't really worked. And the critics of this change are not really coming up with any alternatives, either in the United States, and they've muted voices about this in the United States,

but especially in Europe. Yeah, no, exactly. I mean, even Lindsay Graham has come over on the Trump side, saying, we can never do it. This is the same guy who had that kind of TikTok video of him and Zelensky talking about the trillions of dollars in minerals in Ukraine and how this is going to be good for USA, saying just the other day that Zelensky was a man he couldn't work with any more on the back of, you know, the kind of the bust-up in the White House.

So when even Lindsay Graham is coming on board with the approach, so, you know, something significant must be, you know, happening there. And I think, I think, you know, that the Americans have been doing the same thing for 11 years. You know, people can't keep clinging onto, well, why do we have to change? Why can't we just do more of what we were doing before? Because we've tried that, and it hasn't worked, as you say. You know, Russia has only been strengthened and emboldened by our failure, why our fecklessness, by inability to kind of do the things that we said.

we were going to do on a range of fronts. So new ideas are needed. That's what the American people have voted for in the elections. That's what Donald Trump is providing. I don't care. I'm not American. I don't get to vote. But I mean, what I can say as an outsider is that he is bringing new ideas

which offer an end to needless killing in the war that Ukraine cannot win. And in ways which lots of people have been quietly thinking about, but been too scared to talk about for many years. And so I think, you know, people are realizing they just have to get on board of that or, you know, or shut up and so on, unless they can provide genuinely new alternative ideas to what Trump is proposing. And I've seen none of that. Why don't we send? Why doesn't Britain, why doesn't Europe start engaging diplomatically with Russia itself?

I mean, the Russians have said that they're absolutely open to that. if David Lammy wants to go to Moscow, the Russians will speak to him. Isn't it time that we did that? We complain that we're being excluded from the American Russian discussions. But we have the option. I'm going to Moscow ourselves and starting our own conversation. Isn't it time that we did that? It is time that we did that.

Has Keir Starmor phoned at Putin yet? Has David Lammy spoken to Seligay-Lavro? yet understand that Lavrov actually blanked Lammy at the G20 summit. Obviously, which is quite interesting. You know, it starts with us. Our policy since the summer of 2014 has been actively not to talk, you know, to Russia. We've only had, I believe, kind of four ministers in, you know, Russia during this past 11 years. Two of them immediately before war started in 2022.

Liz Truss, who actually thought Rostovandon and Volognij were parts of Ukraine. When you're sending Liz Truss, and she's one of only four ministers to have been in the space of 11 years, you know that something must be wrong. We need to get back to the basics of diplomacy which involve communication. It isn't about friendship. It's great if you can be friends, but it's about dialogue and trying to find mutually acceptable compromises to some of the world's biggest challenges, and we haven't been doing that. So, I mean, you know, I'd invite Stama to, or maybe just starting with Lammy,

or maybe one of Lammy's junior ministers talking to their crew, but somebody, you know, have a conversation with their kind of Russian counterpart and get the wheels moving. The embassy in Moscow was just this empty shell that's got so many empty offices now. We're actually sharing it with the Canadians because they had to move out of their decrepit embassy, you know, so it's an empty building. There's now two embassies, you know. you know, bizarrely.

You know, we need to sort of get training our diplomats in Russian language skills so they can get out and meet ordinary people. Around the country, our universities are closing down foreign language teaching programs in all languages, including in Russia, in Russian. You know, the only non-Rossal group university in the UK, which is in the University of Central Lancashire, is being forced to close its, you know, Russian language. you know, programs. As the government has disinvested in Russian skills, the universities are taking

the signal that actually Russia is bad, we should probably stop, you know, teaching people Russian to the whole, you know, foundations upon which we build our capability, our ability to kind of work in Russia and talk to people in the Russian language is crumbling beneath our feet. And I think longer term, that poses a huge challenge to our ability to actually have the diplomatic capabilities that we need to be in Russia, to meet Russians, to talk serious things, to build relationships and connections to help prevent these pointless wars in the future. Do you think it will happen? Do you think that we will eventually get to a situation where British ministers fly to Moscow and meet with the Russians? Do we have any choice?

I mean, the Americans are doing it. I can be absolutely certain of one thing. The European somebody will do it from Europe too, not just Orban, but before long, the Italians will be sending their people to Moscow. The French undoubtedly will. So we can't afford the Spanish will. We can't afford to stay out, can we? No, we can't, but that doesn't mean that we won't. But I mean, I think right now, what Lammy and Stalmers have recognised more than anything else is that we need a really strong relationship. with the US right now, and hence the second state visit. I'm hoping that means we take our signals from the American administration

in terms of both our foreign policy towards Russia, but also the nature, the scope, the size of our kind of diplomacy in Russia itself. Because if we don't, and the US starts to refill its massive embassy just behind the White House and the centre of Moscow, and we still have a just handful of people who can't speak in Russian, you know, trembling around their blacked out sort of computers in sort of windows with the curtains closed, which certainly was a case when I worked out of there,

then we're going to get left behind. You know, and on the position of already having practically no influence in Russia, you know, we'll have zero influence in Russia going forward because the Europeans, as you say, the Americans will just re-engage, and we'll be the mad people still at the back of the bus, still complaining that why did things have to change, we like things the way they were. So, I mean, let's hope that it doesn't happen.

But let's get ministers on the phone. It just starts with conversation, you know, and that's basically the essence of diplomacy talking to people. Last question for me. I mean, we've had a very, very tense period in Russian-Western relations for a long time now. I mean, people always argue about when it really began to go. South. Some people say it was Putin's Munich 2007 speech. Others say it was with 2014 itself.

I actually think it was before that. I mean, I think it really began to go wrong with the Hodokovsky affair. But, you know, we could pull aside in precise date. Is that coming to an end? Are we now finally perhaps reaching that point not so different from when McMillan went to Moscow in 1959, which basically was the moment, 1959 was the moment when the really hard period of the Cold War started to ease. Are we there? I mean, are we going to start moving in that direction? Finally, a general easing of tensions in Europe, an easing of tensions between the West and Russia, or is it still very hard work going forward for many years? What are your feelings about this? I do think that the American role will be key here because as they can sweep in to really re-engage economically with Russia on the back of a peace process, which I think is entirely plausible right now, the Europeans, where the sluggish economies are going to want a piece of that too.

You know, they've cut themselves off from this enormous consumer market, which prior to the Ukraine conflict, you know, accounted for kind of 40% of the European Union's trade. and they've kind of cut off their nose to kind of spike their face, you know, also 40% of Russia's change. The Europeans have cut off their nose to spite their face and that. But there's a huge market there, and I think many will kind of dive into that because they don't want to be undercut by the Americans. I think that's what will really drive it more than anything else. Financially, you know, if sanctions are lifted, that will allow kind of city of London re-engagement.

There used to be huge collaboration between the city of London. and the Moscow City, their financial centre, for example. The Lord Mayor of London used to visit Moscow every year, for example. That got cut off just before I arrived in Moscow for reasons that you'd understand. But the official level, cooperation still continued while I was in Russia, that was very positive too. All these air services talks. We had really good collaboration with Russia on air services talks,

not just in terms of what were extremely lucrative routes. You know, the Moscow to London route was one of British Airways's most profitable routes, for example. You know, Russians wanting to come to the UK, not so many Brits wanting to necessarily go to Russia, but for business, but massively lucrative. You know, cheaper access to kind of flights into kind of China and places like that by having, you know, agreements with their flot on Siberian transit. I mean, there are just so many areas of collaboration. All that this does in a helpful way is it creates really good connections between people at the level of businesses and just ordinary people as well, which over the much longer term kind of smooths out those relationships.

So there's huge scope for us to engage actually with the Russians, you know, and I think it would be beneficial to us longer term if we do that. Let's see whether that happens. But I mean, I'll just say one thing on the Hodokovsky thing, which I think is different now. and I agree with you precisely on that, you know, the UK made itself a home, the city of London indeed, made itself a home for all these kind of rob a baron, oligarchs who could have fled here

and then criticised kind of Putin from afar. I think those circumstances are different now. I think it's much harder for the city of London to be used in that way. Global financial flows have become much more dispersed. You know, being an oligarch is no longer sort of a prestige kind of badge to where, you know, even amongst the British political elites, so I think those circumstances, thankfully have changed. We won't entertain people who I

consider to be sort of borderline criminals like Hodokovsky and elevating them as saints, you know, at the expense of our political relationships. So I think that is a helpful change. But no, I mean, I think anything we can do to kind of reintroduce these things as the Americans are doing will be good in and of itself, but would also. be good to prevent us being left completely behind by the Americans and the Europeans. Ian Prout, thank you very much. If you could just wait there a little, I'm sure Alex are some questions to put to you. That was the most insightful and interesting conversation.

And let's have another one fairly soon because this is a very dynamic situation now, and we will probably need to re-engage fairly quickly. Thank you. Ian, you have 10, 15 minutes for a couple of questions? Yeah, of course. Yeah, great. Let's start with Nicholas Walker, who says, has the EU UK leaders now committed too much financial and political backing to

pull, backing to now pull out, is the only step escalation? I think that's probably been the mindset for some time. But I think with elections having happened, certainly, you know, in Germany, and to a lesser extent, I think, in the UK, you know, that creates an opportunity to kind of pivot and rethink the policy in the past. Yes, massive investments have been made. They haven't delivered. In fact, they've actually failed and they've only kind of exacerbated and extended the conflict. So I think actually Trump's arrival, Mercer's arrival, you know, allow people to kind of take pause and reconsider and say, well, actually, that was a failure. And rather than,

repeating that failure, should we take an alternative approach and think about what the Americans are doing? So I think that's essentially where Europe is right now, albeit it's going to be a painful process. And I don't necessarily think the European Commission are helpful in this with completely barking mad people like high callus there. But nevertheless, I think the grownups in the capital's will be look. All right, from Tyler Durden. This is just a show by the Brits and the EU to motivate the Ukrainians to throw in their last reserves. It's cynical, but it's a proven strategy. Do you believe that this is a show?

I don't necessarily believe that that's where Starmer's at right now. I think he genuinely is prioritizing his relationship with the US over continuation of the war. I mean, everything I've seen and knowing how Whitehall works, suggest to me that that's where Starma's at right now. But the risk as Alexander has pointed out earlier in the conversation is that because we're unwilling

to actually speak hard truth to Zelensky, maybe not in as rough of a way that Trump did but nevertheless in quite a direct way that he will nevertheless feel that he's emboldened to continue throwing his troops in

busifying people from the streets and so on. So I think that is a risk there. Not necessarily the Europeans want him to do that, but that because we haven't told him exactly that the world has changed, he will just carry on as normal. Paul Walker says, didn't Assange say the goal is to have an endless war, not a successful war, needed to wash the money? Afghan collapsed, so they switched it to Ukraine. Well, I think certainly you could look at that from the Russian side, actually. you know, having an endless war has kind of suited Russian objectives,

more than it is suited, kind of European objectives. Because right from the very beginning, if their initial tactical objective was to kind of cut off the head of the snake and remove Zelensky and put in some sort of pro kind of Russian president, that failed, they shifted to a longer-term approach, making the strategic gamble that eventually kind of the Europeans and the Americans would run out of the money in the political world to maintain the fight longer term in circumstances where Russia was far better equipped

in terms of the size of its population, in terms of the size of its economy and the size of its reserves, to bleed out the Ukrainians until Western support faded, which is exactly what has happened now. So you could argue that kind of longer term peace from the Russian side, just as there's kind of strategic play that they've made right from the beginning of the war. Ross Steiner asks, would a foreign war boost British morale? Well, it depends if it's a war that people believe is right and just. So, for example, the Falklands conflict in 1982, where the Argentine military, Junta invaded the Falkland Islands,

you know, British people got behind that war because they thought it was a just war. The first Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the British people got behind that war because they thought it was a just war. When the Brits went into kind of, you know, Iraq in 2003 on the back of a kind of sexed-up, you know, intelligence dossier, Britain's protested about that because they thought that it was a fake war. They thought it was an illegal war, many people, and that we shouldn't have been there. We went into Afghanistan and people said, well, why are we even there, you know, for so long? So support for that wasn't necessarily strong,

even though the relentless MOD kind of propaganda machine worked hard to boost the image of the armed forces during that time. I honestly think most people in Britain don't have a clue why we're supporting the war in Ukraine. But unfortunately, because they're fed in an absolute blizzard of state-run propaganda about the fact that we're winning, which we're clearly not.

that they just carry on regardless and just wait to see what happens in the news. I think the vast majority of British people don't care a jot about sort of fighting to the last Ukrainian. They don't have a view either way. I think they also don't necessarily have a negative or positive view either way about Russia either. I think people are just dumbed down by the state.

Harry Smith says, how will it work if the US and Russia resume direct flights, but EU airspace remains closed to Russian airlines and Russian airspace closed to EU carriers. Well, I mean, you know, the EU won't block US flights. I don't see going to Russia for fear of some sort of response from Trump. You know, I think the Americans will do that as part of a process, you know, with a ceasefire and all that sort of thing in a peace, in a peace plan.

I would be very surprised if the Europeans don't at some point in the kind of month or two after the Americans take the first move that they don't do the same. Because more than anything else, more than wanting to normalize with Russia, what they all fear most is actually, you know, falling behind economically, you know, behind the Americans, in what is an incredibly kind of lucrative market, actually. Russia, despite the fact we've almost completely cut ourselves off from Russia. It is a very, very 143 million people market with most of those people on the European,

you know, part of the continent. All right. One more question from Sparky, a little bit of a lighter question for you, Ian. Sparky asks Ian, how did Keir Stommer become Sir Kier Stommer? Did he slay dragons or fight Saladin in the Third Crusade? Or was it something like Obama's Nobel Peace Prize or Ukraine's Eurovision victory? Oh, God, don't get me on Eurovision. Sam Wider, firstly, Sam Wider should have won that.

And actually, it's amazing that Israel almost won the Eurovision Songkansas last year, hashtag discuss. But I think he got it when his director of the current public prosecutions, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, when amongst his many anointed feats was kind of dealing with the Jimmy Sable investigation and other kind of higher points too. So I'm quite convinced in the UK these days that we only reward failure. And in that regard, you know, that may be why Sarkir got his kind of knighted in the way that he did. Fantastic. Just to say, I mean, and I think Ian would agree with me,

that within the civil service, the part of the civil service machine, one of the things that you get, one of your prizes, if you keep going long enough, in certain positions, is you get a title. So in the judiciary, for example, when you become a high court judge, you almost automatically become served. And of course, if you are then made a Supreme Court judge, you become law. It follows, if you like, from the work. I do think the DPP position has been like that, by the way. But clearly, in Starmus case, to some extent, it was. I mean, ambassadors to Moscow, for example,

British ambassador to Moscow will almost always be knighted, even if they cock things up. So there we go. Not bad. Not bad to be knighted. All right. We will leave it to the king to call you, sir. Yes.

We will leave it there with Ian Proud. But Ian, where can people follow you once again? On peacemonger, or they can buy my book of misfit in Moscow or on Amazon or other places too. But peacemonger is my new substack. So please, please do join me there. And you can find Ian also on X as well. I will have those links in the description box down below and does a pin comment. Ian Proud, thank you very much for joining us on the Duran.

Thanks. And we'll have you back, no doubt, when the diplomacy begins, which begins in a which it will very, very soon. There could be a while, but yeah, I hope we've seen it. Talk to you again. All right. Take care of you. Bye for that. Bye, bye, bye, bye, bye.

Bye, bye. All right, great show. Got some great questions left, Alexander. Are you ready? Absolutely. All right. Let's see. In locals, Josie S says, thank you gentlemen.

The leaders question, the leaders of the collective West, along with their controlled media, have spent years, conditioning their populations to hate and demonize Russia and Russians. In contrast, Russians and people from the former Soviet Union have never held hatred towards the West. We were taught that all nations can and should coexist. Will any Western leaders apologize and work to change this trend? Well, I don't think they're going to apologize, and I don't think these people have the ability to apologize, certainly not to the Russians.

I think that is expecting and asking to much. much. Now, about Russians and their attitudes to the West, one of the things that always astonished me whenever I went to Russia, even as Russian British relations deteriorated, is how basically positive amongst Russians' attitudes to Britain continued to be, notwithstanding the fact that the people I would meet would be deeply patriotic, support their president, or that kind of thing. And it was strange. I mean, you'd have the hysteria and anger and the insults thrown at the Russians by the British. And the Russians remain very calm and stoical in the face of it and still liking Britain and appreciating British culture and all of that.

I think that's changed a bit. I don't think the Russians are quite as keen with the British as they used to be. I think the last three years are going to take a long time to forget. on the Russian side. In Britain, I'm going to say this, if you're talking about the wider population, we've had a media that has basically sustained a language of hysteria here for about 10, 11 plus years. If that suddenly switched off, it will, and the hysteria ends, attitudes could change. change quite fast, actually. The very fact that they've had to keep it up at this level shows how artificial this thing really is. So just to say. All right, from MK, why do Western

powers push for an unwinnable war against Russia while acting like they oppose Russia? It's like watching someone play chess constantly determined to sacrifice every piece they have on the board. and I wonder about these Russian frozen assets too. In what way is that not just a straight up theft? It is a straight up theft. And there's talk again, by the way of seizing those assets and it's the financial dimes. And that would be a disastrous mistake and an incredibly stupid thing to do. Can I say just confiscating them.

If it's done, it will definitely be an attempt by some people in Europe to wreck whatever process of rapprochement is underway. And that perhaps makes it more likely that it will happen than not, because I think there are people in Europe and in Britain who are completely unreconsiled at this process for the moment. But as to why they did it, why they go and fight unwinnable wars against the Russians, it's because of this myth in the West that never dies, which is that Russia somehow is a weak country, that it looks strong and aggressive. But if you can take it off, then as a certain gentleman in Berlin said in 1941, if you kick the front door, the whole rotten structure will come tumbling down.

It's been proved wrong, time and time and time again. And yet, as I said, that myth never quite goes away. it's partly the product of profound Western ignorance of Russia, the fact that there isn't a single Western political leader for a very, very long time who speaks Russian. I mean, Merkel spoke it off, apparently not as well as she made out. But most British politicians, French politicians, very, very few of them if you go through it, speak Russian.

They don't understand the country very much. They don't travel to it. They don't visit it. They don't know much about it. So they assume they accept these stereotypes about it is true. I just wanted to repeat again, that point that was made to me by that German businessman that they imagine that because their aggregate GDP, as they believe is bigger than Russia's, that this puts them in a position of advantage.

And I thought it was profound what he said. You think that if you have 28 Volkswagen's and you take out their engines and put them all together, you will come up with the equivalent of the engine of a big man truck. You know, man is a company that makes huge trucks in Germany. And I think this is exactly right. They have a complete misunderstanding of how economies work and how industry and factories work. And again, I think they look at these nominal GDP figures

and they say to themselves, Russia was weak and so much. We can afford to beat us up, and it won't be that tough. Yeah, it's the EU bureaucrats that are drinking their own Kool-Aid. Yeah, exactly. They see themselves as a country. The European Union sees itself as a country, and they have no understanding of the reality of the situation. That's all it is. Nico says, in your last video, you laid out the insanity of Britain-EU, Britain.

needs every nation to be stepped on by them. That's what they did to Greece. So now they'll start World War III, and they will send troops. I feel sorry for the Russian people who will have to go again through this. I hope they are ready. They must have faith to their president and country, unlike Mr. Rasputin of our age. Dukin, who called him soft and weak. I don't respect him.

Well, my personal view. Yes. My, my, oh, is it, is the, is the, well, that's, yeah. Okay, so the, the first thing to say is that it's clear now that there's a big backlash building up in Britain against sending troops to Ukraine. I mean, if you go to the Daily Telegraph, which is the newspaper, which has been the most ferocious and relentless and the most propagandistic in supporting Ukraine throughout the war, but it's also the media outlet, the news, newspaper that is perhaps closest to some sections, the more extreme sections, if you like, the most anti-Russian sections of the British military and security state. They're coming out now with article after article by people who are saying, can't be done. Just forget about it. So we have Con Coughlin, who is a journalist that I find bizarre, by the way he's so anti-Russian. It's almost unbelievable.

But he's saying that it would be a disaster to send British troops to Ukraine. in that kind of way. We've had Richard Kemp, who's a former colonel in the British army, and he's saying exactly the same thing at the Telegraph today. He has taken an extreme pro-Ukrainian position throughout the war. He's always been, well, not always, but he's massively been optimistic about Ukraine's prospects. It is he who said today in the Telegraph that this is not the Falklands. It's Iraq all over again. So I think that there is so much opposition building up. I'm seriously doubting now that it's going to happen.

And of course, the Russians will say no, and Trump isn't keen on the idea to put it mildly. He has basically already said no to it. Hitcham says the EU has grabbed every opportunity to centralize more power and money in Brussels. What could be the tipping point to the respective countries involved for the European people? Will it happen in time, or do we need a number? another disaster war to have a fundamental change in the political architecture of Europe. Sooner or later it will happen. Sooner or later, this will crash. Unsustainable projects

cannot be sustained indefinitely. The only question is how it will happen and when. And when is the big question, because with every year that passes, with every decade that's lost, as this project continues, the damage to Europe grows and gets, worse and if we leave it too long then by the time we see this project collapse and I think it will collapse as a result of a crisis I mean I think that projects like this there will be a moment when it exhausts itself and then you will see a crisis of some kind by the time that happens if it's delayed too long we will have a situation in you Europe where our economies and our technologies and our science and our education systems are so far behind what is going on in the rest of the world that we will be going through our own long time of troubles, marginalized and ignored by much of the rest of the world.

So we don't have an indefinite amount of time to turn this around. OGWall says, good morning. Good morning. OJWall. Niko says, I know I am giving Mitsodakis way too much credit, but does Greece his absence from the War Council mean that the government is sobering up? Either way, if they send me to the front, I'll fight for Russia. Quite true. My understanding is that the reason we're not there, we weren't there in London at Lancaster House, was because the British didn't invite us. We weren't wanted.

I mean, that's my own understanding. We'll go along with whatever they. We'll go whatever. Ursula says, we'll go along with it. We'll do it. Exactly. Yeah. Ralph Steiner says, in the 2025 sci-fi cult classic movie,

Starship Troopers, British stormtroopers land with boots on the ground in their Kursk d'athu pocket to fight the Russian army. Do you see the storm troopers winning? No. Anybody who's looked at the situation, objectively, from a military point of, of you does. I mean, just to say, I mean, the British could deploy a force of about 3,000,

three to five thousand men to Ukraine. And it would be very, very difficult to sustain economically and logistically for any length of time, even if the Americans apparently gave their backing. I mean, the Russian army is, what, 800,000 men in the area of Ukraine, either in Ukraine itself or just are joining it. As has been pointed out by people who've looked at this, the British defence budget is half the size of Russia's,

but the Russian armed forces are ten times bigger and far, far stronger. They'd have us for breakfast. Mark Hewitt says, surely Stommer must realize that the British people will revolt if body bags start arriving back from Ukraine. Does he?

I'm not sure he does, actually. I mean, I listen very carefully. to what Ian was saying, that he basically wants to, he's prioritising relations with the US. I hope that is true. I am a little more skeptical about this. If that is he's objective, then he's going about it in a strange way. At least so it seems to me, I mean, we all have our disagreements on this. I'm not sure that Stama understands fully how dangerous and complicated this game that he is playing.

actually is. And hugging Stalmerski outside down the street, just after Zelensky has come out of a massive row with the president of the United States, to me, looks like a strange way of improving relations with the Americans. Just saying. They can't resist. They all have to hug Zelensky, which is weird. Thank you at Tijin Bama, 1961, for that. For chat. From Nikos, if you disagree that the EU is going to war, the Irish announced that they'll send troops without a UN mandate. What's wrong with the Irish?

Like that Irish in Kiev who mocked Gonzalo and the Duran. I didn't know. I didn't remember that. I didn't remember that. I mean, can I just say, I mean, again, I know Ireland quite well, actually. My wife has just been there, by the way. She was in Dublin a few weeks, just about two weeks ago. I don't think there is vast support for this operation in Ireland either. And if you look at the size of the Irish armed forces, they're very, very small. Ireland has produced superb soldiers in its history, but its armed forces are in no position to conduct an operation in Ukraine.

Paul Walker says Keir should fly back home with the remains of British troops when they get repatriated but at least they won't draw a wage or their pension so a win well again I mean this is go back to what Richard Kemp is saying today in the Daily Telegraph if

British soldiers come back from Ukraine in body bags this will be or whatever I mean it will be an absolute political disaster for Stama I don't think he'd survive it. And when Richard Kemp is making comparisons with Iraq, that is exactly the point he's making. No bias says, hi guys, I left a comment on your video. Democracy dies in Romania. Your answer is significant to me with everything happening now, especially in Eastern Europe. Thank you.

No bias. Is that the comment about your YouTube channel and posting our content? If that is the comment, then yeah, feel free to go ahead and post that video. No problem, no bias. Alan Shepard says, how are they able to create a European army without a common language? Plus, Stammer looked so weak when he said we need the Americans backup. Well, I completely agree with the last point. I mean, this summit meeting,

which was supposed to, if it was supposed to demonstrate European unity, strength and will, all it actually did was, again, expose the dependence of the Europeans on the Americans. Because we come up, we talk about European intervention forces or reassurance forces or whatever we want to call them. And then we turn around and then we say, well, actually, we really need the Americans to do it for us because we don't have the strength to do it ourselves. In which case, why even bring up this topic? This is what I don't understand. But Put that aside, how do you create armies, you know, from people with different languages, different cultures across Europe, you know, European armies and that kind of thing? Well, I'm sure that the geniuses in Brussels, these great people who have solved every problem that Europe has faced over the last 30 years, who have proved so effective in managing the financial crisis, who've made Europe the digital leader in the world, who have proved.

presided over a manufacturing and technology boom, I'm sure they will come up with a solution. Yeah, wasted money. You're better off just throwing away that money, burning it, then putting it in these EU funds. Just such a waste. Thanks, sir. Ralph Steiner says, with the British stormtroopers turn the tide of battle,

much like the arrival of the Prussians at the Battle of Waterloo on the 210th anniversary year. No, it's the short answer. I mean, if you look at what happened in Waterloo, the combined British and Prussian forces, and by the way, when we're talking about British forces fighting in Waterloo, it's never mentioned, but a very, very large proportion of those troops. Perhaps even the majority were actually Belgians, Dutch Belgians, just saying. But anyway, put that aside, the aggregate allied forces in Waterloo were greater, were more numerous than Napoleon's.

Three to five thousand British troops doesn't change the military calculus in Ukraine, one job. From Nikos, Nicos says, on a funnier note, every time I see Trump's answer to the beggar reporter about Russia gate coming out of Hunter Biden's bathroom and bedroom, all I can think of is Hunter Biden. on his laptop doing, doing, you know what.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Because for that, Bram Sparky, make Ukraine, Russia again. Don't leave a Rump state called Ukraine. At least it remain a NATO playground, a carpetbaggers,

money, laundry, and a black rock property. I come back to what I think the Russian ultimate objective is now. I think they want elections in Ukraine at some point. They won't, you know, I personally don't think they're going to stop until the four regions are definitely incorporated in Russia. I think that they've made that very clear and that's the position. I can see how the Americans might quietly facilitate that, by the way, just to say, because the Americans do want that.

But I won't go into that. There will be elections eventually in Ukraine. And I think the Russians want those elections to be completely open. And they want Victor Medvedtchuk in his party to campaign. And they expect him to win and then to sign the. Tracy with Russia. I think that is the Russian gang plan now. They are giving Medvedchuk an enormous

amount of attention in Moscow and I think they're preparing the ground. Yeah. Saddamr says, I am arguing the past three years that this invasion, even though an invasion is an invasion has nothing to do with the invasion

in Cyprus. Your thoughts? I agree with these completely different set of events. I've never thought that comparison. and held. But of course, Western leaders never actually talk about Cyprus. I mean, they get very, very angry. They say it's absolutely outrageous that the Russians invaded, as they put it, Ukraine. And this has never been done before in Europe since the Second World War. Well, Alex can tell you that it has been done somewhere in Europe. It was done in his own country. And it

continues. And the Western powers either looked the other way or facilitated it. Yeah. On the surface, you could argue that there is a similarity because, as you said, an invasion is an invasion, but the Cyprus is very, very different than what's happening in Ukraine. Ralph Steiner says, the last English 100 years war had such nation building battles as adjunct court against the French. The British seemed to be chomping

at the bit for another. Well, that was that was the end. I think today, Britain is a very, very difficult place, actually. The wars between England and France and the 100 years, the 100 year wars in the 15th century took place in a completely different society. I mean, one of the purposes of those wars was to because remember medieval england didn't have police forces or anything of that kind and a very weak government the idea was get all the violent and difficult people in england including many of the nobles send them off to france have them fighting the french but in the meantime you might get some decent quiet in england itself of course it doesn't work like that today Gabe McChair says, given the UK's reliance on nuclear weapons rather than conventional forces

and Stommer's obsession with Russia, would he be tempted to use them? He can't use them without the Americans agree. There's a really good article about this that somebody has written recently, which makes precisely that point. The American nuclear warheads are designed and made in Britain, but the missiles on which they are installed are leased from the Americans. They're not owned by the British. The Trident missiles are actually American missiles, which we lease and which the Americans still have a high degree of control over. I mean, it's not just a question of getting their mission. I mean,

the Americans have to be involved directly in their launching. So we can't do it. I mean, that's the reality. The French have a genuinely, genuine independent deterrent because, well, at least, mostly independent deterrent. We don't. We don't at all. It's a piece of mythology that we do. It was in the financial, that article that explained it at all. By the way, it was in the financial times. Klaus Clemenson says, great news. Orban has voted no to the 20 billion EU fund. Have you heard about that? And what do you think? No, I haven't heard about this. I mean, the program we've just done with Ian is the first piece of work I've done today. So obviously we can have Alex and I can have a lot to do.

But I find it, first of all, it's the right thing to do. Secondly, it's Orban, you know, acting like this. But the reason he's able to do that is because he now knows that the Americans are behind him. So if the Europeans come after him, he's got the protection of the United States. I'm going to go further. I'm going to make a guess that before Orban wielded this vote, he probably talked about this with somebody in Washington. Just saying. Yeah. Yeah, and they suspended it from what I understand, Alexander. So, I mean, look, the EU, Ursula is going to find a way to create a fund,

making a money into this defense fund or military aid fund or whatever. They've talked about exactly. That's what she does. That's what she does. That's exactly what she does. She'll find a way around. She's talked about doing this before. She'll talk to her friends in Germany and in France and whatever. And something will be cobbled together. And then they'll go on proposing it to the European Council. And sooner or later, they'll get the vote.

That's what they'll do. Yeah. Ralph Steiner says, Ian, will you be signing up for storm troopers? Will you? And then he says, Ian, Stormtrooper service guarantees civil. citizenship. And then Ralph says the poll...

Yep. Now, I'm obviously called to stealing. And then Ralph says the polls said Zelensky wouldn't win. That's true. It's true. How insightful. How insightful of them.

We've been saying that since 2022. I mean, it's nice that the polls have come round to that now. Oh, you mean the opinion polls? Oh, I see. Yes. No, no, I think, no, no. it's the, no, I think it's, he means Poland, I think. Oh, okay.

P-O-L-E-S, so I guess it's Poland. Oh, it is. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Ralph Steiner says, but the opinion polls as well says that's a lot. Absolutely. In an election, yes.

There's a big article in the spectator. I mentioned this in various programs, which says that Zelensky's poll rating is, that he's real poll rating is below 10%. In other words, not that different from the 4% that Trump said. Maybe Trump has seen opinion polls, which we have not, real ones. Yeah, but Zelenskyy says his approval is at 57%. 57%. 67%, you know, it's 120%.

Ukrainian people are so enthusiastic for him. So, you know, they'll go on voting for him many, many times. Even when the dead will come out and vote for him. Ralph Steiner says, what's the British angle with the European war? It's basically damage the Germans and Russians as much as possible, playing everyone off against each other. There's such a big story to say here. This is such a complicated discussion.

You know, I think one day we all need to do a proper program talking about this issue with Britain and Russia. And we need to bring in, you know, people like Jeffrey Sachs And indeed Ian, Ian proud of others, and we need to talk about how it came about that the British have this obsession with Russia. I've been reading this book by Professor Grierson from the 1940s, which somebody so kindly sent to me about the collapse, you know, the development, the crystallization of hostility between Britain and Russia in the 1840s. seems a long time but it is a fact that many of the same themes get repeated constantly

again and again ever since then a tsunami bomb says how will the UK and France be kicked out of the UN Security Council and lose their vote well they won't be they won't they won't be and I don't think there's any discussion of that

I think that none of the other members of the the Security Council, the Russians, the Chinese and Americans want that to happen. Because for all kinds of reasons, they don't want a permanent member to lose status. Because conceivably one day it might be done to themselves. They don't want to establish that precedent. But if other countries join in India, Brazil, the Arab League, Asian start to join, all that kind of thing. then of course that vote becomes diluted.

And realistically, the French and the British will never vote to veto anything that the Americans proposed. We saw that, was it last week, when they hated that resolution that the Americans proposed and which the Russians backed, but they couldn't veto it. Nick, thank you for that super sticker. Ralph says, why doesn't Britain oppose the Gaza Genesis? side. Everyone knows about the Balfour Declaration and World War I and getting the USA into World War I, but it's hypocrisy. Well, it's a terrible mistake in my opinion. Again, going into all of this would need to go into the history of, you know, going deep into the structural realities of British politics today. Suffice to say that, you know, Kirstama, one of the issues in his great

factional battle with Jeremy Corbyn was, one of the issues he brought up was Jeremy Corbyn's support for the Palestinians. And the way Stama and his supporters presented that in, you know, their media campaign against Corbyn. So you can already see that, you know, there's already a structural bias within Labour Party politics in Israel's favour. But there are lots of other reasons as well. And they're very pronounced and very deep. And it does not, this attitude by the British government is at odds with the widest sentiments of the British people.

Amidiana, thank you for that super sticker. Denise, thank you for that super chat. Ralph says, are the Americans to fight World War III for Britain as well? That's the idea. That's the proposal that was taken to Washington last week by Macron, Starrma and Zelensky. And the Americans are sourced right through it. I mean, you saw Trump. It was the most interesting comment anybody made.

Trump made two brilliant comments last week, which really show that he absolutely understands everything. The first was his joke at Stama's. expense. Can you fight the Russians on your own? And everybody laughed and even Stamard did. And his other comment, which was Zolensky, which is that you're gambling with World War III. They were, you know, people still persisted this idea that Trump is some sort of cartoon character. On the contrary, he showed last week that he's extremely insightful. Yeah, Nolenski's stupid facial expressions when Trump was telling him. That looked like a child that was getting scolded by a parent.

It really did. A spoiled child. Absolutely. Absolutely. But by the way, now that you mentioned that, the Schiegel, the German magazine, which has come out and said, yeah, the Churchill, exactly, that he's actually really a child, that he's got a childish personality. Yeah.

So we've had a hit piece on Zelensky in The Spectator, former magazine, once edited by Boris Johnson. And we've had a hit piece against Zelensky into Spiegel. The ground is shifting. Not the first time that there's been a characterization of Zelensky as a child. Time magazine, I believe, about a year and a half ago. Exactly. Where the Americans go, we take a year, but we start to follow.

Yeah. Yeah, but we did a video on this about a week and a half ago, Alexander. said that one of the plans you were talking about how one of the plans for uh for the uk and for the europeans with regards to zelensky if they feel that he's going to be pushed out is to uh get someone in there as president before before they get an election and someone that's friendly to russia comes in so they they could be angling to get someone like zeluzni or someone like that in there as as president to to prevent to preempt a russian uh government that's friendly to Russia.

I agree. Absolutely. Absolutely. Ralph says the BBC losing its USAID funding must be devastating. Yes. We're only at the start of this process. There's an awful lot more to learn here. Andrew says much love from South Africa. Remember the DRC.

Indeed. Yeah. Indeed. Crazy Yoda says the EU supporting Ukraine while indirectly funding the Russian war effort by buying their fuel as madness. Well, it's not just madness. It demonstrates again the completely unsustainable nature of this entire project. You have to keep your economy going somehow.

So you have to do it by trading with the enemy. the side that you have classified as the enemy. It shows how speckless to use one of the in Brow's words, this whole project ultimately was. From Cab fan, I remember the carry-on franchise movies finished in 1992 has a comeback. Well, indeed, yes. At their best, they were glorious, if I can say. the humor is very British and may not always

may not always you know export very well just saying uh posmosmos says Alexander was embarrassed yesterday when you told Blumenthal that you thought it was dangerous

Rubio was adopting a great power realist Mersheimer position when you have extolled its virtue for years well I was bringing out what's Max Blumentel thinks about this because I know his views. This is what I do in programs. I go out of my way to try and draw out the comments and opinions of the of the person I interview.

I do take a more favorable view of what Rubio is doing, but I know that Max has a different view. Nico says one last chat. The only thing I disagree with Jeffrey Sachs in his EU speech was the more EU comment, as we see the U.S. is not the problem. Europe is it's a cancer, just cut it out like the U.S.S. are. Well, not easy to do, I would say. Ralph says, how do you become someone like Lord Blackadder? Not difficult.

Petro says, will Russia still take Odessa? Yes. At some point, they will. Interesting. Yeah. Fuzzy Ball says, why do we never hear of any Belgium foreign aid outside of Africa and they are reducing it 25% to 2025? Proof money goes into Belgium but not out. Well, true. John D. says this morning I saw a scathing letter from Lek Valesa to President Trump condemning his actions against Ukraine. Have you seen it? Any thoughts?

No, I haven't seen it. And I think Lechverwenzzer is an exhausted feeling. I mean, I don't think he has politically carries much political traction in Poland anymore, just to say. And by the way, he has never been, to my knowledge, a fully popular figure in Poland at any time. I mean, I think that's an important thing to say. But anyway, I mean, put that aside, there is going to be an awful lot of anguish in Eastern Europe about these things. and if there's going to be an American Russian rapprochement of any kind or even a detente, well, all sorts of people

in Eastern Europe, in the Baltic states, are going to be left in a very, very difficult position. It will be for them, the world's turned upside down. Zareel says, sorry to disagree, but the Brits haven't pushed back on anything much. When will they realize the truth? The truth, when the truth here, them.

Petro says Europeans who have been worried, the Russians will go all the way to the Atlantic, will poke the bear and get their wish. No. Well, we'll see. I mean, they're not really in a very strong position to poke the bear. My own view about this, by the way, is that, yes, the British, the French, some hardliners want to keep this war going. The real problem, the real crisis that's going to start developing over the next

few months is going to be in Ukraine itself. Can I just say? I was reading a piece by Gordon Hahn, and you can see that the ultra-nationalist leaders, Belitsky, Yarros, they're already mobilizing, and they're talking about the need to complete the revolution, as they call it. All of that looks to me like preparations for a coup. Don't discount that possibility at all. Yados is still around, huh? Oh, absolutely, very much. He's still in the defense ministry, by the way. He's still there as an advisor. Bad news for Zelensky.

Yeah. Yeah. Name says, Scott from Calibrated lost a bet with me on Ukraine. Godang, okay. Well, that's a dispute between you guys. I don't know. Petros says, for the great fast of Lent, pray for the UOAC. Alexander, sorry to always bring.

bring up Patriarch Bartholomew. He's my patriarch and it saddens me. It saddens me. I don't apologize for bringing it up. But I mean, I, the whole business, the whole behavior of the patriarchate of Constantinople has deeply distressed me as an Orthodox Christian. I mean, the way they played politics. And you see now that the Americans are angry with them, are saying that they did.

wrong in effect that this closure of churches and all of this, you know, is something that the Americans are now themselves bringing up. If there's a rapprochement, if the Russian Orthodox Church is reestablished in Ukraine, where does that leave the Patriarch? Yeah, he's, you should never got into this. He should have never got it into this. Yeah. Yeah. But I can tell you right now that that he's and i don't uh i don't support what he does at all uh but he's he's squeezed by by turkey he's getting squeezed hard by uh by the u s or he was being squeezed hard by the u s he was being squeezed hard by uh the u by the uk and you know he he cracked yeah doesn't excuse what he did but still uh rockabilly thank you for that super chat katherine says ukraine

as demilitarized and already weak Europe, all the EU, UK and Canada are doing on the world stage is showing how frail they are. Yes. Tom says, I'm in the UK and just married to a Russian. I like Russia and have no intention of fighting them or my father-in-law, who is a tank commander. What are the chances Stammer does conscription, do you think? None. The British society will accept it, straightforwardly.

and the Labour Party's electoral base, which is overwhelmingly middle class now. And the young people, middle class versions will not accept it either. Ralph says the power of Zionism compels you, the power of Zionism compels you. Why do you do this to me? Why is the USA still backing Linda Blair's demon? Well, good question. And I mean, are you going to say that this is what the most intractable international problem that exists? It's been continuing constantly since the 1940s.

And even in some respects before, it's got a very, very long way to go. But I think gradually, even there, by the way, sentiment is shifting in Britain and the United States in all sorts of places. And eventually a solution will be found. contrary to what many people think, whether it be found through negotiations or through some other catastrophic process, that's the only question as far as I'm concerned. All right, that is everything. Alexander. It's a great program.

I mean, I want to make it clear. I don't always put it. I think that I have a more skeptical view of Starmer than Ian does. Maybe I should make that clear. I don't think that he has the. sophistication to carry out this rather ambitious policy that Ian thinks. But I may be wrong, and I'd like to believe that I am. From Rockfin, where do you guys see Europe in five years? In a bad place. I mean, we've invested so much in project Ukraine, and it's failed. But I don't

think we have any real capacity to change course. And we could do a few things with the Russians. But our major problems in Europe are self-created. The process of European integration is going to go trundling on because there is no force strong enough to resist it. The processes of de-industrialization will continue and deepen. And the same thing will happen in prison. And they're going to borrow and we're going to get Eurobonds and all that stuff is coming.

Exactly, exactly. Exactly. And in the meantime, and the meantime, the rest of the world will go will move on um the russians will the chinese will the americans i think there's a fair chance they'll get whatever their own problems sorted out and they'll move on too yeah you know it's interesting on uh on x they're starting to uh to post articles from when ursula was defense minister of germany articles which criticize her and then what a disaster she was as defense minister you're starting to see a lot of the screenshots of these articles now making the rounds on x

Where were they before, I don't know. Well, interesting. Gosh. It's a sign. Maybe the shape of things to come. But for the moment, she still remains in poll position in Europe. Her agenda still is the agenda that dominates. I don't see that changing any time soon, despite all Bunn's vote today.

USA now says, traditionally the Scots used the Sporon in battle to carry their war kittens. Sure enough. That's a few picture of a kid as well. That's what we have. That's what we have, apparently. And Harry says, anyone else wonder if Mariana Bezuglia

may be being groomed for Ukraine's next president. Her name is widely known and she's clearly got protection. Well, we'll see. I mean, Bezegla is a very, very interesting person. I've never been able to work out exactly who she is or what she's about, but she's clearly somebody to keep an eye on.

And we'll see. I mean, I can imagine her wielding some kind of political influence in Ukraine. But I've also going to say she's got protection, but from whom exactly. And she doesn't seem to me to have the kind of base in Ukrainian politics or society that would propel her forward to a position

of authority in Ukraine. So, I mean, I don't know. We'll just, we'll keep an arm. We'll keep an arm what she does. Al-Al-Tonam says replacing Ursula with some other Muppet won't change anything. No. And a final one from Catherine. Kier is on thin ice.

He makes a dumb move. He will be out. The British people have had enough. I agree. I completely agree. All right. Thank you to everyone that joined us on this. live stream thank you to Ian proud thank you to angry Warhawk who was

moderating also to any of the moderators to Harry I believe was also helping to moderate as well and as Ariel Zareel is also in the house thank you to everyone that watched us on Odyssey on Rock Finn and the Rumble YouTube and the durand dot locals dot com I think that That's everything, Alexander. We'll be back with some videos. We will indeed. All right.

Take care.