The Duran Podcast - Ukraine asymmetric war, nihilism elevated to statecraft

Episode Date: January 4, 2025

Ukraine asymmetric war, nihilism elevated to statecraftThe Duran: Episode 2108

All right, Alexander, let's talk about an article on the Hill with the title, Hold Ukraine Accountable for Corruption, Miss Spent Aid. This article came out on December 31st, 2024, and it's an interesting article because we get a lot of interesting revelations about Project, U.S., Ukraine and the Biden White House in Project Ukraine, the Collective West in Project Ukraine. And one of those interesting revelations was that the Biden White House, along with much of the collective West and policy makers in the collective West, they understood that Ukraine had lost the war. They knew it.

This was in April, in April, 2024. At the same time that the 60-61, 62 billion, big A package was passed by Mike Johnson and Congress. You have a meeting taking place in D.C. Where everyone is pretty much brought up to speed on the conflict in Ukraine, and they are informed that Ukraine has lost this war. And the other interesting revelation, which you will also get into some detail about, is that it was decided to shift to an asymmetric type of war against Russia.

And the timing of this makes sense, because what we have seen from the summer onwards is indeed an asymmetric war being waged against Russia. I remember Newland when she was in Kiev. I'm not sure at what time she was in Kiev. I know it was the wintertime, maybe a year ago, when she was in Kiev actually talking about an asymmetric war against Russia. And actually, she gave some, this is when she was still in the Department of State. She gave some interviews at various think tank events. And she said that an asymmetric war is on the table against Russia.

So, Alexander, the Hill article, which you noticed, you found, and not many people are talking about this article, but quite some incredible revelations from the Hill. Absolutely. Now, of course, the article, which by the way is written by, I think his first name is James James Dilso, Mr. Dursso, anyway, who is a former U.S. Navy. James Dorsso. James Dorsso. Now, he, I should make it. very clear, has been a consistent critic of Project Ukraine. He's also been a consistent critic of NATO's Eastwood expansion. He writes, however, of all sorts of important journals in the United States.

He's clearly very well connected. And this article is mostly, most of it, is about material, is material about the corruption that exists in Ukraine for which he blames Zelensky. Now, this is all stuff that we've discussed and spoken about many times. I don't think there about the corruption that really is interesting. What is new to us or to people who follow this program. But he does drop this bombshell halfway through the article. And he says that he was informed about this meeting, which took place in April, by a former US diplomat who participated.

So, the people who were involved in this meeting were the leadership of Ukraine's military intelligence, i.e. Kiriel Mudanov and his people, and think tanks, U.S. think tanks, and policy makers. Now, one thing I've learned over the last 10 years or so is that there is no dividing line between what are called US think tanks and the US intelligence community. And we know that Budanov, anyway, has very strong connections with the US intelligence community. And in fact, Ukrainian intelligence does.

I mean, that's been confirmed in the Washington Post, the New York Times. I mean, it's no longer a controversial topic. And we're till policymakers were there, which, again, points to people within the administration, the Biden administration. In fact, given who was present and what was discussed, we can be absolutely certain that in fact what happened was that there was a briefing and intelligence briefing of some kind, which took place in April. And notice that the existence of this briefing, at least in the form in which it has taken, it was taken, has never been disclosed up to now, which again suggests that this There's a very senior briefing, a discussion about the current situation in the conflict in Ukraine.

And what Mr. Dursa tells us is that Ukrainian military intelligence reported that the war was not going well and that they anticipated or feared that Ukraine was going to be overwhelmed on the battlefields. In other words, that the war is in effect lost. And we've seen this play out every day, every week, every month. We've recently done another live stream with Scott have calibrated. He's discussed all of this in great detail and with an expert eye. But we've also been saying it in many programs. We see an accelerating military collapse right through the spring, the summer, the autumn,

and now the winter. Things for Ukraine are going for bad to worse. And way back in April, Ukrainian military intelligence was briefing the United States and presumably other NATO allies about this. So in April, they knew that this was what was going to happen, that the war was going to be lost. Now, April is a very important month. Firstly, exactly as you correctly say, in April, the war was going to be lost. The Biden administration, Biden himself, signed off on a $61 billion aid appropriation of which the bulk of the money was intended for Ukraine. The administration had been heavily lobbying for this money right through the winter. Congress voted for it in April.

Biden signed it off at the end of April to the best of, I think, our recollection. Was Congress informed that military Ukrainian military intelligence were reporting that the war was in effect lost? I think definitely they should have been. I've seen nothing anywhere to suggest to me that Congress was informed about it. I've not seen that Johnson was told about it or that anybody. else, J.D. Vance, for example, in the Senate, was informed about it. Maybe they were, but certainly there were no discussions of this in the media. And I don't myself think the Congress

was told, despite the fact that they just authorized this huge appropriation for what it looks as if the Biden administration knew was a lost cause. Now, in April, in April as well, General Kellogg and Fred Fights wrote their memo for Donald Trump. That memo was written on the presumption that there was a stalemate in the wall. If you remember at that time, we're talking about April, that was still the narrative. The narrative was that there was a stalemate in the war. Fights and Kellogg went along with that. They penned this memo for Donald Trump, where they had.

ever told that, in fact, far from the being a stalemate in the war, Ukrainian military intelligence was saying that they were worried that Ukraine was about to be overwhelmed? I don't think so, was Donald Trump told? After all, by this point, it was clear that he was going to be the nominee for the Republican Party to stand in the election in November. And in fact, he won the election and he's now president-elected. of the United States, was he briefed about this? I mean, I think he should have been. It doesn't seem as if he was. Certainly, he's given no indication that he was. And I don't think Kellogg was briefed about it, because Kellogg continues to follow up with talking points that he wrote in his memo back in April,

which, as I said, was written on the force premise that there was a stalemate in the wall when we now know that there wasn't. Now, other things happened in April, because it was in April and May that there was a debate underway in the United States and in NATO about conducting missile strikes inside Russia. And as I discussed recently in a long video I did on my program, a recent article. A recent article in the New York Times has actually confirmed that the Biden administration made its decision to authorize missile strikes inside Russia. I mean with long-range missiles, with attack and missiles in the spring. April is, of course, the spring.

The decision was made perhaps in May. The New York Times also says that the announcement of the decision, decision in the 17th of November was basically done in order to connect it with the story of North Korean soldiers, but the actual decision was made in the spring, long after we were told. Again, this decision to launch missile strikes on Russia was made in the knowledge that Ukrainian military intelligence was reporting that Ukraine was being overwhelmed and that the war was in effect lost. Then, in June, as you reminded me, prior to our making this program, there was also the Peace Summit meeting in Switzerland, again, also predicated on the narrative that there was a stalemate in Ukraine.

We now know that Ukrainian military intelligence was advising that there was no such thing. Were any of the participants, any of the countries that participated in that summit, were any of the countries that were invited to that summit? Were they told that Ukrainian military intelligence was advising that they were worried that Ukraine was going to be overwhelmed? And later, also in June, after this meeting in April, there was a further meeting this time of NATO member states, more ringing words of support for Ukraine, more announcements that Ukraine place was in NATO, more announcements that, you know, more declarations that they would

stand by Ukraine for as long as it takes. Were all NATO member states briefed that Ukrainian military intelligence were saying that the war was lost back? in April. So we are seeing an extraordinary piece of information which really absolutely needed to be discussed and circulated and it doesn't seem as if it was. That's the first thing. And we can also see that the administration after this meeting about which as I said it must definitely have been informed, well informed, it went on a trajectory. of continuing to talk up Ukraine's prospects, pretended for weeks and months that the war was in stalemate, and looked to conduct escalation of the war in Ukraine. So a worrying picture, to say the

least, misleading all sorts of people, Donald Trump, perhaps the Europeans, obviously the Ukrainian people and, of course, quite plausibly, the American people as well and Congress too. So all of this was going on, and despite the fact that the use of the war was being lost. At the same time, we're also told that at this meeting, Ukrainian military intelligence suggested that what needed to be done instead was to conduct asymmetric warfare. That's what is described in this article, and that's a quote, a quote from this U.S. diplomat who briefed Mr. Ducey about this meeting. Asymmetric warfare against Russia inside Russia itself. And of course, in August, we have because cooperation, which looks very much to me like a case of asymmetric warfare, especially in.

If you believe, as I believe, as Scotta-caliprated believes, as various other people believe, and as the Russians also believe, that the objective was to capture the nuclear power plant and to use that as a bargaining chip against the Russians. And, of course, we've also had, since April, a whole succession of terrorist incidents and assassinations inside Russia and acts of sabotage and all of that going on inside Russia, culminating just a few weeks ago in the, just a few days, about a week ago, in the assassination of General Mizinsev, the Russian commander of the NBC forces. So that looks like that was the decision that was made after this meeting.

to go ahead with this campaign, this asymmetric campaign against Russia. The fact that this meeting took place and that asymmetric warfare against Russia was discussed makes me now even more sure that the United States, that the administration was aware of the Cuscooperation before it took place, just saying. But whatever the strategy, it's... absolutely clear to me that this information was not communicated to the American people, and I doubt whether it was provided to Congress, Isaac. You mean the Kersk operation in terms of getting the power plant?

Absolutely. Right. Absolutely. Yeah. Which was the main reason for the Kersk operation, even though they've come up with a thousand other different reasons for why they went at the Kursk. The main reason was to get the power plant. for some sort of negotiation leverage or perhaps some sort of trade between the Kirsta Power Plant

and Zaporoja or something like that. Exactly. Okay. Okay. So the line that you referenced Alexander in the Hill article is they were concerned. The Hill article says they were concerned that Ukraine had lost momentum and would be overwhelmed. They advocated instead for increased asymmetric warfare. inside Russia to gain an upper hand in negotiations to end the war. To get an upper hand in negotiations

to end the war. We've had had attack on a Russia cargo ship in the Mediterranean. We've had the assassination of General Kirillov in Moscow. And we've had many other incidences of this asymmetric war against Russia since this April meeting. Yeah. Kirilov, I called, I mistakenly referred to him as Mizinev. No, no, there was. Well, no, but there also was a Russian general that was also assassinated. I forgot.

Not a general, a military official. A military official. It was also assassinated. Yeah. Before Kirilov as well. Yeah. Okay. So the policy,

makers, the decision makers, the people informing everybody at this meeting, the person or the people informing everybody at this meeting, are we talking about, as the Wall Street Journal described it, a diminished Biden? Is that what we're talking about? Or are we talking about the usual suspects? We're talking about the U.S. State, Lincoln, NSA, Sullivan. Is that who we're talking about here? Well, I mean, I don't know who was there. And, you know, we were somebody who wanted to go. Who would be, Who would be making this type of policy? Sullivan, I think, would have to be involved. Informed.

Informed and involved. I mean, whether he was directly present at the meeting, I don't know. I mean, you want to spend time checking out what his movements were in April. You're welcome. I'm not going to devote my time to do it. But there's no doubt at all. That is the national security advisor, he would have been informed about this. And it's quite clear to me that he was the ultimate.

and has been the ultimate decision-maker, or at least the key decision-maker throughout the last couple of months, at least probably for much longer than that. So Sullivan certainly was involved and informed. Blinken was surely involved and informed. The heads of the US intelligence community would have been involved and informed as well. Pentagon? The Pentagon? The Pentagon?

Oh, some people are the Pentagon, obviously, definitely. Maybe not everybody, just saying. I mean, but again, bear in mind that the Kirilo Budanov, the Ukrainian military intelligence chief, who must have been at this meeting. I mean, it says that Ukraine's military intelligence leadership were at this meeting. So that really points to Budanov being there. Budanov has been in regular contact, as we know with the Pentagon. So it's likely that they were informed.

I would be very surprised if they were not informed. Okay, so the goal is to keep the war going, even though Ukraine is losing, even though Ukraine is lost. And they understood that Ukraine had lost back in April, 2024. They understood that Ukraine was losing, was going to lose this war. But everything after that meeting was all about keeping the conflict going. Absolutely. Why? Well, excellent question.

Can I just also point out, by the way, that a few weeks ago, just before the election, they apparently also made a quiet approach to Johnson for further appropriation of funds for Ukraine. Johnson, this time, said categorically no, but anyway, they did. They moved forward with the missile strikes on Russia, as we know in November. They've basically spread stories about Trump's attempts to end the war. And they've done everything they can, as far as I can see, to prevent Trump moving forward with a negotiation to end the war. I bet you if Harris had won, Johnson would have said yes.

Well, absolutely. Yeah, quite true. Yeah, definitely. Definitely. Absolutely. But that's where we are. They've been doing everything they can to keep the conflict going. The administration has just passed further.

signed off on further huge aid packages to Ukraine, I think just under $3 billion, just saying. Biden has issued another ringing statement, or at least the White House under his name, has issued another ringing statement about, you know, the support for Ukraine and all of that. Why are they doing it? Because I think two reasons. Firstly, they're massively invested in this process. Despite all of the information that they've been getting, they can't give up on it, or at least they couldn't give up on it.

If Biden had come round or his team would come round in the summer and said we've had this information, it's all going wrong. They would have been criticised and there would have been objections raised and Congress would have hardened its position and the Democrats would have been worried about the effect this would have had in the old. election. So they didn't want to admit it then. They still don't want to admit it now, because they're doing everything they can to make Donald Trump's life as difficult as possible. They want to make sure that when the debacle in Ukraine happens, the blame is shifted on him. And that's why they're still concealing the fact that they've known since April, that the war is lost. How does this tie is? into, yeah, they pushed that whole stalemate narrative.

It was at that time period that they were pushing that whole stalemate narrative. And all of the mainstream media, everyone was buying into it, the mainstream media, they were talking about it. It's a stalemate. It's a stalemate. When the administration knew it was a lost war. Anyway, how does this tie into the energy war? Yeah. The gas, LNG, oil, energy war.

that is taking place, maybe ties into Ukraine or the EU telling Ukraine to cut off the gas. How does this all tie in if it does? And obviously, there's a connection with the mobilization being dropped to 18 years old because the Ukraine military is on its last legs. And even Zelensky gave an interview to Ukraine media and even admitted as much. He admitted that there are a lot of desertions. in the Ukraine military. He admitted that the Ukrainian forces on the front line are tired and they're defeated and their morale is low. And the reason is because they cannot rotate new

troops into the front line. And Alensky just came out and said it. We need more reserves. And that right there is 18 year old mobilization. So how does all of this tie in? Yeah. He also, could I just quickly say, he also suggested that the whole situation on the front lines is going to be stabilized in January. Right. It's ridiculous. I mean, how can that happen? I mean, even if they start conscripting 18-year-olds now, I mean, they will require at least some

weeks training, just to say. And if they only get some weeks training, then they really are canon for them. But anyway, that was Zelensky. In fact, it was the most pessimistic interview he's ever given at any point in the conflict up to now in some respects. He's basically acknowledging what we know military intelligence, Ukrainian military intelligence, we're telling everybody back in the European public for the mobilization of 18. Yes, that's exactly what he's doing.

He's preparing the Ukrainian public for the mobilization. They want to keep the war going for as long as they can. I mean, I gave some reasons, but there's also other reasons. They want to keep the flow of funds going. They want to keep the contracts that are already being discussed and agreed with the MIC in the United States. They want to keep those contracts funded, which is what the latest Biden sign-offs were all about.

Most of the money is to cover future appropriations. So they want to keep the money going. They've just authorized another $20 billion loan to Ukraine, paid for supposedly on the interest from the interest of Russian frozen assets. They want to keep the money flowing. They want to keep the grift going. And they want when the war, when the defenses, Ukraine's final defenses collapsed, they want the blame to be placed exclusively and entirely on the shoulders of Donald Trump.

This is all that this is about now. It's not about defending Ukraine, defending our values, protecting Europe, doing any of these things. And at the same time, causing as much trouble to the Russians as possible. And there's also some element of still trying to weaken the Russian economy. They've now imposed gas, prohibitions, probably, as we've discussed in recent programs, They're going to announce oil sanctions on Russia as well over the next few weeks. Again, it's going to spike up inflation.

Gas prices in Europe are already rising. Oil prices will also rise. More inflation. That also ultimately is going to be a problem for Donald Trump. Yeah, leave everything in chaos. Leave everything in chaos. Absolutely. It is nihilism.

absolute nihilism, elevated to statecraft. I've never known anything like it. Final question. Do you think there's an element of a decision, maybe conscious, maybe unconscious decision to just be done, to lead to the destruction of Ukraine? I mean, they know it. They know Ukraine's loss so, is there in D.C. a type of understanding or decision, if we can't, if we can't get regime change in Russia, if we can't get Ukraine into NATO, if we can't win this war, then we might as well just lead it towards its ultimate demise. Is there that type of thought? Yes, I think there is. I'm afraid. Because you mentioned the word nihilism. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I'm afraid there is. Now, I know some people will disagree strongly with me, but I, you know.

I believe this. I've said this many times, in fact, from a certain point of view, it's not a point of view I have any empathy or sympathy for, but I mean, for a certain point of view, if you look at it from a very hardline near point of view, what is now the best you can achieve in the war, the complete subjugation of the whole of Ukraine by Russia? That might be your best way of keeping Europe and Russia permanently divided from each other because the Europeans are not going to want to accept this outcome. So you have another conflict in Europe, a permanent conflict in Europe, as I say, dividing Europe from Russia permanently.

And you also say to yourself, the Russians, What they want most of all is secure borders in the West. By engineering this outcome, we will prevent that happening because they cannot in that case be an agreement either with the Europeans or with the United States. So in effect, if we're talking about nihilism, sacrifice Ukraine in order to prevent a negotiated peace. because for the neocons, or some of the neocons, the worst outcome of all is a negotiated peace which secures for the Russians their victory and opens a route back for a restoration of some kind of relationship between Russia and the West. So if you have that kind of neolithic perspective, I can see why you might want to work towards

that objective. And I have to say, I think that there are people in Washington who think in exactly that kind of way. We've discussed many times. Jeffrey Sachs has made the point, so as John Mearsheimer, so have others, that the thing to understand about these people is that they have never shown any real concern for all the livelihoods for the welfare of the people of the countries, they pretend that they're defending.

And that fits into the obsession with the gas and making sure that Russia is completely cut off from the European Union. You've got to create the dynamics where Europe and Russia will never talk again, will never work together again. You have to make sure you create those dynamics. And if you create chaos in Ukraine, kind of like the, I guess you could say it's trying to make it into a type of Afghanistan for Russia in a way. I mean, it's not exactly the, obviously it's not the same thing, but I imagine that's what

they have in their minds. Exactly. Exactly. I mean, I should say that in terms of Russia and Ukraine, certainly it's going to cause the Russians problems, but I don't think it's going to create the Russian's problems. I don't think it's going to create for the Russians those sort of problems, and in time, they will prevail over them. But if your objective is to create this total, complete cutoff, no energy trade between Russia

and Europe, no real contacts at any level between Russia and Europe, then a total defeat is Ukraine is better than a negotiated peace. Yeah, because if you haven't negotiated peace between the United States and Russia, and if the United States and Russia are talking to each other, then logically, over time, Europe and Russia would talk to each other. Precisely. You can't have that. That is exactly the calculation. Yeah. Okay.

We will end the video there at the durand.orgas.com. We are on Rumble Odyssey, Bitchie, Telegraph, Rokvin, and X. Go to the Darrad shop, pick up some merch like what we are wearing in this video update. Today, the link is in the description box down below. Take care.