The Duran Podcast - Ukraine Conflict Reality Hits Collective West w/ Brian Berletic Live

Episode Date: January 25, 2024

Ukraine conflict reality hits Collective West w/ Brian Berletic (Live)

Okay, we are live with Alexander Mercutis in London and with Brian Berletic from the new Atlas, the amazing Brian Berletic. How are you doing, Brian? I'm doing very well. Thank you so much for having me on. It's always an honor and a pleasure. Great to have you on. Brian, I have all of the new Atlas's information in the description box down below.

their YouTube channel, Telegram, and Twitter as well. You put up a lot of good Twitter posts, Twitter X posts as well. All of that information is in the description box, and I will also have it as a pinned

comment down below. Highly recommended to plug into Brian's work. And Alexander, let's talk with Brian about the Ukraine conflict and reality that appears to be setting in.

Yesterday, there was an interesting article for Business Insider about Russia's ammo production, and we can use that as a starting off point for this discussion. Very quickly, let me say hello to everyone that is watching us on Odyssey, Rock Finn, Rumble, YouTube, and v.urand. dot locals.com and a big hello to our amazing moderators as well. Thank you to everyone that is helping us moderate this live stream. Alexander, Brian. Pass it over to you. And it is a great honor and a pleasure to have Brian with us again at the start of 2024. May I take this opportunity first to say, Happy New Year, Brian, because I haven't had the time. time to say that. And I think we all owe Brian a huge vote of thanks for the incredible work

he's been doing right through this wall. Because it seems to me that if you actually track the events of this wall, you understand if you've been following Brian and you've been watching how the war has played out, it's played out actually, almost exactly, as he said, we had this huge search of Western equipment to Ukraine in 2022. It really got underway, as I remember, in April, May, June, 2022. And I remember Brian saying they won't be able to sustain it. It's not going to be able to change the course of the war. They can buy time. They can kill many more people on the Ukrainian side, on the Russian side. But ultimately, every weapon that they supply, is not going to make the difference.

Ukraine is already losing weapons, faster the shells, ammunition, all of the rest, faster than the West can replace it. And that is exactly where we are now. That's what that business inside piece about the Russians having massively overtaken the Western ammunition production. Just to say,

Brian and I have corresponded on this question of ammunition about who's producing more. We've been trying to work out between us what the Russian production numbers are, but that they are far greater than those of the West. No one denies any war, nor do the soldiers, the Ukrainian soldiers, on the front lines. And the pattern is repeating itself right across the board in. tank production, in drone production, in electronic jamming, and aircraft. And whilst the United States was openly supplying weapons to Ukraine, well, there was Brian always going through every single Pentagon release as the weapons were supplied a thankless grinding task. But he did it. And we could see how, you know, it went up.

And then it started to go precipitously down. And now, of course, for the last few weeks, it's stopped. So why is this all a surprise to the leaders of the West? Why did Brian, a man with a laptop, work it all out, where the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Britain, the European Commission, the Chancellor of Germany, the President of France, with this vast array of intelligence analysts,

chiefs of staff, all of these huge numbers of advisors. Why did they get it wrong? Well, I think that is a question. We can't fully answer on this program. The historians on the future, no doubt will. But anyway, there we are. Brian, you got it right. Things turned out much as you said.

And I don't think there is any turning back. I think it was your last video, you actually made a brilliant point, which is that all this go-doing and throwing about, you know, how Congress giving more money for more arms sales, Jake Sullivan and Avald Haynes telling everybody, you know, we've got to add this money, because if we don't, Ukraine will collapse in a few weeks. It's all completely beside the point because the money might be provided, but the arms aren't there. You can't supply what does not exist.

Well, Brian, over to you. Well, absolutely. And the question as to why this seems to be a surprise to so many people, I mean, that is a very important question. I really don't have an answer. And people who have followed my analysis throughout the last two plus years now, I mean, they will notice that everything that I'm saying is coming directly from the Western media. So all of this information is available to.

to them. I'm not getting this from the Russian Ministry of Defense or Russian sources. I don't have my own intelligence operation taking place. I'm getting this out of Bloomberg, Forbes, from the Pentagon briefings themselves, they revealed a lot of information about the strengths and weaknesses of what the U.S. can and cannot supply to Ukraine. And another thing that I think this all lays to rest is this myth that Russia thought they were going to go into Ukraine and win in three days to create the military industrial output that Russia is drawing from to gain this advantage. This had to be prepared years and years in advance. They knew this conflict was coming probably at least as early as 2008 when NATO backed and trained in armed Georgian forces attacked the Russian forces in the

the South Caucus region. They knew this was inevitable. They saw the same process taking place in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale. So they prepared for it. And when they went in in February 2020, they were ready. They had this massive military industrial capacity at their disposal, and they have been expanding it even since then. And now the West is looking at this disparity, and they're saying, what can we do to catch up?

You can't catch up in the amount of time that, that is left for Ukraine if, you know, if there is any time left. And I was looking at the headlines right before we went live. And I saw a Forbes article about how, remember, they were criticizing Russia for cutting corners in artillery shell production. Now they're saying, we need to do that. We need to start cutting corners so we can catch up with Russia. And I've been following Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google.

He's talking about producing AI. enhanced FPV chemikaze drones, which Russia already has and is putting on the battlefield in greater numbers, even if you were able to match Russia and just that, how do you account for all the other weapon systems and ammunition that Ukraine needs but doesn't have? So, I mean, it is a disaster that is compounding. And we have to remember that the conflict in Ukraine is not the U.S. only front. They are trying to provoke wars along at least two other fronts. Absolutely. I think we will come to that because there's a few developments in the Middle East, which I personally consider quite ominous. But let's come to the Middle East in a moment. Now, your point about the Russians preparing in advance, it's actually, it's been barely noticed, but it's actually been confirmed in a meeting that Putin had in the Kremlin with a man called Chemizov, who runs Rostek. Rostek, for those who don't know,

is essentially the Russian military industrial complex. It is a huge corporation. Sometimes it's compared to Samsung in terms of its size in relation to the overall Russian economy. It does huge numbers of things. It builds ships. It builds aircraft. It builds machine tools.

It does all sorts of things. But Jameson specifically said to Putin, we couldn't have done this thing. increased production to the levels that we have done if we had not spent the previous 10 years re-engineering and rebuilding and refurbishing our factories. That's exactly what he said. Is there a black and white?

And it happened about two or three weeks ago. So this is exactly what. This is exactly what the Russians were doing. They could see what was coming. And it wasn't so visible. because production rates of machines and weapons in Russia before the war, in many respects, was not that high. They weren't building lots of aircraft. They weren't, I think the United States is something like 1,000 F-35s now, which had been produced.

The Russian's fighter aircraft production was much slower. But the reason that was slower was because they were actually refurbishing. the factories again anybody who knows anything about industry about how industry works knows something which is that if you're going to re you're going to re-equip a factory in order to increase production that factory cannot produce it there is always a time lag usually several years before you start seeing the visible effect of that capital investment So all these Western officials and political leaders and people of that kind and say, you know, we've got to reorganize our factories, you've got to invest, we've got to produce many more weapons to match the Russians. They don't seem to understand this. They don't seem to understand that even if they did all of these things, completely set up new production, order machine tools, get the factories reorganized so that they can produce more. That will only start to have an effect. years down the line. The only way that you can short circuit this is by doing what they're

talking about, going over to full total war economy, such as the United States was, and Britain was during the Second World War, in which every single part of the industrial system is geared towards producing weapons. Then, of course, you can find the resources and the engineers. You just reallocate them to the factories, you do all of those sort of things, and then you can achieve massive surges in production. But no official, no political leader in the West is going to go there. So at best, if they carry out these capital investments, we're going to start to see these production surges in perhaps a couple of years' time. And in the meantime, it would not be surprising if production of weapons fell,

because to repeat again, a factory that has been reorganized and rebuilt cannot produce at the level that a fully operating factory can. And the numbers, I don't have the numbers off the top on my head, but we've listened to talk of expanding artillery shell production in the West or Patriot Missile Interceptors.

And when you listen to them talk about the, numbers that they plan on producing in the future, it's always two, three, even up to five years from now. And the numbers, even if they were to achieve these numbers, it's still far less than they actually need just in Ukraine alone. And we see that they actually need these weapons systems in quite a few different places and potentially even more places than that. But even their projected expansion of their military industrial capacity is not going to even match, let alone exceed Russia's. And by the way, Russia, like, like, you. you say it continues to expand even even right now even with this advantage they they know the west

is going to take at least some measures to try to catch up they want to maintain this advantage if they can increase the advantage they they will if they can exactly that is exactly true now coming back to your programs the point that you've always understood is that ultimately comes down to precisely this production numbers you can have all the tactical genius of, you know, Napoleon. But if you don't have the shells, you're not going to win, you're going to lose. And that is exactly the situation that they find themselves in now. I'm not suggesting, by the way, that any Ukrainian general is Napoleon. But the fact is, in fact, then most certainly are not. But the fact is, ultimately, it is a game

of numbers. The side that wins is the side that has the most men, the most tanks, the most shells, the most drones. And that is Russia, and it is going to be Russia, for as long as this war lasts. And that ultimately will decide the outcome. Yes. And another problem that I see is many even Western military leaders who provide commentary on this conflict, they talk about this as if it is another Iraq. They thought, they honestly thought before the 2023 offensive that this was going to be like Iraq.

All they had to do was give this Western armor and weapon systems over to the Ukrainians, and they would just be able to steamroll the Russians like they steamrolled the Iraqis. And it's just such a divergence from reality. And the fact that their mindset is still decades in the past. and they have not realized that the paradigm has fundamentally shifted. And yet they're still driving policy based on these flawed assumptions. And I was looking at Eric Schmidt, his other activity, he has this think tank where he advises the U.S. government on artificial intelligence and other emerging technology.

And the whole premise of this think tank, and you see this across Washington, the think tank sphere, if you want to call it that. Maintaining a techno-economic military edge over the rest of the world, and especially Russia and China. And we've talked about this on our individual channels and in discussions we've had in the past. The idea of the U.S. somehow having an edge over China, which has a population four to five times larger, a larger industrial base, a larger education system, producing millions more, engineer, scientists, designers. It doesn't make any sense. It is a premise that is fundamentally flawed.

So everything that they build on top of that, all of these policy decisions, these conflicts that they begin planning, it's all fundamentally flawed as well. And the more they layer on top of this flawed premise, the further from reality it becomes. And we're watching the outcome, the disastrous catastrophic outcome of this unfolding. In Ukraine, we're seeing it unfolds in the Middle East. and it's threatening to unfold here in Asia-Pacific where I'm based. Indeed. We'll come to those so shortly.

So now I have coined this expression, aggressive attrition, which, by the way, I understand is now being reproduced without attribution in the Russian media. But anyway, tell us where you think we are in the battle, Brian, because, as I said, we've had lots of things going on on the battlefronts. It does, there is no general Russian offensive. And I think this is a point which we've been, all of us trying to make it various times, but there is no general Russian offensive.

But reports suggest that Russian, the Ukrainian losses are actually spiking once again. And you're talking about Russian forward planning. There's been some reports coming again out of Russia. this may be you could take this of the pitch of assault but they've been saying that this latest assault which capture the south of of d'aafka planning to achieve it began a year ago now a year ago the russians hadn't attacked abdhafka at all they were building fortified lines and they were besieging bachma there was no question visible sign then of a russian plan to attack of d'aafka so that gives some idea maybe if this story is true, that how far they do plan ahead. But anyway, where are we

on the battlefield? Well, I mean, this is another way of seeing the major differences between this and, say, the U.S. war in Iraq is because it is a completely different situation, the Russians have to fight in a completely different way. And we see commentators say, well, because Russia isn't making these quick advances, this blitzkriek across Ukrainian territory, means they have failed. But in reality, no army, not the U.S., not a combined European army, no army in the world would be able to advance in this environment. So Russia is doing what any other army would if they had the ability to, and that is pursue a strategy of attrition. As you say, aggressive attrition, this is what they have been doing all along. And the idea of them going on a big arrow offensive, the problem is as long as Ukraine still does have anti-pans.

weapons, minefields, enough manpower to defend most of these positions. Yes, Russia could do a big arrow offensive, but it would be extremely costly, as costly or more so than, say, the Ukrainian offensive last year. So why do that if you have the resources to attract your enemy instead, to wear them down, wear them down when the defense is crumbled, then you incrementally move forward. This is what they've been doing. This is how they took several Donets and Lizzie Chansk, Mariupil to a certain extent, Bakhmut, and now this is

how they're surrounding at Devka, and this is what they're doing all along the entire line of contact. They're putting pressure everywhere all along the line of contact, and what they're waiting for is any local breakdown in the

defenses that they can exploit. Eventually, and you've talked about this as well in your daily updates, eventually, they're there will be a collapse of Ukrainian fighting capacity, either locally or across the line of contact. That's when we will see Russian forces take advantage of that and then maybe advance more quickly along the battlefield. And we've actually seen that, Paisnia.

This was before Bakhmud, when they took that, that was a key fortification along the line of contact and when that fell to the Russian forces, they were able to very quickly move forward to the next point of contention. So we will see something like that. To talk of another Ukrainian offensive, and we are seeing it. We are seeing it in the Western media. We are hearing it from political leaders.

I think even Eric Schmidt mentioned it in one of his op-eds using FPV drones for a Ukrainian offensive. It is fantasy, it is fantasy, and it will be a disaster. Absolutely. I mean, we are at the present time in a period when the FPV drone is very effective. But I suspect that's not going to last very long, because every weapon, this has become absolutely obvious during this war, every weapon you can find a counter to. And I am sure that by the time, well, by the time Ukraine might notionally be ready for a further offensive, which,

is probably never, the FPV drone will have lost its effectiveness because people will have found ways to jam them and to counter them and to shoot them down and to do all kinds of other things with them. So I think this is, I think,

another fallacy. Well, there are lots of plans and schemes in the West. There is the advance on Crimea from Krimki. I think you might want to say a little bit about that, because that seems to now be, you know, that idea has been abandoned.

There is the idea of creating big fortified lines, launching missiles deep into Russia. Again, you've discussed this on your channel, but, you know, tell us a little bit about this. And the latest one, and it's all over the place, by the way, is insurgency war. In a retreat to Lvov, Place Budanov, the intelligence chief, The story now is that he's going to be not just the defense, not just the chief of military, but he might take over the entire government entirely, which is a very disturbing notion. He is supposed to operate an insurgency war right across Ukraine. Now, I would like to talk about a little bit about that, because it's an effect what the US tried in Syria.

And it didn't work out well there. But let's deal firstly with these two more, shall we say, conventional. ideas, the renewed offensive across the NEPA towards Crimea, and the other one go onto the defensive and bombard the Russians with long-range missiles. Why will neither of these work? The offensive across the NEPA river at face value doesn't make any sense. If you cannot conduct a successful offensive across land, how are you going to do it by adding in a river crossing? It just never made any sense. I always perceive that as just a distraction, a diversion and attempts to force Russia to invest

resources, which Russia has in abundance, and then squander your own resources as you send these men to this bridgehead that they have no possible way of expanding and really no way of over the long-term holding. And then it collapsed very predictably. And I remember all kinds of people on X and on other social media platforms measuring the distance from there to Crimea. And they keep forgetting that New York Times article from December 2020, where they had the satellite images and the maps of Russian fortifications, which were kilometers in depth and layered. And one of the places they put these defenses was between the Nipur, Hearsan, the Nipar and Crimea. So after they crossed the river, they still have kilometers and kilometers of layered Russian defenses to get through.

So it never made any sense. Now, Ukraine going on the defensive, we saw how Russian defenses were so successful in stopping the Ukrainian offensive. So why not have Ukraine build these type of defenses to stop Russia? Well, they already have. They have had fortified cities built since 2014. They've built it up over many years. They've had plenty of time to try, test, and adapt their defenses to the conditions on the battlefield. And yet Russia, with its abundance of artillery and other long-range weapon systems,

are able to chip away at those defenses, eventually cut Ukrainian forces off, isolate them, and force force them out. We've seen this in one city after the other. They all had extensive fortifications as extensive as any of the Russian fortifications during the 2023 offense. So again, that doesn't make sense. At best, it'll maybe slow Russia down, but it's not going to stop them. It's not comparable.

You cannot compare what Russia did to stop Ukraine to what Ukraine's trying to do to stop Russia. There's a disparity in capabilities there. And then this idea of an insurgency, when you really think about it, this idea of using terrorism and other asymmetrical warfare against Russia, this is something that they've been doing all along, but it has no strategic function. It is solely to win the PR war. But, okay, you've won the PR war, but you're still actually losing the real war. What good does that do you? and what good does transferring everything over to that strategy, how is that going to serve you? I just don't see how.

I completely agree with all of this. Now, about the offensive through Kershon region, I think at some level there might have been an idea of getting the Russians to divert resources away from the main front lines. Of course, what ended up happening was that it was Ukraine that ended up diverting more of its resources. it suffered the greater attrition. And the sunk cost's fallacy seems to have taken hold in a particularly dangerous way in terms of this crossing of the NEPA, because logically it should have been abandoned months ago. And yet they've kept on sending more and more men to die there in a most dreadful way, actually.

And I can't help but think that, again, part of it. if it was at British urging, because being in London, the way the British had been sort of urging this operation on has been deeply distressing. I mean, really, I mean, it's another one of the things that Britain has done, which has left me deeply ashamed. Now, about the fortified lines, I think you're absolutely right. There is absolutely no conceivable way that Ukraine in a condition of war with its economy shattered. going to be able to improvise defence lines that are superior to the far stronger and deeper defence lines in Donbass, which it is in the process of losing. That whole idea is an absurd

one on its face. This whole thing, I could tell you where it came from. It came from an article by Jim Webb and George Beebe back in the summer. They said, look, this. offensive is working what ukraine should do is go on the defensive and try and build fortified lines to hold back the russians and but they also said and use that time to open negotiations and of course what's happened is they've taken the second part of that recommendation and the first part sorry of that recommendation build the 45 lines but they've ignored the second they've ignored the part about opening negotiations That can't continue. That can't happen. So the fortified lines, fortress Ukraine, it is an absurd, it's an absurd idea. What about this idea of using long-range missiles to strike at Russia? The Germans have had cold feet about it, but others are still keen on it. The British are coming up with a very complicated plan that the Germans give their missiles to the British. The British then go on giving missiles to Ukraine.

Ultimately, it's a way, obviously, to get the tourist missiles to Ukraine through this roundabout way. But what about that? Is that going to make a difference? It isn't because they have already been supplying long-range weapons to Ukraine. The storm shadow and scalp air-launched cruise missiles, the Taurus is also an air-launch cruise missile, whether it has a little bit of a longer range or not. It's irrelevant because the current air-launch cruise missiles, Ukraine, has. They fire them in mass. They have to take off in war planes and launch them, which risks

the few warplanes they have left. They have to launch them in mass. They don't have the number of warplanes to launch them in large enough numbers to overwhelm Russian air defenses. Every once in a while, one will get through and hit something. They sank a landing ship. One landing ship in an entire port that is operating, contributing to, to the logistics of the Crimean Peninsula, you would have to launch missiles, have several missiles get through, hitting that port on a regular basis throughout the week,

every single week, and you'd have to repeat that process at every single port in Crimea to have any sort of impact to isolate it, like they imagine that they're going to, and they simply do not have the number of warplanes or cruise missiles in the collective West to ever do this,

to ever overwhelm Russian air defenses, and achieve this. So again, it comes down to PR value. Yes, we will get these tourist missiles, and we can convince the public, especially the Ukrainian public, that this is still somehow doable and they'll continue investing their lives, their energy, their time into this endeavor. That is, in reality, utterly hopeless. Can I just say, I've been looking at numbers of Tom of all cruise missiles. Now, there's not been yet public discussion about. providing Ukraine with Tomahawks and if they did that would be a major escalation but again the numbers of Tomahawk missiles in stock is not as big as many people think it's apparently around

four and a half thousand now that may sound like a lot but apparently the russians have already launched 500 500 um air launched cruise missiles over the course of jam January of this month. So again, the numbers, there is a clear discrepancy in numbers. And of course, the United States cannot give 4,300 cruise missiles to Ukraine. It can't give up its entire arsenal of Land, of Tomahawk missiles. And there's been commentaries now, which I've seen. I can't remember where I saw the last one. But the point was that the, the, you know, the United States, and United States can launch an awful lot of cruise missiles. What it classically does is it launches a lot of cruise missiles in its first salvo. But then it would any way have problems sustaining that

because production of these missiles, again, is relatively low. So you would again be running after your tail, trying to keep up with yourself. You'd be giving missiles to the Ukrainians that quickly run through the available stockpiles, and then you'd end up being short yourself. It was very interesting researching this, because I'd assume that there were tens of thousands of thermal missiles around, and again, what do I know? It turns out that that's entirely wrong. And if you look at how many missiles in total that Russia has allegedly fired throughout the special military operations, over 7,000. So just what they have, and they continuously have, you know,

scores and scores of them available every single month. So clearly their production is up and running, and they have the ability to sustain this. And we're talking about a U.S. that has 4,000-something Tomahawk cruise missiles, which they cannot afford to give Ukraine, just like they really couldn't afford to give Patriot missile systems to Ukraine because now there was. already a critical shortage before they sent them to Ukraine because of the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen for years previously. Now they've sent them to Ukraine. The critical shortage is even worse. And again, just as you say, the ability for America to ramp up production,

it simply doesn't exist. It will take years. And even at that point, the amount of Patriot missiles that they're producing will not match the number of incoming targets they will have to intercept. People have to remember, too, that it's usually at least two interceptors for every incoming target. That is what air defense teams are usually trained to do. So you have to be 7,000 incoming Russian missiles, just missiles, not even talking about drones. So that is twice that you would need in terms of intercept their missiles. And the West simply doesn't. And why doesn't the West have these vast numbers of weapons available?

in their stockpiles or their ability to produce them, because for decades, they spent their time on these small wars, pushing around failed states, developing nations, non-state actors. This is what they spent decades doing. They reconfigured their military industrial complex and their collective military to fight those type of wars. Now they're faced with a large-scale conflict, possibly to a near or peer adversary. I also think, but this is a topic for a longer discussion, I think, that there have been, that there's been a very significant erosion in the US industrial base and a corruption within the military industrial base, in that the military industrial race has for a very long time now not been geared to volume production of usable weapons. It's, on the contrary, it's structured in a manner that makes that all but impossible. But that's a big topic, and no doubt we'll return to it in another program.

But what I wanted to come to now is this insurgency, this idea of an insurgency. Now, you followed the war in Syria, as I did, by the way, very, very closely. That was essentially what they did in Syria, a insurgent-stroke terrorist campaign. Well, a lot of people don't know about the Syrian war, though, is that the only reason that got anywhere close to being successful is because these so-called insurgents also operated to a great extent like conventional militaries. They actually captured an occupied ground. How do you run an insurgency if you've already lost the ground? That is already a problem for me to understand. But I think that, I mean, it would be a dissonance. disastrous idea. It would not work, certainly not against the Russians. And I think the kind of callousness and cynicism it shows towards Ukrainians to try to propel their country into something

like this. For me, it's astonishing. And I don't think that it'll work because if you look at the composition of Ukrainian society before this began, there are large percentages of people who identify as Russian-speaking Ukrainians. They have an affinity toward Russia. There's none of this animosity that I think the West imagines or wishes existed in places that Russia now considers its own territory. We've heard all of these stories, and we've read in the BBC, these fantastical tales of Crimean Tartars rising up and having these clandestine networks

where they're going to rise up eventually. take over Crimea, it's a fantasy is not going to happen. It was never going to happen. But this is the refuge of the desperate. They are so desperate. They don't know what to do next. And so they're considering these options, which are not viable. But they'll try anyway, just like they've tried the 2023 offensive, just like they

tried the offensives in 2022, the Harkov and Kersan. Remember, people were saying even back then they should go on the defensive and they should negotiate. Imagine if they did how much better things would have been for Ukraine than now. It'll just get worse and worse the longer they postpone negotiation, which is the only way this is going to end for them in a positive way. Yeah, but negotiations emphatically being ruled out. And by the way, a growing panic in Europe, we've now had the British, the outgoing,

military chief, the head of the armed forces in Britain. And he's come out and he said, we need conscription. We need to reintroduce conscription in order to prepare for war with Russia. Now, the reason that, and the Estonian Defence Minister, going back to our earlier discussion, she's come out and said, you know, the reason we're in such trouble is because we underestimated Russia's ability to crank up arms production, which I find particularly strange from Estonia, by the way. In Estonia, you would have thought, having been a part of the Soviet Union themselves,

they would have known a little bit more about how Russian industrial systems actually work. But anyway, panic in Europe, definitely, you can see that, but still an adamant refusal to continent's negotiations. How does that work? I mean, why this ceaseless belligerence,

even when you know you're losing? I think they understand, well, Russia is not interested in invading any NATO states. They did not even want to do this. This was something that they were forced into. Again, go back to the 2019 Rang Corporation paper extending Russia. They laid it out what they were doing to antagonize and provoke Russia.

into a conflict, but they also warned that if they do manage to provoke Russia to a large-scale conflict, it'll be catastrophic for the West and especially for Ukraine. So we see this unfolding, but we have to look at the actual people driving these policies in Washington, in London, in Brussels. They are not actually paying any cost at all for this. Everyone else is paying the cost for them. And as long as that's the formula, they have no incentive to stop. And they're not going to stop. They will just continue. They know that it's not going to end up in their country. Russia is not going to invade their country. It's just Ukraine being decimated. So they don't care because they never cared about Ukrainians. It was very clear. They had no interest in Ukraine's future. They were using

them, just like they had used Georgia. As you point out, Alexander, many times they used Chechnya and the people there finally realized that they were being used. And so this is a process that just continues to repeat itself because there is no cost. There are no consequences for them, so they will continue doing it. This is why even as things go disastrously in Ukraine, they're looking at a major war in the Middle East, and they're still provoking and antagonizing China, right within its own borders. It's unbelievable. Let's talk about the Middle East, because there's a development now, which I actually find rather concerning, and that is, I don't know whether you've all been seeing reports about the United States now considering withdrawing its troops from Syria and Iraq.

Now, many people see this as a sign of de-escalation. I am afraid that it is the opposite, that it is the product of a decision that there is going to be a war with Iran. And the United States has come to realize that it can't adequately protect its troops in Syria and Iraq. and so it's pulling them out to get them out of harm's way so that it can clear the decks, if you like, for when the missile strikes against Iran happen. Now, we've had something like that happen already. When the US pulled out of Afghanistan,

we were all a little puzzled because it didn't seem like what we expected that the neocondominated Biden administration to do. But then sometime after, no lesser person than Tony Blinken basically came out and said, we pulled them out of Afghanistan because we didn't want them to be exposed to Russian retaliation in Afghanistan given what would come in Ukraine.

So it looks to me as if the fact that they're talking in this way, they realize now that they can't protect these bases. So they're pulling them out as to clear the dexter action. Is that what you think also, Brian? That's highly plausible. I beg people to go on onto their search engine of choice. Type in Brookings Institution, which path of Persia. It's a 2009 policy paper.

These are the people that actually produce U.S. foreign policy. And in this document, it's long, but if you read it, you will understand everything regarding, not just U.S. foreign policy toward Iran, but this is their playbook they use toward all other nations. And they make the exact point that you're making. If U.S. troops are in Iraq and we want Israel to conduct their strikes on Iran, well, they're flying over us and we will be complicit in this. Nobody will believe that the U.S. didn't give Israel the green light. So if we want plausible deniability, we have to make sure we're not there.

And so now they're talking about leaving Iraq and Syria. Yes, that sounds very plausible. that that is anticipation of a conflict. The moment October 7th unfolded, I was certain that's going to be used as a pretext. They were lighting the region on fire, and the whole point of doing that was to replicate the same situation in Europe. They were losing control over Europe. They used war to get everyone back under U.S. subordination. They want to try to do the same process in the Middle East.

And they have always sought war with Iran. And more importantly, they have always sought to make it look like they were pursuing peace, and it was Iran who was determined to go to war with the U.S. And if you look at what they're doing diplomatically in the region, that is exactly the facade that they're trying to put up. And I don't know if it's working, but that's what they're trying to do. That seems to be what they're doing. But a war on Iran at the same time that you are losing a war in Ukraine,

Seems like an absolutely crazy idea. First of all, how many Patriot missiles are you going to need in that case? Not just patriots, but ages destroyers and all of these things. I mean, Iran is a big country. It's got a significant industrial base, which people underestimate. Again, it's far from being a backward, primitive country, as I think many Americans imagine it to be. I mean, parts of it, I've never been there myself, but parts of it, apparently, a lot of it, most of it looks like Europe.

I mean, it is that advanced. I mean, the idea of going head to head with a country like that, which will have in this conflict, the support of the overwhelming majority of people in the Middle East, most of whom are armed. I mean, it's very common in the Middle East for men to have weapons. Just saying, it seems like an absolutely crazy idea. And yet, we're drifting there.

Well, it is. But if you if you looked at the prospect of the U.S. goading Russia into a large-scale conflict, that also looked insane. Yet they did it and they continued to deepen themselves in that crisis rather than pull themselves out of it. Now they're doing the same thing in the Middle East and they continue to provoke China and Asia Pacific. And one of the things that I think about when looking at this and considering how irrational it seems at face value, to them, they feel it's now or never because this time next year, we will be weaker, we will be more isolated. Russia and China will be stronger. Iran will be stronger. If we just get the ball rolling, if we could just get a conflict going, there's a chance. There's a chance that something might go

our way. If we could just create some sort of order out of this chaos, we create. We have the initiative because we're creating the chaos. Maybe something can come out of it. And if you think about a potential war with China, one of the things they have to do is disrupt our time shipping around the globe, including in and out of the Middle East. So they're already positioned ready to do that. So I just get this ominous feeling that they feel they're out of time. They do not remember. They do not pay any price for this. The soldiers they send to go die, the civilians and the countries they target pay, but they themselves have not yet paid. So for them, it's, you know, now or never and at what cost? No cost. I mean, it has a sort of frenetic quality.

Let's turn to China. I was reading a very interesting piece somewhere. I can't remember where about a meeting that Barack Obama had with Xi Jinping. This is just as Xi Jinping assumed the leadership in China. And the story that we have always heard is that Obama said to Xi Jinping, let's demilitarize the South China Sea, and Xi Jinping said yes, but then didn't follow through. Well, we've now learned that actually that meeting did happen, and what happened was the diametric opposite. Then it was Xi Jinping who said to Barack Obama, let's demilitarize the South China Sea. Barack Obama actually at the meeting said no. So this idea never really, you know, never really flew. But again, constant mistrary.

representation of what goes on in diplomatic discussions is always going to erode trust, which again people in the US never seem to understand. But let's come back to the South China. Going to war with Iran is a crazy idea. Going to war with Russia is a crazy idea. Going to war with China is stark raving bananas. I mean, it is off the scale. insane. We've talked about Russia's ability to outproduce the United States in artillery shells. China's ability to do that is orders of magnitude greater. You only have to look at the steel production figures, which I seem to remember we discussed in another program that we did together. The Chinese dwarf the U.S. in terms of manufacturing. And what?

One of the things that people don't understand is that 2023, Chinese manufacturing grew, despite all the talk about economic collapse in China, whereas despite all the talk about the Biden boom in the United States, manufacturing output in the United States shrank. So how are you going to face off against China? I mean, I'm not a tactical person, but you're going to send all of these warships. into harm's way. I mean, it just doesn't even bear thinking of. And to achieve what? So what they're actually trying to do is provoke a conflict,

either in the South China Sea or over the status of Taiwan. And again, if people don't know, go to the State Department's official website, it is not a country. And the U.S. officially does not recognize its independence. It is officially considered a province of China. and yet the U.S. has a troop presence there. They arm Taiwan against the wishes of Beijing, and their military is constantly exercising around Taiwan. And they're increasing their presence in the Philippines. They're preparing to use the Philippines as a proxy.

They want Japan to stand in as a proxy. They're getting Australia ready to act as a proxy. They have spent decades trying to overthrow governments here in Southeast Asia to at least isolate China, if not transform. countries here in Southeast Asia into full-indurance proxies against China. So this is something that they've been trying to put together for a long time.

And now they're out of time. And if you look at even countries like Japan, South Korea, even more practical people on the island of Taiwan themselves, they don't want more with China. They like working with China. They are making money. Development is taking place for Japan and South Korea,

especially because of U.S. attempts to cut cut China off from semiconductor technology. They have huge investments in China. They're losing billions of dollars because of this. There are U.S. companies that are losing billions of dollars because now they're not allowed to do business with China. And what is China doing anyway? They're circumventing all of these attempts to isolate them and impede their technological

progress. They're putting out chips that they're supposedly not supposed to be able to produce. And again, it goes back to fundamentals. Look at the fundamentals of Chinese society is not China of the 1980s or the 1950s. It is a bigger population, industrial-based education system, human resource pool. They're going to do this. And if you know Chinese people more closely and you understand the century of humiliation that they went through because of U.S. and European colonization, there's almost nothing that they wouldn't do to prevail in this.

Remember, the U.S. crossing the entire Pacific Ocean to pick a flight. with China. And I was just listening. I was a friend of my channel that sends me many clips in private from all of these think tanks. And there were U.S. Air Force officials and acquisition officers talking about how they need to overcome the fact that they're trying to fight China on the other side of the Pacific. And it never occurred to them that they, why are we doing this in the first place? It doesn't make any, it doesn't make any sense at all. And so, putting it like that also reminds me of what you said about the attacking Crimea with a river crossing in the way it's like attacking a superpower that is industrially far stronger than you we're putting an ocean the Pacific Ocean in the way I mean it makes no military strategic sense at all and yesterday I had a conversation with Sofia midgift I don't know whether I Our viewers probably know who she's Chinese and she follows Chinese affairs extremely closely.

And she made a point to me, which I did not know, which is that the basis of the rapprochement of the United States and China are three communiques that were signed over a fairly long period. And the third communique, which was signed by Ronald Reagan, no less, in the 1980s between China and the United States, committed the United States. committed the United States in writing to reducing its arms sales to Taiwan. The United States was supposed to overtime bring the amount of weapons it was supplying to Taiwan to zero. And of course, it's actually now going in the opposite direction. There's a talk about a $10 billion arms build up, sale to Taiwan, supposedly to rearm the Taiwanese army. And of course, again, the Chinese point this out,

and they come up against this war, the denials and evasions and assurances that the United States still supports the one China policy, and everybody can see that it is the opposite. So, again, reckless belligerence. I'm going to say what it all reminds me of. I'm talking now, you know, historical time. You talk about the fact that they feel that they're running out of time. That was very much the feeling in Berlin in the run up to the First World War.

They could see the industrial growth of Russia. They sense that things are, you know, beginning to, are the Germany's opportunity to establish itself as the great new world power was fading. And so they decided to go for broke. And they started a world war, which ended, of course, in their defeat and in the collapse of Europe. And a collapse from which in some respects Europe has never recovered. But anyway, it's eerie to see all of that being repeated all over again.

And think about what the US did to Russia, the expansion of NATO up to its borders, the Minsk agreements, the fact that we now have French and German leaders. admitting that it was just a ruse to buy time to arm Ukraine. And then when we look at China's obviously watching all of this and they're taking notes about how the U.S. is violating these communicates that they sign and supposed to uphold. And just think about how in the Western world because of the Western media and the way they spin everything, how ordinary people honestly believe that it's China bullying, somehow bullying Taiwan, which is not, again, which is not even a country, but I swear go read the BBC. They will never mention it in any of their articles that Taiwan is not a country. They never mention one way or the other, and they use that ambiguity

to deceive people. And so this is how they're keeping this whole thing going. And this brings me back to Eric Schmidt and his little think tank about keeping the U.S. on top of China. I just wonder, when you've got a clean piece of paper out and you're doing the tally, U.S. population versus China's industrial base, everything, when you're adding everything up and you see how many advantages, how China has all of the advantages, what are you adding to the U.S. column that makes you think somehow all of those advantages don't matter? And it's this supremacist mindset that we have seen in the West four generations, and unfortunately it's still prevalent today. And between that and their sense of impunity, what incentive do they have to? to join the human race and work together with people rather than attempting to continue subjugating them. They're stuck in the past, and it's going to take a serious jolt to wake them up. And one last thing I want to add on this point is that you can see the multipolar world being very patient. They're being very patient.

They're exercising tremendous restraint. They don't want a catastrophic conflict to destroy everything that they've built. And in many ways, I just fear that the U.S. will seek to go to the extreme, burn everything down, and hope that they can rebuild faster than everybody else. Like that Dr. Strange love sort of scenario. That's my greatest fear. I don't have any evidence to substantiate that fear. But, you know, I just want, because why else? They have no chance of succeeding. Why are they doing this? I agree. Well, Ron, I think this is where I'm going to stop. I'm going to hand a. over to Alex, probably we have some questions that could be put to you. And Alex, over to you.

Yeah, let's get to some questions. Real quick, Brian, Eric Schmidt is a Cypriot citizen, by the way. Oh, I didn't know. I didn't know. Yes, he got a passport, one of those golden passports for Cyprus a couple of years ago. Interesting. So I think that's pretty interesting. And also, Alexander, I was really,

this morning that the Pentagon had to come out with a statement and say that they are not leaving Syria. Yeah. Because of all the publications, like foreign policy, they freaked out, like the neocom publications. They freaked out just at the, at the hit that the US was going to leave Syria. So, I mean, they're so boxed in. Yes. They can't do anything with regards to Syria. Anyway, let's get to some questions. One sec, let me open it up. All right. Danielle says, maybe I have missed this update, but where is General Sudoviken?

Well, he is apparently still on the active list in Russia. He's been sent on missions to Africa. But one of the unfortunate side effects of the Pregojin affair is that he was burnt. His reputation was burnt because of it. and he's been put on ice. He's no longer commands the Russian Air Force, as he did, and he's no longer the commander in Ukraine that he was. And there are many people who say this is really unfortunate,

because by many accounts he's a very talented officer and highly regarded by the troops, but as I said, he made errors of judgment in getting so close to Pregozhen and Wagner, and he's paying the price. Steyan, welcome to the drag community. Alexander Sisiola, thank you for a super sticker. Justice is now, thank you for that super sticker.

Joan out of games, welcome to the drag community. Savina, welcome to the drag community. Matlis X says, how long can the U.S. arm Ukraine, arm Israel, fight Yemen, and fight in Iraq and Syria and arm Taiwan, Brian. I mean, if you follow the Taiwan, situation, they're complaining about a multi-year backlog because they have not been able to produce the weapons that they're supposed to be supplying Taiwan. And it's actually not even related to them

supplying Ukraine with weapons, but any weapon that they're supplying to Ukraine that also needs to go to Taiwan, obviously there will be a backlog there as well, an additional backlog. So the answer is they can they can always find weapons and send a certain quantity to all of these places. The problem is it'll never be sufficient for even one of these places, let alone all of them. That is their problem, and there is no way for them to get around that. Paul Walker says the West's collective delusion has been brought to the four shovels, washing machine chips, and economy and tatters bricks, collective defense pact helps. Said, Mama Alaska says, thank you gentlemen for all you do, many blessings. Stan Tall says a good treaty with Russia, verse one good kick.

Well, Bismarck once said, the secret of politics is a, the secret of success in politics, a good treaty was Russian. But what treaty can we now have when we, when trust is gone, how will they trust us to any kind of treaty? Nicholas Kemp, welcome to drag community. Angelo, Giuliano. Hello, Angelo. Thank you for that. Super chat. Axel O says, thoughts.

on Texas constitutional border crisis. Brian and Alexander, you have any thoughts on what's going on in Texas? Well, I have been following the developments, and I'm not going to pretend that I'm up to speed with all of this and with all the minutiae and all the rest, but if it is indeed the case that Texas, or at least the government of Texas,

are defying a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, then I think that's an extremely dangerous development indeed. and it would start appealing away if it were to continue the federal process in the United States. I think people in Texas need to take a step back and think very carefully about what they're doing. This is my own view. If people want to argue with it and explain why I'm wrong, I'll read and listen very carefully to what they say.

But I find this unnerving, even if you don't agree with this decision, think carefully about what you are going to achieve if you straightforwardly defy it. My sense is that probably the government in Texas understands that very well. And they won't want to lose control of the Texas National Guard. And they'll go through the motion of defying it and then will quietly, when they can, accept it. It's hard to tell where political side shows and distractions and actual American dysfunction in division begins because the border issue has always been a wedge issue that governments have used to distract people.

Why are all these people coming over the border in the first place? Because over the decades, the U.S. has decimated the Americas. They've stirred them up, divided them, overthrown them with poos. And all the US has to do is stop doing that, be a good neighbor, assist in actual real development, and you wouldn't even have a border problem. So this has always been an issue they've used to hype people up, get them scared, and get them paying attention to that rather than just the wholesale exploitation of the U.S. its resources to build empire overseas. Tanya, welcome to the drag community. Beltane says, thank you. Eric Hatchett, how is it that a high school dropout can see the end result of this conflict,

and these university-educated people can't. Germany already said they can't even fight a high-energy conflict for two days, same as the Brits. Two days? In the case of the Brits, that might be rather optimistic action. Matt Liss-X says also give credit to Alex Vershinen for his article, return of industrial warfare at the Royal United Services Institute. Absolutely. He did in mid-2020. He did, though in fairness, I ought to say, because I was following Brian, he was already

saying things before Alex Vosheny. But Alex Vosheny has written brilliantly and very well. I don't want to take any credit from him. But what has become of him? I haven't seen anything by him for a very long time now. unfortunately. I mean, that's what happens when you actually understand what's going on and you try to explain it and it clashes with the fantasy people want to indulge in.

You get put away. OMG Puppies says historian Richard Poe argues that the American Civil War was a British color revolution, still trying to destroy the USA. The Russian fleet guarded American ports to deter European invasion then. Well, this is a very, very complex story, which I'm not really going to get into the mix of it now, because of course, I should say I've studied this period. So I know very well.

The British did undoubtedly support the Confederacy to a very great extent at that time. No question about this. But I think one can't use colour revolution language to describe the events of the 1850s and 1860s. was a lot more complicated than just that and certainly the russians back the united states the british back the confederacy the united states won you can't say however that that was a russian victory or a british defeat because what then happened was that the united states very soon afterwards

went into alliance with britain so you know these are historical things belonging to another type of I haven't read this book. I think that color revolution is not the language I would use for the events of that period. Anas Belat Shehab says, we are witnessing a massive push to kick America out of Central Asia and the Middle East. Putin wants to end Russia collective West problem for good. Why do we always bring up Putin? I mean, I agree with this.

I mean, he wants to see the Americans out of Central Asia. But, you know, it's not just Putin, you know, many people, other people in Russia want that as well. Many people than China want it. So do people in Iran. And so do a great many people in Central Asia. The fact is the Americans are not wanted there, not just by, you know, the great powers that are already in that region, but by more and more and more of the local people. And a concerted push, it's concerted because the Americans have provoked it. They've come as the agents of chaos and people who want peace and order and to be allowed to get on with their lives want them out.

El Dumer says, a top-notch guest for a top-notch program. What do you guys think about the Digital Services Act, CBDCs, and Digital Idies? Will the Losing West descend of the totalitarianism rather than fix its problems, Brian? I mean, all of these things, these are different types of emerging technologies. And they could be used to help make an economy work more efficiently, or they could be horrifically abused to subjugate and, you know, terrify its population. And I think we've seen the West descend into this mentality since the war on terror, really.

I mean, it had been building up before that, accelerated during that. period and now that things are really falling apart and only only set to get worse. I can only imagine that they will try. They will try to use this technology and everything else at their disposal to create a tyranny. Yes. Milos says, great work, guys. By the way, just got my grand baseball cap. It's nice. Thank you for that. Milosh. And from Odyssey fractured 01 says, Texas Governor Abbott cited the state's rights under the Constitution when under an invasion. Please read out. Well, true, but of course, he's arguing not with you and me.

He's arguing with the Supreme Court of the United States whose function it is to uphold the Constitution. I'm not going to get into an argument about who is rights and who is wrong in this affair. But this whole thing is unnerving to me. And like Brian says, I don't know. how real this argument is. I suspect at the end of the day, we'll see Texas back down.

But who knows? Monty 105 says, will the UK and France try to build a coalition of the willing to go into Ukraine in order to prevent a shameful collapse? What do you guys think? Well, you know, if the British army marches into Ukraine

or 20,000 of them, I mean, they won't survive. And the effect on Britain of doing a thing like that is just unthinkable. You know, way back we brought him up before Bismarck. He was asked by the Kaiser what would happen if the British invaded Pomerania, you know, one of the provinces of Germany. And Bismarck said, I said the police to arrest them. And I'm not saying it'd be quite as bad a situation today. But I mean, you know, it's, these are not practical ideas

and that there are people in Britain who do talk in this fashion is really very indicative of the level of illusion that exists here. Brian, any thoughts? No, I agree. I have always been worried about a US-led coalition trying to carve out some sort of buffer zone

inside Ukraine. I don't think they're interested in fighting the Russians directly, but I don't know how they see this and if they feel that it would end up inevitably ending up in fighting Russia, then maybe they'll think twice about it. But then again, they become increasingly desperate. And as they become increasingly desperate, they become increasingly dangerous and irrational. Everything they're doing is utterly irrational. Pathetic Albion says to our guest, Brian, how long would you predict until we see a serious casualty in the Red Sea?

Who knows? I mean, anything could happen at any moments. And the U.S., don't forget, it's not beyond them to try to stage something or to deliberately invite some sort of catastrophe to use as a pretext. And this is all that they've done throughout their history. And if they really want to accelerate things, they will create the conditions in which it will happen. Paul Walker says the problem is the West can't admit or accept defeat.

La Cueva, thank you for that super chat. Envi Stormin, welcome to the Dreyan community. Celilla, thank you for a super sticker. Tyler Durden says, remember Gonzalo Lira. Absolutely. Commando Crossfire says, Are the Saudis still at war with or in Yemen? They're in, they're negotiating.

There's a ceasefire and they've been involved in very long negotiations with the Houthis to try to agree a general settlement. And for the moment, at least, the Saudis don't seem to be interested in restarting the war. So at the moment, they're not actually fighting, but there's no agreed peace. And just to add to that, the U.S., the British, whoever else is joining this coalition attacking Yemen. Saudi Arabia with U.S. and British backing had been waging war on Yemen for years, not just by air and missile strikes. They also conducted a ground invasion.

And it failed to change the situation on the ground. The Ansar Allah, Houthis, also known as Houthis, they're still there. Their capabilities seem to have actually increased over these years. So just to keep that in mind as the U.S. and UK think they're going to solve this with air strikes and missile strikes. It didn't work before. There's no reason it's going to suddenly work now. And me, thank you for that super sticker.

Marcelo says, great analysis, as always, Mr. Berletik. Nick Mastilovich, thank you for that super sticker. Anaspella Chehab says, is Russia pursuing reverse colonialism instead of destructuring civilizations and picking them off? Bricks goes to the most influential power in each civilization builds, structuring nucleus around it. I find that a little complicated.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the Russians and others are coming together and are forming basically a multipolar system instead of a centralized system, which there's one or one small group of countries that dominate the others. I think that is probably true. But then again, it isn't just the Russians. The bricks is a group of countries. China, India, they don't take instructions, Brazil, they don't take instructions from Moscow. So that in a way makes the bricks even more dangerous from an American point of view.

I mean, when it was Washington versus Moscow during the Cold War, Washington could always speak to Moscow and get Moscow to agree to, you know, rain people in or cut off arms supplies or do something like that. It can't do that with the Bricks because the Bricks is a group of great powers rather than just one great power that is also the adversary. Matt Vey, thank you for that super sticker. Not a bad to count. Says, will the federal versus Texas border conflict heat up? I don't know. This is something which we would need to discuss with people who are closer to U.S. politics than I am.

I don't know whether it will heat up or die down. I had to put money on this and I'm not a betting man, I would say it will die down. But, you know, I don't know. Zahir, I think you've had a super sticker. Paul Walker says, Etreya refused to provide clearance for a flight to Djibouti by Berlin's foreign minister,

according to the aircraft's captain for Adelina 360. Absolutely. I mean, Annalina Bearbock, trying to fly to Djibouti, found that she had to go stop over in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia because the Eritreans wouldn't let her fly over Eritrea. Well, there it is. It's Annalina. She's not very welcome in many places and will become less and less welcome in more and more places. She was lucky that she found the Saudis who were prepared to

let her go through. What are you doing in Djibouti, by the way? Just asking. Paul Walker, Brian, that landing ship was already sunk once during the SMO. Wouldn't be surprised if the RUAF are using it as a decoy for an opportunistic attack? It's hard to tell either way. It doesn't matter. It doesn't change anything strategically or even or even tactically. All it does is demonstrate how ineffective the idea of giving Ukraine long-range missiles actually is. They cannot achieve anything of strategically.

value with them, just these PR stunts. I just wanted to say to that that Brian actually did a really good analysis of this. He pointed out that in order to sink this one ship, Ukraine had to launch lots of missiles carry out a very complicated, intricate operation. What it actually showed is the impossibility of blockading Ukraine, oh, sorry, Crimea, with missiles. you would have to replicate this incredibly complex operation. You know, it's like a hundred or a thousandfold. It can't be done.

It was, again, a PR victory and nothing more. Snark guy says, Texas is equal to the new Donbass soon. Gosh. Interesting. Let's see here. From Monty. Will, oh no way, I read that already. That's on the UK of France Coalition, the Hockey Goley.

Thoughts on UK's call now for a citizen army due to poor recruitment. Panic seems to be setting in alongside Sweden after years of neglect and bad management. You reap what you sow when you chastise your history and culture. Well, I mean, this came from, as I said, Sir Patrick, oh, God, I remember, he's Sanders. Sanders, that's right. who is the head of the army and he said you know basically he was calling for a return of conscription and again i i think what it demonstrates once more is that the british military leadership don't watch brian because as they did they would have understood things an awful lot better

especially about ukraine and the british had invested very heavily emotionally as well as you know, in monetary terms and in terms of their own equipment in Ukraine. And they had very, very high hopes of Ukraine's counteroffensive in the summer. And its defeat has come as a profound shock. And you can see the panic starting to take hold in Britain. When they've now realized finally that when they're up against the Russians, they're up against the colossus. And they don't have anything that they can throw at it.

So that's, it's a sign of panic. But of course, it's not strategy, it's not policy. The British population will not accept conscription. And within just a few hours of this story circulating, Downing Street, the British government rushed out a statement saying that there will be no return to conscription in Britain. Oscar N asks Brian if Israel sends a missile at Turkey, Will NATO Article 5 work?

Turkey and Iran are together against the war on Gaza? I don't foresee that ever happening. I don't think Israel would launch a missile at Turkey. I think they would, if anything, they're going to launch an attack on Iran. This is something that they've written about for many years. That's what would make sense. If you look at the relationship between Turkey and Israel, it's very complicated. They do have ties with one another.

the leadership there has to be hard on Israel because of their considerations for their own population. But they cooperate quite a bit with Israel, especially during the U.S.-led proxy war against Syria. That was a joint enterprise between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, the U.S., the British, French, everybody was involved, and they were all working together, even though superficially they would sometimes appear to be at odds with one another. That was solely for public consumption. So I really don't see that happening. Sparky says, great to see Brian on the Duran.

Furious enthusiast asks, Brian, when China is pioneering the social credit system and Putin is considering one of the absolute best allies, and Putin is considered one of the best absolute allies by Zionists, is it not ideal to be painting them as a lesser of two evils? It's two wings of the same exact U.N. Bird. There's no social credit system. So this person is extremely misinformed. and this story of a social credit system came out of the Western corporate media. So you got that story from the very people you seem to think you're opposed to.

You need to become a little bit more informed. I've done a whole video, by the way, on the social credit system where even the articles accusing China of having this system admit in the body of the articles that it doesn't exist. So I don't know how carefully this person researched it. I've also been to China. And I know many people from China, and I know many people in China here in Thailand. And I ask them all about social credit system. They have no idea what I'm talking about.

And on the question of Putin, his relationship with Netanyahu has completely broken down now. I mean, they've had two telephone conversations since the events on the 7th of October. And apparently both of them were very tense. There wasn't actual shouting, but apparently it didn't go. Neither went very well. And if you follow events closely in the UN, it's the Russians who have been leading the demands for a ceasefire and who have been most critical of what the Israelis are doing in Gaza. So that entire relationship has essentially collapsed.

And I would just add that a lot of countries have relationships with Israel. does not mean that they're endorsing Zionism or even the current administration in power in Israel. People have to remember that Russian, Chinese, even Turkey, their diplomatic outreach is sophisticated, it is mature, and they don't just on a whim or because of emotions, cut ties and not. They know that you have to talk. U.S. and Europe, they're the only ones that talk in absolutes and cut off diplomatically nations and not talk. They're the ones that do that, and you can see with the outcome of that. Nations have to talk more even when they disagree.

And so an association between Russia and Israel or China and Israel, really, what does that mean? Does that mean that they endorse everything that they're doing and vice versa? I really don't think so. We've got to be a little more sophisticated the way we examine these relationships. Sparky says the U.S. continues to try and bake countries into war worldwide. Yeah. Elza says, Gonzalo, and you have been right since the beginning, but it's almost two years of war now, and the West is still talking about refrigerators and washing machines. It makes one hopeless sometimes. This failure to understand Russia properly, and we said this many times, is the greatest intelligence failure that there has ever been.

I mean, it exceeds anything else that has happened before. I mean, you know, the Germans in 1941, when they started their attack on the Soviet Union, they also completely miscalculated the size, diversity and strength of Russian industry. and that. But that was then, and of course there was far less ability to obtain information at that time than there is today. Today, it should have been very straightforward to get a true sense of Russian capabilities. It is incredible that it didn't happen. It shows it proves conclusively that our intelligence services are wholly unfit for persons. And there really ought to be, which of course there won't be, a massive reckoning about it.

Toulphate H says, Brian, will a new capital in Lviv make the threat of military false flags on Europe by Ukraine more likely as a form of pushing the EU into keeping their support for the war? This was always a, this wasn't Ukraine asking for help from Europe and the United States. This was the U.S. and Europe transforming Ukraine into a battering ram and using Ukraine. So at any moment, the West decides to drop this battering ram and not use it, it will collapse. And carrying out some sort of terrorist attack somewhere inside Europe to coerce Europe, I don't think that's going to work very well. I don't think the West will react to that very well. On May 19 says, Alexander, can you please explain why the U.S. can't have strong Russia,

in Europe? What is the downside for the US? Is it the money system? What does the US have to lose if Russia gains influence? This is one of the great unanswered riddles because, of course, going back many decades, even in, I remember it being talked about in the 1970s. It was widely understood then. There were articles about this that a strong relationship with the United States and Russia would serve US interests. But the reason it has never happened is because Russia is a very big,

very, very powerful country. It will never accept subordination to the United States. It always insists on being treated as an equal partner. And of course, for the Washington elite, that is intolerable.

They will never accept it. And that's why every single attempt, going all the way back to the the total period of the 1960s, has ended in failure. Every attempt to create good relations with Moscow and Washington has ended in failure. It is ultimately because of that. My info asks, Brian, what about the use of WeChat in China? You have to pay via WeChat for everything.

It's not social credit system, but you have to have a mobile and a payment system in your phone for your person. If you use WeChat? Does everyone in China have to use WeChat? No. So again, ask yourself where you're getting this information. If it's coming from the Western media, why do we all agree that they're lying about absolutely everything else? But China's the one thing they're telling the truth about. I guarantee you that they aren't.

And if you're going to YouTube channels where the Western media has entrenched themselves further back because no one trusts them. They go to these YouTube channels and they put out information there. Again, do your own research. Think for yourselves. We're supposed to be open-minded in question everything. We don't like China. Why don't we like China? Ask yourself that and ask yourself if there's a rational reason for that.

And your fears about China, where did they come from? And start from there. Actually, start asking yourself why you're so critical of a place you've never been before. Magnumptus says, my pleasure of all of you are a daily source. All of us like to see others thinking alike and reaching identical conclusions, even more so once they were proven to be 100% spot on. Keep up the great work. Thank you for that. Mariola, thank you for that super sticker. Torger, welcome to drag community. Jay Kumar, thank you for that super sticker.

And Sparky says, go answer Allah, fight the power. Curious enthusiasts asks, China became as powerful as it did because America and most of Europe gave most of their influence. infrastructure to China. You really think that China isn't grateful for that. They are, they all still share diplomacy. Well, again, they do, the Chinese are about diplomacy, but this constant idea that people have, that China became powerful and strong, because somehow, you know, we helped them to, we, we lifted them up to this level. it completely underestimates and it's entirely wrong about China China became strong because it is big and large and it has a hugely educated population with enormous industrial and entrepreneurial skills for most of its existence and the Chinese state is the oldest state in the world by the way just saying for most of its existence China has been the world's richest and most powerful country and it is becoming

that again. This is simply a return, actually, to the historic norm. It doesn't seem like that to us, because our history, our knowledge of history is fairly shallow. We don't really see much beyond the 19th century. But, you know, if you follow Chinese history overall, you would know, you would see that that is true. And, you know, my wife, was a student at Keyes College in Cambridge and one of the fellows of Keyes wrote this man called John Needon wrote this huge book, a huge series of things about science and technology in China

throughout the whole period of Chinese history. And it gives you a staggering picture of Chinese industrial and technological and scientific innovations throughout Chinese history, gunpowder, compass, all of those things. They're just printing. They're just the tip of it. So as I said, don't underestimate China or think that it only got to where it is because of the grace of the West.

It wasn't like that at all. And again, if you've ever been to China and you see with your eyes how hardworking people are there, they did that themselves. And they did that despite the West, not because of the West. The West was in the process of colonizing China. So it was their own hard work. It was their own sense of self-preservation and their own desire to restore their country back to its dignity.

That is the reason why China is the way it is today. And you're looking at China today, they have things that don't even exist in the West. So where did they steal that from? And there's this misconception that if a non-referencing, that if a non-white society has something great, they surely had to have stolen it from white people. And it's 2024, and we really, we got to grow up and wake up and move past that.

Michael Morris says this is one of the big problems about media on China and Russia. We have been fed assumptions, which when we weren't paying attention, it stuck sadly. So admittedly, I have wiped old assumptions. However, it would be nice to get balanced reporting from China, the rough with the smooth, with the smooth, there's always some rough, so let's have it. We all do in various degrees, no biggie. Oh, absolutely. And if you go to China, I mean, I was there in 2017, to give an example,

there was still in those days an awful lot of pollution in Chinese cities. I understand that problem has significantly abated since then. But one of the things that, again, surprised me was the open way in which people were complaining about it. So yes, there are lots of things in China, undoubtedly which are wrong. And, you know, I'm not saying, I don't know China with the depths that, you know, would be necessary to sort of do a breakdown and discuss and identify its problems and the faults in its society. But, you know, of course they exist. But the problem is, if we're talking about the rough and the smooth. In the West, we only get the rough, magnified by several

times, and we never get the smooth. Another China question from Ronald B. Is China's birth rate now collapsing? And if so, doesn't that imply a collapse of Chinese influence in a few decades? Look, any demographic problem China has, the West has had for much longer and is by far are much worse, and the West is by far less equipped to deal with it than China. China is able to organize itself on a level the West cannot. And if they are determined to overcome this problem, they will. Same goes for Russia. Russia's, you know, oh, demographic, you know, they're surpassing us, but don't worry

because they'll kill them, so they'll all die on their own. I mean, this, again, this is clutching at straws. And you have to ask yourself, where did these narratives come from? Why am I repeating them? Sparky says, build a better world with bricks. NGS says, we rarely hear from French-speaking experts. Have you considered, perhaps, with Gledeson to interview, for example, Jacques Baud or Emmanuel Todd? The answer is yes.

Arthur Tazat says, great job. All the best in 2024, following you for the most honest information. Good to see Brian on the Duran. Can we have Jacques Bout from Switzerland? There you go. Neurosurgery Highland says, is a plan to destroy the economy to blame Putin and bring CBDCs and create technocracy and destroy democracy and control everything in the Western world with impunity? You know, that might be the outcome, whether exactly it is the plan.

I am skeptical. I look at these people and I say to myself, I'm not sure. that they are capable of coming up with such a plan. But I always come back and I say this, if there is such a plan and the people who are launching it think that, you know, by destroying everything, they'll be able to achieve this outcome. They won't. If you try and ride chaos,

you are riding the storm. The storm will blow you away. It cannot succeed. The people who are trying to, to do it are just creating a disaster which will sweep away themselves. Commando Crossfire would love to see Joint Bricks Space Program, the Moon, question mark. Do you know anything about space programs? Well, the Chinese and the Russians are talking about a joint moon program.

So I mean, you know, we're already seeing evidence of it. So I think that some country, India has its own space program. And I think they would like to develop it a bit first before they pulled with the more established space powers, China and Russia. But, you know, the Chinese and the Russians are already working together in space, and they will do so more of it, I'm sure. Brian, and for people who don't know the Chinese space program, their launch cadence is either on par or surpassing the United States. They were excluded from the international space station. So they built their own. And Russia built, you know, a significant portion of the International Space Station really made it possible to do that.

And because they're having this fallout with the West, they'll join China in the future. And so they'll move on together and the West will just, you know, keep doing what they're doing. You know, self-inflicted implosion. Jungle Jin says, what do you make of the? incident with busker Brendan Kavanaugh and the CCP members at the Elton John piano at the St. Pankras Railway Station. Is this, Chungle Chin, is that the YouTube video that's gone viral? Yeah, I agree.

Chinese tourists telling him to stop. Yes, I haven't seen this video. Isn't this about people being photographed or something? Yeah, like Chinese tourists or something telling him. telling him to stop filming his YouTube video, something like that. Have you guys heard about this? You know, if it's an anti-China channel

and they go to China and they look for trouble, because the BBC does this all the time, they'll go in the middle of the road and start filming, and the police will be like, you're going to get hit by a car, so they try to get them onto the sidewalk, and the BBC will edit the frame to make it look like the Chinese police are just dragging them away from a news story.

And when you see the entire clip, And then you see how they edit it. It's such a deliberate attempt. Again, if you have any doubts, just go to China. You're able to go to China. There's no restriction to go to China. Go there and see for yourself. I guarantee you you'll be blown away by what you see.

And it's not going to be what you expected. Sticky Mark says, Gonzalo Lira, rest in peace. John Pilger, rest in peace. There's still time for Julian Assange, but that time is almost up. Thanks for all you do. love and peace from this crazy old cat lady defrosting in Yorkshire. Thank you for that. David Lazarus says, Alexander, we now only refer to Putin as the Putin.

That's correct, David Lazarus. Very, very well said. And Mill Z says, my take on the U.S. border issue is that the U.S. is getting ready to move their army in the direction of Mexico. the U.S. wants to make sure their South is under control. But just start another war. That's the answer to everything. Moon Dragon says, if Brian was put to lead the SMO, what would you have different,

or would you do the same as it's now? I think I would be, yeah, I mean, because I don't have the ability to even really answer that. that because you have to understand things on a high level, also a deep level to know what you would and wouldn't you do. But I look at what they're doing and it makes sense. And I was looking at what they were doing from the beginning up until now. I've made predictions to a certain extent. People can look back on my older videos and judge how accurate I was.

But I think I would probably do the same thing. you're fighting a war of attrition. It's very obvious that that is the advantage. They have you play to your own advantages and you go after the weaknesses of your enemy. And in terms of attrition, I can't think of something as more clear cut than that. Deda Pong says,

it seems that Alexander has never heard of nullification, defying scotis is built into the fabric of the U.S. Yes, I mean, this is exactly the kind of, I have heard of nullification, by the way, way, but I would, I have to say straight away, I am not an expert in these things. And nullification, I think is a rather tricky thing to apply in a situation like this. I mean, bear in mind, if you go down this route, if you simply say, I'm not going to accept certain laws because they don't suit me, then you are at risk of,

tearing up the entire fabric of the whole legal system at a time when, as I said, things look extremely precarious. But look, I hear everything that people say. I know about nullification. I just don't feel that this is an applicable case. Sparky says the failure of the Confederacy in the US Civil War caused Britain to turn things up in India or cotton.

The British didn't just tighten up in India. they began to become very, very interested in Egypt as well. And it was in the 1870s that the British started to move into Egypt. And already in the 1860s, they were heavily, heavily investing in Egyptian cotton. And of course, they gained control of the Suez Canal in the 1870s. And they sent their army into Egypt in the 1880s. And I've always myself felt that Egypt's problems really began there.

Elliot says, thank you for the great program. Brian, if the Houthi strike at a U.S. military ship, would it trigger Article 5 of NATO? I don't know. I don't think so. I think that is in NATO territory, isn't it? Wouldn't it be? Yes, I'm sure it would not, is the short answer. G. Davidson, welcome to the drag community.

ElectroHobby, thank you for that. Superchat. Miss me with it, says, is there any concern over Bricks having a gold back currency? Wouldn't just using their own currencies and keeping sovereignty over the dollar be better? Wouldn't it cause homicidal gold rush in Africa? There is no plan to create Brick's currency and to have it back by gold. that plan does not exist. What there is a plan to do, or at least what they're working towards, is creating a financial system that will function outside the dollar system,

which is a completely different thing. Hammer 88 says, try to invite Carl Zah to talk about China. Yeah. Elliot says, would Syria be in bricks any time soon? Syria seems strategically very important. Well, this is unknown. I think that for that to happen, a lot of other things have to happen in the Middle East. But I wouldn't say it was inconceivable.

But I do think it's the priority at the moment. Stefan says, remember Gonzalo, understand what's going on. Brian Digital says, how much longer do you think the USA can run 12 supercarriers around the globe? I love you guys, by the way. Well, I'm not, I mean, if you're talking about does it have the, means and resources to keep operating supercarriers probably it does and probably for a very very long time but why would it why does it want to do that how what what actual you know what does it act what do these supercarriers provide that the united states actually needs we see that there is a supercarrier

operating now in the gulf of yemen gulf of ed and still the Houthis are able to destroy ships. So, I mean, it seems to me that there is a colossal mismatch here between resources and the resources needed to operate these things and the actual military effect they have. Obviously, if you want to terrify and intimidate countries and to devastate them with major air and missile strikes and having these floating air bases, it gives you a tremendous advantage over them. But as we have seen in military terms, maybe they're not quite as effective as we were all led to think.

Just saying. Latimeros says, I hope China will help Russia to build high-speed train systems. Imagine travel one day from Moscow to Vladivostok instead of seven. It would be amazing. It has been talked about, but I'm going to say something. in Russia itself, high-speed rail has always been a little controversial because this is unlike say Japan or China, which have gone heavy into high-speed rail.

Russia has very, very low population densities. Cities and their very big cities are very far apart from each other. So the view, and it seems to be swinging back to this now, is that high-speed rail really doesn't achieve very much in Russian terms. Russian railways are better organized as, you know, long distance, long, not high-speed trains. And for high-speed travel, what you need to do is to build a strong network of airlines, which can then bind the country together, which is what the Soviets did, by the way. They also experimented in the 1970s with high-speed rail, and they decided it really wasn't optimal for them.

And they instead developed to a very high level, more so than people know, a very dense network of air links, which basically tied the country together. Curious enthusiasts says Zionism is the ideology that religiously pushed the one world government agenda under a book. That must not be named. Guess which two figures are both Zionists, Putin and Zelensky, both are against you. I mean, as I said, Putin is certainly not a Zionist. I mean, I think we need to be absolutely clear about this. His relationship with Netanyahu has completely broken down. He's now strongly supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state.

And I don't have any doubt at all that this is his sincere beliefs. he's working very hard to move towards that direction. So this myth of Putin, the Zionist, I don't know where it comes from, but it's simply wrong. You know, imagining everyone is a Zionist, and this is the source of all problems. I mean, maybe you should look for a new house in Western Ukraine or something, because this is, you know, again, if you follow the money

and you trace the networks carefully, you will see that the U.S., the British, British before them. They used Israel as a proxy like they have used so many other nations around the world. The fact that people have in their mind inverted it and they imagine because there is a big Israeli lobby in the U.S. But every country the U.S. uses as a proxy has a lobby in Washington. This is the modern-day imperial court. But people overemphasize this. You have entire groups that have dedicated their lives to imagining this threat built on some very toxic ideologies from the past, but follow the money and be realistic. Does a little tiny

country like Israel have the economic and military ability to control the United States? And you have to explain, map it out for me, show me how, and maybe you'll convince me that somehow they have more money, power, military force that they somehow can coerce the, you know, poor Monsanto and Lockheed and Boeing and all these corporations. in the US. You'd have to do that to convince me. W. Lim says, does America have a national identity if it is no longer the exceptional country guided by manifest destiny if it is only one among many? Well, I think that it does have a future. Absolutely. I think that the United States can put

this all behind it. And there's the American people, the constitution, this the economy, there's all of these things there's no reason at all why the united states could not be a prosperous and happy country um if it focused on itself the problem is that there are some people who think otherwise and we should not be we should not fall into the trap of thinking that they're right i mean i was reading you read it all the time in the literature that the neocons produce that the United States is not simply a country, it is also an idea. They never quite explain what that idea is supposed to be, and that if we start raining in and, you know, don't interfere in every other country in the world and try and expand all the time, we're somehow betraying that

idea, and therefore the United States, I think this is very slippery thinking, and it leads into all kinds of tragedies, and the founders of the United States would certainly have rejected it. Rysse asks, is Russia developing larger yield of vacuum bombs? Right. No, I don't. I haven't heard about that. Greater, greater yields. I mean, everything, they're building bigger and better of everything. So, I would imagine the problem, probably.

It wouldn't surprise me. Johan, thank you for that super chat. Anas Belichihab says, I've heard Israel blocked sales of advanced weapons to Saudis and the UAE, both from Biden and Germany. The UAE switched to China. Saudi following and Abraham Accords have de facto collapsed. Any ideas?

Well, I mean, I haven't heard about this, but the Saudis have previously sourced weapons from China, by the way. this isn't new. And probably they were source weapons from Russia before very long. This isn't, this isn't new also. I get to say something about the arms trade in the Middle East. It's a very complicated and very dirty business, because all of these countries buy far more weapons than they ever use, often at very inflated prices. And the reason they do that is not so much because they need these weapons because generally they don't. Many, many of these weapons end up in warehouses and simply rot there. They do it because it's their way of buying influence and support in the countries

that they are buying those weapons from. So when you hear that, you know, the Israelis block sales of advanced weapons from European countries to the Gulf monarchies, it might be a rather more complicated story than it appears to be. It might be more a case of people in Israel, not so much wanting these countries to become militarily strong as wanting to close off access to influence by Middle East powers in European capitals. Sparki says make Ukraine Russia again. Sparki also says don't even leave a patch named Ukraine leased it remain a NATO playground carpet bagger money laundering and becomes a black rock property and base for bay of pigs style invasion there are more and more russians are coming round to that view

commander crossfire says watch the movie armageddon recently the u.s truly had a brief window of time when the whole world looked to them it could have been great but greed and hubris turned the king corrupt w lym says mersheimer has explained why the u.s will never allow another regional hegemon, a near-peer competitor. It constrains U.S. freedom to act as it pleases. Exactly. But what a disaster that has proved to be for the United States and the world? Now it's not even possible for them to.

I mean, it says they're not allowed. Well, who cares if the U.S. doesn't want to allow you to? They're doing it. They're doing it anyway. Jeff Bickford. Thank you for a super sticker. Jonathan. Welcome to the drag community.

Spock 230 says Native Americans were monotheistic, the great spirit Allah Akbar. I know nothing about these things. That worrisome you better says 2012 woke from a nap hearing the bricks in the wall had no idea that what was going to mean until years later and heard of the bricks nations. Go figure. All right, let's see here if we have some more. to wrap up this live stream. Sparky. Did we answer this one?

Russia's capabilities and improvements over the last 20 were not kept secret, but the U.S. and other Western Intel relied on reports originating in the 1990s, then copied and pasted each subsequent year. This is profoundly true. I mean, you know, the Russian city I know best outside. Moscow and St. Petersburg is Perm. And of course, in Perm, there's a big factory which makes aircraft engines. In fact, Pirm is the centre of aircraft engine design, jet aircraft engine design in Russia for civil aircraft. And it was entirely easy to see the work that was being done there. You could

visit the factory if you wanted. I have a friend of mine who regularly visits Russian factories. He's an engineer. He's been to all of these places. He's been to Jelyabinsk. He's been to Uralwagon-Zavon, the big factory in Nizhny Tagil. I've never been there myself. But, you know, these are not, you know, secret facilities. That's why I say the failure of Western intelligence is astonishing, and it begs a multiplicity of questions.

And they have a channel on YouTube. I mean, it's one of the only Russian channels still on YouTube, that approved where the Ministry of Defense just does entire documentaries on new Russian weapon systems. They've done this for years. And I used to watch them before the special military operation. It's like, okay, yeah, sure. It's the best in the world. Of course you would say that because this is the Russian government presenting their own equipment. But now you see it performing in the special military operation in almost everything, not everything, but almost everything that they presented in these documentaries, which you can still go and watch is true.

And if you watch that, you would have stopped and they even explained. You know, we focus on air defense and electronic warfare because NATO doesn't. They focus on air superiority. So we focused on this to balance it out. And now we see the effect of that on the battlefield. It's absolutely true. It's a fascinating channel, by the way. Board con says, rest in peace, Lira, never forget him and many others who have died in

Palestine and everywhere else. Brian, nice to see you, brother. working fashionable as always. Thank you for that. Super chat. And Euro Gabor says, Hello, Radio Duran. DJ Alex, could you play Dr. Albon?

No Coke, please. I'm sending it for a guy called Olenski to have Diffka with a message. Raise your hands up in the air while holding a white flag. Interesting. Toul Fate H. H says,

Could you speak about the Russian nuclear plant being built in Egypt, please? Very interesting project. It's a very interesting project indeed. And, of course, in a kind of a way, it's a geopolitical return for Russia. Because back in the 60s, they built the Aswan Dam. And they were heavily invested in Egypt at that time. And then they were pushed out. And now they come back in.

And you see them building these big infrastructure projects. And it is. It's going to make a huge. change in Egypt's economy. They're building also an industrial park in Egypt. All of these things. And again, notice the difference. It's not financial aid. There's no, none of the sort of political packaging that comes with this. Just going in there, building a nuclear power plant, setting up an industrial park, doing all of those sort of things. Of course, the Chinese do all of this on a much bigger scale.

Larry C. Smith says Russia and China have already begun planning joint scientific lunar bases for everyone to use to be permanently inhabited by no later than 2035. Well, there you go. David Falconier says, well, peace. O.G. Wall says, Alex, what is a Duran? Tabernak says, multiply. and empower your foes, strategic comedy. Paul Walker says, with North Korea being recognized as a nuclear power

and with hypersonic missiles, will this be an added deterrent in the region? If so, when will Biden stand back off? Great discussion. Thank you to all. The North Korean buildup is entirely a product of bad U.S. policies. I mean, I think this is the first thing we need to understand.

In the 1990s, there was an agreement, North Korea, which was in a terrible state in the 1990s, they did this trade-off with the Americans. They would abandon the North then nuclear program, which was barely existed at that time. It was in a, I mean, the country was not capable of running a program like that. But they would end that. In return, the United States would open trade relations, would supply North Korea with pressurized water reactors. It all seemed to work.

And it was the usual people. Came along, they said, we can't possibly have an agreement of this kind with the North Koreans. We've got to achieve regime change in North Korea. The economy there is in a terrible state. All it needs is a push. And, of course, the North Koreans,

seeing all of this, seeing that agreement, torn up, seeing the attempts again to change their government, they did exactly the thing that the United States said that it wanted to prevent, they developed nuclear weapons capability and then a ballistic missiles capability, and now possibly a hypersonic missile capability, all at a speed, which I think nobody in the United States ever imagined. And the extraordinary thing is that despite that total failure, the US persists towards North Korea with the same policies.

So when Trump wanted to meet Kim Jong-un-un-un and come to some kind of an understanding with him, the entire foreign policy establishment worked overtime to prevent it. And now, of course, the North Koreans are talking with the Russians. Putin is supposed to be visiting North Korea fairly soon. I don't know where all this is going to lead to. I'm not particularly concerned about it myself. I don't think North Korea is looking for war actually in South Korea or Japan or anything like that. Why would it want to?

But I think that North Korea is now an increasingly powerful country in military terms. And my own suspicion, my own belief, is that this announcement by Kim Jong-un that he's not going to seek forcible unification with South Korea, I think what he is now going to start to do is he's going to focus more on domestic economic development. That is my own personal belief. Jerry Coogan says,

we need to know each panelist's favorite Abba song, please. I don't remember very much about Abba, I must say, very much something I can remember from the 70s, but it's such a long ago. Wasn't there something a clown queen or something? like that. I mean, I really don't remember. Let's see. Edwin. Edwin Vargas says, is there hope for the U.S. and Europe? Brian, is there hope for the U.S. in Europe?

Alexander, is the hope for the U.S. and Europe? You say, yes, Brian, is there hope for the U.S. and Europe? Eventually, these circles of special interests driving Western foreign policy, what they're doing is on sustainable, it will collapse. And hopefully an alternative circle of interest will take power that will seek to work among all other nations rather than this obsession with imposing themselves on all other nations. And then, yes, America and Europe, they will have a future. They're going to have to abandon this obsession of superiority. They are not superior to anyone else on Earth. And if they can get this idea out of their mind, they can start working together with everyone else who, by the way, is moving on without them. And they notice how

Russia, China, no matter how egregious the insults and the threats are to them, they try to leave every door open, every bridge intact for the West to finally cross over and act rational on the global stage. So yeah, I do think that there is a future. It's going to be rough, though. Bill Pegler, thank you for that awesome super sticker. Sparky says, Israel controls the U.S. by kicking back funds given to it by the U.S. Congress, back to individual U.S. congressmen. So does Ukraine. So does Ukraine.

On a massive scale, absolutely. Yes. Edwin Vargas says, will the U.S. shift to Latin America if it fails in Europe and Asia? Well, who knows? The United States has never left Latin America. I'm going to say. J.F. Thank you for that super sticker. Rune says, now that Sweden is preparing for war, Finland say they are ready and Norway is a division of the American Navy.

What's the chances Scandinavia will be the new front? Well, I think if they let themselves get drawn into that, then they're absolutely crazy. I mean, it would be absurd. I mean, this is one of the greatest astonishing things. I mean, Scandinavia, Scandinavian countries, primarily. Sweden and Finland, had never easy relations with the Russians, but, well, Finland had very close relations with the Russians during the Cold War, and it worked well for Finland. Sweden always maintained its neutrality, and it worked very well for Sweden. They've thrown all of that

away without any kind of proper discussion, no referendum, no proper public debate. If they're now going to be led into a war, well, I would say that is compounding folly and bringing disaster upon themselves. And again, the historians of the future will shake their heads and say, why on earth did they ever do it? Zareel says free Assange.

And summer of 1970 says Yemen is the best. and Sean Pearl says The US ran out of bombs for Ukraine When does When does IS run out When does IS run out? I S.

I'm not sure I'm not sure what that means The Islamic State I mean Yeah I mean they don't They don't use the same kind of bombs Sean let us know Sean In the chat what you mean

And we'll answer that. Do you think the Houthis have access to China, to Chinese and Iranian copies of the VA 113, Shekhal super-cavitating torpedo, Brian? Do you know? I don't. I don't know, but they have a lot of equipment based on Iranian systems. They were using similar systems on targets in Saudi Arabia that now we see Russia using on targets in Ukraine. So if it is a system that Iran has and they think it would be useful, I think they would invest in bringing it over and using it. And Brian Digital asks, do you think drones will take over as the dominant weapon systems like the aircraft carrier did during World War II? Well, you know, this is something that the

pro-Ukraine crowd has been trying to say. that we don't need artillery shells because we can just use FPV drones. And to a certain extent, FPV drones can achieve things that artillery shells, even guided artillery shells cannot achieve. The problem is there's certain things that only artillery can achieve. Alexander, you've mentioned this many times, volume, just sheer volume, the area effect of artillery. That is something you cannot really achieve with FPV drones.

you could only send a certain number of them up in the air at one time unlike artillery where you can just continuously pound an area day and night as we've seen. So it's it enhances modern combat. I don't think it'll replace, I don't think it'll replace all aspects of modern combat. Okay, when does Israel run out of the bombs? Ah, yes.

Ah, okay, who knows? Well, that's actually a good question. And I addressed this right after October 7th, and we all anticipated an Israeli retaliation. And I said at the time, they will pay, they most likely paced themselves. And that is exactly what they've done. This has allowed them to continue this operation in Gaza far longer than their previous operations. Operation Cast Lead and Protective Edge. And so they have their own military industrial base.

They produce weapons. and they're fighting the Gaza Strip. It's not on the same scale as in Ukraine. So in theory, they could continue for quite a long time a year or more. And that's what they've talked about doing. J.C. Only Hope, thank you for that super sticker. Brian Digital. Thank you for that super chat.

P.F. Coop says, what could Trump do differently to turn things around? Stop funding Ukraine. I mean, you know, he made a lot of. of a lot of very good promises during his first presidential campaign. But then instead of creating the swamp, he populated it with the biggest swamp creatures on Earth, John Bolton, for example. And so, you know, we have to ask ourselves, where does U.S. foreign policy actually come from? It comes from these corporate-funded think tanks. And Washington is just an interface between foreign diplomats and the American public. And so, you know, Trump does he really

have the ability to change things, even if he wanted to. I don't know. 12-8H says, Great Stream, as always, please thumb it up, folks. Thank you very much for that. And the final question, and thank you to Brian for sticking around and answering all these questions with us. J-1416 says, how does the West support the argument that Putin basically wants to take over Europe? Where does this idea come from? I don't see much evidence. There's no evidence, but it's just a resurrection of an idea that has been floating around Europe since the 18th century. Every 50 years, they come up with the legend that the Russians want to take over Europe. I mean, Napoleon justified his war against the Russians.

By that, I mean, he was, you know, and you have all these 19th century cartoons showing, you know, the great octopus that is Russia with its ten. Extending across Europe. You've got all these articles and books in the 19th century that were published at that time, making identical claims. Then, you know, during the Cold War, it was also said. There's, again, more cartoons, you know, the bear, you know, with its claws going to take over Europe. So, of course, it's just a revival of all of that. That's all it is.

People look at the map, they see how big Russia is, and they think axiomatically, because it's so big. It wants to become even bigger, so it's going to come and gobble us all up. And that's just, as I said, it's dusted off whenever people need it. That's all there is to say. And they don't really believe it. And the biggest clue proving that is the fact that they've emptied their arsenals into Ukraine, leaving themselves defenseless. But they know Russia's not interested in crossing their borders and taking over Europe. So, I mean, that's the biggest clue for ordinary people if they could just take a deep breath and take a step back, they could see that these people's claiming Russia seeks to take over Europe. Well, why would, why have

they deliberately disarmed themselves if that was true? Yeah. Yeah. Very true. All right. We will end it there. New Durant Coffee Cup, not most all, according to Radoff. Well said. All right. I saw that today. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you to. Brian Brilettick, the new Atlas. We have all of Brian's information in the description box down below, and I will also add it as up in comment. Spark. He also says, Nehastamai Israel, and I think that's everything. That is everything. All right. Brian, any final thoughts before we sign off? No, just thank you so much for having me on. I really appreciate it.

Great to have you on. It's great, absolutely. It's been a great pleasure, as always, Brian, and for sharing your thoughts with us. Thank you. All right. All right, we will end it there. Thank you to our moderators, Zarael and Gab, formerly known as GECA12, and any other moderators. I'm scrolling through to see if there were any other moderators that I missed, but thank

you to our moderators for helping us out on this live stream. Thank you to everyone that was watching us on. Odyssey, Rockfin, Rumble, the Duran. Dot locals.com and YouTube. Take care, everybody.