The Duran Podcast - Ukraine/Trump; Last chance for a deal w/ Brian Berletic (Live)

Episode Date: October 21, 2025

Ukraine/Trump; Last chance for a deal w/ Brian Berletic (Live)

All right, we are live with Alexander Mercuris in London and with us on the Duran, one of the best guests that we have on the Duran. A crowd favorite, Mr. Brian Berletic. How are you doing, Brian? I'm doing very well. Thank you again for having me on. It's always an honor and a pleasure. Brian, where can people follow your work? I just search the new Atlas on YouTube and then in the video description, you just click on

more and then in there's all the other places you can find and follow my work on x telegram and and rumple mostly all right i have those links in the description box and i will have them as a pinned comment when the live stream is over a big shout out to our moderators on youtube i see zaryl is with us i also see harry is also moderating and and i think that's it for now so thank you to our moderators, hello to everyone on YT, to everyone watching us on Rumble, on Rock Finn, and on Odyssey, and a big shout out to locals, our locals community, the durand.orgas doc.

And let's get started, guys. We have a big summit in Budapest that might be happening. We'll see. Alexander, Brian, let's talk about what might be the United States or Trump's last chance for some sort of diplomacy. Well, indeed. I mean, the question is diplomacy and last chance and all of these. Now, this has been for somebody like myself, who, by the way, studied diplomatic history. I mean, this is one of the things that I did massively in the past. It's been one of the strangest topics to talk about what has happened over the last eight months,

because I'm not sure whether what we have seen is diplomacy or rather the simulation of diplomacy. It has been incredibly weird to follow this and to see the permutations of it. I mean, none of the things that one normally expects in a diplomatic process have really happened. I mean, there's been sort of sporadic occasional meetings between Zelensky and Trump. None of us seem to lead anywhere. We've had strange conversations between Putin and Trump, which appeared to be very optimistic, but which never really get down to particulars. We had a summit meeting in Alaska, which is prepared with an enormous amount of pomp and circumstance.

and theatre, and which lasted all of 90 minutes. It's completely unclear whether anything at all was agreed at that summit meeting. We've had endless threats and endless comments and insults from the person who's supposed to be conducting the diplomacy, who is Donald Trump. I mean, he said absolutely terrible things about Vladimir Putin and about Russia repeatedly. and constantly complains about how disappointed he is with Putin, which is a very old thing to do if you are involved in a diplomatic process. And I am going to say this.

I think that what has happened, this is my own personal take, is that over the last three weeks or so, patience in Moscow finally snapped, maybe not so much on Putin's part, but certainly on the part of various other people. This entire business about the Tomahawk missiles was for them the last straw. I don't mean whether, you know, the Tomahawk missiles would have been provided, what effect they would have had on the battle, the mere fact that they would talk about at all. Anyway, we got lots of signals in Moscow that people were getting very, very, very,

angry and impatient with the whole process. And trying to work out what happened over the course of the conversations that took place last week on Thursday and Friday between Putin and Trump and then between Trump and Zelenskyy is very difficult. But I am starting to come to the view that what basically happened was that Putin gave Trump basically an ultimatum. Thursday which is look either we'd come to an agreement a real agreement over the next couple of weeks which satisfies our core demands or the result is going to be the destruction of Ukraine. We've had enough. You've been playing around, you've been playing around with us for eight months now, patience in Moscow is exhausted, we have to have a final decision. If you go back to the briefing, that the Russians have given of the conversation between Putin and Trump.

They don't talk about warmth, sincerity, or any of those things. They only say it was a quite useful discussion. And they weren't expecting or looking for a sermon meeting. It was something that Trump insisted on. So this does start to look to me like I know in Budapest. and we've now had comments from the Europeans and we've now had comments from Zelensky himself and it's absolutely clear that they're not interested at all

in responding to Russian core interests. They're not prepared to negotiate that. So I cannot see myself how this very bizarre diplomacy that we have seen over the last eight months is going to relate to any kind of. outcome other than to a continuation of the war and what Putin threatened, apparently, which was the destruction of Ukraine. So that is my view.

That is my take on this. I don't know whether Trump was stringing Putin along or whether he had some kind of plan or what he was doing. But this is, I think, where we now are. Now, Ryan, that is my take. I'll be very interested to hear yours. But I personally think we are now literally at the last point of this process. I doubt that he can be taken much further once we've been to Budapest.

Either there is an acceptance of Russian concerns and an acknowledgement of their terms or the war will simply continue until it's finally concluded. So what are your thoughts? Well, I agree with a lot of what you just said. I always urge people to go back to first principles, ask yourself, how did this conflict come to be, what is the larger context that's being fought within? And this is part of a decades-spanning policy to encircle and contain Russia, which is part of a much larger geopolitical agenda to prevent any rival at all from emerging, any nation or group of nations. And we can see Russia is reemerging. We can see China is rising. We can see bricks also coming together and enlarging. And so it's all of these worst case scenarios that the U.S.

all throughout the Cold War and ever since the Cold War, they have been struggling to put a lid on. And now it's building momentum. And so they're panicking. This is why they launched this war against Russia in the first place. This is why we see these these just unhinged wars in the Middle East. No explanation, no attempt to even sell any sort of pretext. They're preparing to topple the government in Venezuela. At least they're threatening. They're already literally killing people in numbers. And they're saying that they're drug runners, but there's no evidence that it's the war on terror all over again. And then, of course, the military buildup and the encirclement of China across a number of dimensions. This all continues.

And so is President Trump, is the United States, the special interests that he represents, are they really going to just give up on trying to stop Russia and then focus on China when stopping Russia first is a key component of their overall strategy to contain China? We have to remember all of the policy papers talking about containing China involve a blockade, a maritime blockade, but also targeting all of the, of the land routes that China has developed since then. And we're talking about the Belt and Road Initiative, but now we're talking about a large and growing link

between China and Russia. And this is one of the impediments to applying a maritime blockade on China is that Russia is right there, and they can supply China with huge amounts of resources, and as a conduit for transit for exports. So how do they deal with that? So that is why they were targeting Russia first. This is why they will continue targeting Russia.

This is why no matter what the White House or Congress says, no matter what anyone on the American side says, they don't want peace with Russia. They want to freeze it at best, but more importantly, and they told us this plan all the way back in February Secretary of Defense Pete Higgs that said, we're going to shift the responsibility onto Europe. Ukraine is collapsing. Europe will step into the breach. We can't because we have to go and deal with China. Again, people have to ask themselves when they hear President Trump talking about the way Ukraine is presenting it or Russia is presenting the conflict to him, he's not in charge of anything. President Zelensky is not in charge of anything. The war is being run out of Germany by U.S. generals.

It's being run on the ground in Ukraine by the CIA. And it is just continuity of agenda. And the special interest driving that, they are the ones that will determine what happens in Ukraine, what the US does with its resources in regards to targeting Russia deep within its own borders and how they try to paint Russia into a corner to agree to a ceasefire. And then conversely, and this is what I'll end on, I think President Putin is just offering an exit ramp while he surely knows that this has to be settled on the battlefield. And that's why he agrees to these talks as pointless as they are is because he wants to give the US an offering. Every time they

they blame it on Europe. They know the US, this is their war. That's US generals. That's the CIA. They know this, but they're blaming it on Europe to give a very public, global off-bramp for the US. And whether the US takes it or not, it's there. They will keep it in place. They are winning on the battlefield. This follows, this segues directly into one of the most interesting things that has come up over the last couple of weeks, which is an article that you sent me, which appeared on War on the Rocks. And it was written by a disciple of a person called Aaron West Mitchell, who I have come to know very, very well.

Aaron West Mitchell, for those who don't know, is a former US Defense Department official and a scholar, so he would like I said, imagine, a very, very close friend, apparently, of Elbridge Colby, who is the chief of strategy in the Pentagon. and it is all about grand strategy, something which the Americans are obsessed with, by the way. Nobody else is. Nobody else is interested in brand strategy. This is a purely American concept.

I think that's something which perhaps one should make clear. Anyway, this is all about sequencing that supposedly empires that find themselves overextended, they can somehow manage to prevail despite all of that by defeating their enemies, not altogether, but one at a time. And it's interesting that this War on the Rocks article now has a rather more modest objective agenda than West Mitchell himself did when he was writing about this very thing about four years ago, because West Mitchell was talking then about defeating Russia.

outright and subjugating it and then turning it against China. What this article now proposes is weaken Russia sufficiently get the Europeans to take over so that we can focus against China. So no longer is it quite expected that Russia will be controlled by the United States anymore. it will be, it will just be weakened instead. Now, what I find bizarre about that, and this is what I want to discuss, I wanted to hear your comments about this,

but I also want to make a point, which is that the reality is, also it seems to me, that the war has not, in fact, strength, weakened Russia. In some forces have become much bigger. They've become much more experience. They've developed all kinds of technologies. Their economy has become more.

self-sufficient. Its economic linkages with China have increased. Arguably, it is the United States that has grown weaker. It has depleted its own inventories as that very article admitted. And yet there is no change. There is no ability to rethink the strategy. We are still committed to the strategy. However much it has failed previously, we still must continue. to apply it and it's presented as realism. Your thoughts. Absolutely. And people have to understand this mindset because this is the prevalent mindset in Washington and also on Wall Street, where again, that is where policy actually is driven from. The think tanks that produce papers and articles and editorials like this is all driven by

corporate financier funded think tanks. And this is all they've talked about for decades and decades. And that's one of the things that I do is I go through all of these policy papers. And that's all you hear in all of these. So it's not just this one. And I'm sure you have this experience, too, Alexander. It's in all of them. This is their mindset. It's a supremacist mindset.

We are the best. We are the greatest. We're going to control everything. We're not going to tolerate competition anywhere. And you're right. I think they realize that they're not going to be able to outright defeat Russia, at least not now. I think in their mind, they think down the road, they still can. But look at what they've been doing, especially with this drone campaign targeting

Russian refineries and other energy production facilities. I think they believe they can continuously expand that. And then with the tomahawks or with other weapon systems, they think they can reach in further and hit more. And they're hoping that maybe they can cripple energy. They can continuously, this salami slicing strategy of escalating, sending more weapons, more capable weapons, try to hit Russian infrastructure and its ability to say supply China during, I don't know, a maritime blockade, tried to cripple that and try to continuously set the precedent so that if it does come down to hitting a pipeline or something like that, they'll be able to do it because they have escalated to that point. And again, salami slicing, very thin slices. It's too thin

for someone to point that and say that is an act of war. This is what the U.S. is doing to Russia. It's what it's been doing to Iran. It's what it's doing to China right now. It's very consistent across the spectrum. Everything the U.S. is doing worldwide. And so I think that's where they are in their mind. I don't even think they really want to freeze it. I think they still want to be able to strike Russia, create a cost for Russia,

keep them tied up in Ukraine, but then, yes, also go against China. And for people who are skeptical about hitting infrastructure that is relevant to China, the U.S. is already doing it. They have terrorists in Balochistan and elsewhere across Western Pakistan hitting Chinese infrastructure, killing engineers that are working on it. And they're doing the exact same thing in Myanmar, which is Thailand's neighbor to the west. They have terrorists hitting the pipelines there. This is one of the pipelines China actually will use if the United States tries to impose a maritime blockade. And in policy papers that I've read, in those policy papers, they actually say, if we do a maritime blockade, we will tell the government in Myanmar, you shut that pipeline down. And if they don't listen, we'll use an airstrike. This is what they talk about openly in publicly published papers. So imagine what they're saying and planning for in private. And look at the CIA with the Ukrainian SKU is already doing it deep inside Russian territory. It's one of the most extraordinary things about the United States that it is so probably about what it is planning or proposing to do.

Again, reading these articles and reading the kind of, I find actually, megalomaniac tone in which they are written is actually quite chilling. The explosion salami slicing, by the way, has been taken up in China itself. they are aware of the expression, and they're apparently starting to use it. And they've been using it, so I'm told, in discussions with the United States. And it was what finally provoked China to take the step that it did to basically tighten controls on exports of rare earths. They were complained. They apparently directly complained to the Americans about American salami slicing.

And they said enough is enough. It can't, it simply won't be tolerated anymore. And the China is prepared to push back. Now, let's talk about, let's go back to Ukraine and let's talk about the situation there. Now, one of the things where, I'm going to say this, you haven't just been outstanding. You have been the go-to source about is this problem that the United States cannot keep up with the production of weapons for the war. It can't compete with the Russian production

and absolutely cannot compete with the Chinese and Russian production of weapons. And what is very interesting is that you are starting to see admissions about this, starting to creep up in the United States. States in Europe also, that it would require a radical reorganisation of the industrial structures to try to regain the ability to do that. And that would in turn require fundamental changes to Western society and Western economic organisation, which would undermine the position of the very interests that are promoting the conflicts that we are now talking about.

So this one wood of thought is at the root of the problem. It makes this entire strategy ultimately non-viable. And in Britain, the former chief of the British army, Lord Richards, who is an intelligent man, I know people who know him, a very intelligent man. He has now published an article and given an interview to the British media, in which he said, not only are we not able to provide weapons to Ukraine in anything like the quantities that the Ukrainians need, but if we do provide weapons, it is not going to make any difference to the outcome of the war. Why is this fact still resisted?

I read every day. I was reading this morning an article in the Telegraph, British newspaper. It's a moral duty to arm Ukraine. Nobody ever says with what. Why do people not address this question? Is it because we're blinkered about this? Is it because we're denial? Or is it because people are lying to themselves about this?

I think it's a combination of many things, actually, including all of the things you just mentioned. And there's the founder of Anderrol, Palmer Lockhe, and he talks about how China has 200% the shipbuilding capacity of the United States. So he says, my company is going to make drones and low costs, cheaper ends, cruise missiles. And I'm just thinking if China can build 200 times more ships than the United States,

don't you think they can also build 200 times more drones and cheap cruise missiles? And Russia is literally right now doing that. And vastly out producing the United States and Europe combined, including all the toys that Anderol has been sending to Ukraine. and I haven't made a single difference on the battlefield. And then actually speaking of the battlefield, I think the reason why we see the wheels moving so quickly, and this was, because I don't really follow the day-to-day movements on the battlefield.

I actually listen to Alexander. He does a very detailed breakdown and Scott of Calibrated. And you were talking about how there's sort of an encirclement of Slaviance and Kramatos taking shape. And I checked the distances, because I, Again, I haven't looked at it in a long time. And a lot of the drones, even the fiber optic drones, if they were to take Lehman in the north and across in the south, they would be able to meet well in the middle

and create an operational encirclement of that whole remaining defensive belt that Ukraine has left. And as Alexander and Alex say almost daily on both of your daily videos, there's just not enough Ukrainian troops on the ground. So even if you had enough weapons to do, give to Ukrainians, there aren't enough Ukrainians to use them at this point. There's entire defensive positions that are just unmanned. So how do they proceed with this?

And I think that is why a lot of the theatrics, and I call it theatrics, a lot of the theatrics we see in the White House, in Brussels, in Kiev, a lot of this is to create this illusion of distance between the U.S. and Ukraine and put the weight of all of this on Europe. leaders who are only doing what the United States has told them to do all along. They can tell the European public, look, the U.S. is abandoning us and abandoning Ukraine. We need to take this up. And there's going to be sacrifices made. As you say, Alexander, in order to even address this in a very half-hearted way, huge sacrifices are going to be necessary in Europe, across Europe's

European society. And so I think that's why they're doing this. I don't see the U.S. actually abandoning Ukraine. Again, the whole war is a U.S. proxy war. And Europe gains nothing by continuing it. And all the people that are in power across the European Union, this was an institution created by the U.S. and imposed upon the individual European nation. So the industrial production, the manpower problem, and just in Ukraine, that's one component, and then U.S. plans globally. And then finally, to answer your question out, said it, sorry. But I really really, do think it's just they have a supremacist mindset and they simply think they're inherently better. They'll figure it out. Everybody else is wrong. There's a lot of confirmation bias taking place.

If you listen to these people in the think tanks, that's a huge component of it. They just pretend that some of this doesn't matter or doesn't matter as much as it actually does in reality. I think you actually hit the nail on the head. A lot of this is, this is by the way, what people, what happens to people. who over-stategize. The strategy becomes so much, there's so much invested, so much mental energy invested in it, that you don't really,

you don't really, you lose sight of the tactics, if you like, of the realities and of the tactics. You can't go behind the grand plan and look at whether or not, it's workable anymore because you've spent so much time coming up with this plan that it's no longer possible just to give it up. Too many people are invested in it.

Too much money isn't committed to it. Too many ambitions and careers and expectations revolve around it. So you don't, you try and argue your way out. This idea of, you know, problems of weapons production. I mean, that article that we were just talking about, the War on the Rocks article, it spoke about, you know, we need two years in which to get the Europeans up to speed on weapons production. Anybody who actually follows closely the situation with weapons production in Europe at this time, and I do, by the way, and I've got contacts, will know that we are not going to achieve anything like that in two years,

or 10 years or 20 years, or everything. It's never going to happen. But the article talks about two years. It also talks about the United States having just four years in order to make it all work. That in itself is very alarming because as these four years

gradually ebb away, aren't they going to start to panic and aren't they going to do even more extreme things as the time the clock ticks away. Yes, the short answer is yes, absolutely. Why do people think that they change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War? And why do you see them almost literally beating their chest almost every day and trying to

generate a warrior ethos, not just across the U.S. military, but they're trying to spread it out into the American public and something alarming that I hear them talk about, not just an American, but also European think tanks, which are, again, all funded by the exact same interests. They're talking about the necessity to get the public to understand the threat, which just means the big lie we're telling them, why they need to sacrifice a normal life and a prosperous future for our own self-serving agenda of hijableness. over the planet, they're talking about we need, if only we had a Pearl Harbor style event, if only something happened, then you start to worry because we've seen this before.

We've seen them do this many times. False pretexts or, again, as I mentioned earlier, no pretext at all. And you create a war and then you retroactively create the justification to keep it going. This is what, you know, for Iraq, for example, yes, they had this fabricated pretext. that hardly anyone bought into. Then they started the war, and then there were dead Americans coming home, and then you used that as a pretext to keep the war going. And so just imagine, and you can see how they're priming the public,

getting the public extremely angry and hateful at China. I even see people in the alternative media who just irrationally hate China and repeat verbatim state department propaganda about China. It works. It's working. And if they were able to trigger war, even if it was obviously the U.S. that provoked it. Once they see Chinese warships sinking American warships or they see the lopsided nature of the fighting,

don't you think they would be able to mobilize huge, huge segments of at least the American public? I think they would be able to. So this is what I'm worried about, this window of opportunity shrinking in the panic you just mentioned. I was recently in the United States. I went there for the first time in about 20 years. years a few weeks ago. And I was only there for a short time, but I was astonished at the

militarization in US society that I have seen. I mean, many, many more people in uniform than I could have imagined. I mean, the United States used to be a very civilian society. Now you see people in uniform often. And you see whole businesses that are basically connected. to the military. I mean, simple ones, like hot dogs, selling hot dogs, for example. I was astonished at the militarization in American life that has taken place over the last 20, 25 years. So just to say that, I'm not sure whether that has made Americans more anxious to engage in wars, but it is certainly something you actually see when you are there. Let's talk about the situation in Ukraine, because I do think that we are now close to a point where, as I said,

there's going to be a significant military crisis. And Putin is supposed to have told Trump, obviously, we have it filtered. We're dependent on what the media are telling us, and they're not a reliable narrative. And perhaps what Trump said to Zelensky, and Trump is hardly a reliable narrator. But the general consensus is, and it's not being contradicted in Moscow, is that Putin said,

look, either Ukraine now withdrawals from Donbass from this fortified line of cities, which apparently the Ukrainians are not prepared to do, or it is, from this point on, it is the destruction of Ukraine. That's where it's going to go. Now, if we start, start getting to that, and I don't myself think there's going to be a negotiated resolution.

What does the West do? What does the West actually do if these cities start to fall, if the Russians go on advancing westwards? Putin recently met with his generals. It was quite clear to those who can read the signs that he was talking about an operation across the river towards Western Ukraine along the Black Sea coast. How does the West respond to that? How do these people like West Mitchell and the various people in the think tanks react when they see not just their plan not succeeding but starting to go wrong in this extreme way? I mean, are they going to redouble demands for Tomolk missiles, more attacks, insurgencies against the Russians? we possibly looking at demands that at least Europeans go into Ukraine to fight the Russians?

How are they going to respond to this? Yeah, I think that actually is what they're going to do. As far as Ukraine is concerned, we all know that they knew before the war even started, that if this war started, Ukraine would be finished. It would almost certainly be destroyed. They understood that, that 2019 ran corporation paper extending Russia had a whole chapter about how disastrous a war between Ukraine and Russia that the U.S. provoked how disastrous that would be for Ukraine. So they don't care about Ukraine. It is disposable. Their objective is to raise the cost as high as possible, to stretch this out for as long as possible, to make sure that Russia is tied up in this and that it presents an opportunity for the U.S. through its proxies to attack and do as much damage.

as deep into Russia as possible while this is going on, while they also work on containing China and try to, if not, cut Russia off from China politically or diplomatically, do it physically through terrorism, through strikes, through deep strikes, and that policy of slimy slicing your way to higher levels of escalation. And I do think that Russia is going to have to finish this on the battlefield. And I think they are. And we can see them building. the capability up to do this. We see them doing that. And so it's not as if they're saying they want to do this, but they're not developing the ability to do this. While the U.S. is saying, we want Ukraine to win, or Europe is saying we want Ukraine to win, but they have no means of

actually doing that. And so, yes, that's what I see happening. I see a couple of possibilities. the United States accepting all of Russia's terms and at first, but then immediately after having European troops just go into Western Ukraine to de facto freeze the conflict and then get it going again. And then Russia has to make the decision, okay, they betrayed us. They violated every aspect of the agreement again, as usual. What do we do? Do we go to war with European troops inside Ukraine?

that will be a huge decision that Russia is going to have to make. It will be consequential. And that's what I'm worried will happen. And they could send the Europeans in any way. So this is something you can see the U.S. preparing Europe to do. This theater where they pretend that they're at distance with Europe over Ukraine is specifically to get the European public invested in this, at least theoretically. And so, yes, that's exactly what I think will happen.

And all of those things, continued escalation on the U.S. side and through its proxies, especially Europe, filling the breach as Ukraine's fighting capacity collapses. But Ukraine doesn't want to negotiate in that kind of way. It doesn't want to freeze. So, I mean, they're saying that they won't accept any retreats at all. They won't compromise on anything. So what does the United States do then? Does it force Ukraine?

Does it take Zelensky to one side and twist it? his arm and telling him, look, you've got a sign, or do they get rid of him and replace him with someone else who's more amenable so that they can execute this plan? There might be significant problems doing that in Ukraine at the present time, just saying. And if the war continues and there is no freeze, I have to say this. I mean, you know, I live in Britain. I have strong contacts, numerous contracts in Europe. Deploying troops, European troops, the fights in Ukraine,

would provoke opposition on a far bigger scale than anything we saw, for example, with the Iraq war. I mean, there would be absolutely no comparison. And it would provoke very likely a major political crisis. I mean, the European,

public, especially young Europeans who presumably would be asked to do the fighting, I think they would be massively opposed to doing it. In Germany, even the idea of doing it is deterring people from volunteering to join the Bundeswehr despite attractive packages. And the German government is even coming up with a lottery idea to conscript people into the Bundeswe in order to do this. So there are significant political problems to executing this plan. And I'm not sure it's possible, actually. I wonder about these things. But at the end of the day, if you're going to have large-scale organized opposition across Europe,

you usually need to have political parties involved in that. And all of the parties that I see are just various manifestations of MAGA in the United States. stage, which is just the deep state with MAGA slapped on it. And so what I worry about is they've created a political system where when people get upset with whoever is in office now, this opposition gets built up just like Georgia Maloney in Italy. And then once she gets in, before she's in, she says she's going to stop all of these things and she's against all of this. As soon as she's in, she's a big team player, just like President Trump. It almost seems like there's a pattern to all of this. And then if you look at Ukraine itself, I think there's a lot of

people that don't want to be fighting right now, but they are being forced to. And Ukraine has militarized itself and turned inward onto itself, onto its own population, and is sending these people against their will to the front line. I don't see why that would be a tall task for the rest of Europe to do something very similar. They probably would start with the Balkan states. And then they would spread their way out to nations they thought were. agreeable. They would have other nations sending material support. And again, just like with Ukraine, it's not that they think this will work. They know it will not work. They know Europe doesn't have the capacity to beat Russia and war. It's meant to raise the cost as high as possible. The US does

not care about Ukraine. It also doesn't care about the rest of Europe. Look at what they have done to Europe throughout this whole process since 2014, really. But then we get to another issue, because at that point, you're not just weakening Russia, but you're arguably weakening your own allies and involving them in a protracted war. And far from reducing your commitments, you're extending them further. Because the Europeans, if they find themselves in a conflict of that kind,

are going to come to the United States and say to them, look, we need your help. We can't take on the Russians by ourselves. so you're not reducing your commitments in Europe, you're overextending them. I just make this point, because by the way, I think you're probably right about the thinking,

but it is never ever properly thought through. And can I say this is always the problem with people who do grand strategy. They are always very clever. I mean, Mr. West Mitchell is very clever. You can write about the Byzantines and Habsburgs and all of that, very eruditely, and in my opinion,

entirely wrongly, but that's another thing. But the problem is, things never work out quite like that, or even at all like that. You can come up with these elaborate schemes, but problems always start to set in. He doesn't seem to acknowledge, for example,

in any writing that I have, of his that I have seen that China has a monopoly on rare earths and that the United States is dependent upon it. So can we talk about the diplomacy that we have seen over the last eight months? Did it actually exist? I mean, what was the plan? Was it to try to get the Russians to agree to a ceasefire? Something that the Russians always said they would never do. It is that that was all about, tried to persuade the Russians to stop? Or was there ever anything else? I think that's what I was. I think it's exactly what Secretary Hexat said all the way back in February. And actually what J.D. Vance said all the way back before the 2024 elections,

like a month or two before the elections, he said, we're going to have a demilitarized zone and basically just freeze the conflict. What is that? That's Mince 3.0. And then Secretary Hegson in February, once Trump came to office, he was going down the list. Europe's going to double down on its own military industrial production. It's going to rebuild the Ukrainian military. It's going to send European troops into Ukraine. He even said, this must not be Minsk 3.0, but it literally is. That's what he described in that whole statement. And from that point onward to today, that is exactly what they've done. Whatever the rhetoric, this is what they have actually done. That's what we have seen them do. So that's, that's, that's.

That was their plan up until now. I think that's, you know, it's not that they were just trying to trick Russia into Mintz 3.0. They're also trying to force them into it, too, with the attacks on the oil refineries. And there's probably a whole host of other threats that we're not hearing about, but things like the Tomahawk. And the Tomahawk isn't just the Tomahawk. It's the threat of we're just going to continue escalating with whatever we have. We will send it one way or another.

We'll have it used against you. and we'll just keep salami slicing our way into direct war with you. And you'll never be able to stop and point at any one single moment and say act of war. Yeah. The Russians, by the way, talk about this all the time. And they also talk about the fact that there's been all these assassinations and murders within Russia itself and that people have been targeted there. I mean, they're very well aware that all of this is going on. And they're also very well aware.

And Putin has alluded to it. as to who is really behind all of this sort of thing. I mean, they know that it's not the Ukrainians. So war, more war in Europe, war in the Far East as well. I mean, are we going to see a war against China too? I mean, is this the plan, a conflict with China over Taiwan? Because, I mean, the Russians have not been intimidated. up to now, and it's unlikely that they will be. Sanctions, they've brushed off. But if you fail

with the Russians, perhaps try it with the Chinese. Is this the thinking? Well, maybe they see it. Well, we're working on Russia right now. China is kind of in the clear, and Russia is able to depend on that. They're able to get support from outside of this conflict from China. What if we put Russia and China both in a conflict at the same time. Maybe we can pressure them both at the same time and there will be some sort of synergy that works in our favor. I don't think that the U.S. has any plan to go to direct war with China because that would be suicidal for the United States. It would be a disaster. What they had been planning for years and years now actually is this maritime blockade that I keep talking about. The entire U.S. Marine Corps has been reconfigured,

by the way, during the Biden administration, just in time for the Trump administration that's vocally eager to use this capability, they want to try to cut off Chinese maritime shipping. We already see them kind of testing it out, maybe a beta test against Russia and the shipment of Russian energy. They're very carefully, incrementally working their way towards doing that against Russia. France actually seized temporarily a ship as part of that process, and they will continue building pressure on that front, and they will continue working. working on it towards Russia.

And as I've mentioned previously, and I've covered for years, this is already waging an indirect war on China, killing Chinese people, targeting Chinese ambassadors. The Balochistan terrorists, the U.S. backs, tried to actually kill the Chinese ambassador to Pakistan. So they're already doing this. They're already trying to encircle China in the same way they've encircled Russia with hostile client states.

They've attempted regime change all along China's periphery. Nepal was a very recent example of Alex and Alexander. You both covered this in your videos, an obvious color revolution right on China's doorstep. And they've got the Philippines being incrementally turned into Southeast Asia's Ukraine. I see it here in Thailand. I'm based in Thailand. There's this constant NED-funded National Endowment for Democracy, any defunded campaign to turn Thai people against the Chinese.

who are linked in so many cultural, historical ways, but also today, largest trade partner, largest investor, building infrastructure that Thailand would never have been able to dream of with any sort of Western partner. And yet they're working on this media campaign to turn Thai people against China, this country that has a demonstratable,

objectively better deal to offer Thailand than the United States. And so this is there, it's not just in one area or the other, is a full-spectrum strategy spanning all of Eurasia, targeting Russia, China, and everybody in between. And this is what they're working on. To just say how far back it goes, I can remember reading the very first article that I saw,

and there may have been earlier ones, discussing a maritime blockade of China, and it was written during George W. Bush's time. And I remember thinking at the time, this is mad. The person who is writing this simply cannot be serious. And of course, we see that ever since then, the planning and the preparation for it has relentlessly and continuously continued. And now what seems to be an outlier,

an outlier idea, is now become almost mainstream. Well, Brian Brilettic, absolutely wonderful. Thank you again for answering my questions in the way that you have. done. By the way, you said that it was an honor and a pleasure to come onto these programs. It is an honor and pleasure for me to have you a guest and to put to you these questions. But I am sure that Alex has other questions from our viewers that he will long to put to you. So thank you again. Thank you.

You have 15 minutes, Brian? Yes, yes, absolutely. Cool. from, let's start from D.F. who says, is the Pakistan, Saudi and Qatar U.S. agreements a tripwire to draw in Pakistan and the U.S. into an Israeli-Iran war if Iranian missiles cross into their airspace? I would not put any faith in any of these alliances with Qatar. Qatar is a U.S. client state. And the U.S. has one of the largest, if not the largest base. in the region there in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as we know, is, again, just an extension of U.S.

foreign policy, as is Israel. And so Pakistan, U.S. has huge influence over certain sections of Pakistani military and political life. I think one of those prevalent factions is in power right now. And that's why we see all of this taking place. And what it does is it gives hope to average people, spanning these nations, but it's not going to amount to anything in favor of the actual people living in any of these targeted countries.

From Tick-Honed 785, My Three Heroes, Brian is Always Right in the End, every single time, Bringing Truth. I listen every day to both Alexes and the Duran for years and years. Thank you for that. And from locals, Brian, you've answered this many times, but it's an interesting question that we get off in. on digital IDs. There's a lot of resistance to digital ID and possible future digital control of money in England. To what extent are these controls already present in Russia and in China?

And you have good knowledge on China, the social credit score, how they work in China. If you can explain that again. Yeah, there is no social credit store in China. If you read the Western media articles lying to you about this, If you read the whole thing, somewhere in the bottom, they will admit that it doesn't exist. So you should first go back and read those articles that got you hysterical in the first place. Read that and see that even they are admitting that they're lying to you. And this is what the U.S. and the Western media in general, this is what they do to all of the countries they don't like and want to cut down. Now, China does have all kinds of, you know, like cashless systems.

You have to understand, though, that this is technology. Technology in and of itself is not good or bad. It is who's using it and why. And if you go to China, just go to China, see for yourself, is this a positive thing that the way they're running their society isn't working? And then go to the West where they're using the exact same things, but they're abusing it and then ask the same question. And it's a very obvious answer.

And so that's all I guess I could say is like try to do more independent research on what China is actually like the most basic. The basic thing you can do is go to YouTube, type in 4K walking or driving China. Just name any city or just China in general and just look at them and look at do these people look like they're all prisoners? Do they look like they're enjoying their life better than you and the people around you in your community? Ask yourself that question. As far as Russia goes, my knowledge on Russia and what they're doing with digital IDs is that they, from my understanding of things, Russian citizens have an ID that gets them into most of the services of the government.

So if they want to do something with the government, a driver's license or anything like that, then they have a central portal. That's my understanding of things. I could be wrong about that, but when I was in Moscow recently, that was how people were explaining it to me, but people that are watching from Russia, feel free to put in the comments section what is going on with. with a digital footprint or digital IDs in Russia. Mr. Gatfly says,

given all these speculations about negotiations, what is the impact on Russian goals vis-a-vis Odessa? That's a good question. I think Alexander will probably have lots to say about this. Just real quick, I don't know. And since this all began, I always said that, you know, it looks very close on a map, but operationally is very difficult to get there.

Yeah, I think straightforward, and I said this right from the beginning, I cannot imagine an outcome to the war that would be acceptable in Russia, which did not cover Odessa in some way. And that can extend through all kinds of things, you know, either direct reunification between Adessa and Russia itself, or some establishment of local autonomy there, or federalization, which, Alex and I have talked about or something of that kind.

My sense is that over the last few months, perhaps the last two or three months, the Russians, particularly the Russian military, have been dropping very obvious hints that if there isn't a negotiated resolution of this conflict, then they're going to cross the river eventually in some way and in some form. And that Odessa, they have their Adessa, in their sites.

There was the incident when Gerassim, who was the chief of the general staff, appeared with a map behind him, which showed Odessa as the entire Black Sea coast of Ukraine, as Russian territory. And there was an even, in my opinion, and again, this is something you have to understand the Russian political and military mindset, especially, to understand. There was another incident a few weeks ago, about three weeks ago, when on the occasion of his birthday, Putin took all of the generals who were involved in the military operation to the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg and pointed them to the tombs of Peter

the Great and Catherine the Great. Peter the Great defeated the Swedish, the Great, defeated the Swedes, the West, in other words, in Ukraine. So that highlights what that's all about. Catherine the Great is the Empress under whose rule Russia defeated the Ottomans and gained control of Crimea and the territory upon which Adessa itself was built. And she was the founder of Odessa. gave it its name. So this was a clear sign that, as I said, I think this thinking is now more than just an aspiration.

It's starting to evolve into a plan. And if you read again Putin's comments to the generals, while he didn't actually mention Adessa, it clearly, to my mind, hinted in that way. Sahew 100 says thank you Durian A team Alex Alexander and Brian

Mr. Dasvilla says if there's someone who deserves a Nobel Prize, it's Brian Berletic for being a legend. I don't want it. It's basically very angry with you. It's basically the deep state

stamp of approval. So for Trump claiming that he's fighting the deep state is pretty bizarre that he wanted it so badly. I mean, I wouldn't want anything to do with that at all because that is, I mean, look at all the peaches, look at all the people that have been awarded. It's used to build up the credibility of people who have no credibility so that it helps perpetuate U.S. and Western hegemony worldwide.

That's what it is. Since we've, since we're talking about the Nobel Peace Prize, here's a question on Venezuela. From the alchemist, think Trump's stalling. Russia so they can finish new weapons. And could the U.S. be using Venezuelan waters as a secret testing ground? I know. It's actually openly stated that they want to test new capabilities in the Western hemisphere away from nations like Russia and China as if they don't have liaisons and

all kinds of contacts in the Western atmosphere watching all of this. But they have said that. And I agree with Alexander because I listen to Alexander and Alaskin, almost daily. And I believe you did say that it will be like a decapitation strike and they will use elements on the ground probably what's very similar to what they did in Libya and what they've been trying to do to Iran. I think that's what they'll do. And I also think that people might believe that while they're focusing on the Western Hemisphere, I think it has everything to do with Russia and China. They said, this is one of your allies and we're going to

we're going to burn it to the ground. This is on the table with everything else. We will burn Venezuela to the ground. All of your investments, all of your ties, all of these people, they will be gone. I think that's part of what's going on here. Yeah. This basket says, Brian, why do people fall for the same propaganda? Because they're human beings.

They have limited time in their daily life. We, we, Alex, Alexander, myself, we have the ability to do this full. time because of the support our audience gives us. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to. And we'd probably be, I used to fall for it. I voted for George Bush Jr. all the way back in 2000. And I joined the U.S. Marines. I was very enthusiastic about it the first year or two. And then I woke up. You have time for two more questions, Brian? Sure. Sure. From Red Panda Pi. Hi, the Duran. Great show with Brian. As always, I noticed almost nobody talked about Jolani's trip to Russia. A lot of speculation about the expedition of Assad.

Do you know more about it? Thank you. Jolani and Russia. I don't know the details, but I understand pragmatism, but I'm not even sure what is practical about this. It's a very bad look. This guy was running on behalf of the United States, proxies that were killing Russians for years and years.

They laid down their life in Syria to protect the government there, to protect a sovereign nation against U.S. instigated regime change. And now he's in Moscow. I get that Russia has their base there. They have their long-term strategy. But when you do things like that, there's a cost. There's a cost. Somewhere, someplace, among some people, there will be a cost for that.

I don't know. Just it seems there's probably a way you could do that without having him come to Moscow. Alexander, do you have any thought then? Yeah, I don't think it was about the basis. I think that basically the Russians themselves have been a long debate in Russia about the basis. Many people in Russia say these bases are a problem. They are an overcommitment. They're too far from our territory.

They're in territory, which is ultimately hostile to us. Let's get out of Syria entirely. I think that what it's about is something much more pressing and ultimately what caused the Russians to get into Syria in the forefront. first place. And that is that they don't want Syria to become a place that could be used to fester and mobilize and organize Ghardi insurgences that might once again be inserted into the Caucasus. This is clearly set out by the Russians at the time when they intervened in Syria back in 2015. It's one reason, by the way, why the Russians have been working closely with the Taliban.

What they're basically saying to governments like the Taliban and to Jalani is this, look, we're not going to interfere with you. We're not going to try and cause trouble for you. We might even provide you with a certain degree of help. For example, Syria relies on Russia for its imports of food. But in return, you must promise that there will be no re-export of Jesus. Jihadism back into the Caucasus or into other parts of Russia. It is a very ugly look. Many people in Russia don't like it, to put it mildly.

I gather that in Chechnya, especially, interestingly, it was controversial. But there it is. That's Russian pragmatism and that's how they do their things. Dr. Marifa 546 says, great show, Brian and Duran, always informative and a keen follower. Could Brian and Alexander speak to how the process to co-opt and construct post-colonial states in Asia and Africa, structurally created and facilitated regime change movements? Yeah, okay, I could try to do a real quick version. What the United States does through

the National Endowment for Democracy, which still exists, its website still up, was not defunded was not dismantled. USAID is under the State Department. All those programs are still operational. I track them. I document them. And what they do is they build up in opposition and all the supporting components.

So they have opposition, a party, a street movement. They get into the education system. They get into the media. And what they begin to do is build a parallel society, side by side with the existing indigenous society and its institutions. Then when it's big enough, it reaches critical mass. They do a color revolution.

They try to topple or at least weaken the targeted government, all of its institutions, culture, everything. And then eventually what they do is they override it, like space on your hard drive. They just override it with this thing that they created for years and years, millions of dollars through the NED, Open Society, all these other funding mechanisms. And then they have a client state that serves Washington's interest

at the absolute interest of all of those people in that country, whether they understood that or not when they went out to protest, it doesn't matter. Ukraine is a perfect example. This is what they did for years and years at the end of the Cold War, all the way up to 2014. There were many unsuccessful attempts to overthrow the Ukrainian government. They finally did it in 2014.

And this project that they were working on, that didn't happen just in 2014. That is the product of decades of interference and building up the band rights. Am I allowed to say that? Sorry, if not. Sorry. Yeah, absolutely.

We say it all the time, the band, right? Yeah, the other word that I have to watch out for. So they're building up the band rights. They're building up people that kind of lean to the Western, fake, liberal, all of that. And then it took over. And now you have probably millions of people that went off to their death or maimed or they're watching their country burn to the ground. And that was all part of that process.

That's how they do it. And that is the final product. a country willing to commit collective suicide for U.S. interests to no benefit of its own. I've just been to a country that's been through the whole process that Brian described and which is showing tentative signs of coming out on the other side, which has been through it all, experienced it all, seen how it's used, that's become profoundly disillusioned by it. And that is Georgia.

And I had lots of... explanations and descriptions of how the whole structure works, how you pour money into the universities, you basically capture the academics, and that is an essential part of the process, because through the academics you get to the students, you buy up the media, especially the news media, you establish close connections with local business. businessmen who then become oligarchs. You establish connections with organized crime networks. This is, again, not to be underestimated,

because organized crime networks have the ability to control neighborhoods and communities and to even get people onto the street in some places. And they can play a particular role if you need to carry out specific acts of violence. And, of course, ultimately, you reach out into the political class itself into the police agencies and all of those kind of things. And it's what eventually, and of course you create the NGO network that provides the local structures, the officers, if you like, of the regime change army that you're creating on the ground

and who then are the mechanism through which you actually govern. It's the NGOs who basically take over the government and replace the civil service. Now, the thing is, and we go back exactly to what Brian was saying, the problem is that ultimately the structure that you create is focused on American and Western interests, not local ones. And what happened in Georgia, going back exactly to the points that Brian was saying, is that the Georgians were asked basically to sacrifice themselves to support Ukraine and the war, to go to war against Russia.

Except the Westerners told them, you will lose, you'll be completely obliterated, but once we won the war in Ukraine, we will come and save you. And this was the point when the Georgians finally said, enough enough, this has gone as far as he can go. This has to stop. And when there was a major revulsion,

within Georgian society against this. But anyway, I saw it all. And every single part of this regime change, color revolution, operation, dovetails with every other. And it is an extremely well-thought-out process. And of course, the one thing you need is lots of money, and that is, of course, what the West has. Yes, absolutely.

Brian, one more quick question before you go from Matthew. Sure, sure. Do you agree? It's actually for me and Alexander, but he asks about you. Do you agree with Brian that a larger European war is inevitable? Is a larger European war inevitable, Brian? I think the U.S. is going to have, they've already fed Ukraine in, you know, the last branch is going into the wood chipper, and now they're just looking at Europe as a big,

big old pile of wood to put it next. That's honestly how I feel. And I don't think Europeans have the ability, people that are aware of this and don't want to, they're politically captured. This whole process that we were just talking about, Alexander and I, they've done this to Europe through the European Union. That is the ultimate layer of control over the individual European countries, Australia, Canada. These are not nations with agency. They don't have independent foreign policy. They do whatever the U.S. and the core special interest, the corporate interest, them to do. So the ability for Europeans to say no is very minimum, just like it is in Ukraine. Ukrainians don't really have the choice to say, no, unfortunately, I see it coming.

Well, I don't want this to happen because I don't want this to happen. I'm going to take a more optimistic view. And I'm going to say that I think that the resistance in Europe to being fed into this kind of war is probably going to be very, very strong. After all, going back to our discussion, to what I just said, in Georgia, that is exactly when they finally said no. They were not prepared to be thrown into the furnace of the war simply in order to satisfy American needs. So Georgia found the strengths within itself to say no.

If little Georgia can do it, then we in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain have no excuse. And if, on the contrary, we do go and throw ourselves into this war in that conceivable, in that appalling way, then frankly all I can say is we have been. brought it on ourselves, and we must take responsibility. And it is the end of European civilization, the whole history of it. It will have come to an end, because that would be an act of suicide of a civilization of the kind I have never seen. Yeah, I hope it doesn't happen. Just for the record, I hope it doesn't happen either.

Agreed. On that note, Brian Berletic, thank you so much for joining us on the Duran. And once again, where can people follow your work? I just find the new Atlas on YouTube, and then in the video description, just hit more, and then all the other places you can find and follow my work will be there. I want to thank you again for having me on, and thank you, everyone who tuned in.

Thank you. The always excellent Brian Berletic. I have all of his links in the description box down below, and I will add them as a pin comment. And thank you very much, Brian, and for giving us your time and coming on this program and answering all our questions in that way. And we look forward to having you again.

Yes. Thank you. Take care, Brian. Bye-bye. All right, Alexander, you want to answer the rest of the questions? Absolutely. All right, let's do it. Let's start things off with Nikos, who says,

Duran, I don't believe Putin offered something less than June 14 lies. But I've asked you if you thought Medvedev could be a threat. Isn't he loyal? Medvedev a threat to Putin? No, I don't think he will try to overthrow Putin or anything of that time. But I think that Medvedev has clearly either appointed himself or has become designated as the voice within the Russian leadership of those who want to take the strongest and clearest line.

And I thought his latest comment might have been the most interesting one he's made throughout the entire war, actually. He said that we must not only win, we must make it clear to the Ukrainians that they have lost. That is essential in order to bring this whole process finally to an end. And I have to say, I think that this wasn't just addressed to the Western public or the Russian public. I think it was addressed to Putin himself. Yeah, Bo Omega 22 said Canada was taken decades ago, 1960s to the 70s, before I was born, the country was lost, tried three times to vote in a party of libertarian Canada first candidates, failed to win a single seat.

Mo Omega, from DWS 316, did you already discuss the Hungarian refinery fire attack? No, we haven't actually. And I think this is a good topic, but we will probably discuss it in a program, in one of our programs. Because clearly there's going to be an awful lot. Let me remind you of something that Alex said on, I think it was our latest program in which we were talking about the negotiations of the summit. And what a dangerous thing it would be to hold the summit in Budapest. All of the alphabet of agencies is going to be working there. The Ukrainians are going to be there. Budapest is. a dangerous place to hold a summit of this guy and um you can be absolutely sure that all kinds of strange things are going to happen in budapest over the next couple of weeks yeah i almost wish they they don't announce a date just kind of surprise everybody i don't know you know because they're

going to be planning they're already planning all these agencies and all these forces anyway um Elza says, a good relationship with the U.S. provides security for Russia. Putin had a great relationship with Germany and France 20 years ago, but the governments were removed and there was the coup in Kiev. So there is no other way to deal with the West. I think that's why Putin is investing so much in the relationship with Trump. No question. And it has been what he has been working towards for some years now.

I mean, he spoke, I remember, in November. to the Russian Foreign Ministry, and he outlined his strategy there. He said that we can't go on constantly facing this conflict with the West in Europe. It is a massive distraction, and it is draining time and resources, which we need to focus on our own internal development. So we need to come to some kind of long-term understanding with the Americans in our interests, but also ultimately in theirs. And he's worked to that objective, as Putin always does, when Putin gives himself an objective, he works to it methodically and consistently. What I also remember is when he made that speech to the Russian foreign ministry, there were tit.

from the Russian diplomats in the room. And he responded to that. And he said, I know very, very well that many of you don't agree with me and think that this is impossible. It's fascinating, by the way, to go back to the Kremlin website and to read these comments.

And you see that even then, in Russia, there were skeptics who doubted that this could ever be achieved. But that's exactly what Putin is trying to do. And you can see that from the perspective, of Russian national interests. It makes rational sense. The problem he has is that in order to make it work,

he needs a rational interlocutor to work with in Washington. And that's the problem. Aruka, thank you for that super sticker. From John Ski, pay attention to what's going on. L'Alo Lira. Thank you for that. John. From Molle 6923, hi Alex Alexander. Do you see the end game in Ukraine? When will Putin realize that Trump is toying with him? Greetings from Brussels as well. I think over the last couple of weeks, as I've said, I think there's been a lot of discussion about this whole situation in Moscow. I think it's been put to Putin that this is, that Putin has

just been strung along. I think there have been people who've been saying that. I think Putin has half come to that opinion himself. I got the sense from reading Ushikov's briefing that this was not an easy conversation, to put it mildly, between Putin and Trump, and that Putin, to some extent, went for Trump. Remember, Putin is a very polite man, so there would have been no bang on the table

or shouting or raising your voices or anything of that kind, but, you know, Putin would nonetheless make his views clear enough, and if Trump is being reported accurately and if Trump is reporting Putin accurately, then Putin in effect delivered an ultimatum and said, look, either we sort this out now, the Ukrainians pull out of Donbass, and we come to a resolution based on Istanbul plus, or it's the end of Ukraine. And there really isn't any further point in discussing or going to. over this again and again and talking about it further.

That it seems to me is what has happened. Yeah. R.W. Eswal says Trump is sincere, but he doesn't have the car keys. I as a very, well, I think that's right. I think with Trump, he's sincere part of the time. That's the trouble. I think that sometimes he's sincere in one way direction and sincere in other directions. I don't think he's sincere. He is, I know people come back about this, but I don't personally think that he is a deep, cunning, you know, manipulative person in quite that way. I do think he thinks these things out. But I think that he listens to what Putin says and makes absolute sense to him and then he goes along with it.

And then he listens to what Kellogg and Macron and all of those awful people stood. and Brutus says and then that shifts him and he's under pressure from Lindsay Graham and all of that and he loses focus and the whole thing gets

you know defalls back to where it was before I think that's the problem Zisti Kalyani's thank you for a super sticker Sakewa 100 is I think that's Sangeva a new handle

Oh wow Anyway Medvedev, rather than being hardline is likely saying for consumption of the West, what Putin or official channels cannot say openly plausible deniability. I get the sense that he has the full backing of the Kremlin. I get the sense that Medvedev is talking fully within a consensus inside the Kremlin. Where I think that there might be some difference is with, Putin himself. But overall, I do agree with you. I mean, I think that Putin and Medvedev,

for most of the war, have played, you know, the hard cop, soft cop act. Medvedev, the hard cop, Putin the soft cop. And it has been intentional. But I think that this time, the wording of that telegram post from Medvedev did look to me, consistent with everything else that we have seen, to be a message to Putin himself. David, thank you for that tip. From Jim Lysak, thank you, excellent insights. Thank you for that. Jim. Michael Seymour says the U.S. went from no rivals to panic about the U.S.

dollar, no longer being the international reserve currency, which would put the U.S. in a great financial crisis. Well, absolutely. Can I just say, I mean, this is the extraordinary thing, 1991, the United States, at the top of the world, and the way things have, you know, turned out, the fall, if you like, and I don't actually like to use the word full, but from that position of enormous strength to what we see today,

it's been extraordinarily, exceptionally fast, and that does beg questions about the way in which the United States is foreign policy and its domestic policy has been managed over the last 30 years. Nikki Ball, thank you for that super chat. Hubert, thank you for that super sticker. Willem, thank you for that super sticker. Eric Hatchett says, Western intelligence couldn't see that Russia was and could scale up. I work with people on the farm who are surprised when harvest rolls around.

Absolutely true. You know, interestingly enough, Steve Wakel, and an interview, which he was discussing the latest peace negotiations in the Middle East. And he said, you know, he and Kushner, who was with him, Jared Kushner, were getting all these briefings from the CIA. And they were completely wrong. So they finally decided that in order to actually conduct the negotiations properly,

they had to stop listening to the CIA. Now, the same thing needs to be done with Russia. The CIA does not give good intelligence about Russia. No part of the US intelligence community does, in my opinion. The days when they used to, when they used to know reasonably well what every factory in Russia was doing, who was going up and who was going down and what their opinions were, those days in the 60s and 70s are longer. Elsa says one day the Department of War will receive the Nobel Peace Prize

and the confiscation of Russian frozen assets will get the Nobel Prize of Economics. Absolutely. After all, was it that Georgia well said, war is peace, ignorance is strength, and I can't remember what the other one was the third one was. Natalia says the EU is pushing for Ukraine to join the EU without all the EU states agreeing. How is it possible? And what will be the implication of it when Russia wins the war? Is it how the EU will start the war with Russia? Well, in theory, it is impossible.

It completely violates the Lisbon Treaty and all the other treaties, extending all the way back to the setting up of the European Union. They're also talking about Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union without voting rights, which is absurd. The whole point about being a member of the European Union is that you do have voting rights. But does any of that surprise you anymore? I mean, the EU has long since become disconnected, unanchored, if you like, from the laws and treaties and regulations. and agreements which created it. It's become a self-perpetuating

Frankenstein's monster that does whatever it chooses. I mean, that's what it is today. And yes, you know, Ukraine joins the EU in this bizarre way. That doesn't stop the war. It doesn't make any difference to the war. But of course, if the Russians win, then the EU, the people in the EU, Ursula and Macron, and all of the rest will say, look, look what the Russians do. They attack Europe. They attack and destroy a European Union country. That proves what wicked people they are and why we need to defend ourselves against them.

So you can see how it plays into the narrative also. RW. Swal says war is better. War war is better than Jaja is what they think. Absolutely. Well, they said so. I've read several articles. I've seen several European officials say, continuing the war is better than a bad peace.

Because they don't define what they mean by a bad piece. A bad piece is a piece on realistic terms, but they prefer indefinite war to that. Yeah, George Washington, the 8th says the world teacher will be seen, heard by all as soon as we're ready has the physical body huge cover-up UFOs too for details search Benjamin cream at wiki quotes okay oh wow let's see i can't wait yeah Matthew says so what will happen in the end will america adjust its policy position or will it pursue to the level of global war you know this is where i again the wish is the father to the thought i mean i was recently

in the united states i like being in the united states where you always used to like being in the United States. There's an awful lot about the United States that, you know, I massively admire. I look at the architecture. I think about the extraordinary achievements of the U.S. economies in the past. I am very, very familiar with its literature, for example, which I love. I want the United States to change a leave. One day, maybe people in the United States.

And when I say people, I mean, the elites of the United States will rediscover a republic in this. And all of that, all that implies. And they will understand that this new global system that is being created, far from being something that is antithetical to the United States, is complementary to it. And they will embrace it and they will work with it. And then the United States might prosper and become a good country again. But will that happen?

Well, that is only something Americans can choose. Boa Omega 22 says Rocket J. Squirrel asked who the spook he was talking to was. CIA mean anything to you. Rocky said, yeah, a contradiction in terms. Subversive humor 10 years ahead of their time. Bill Ward and Jay Scott. Well, indeed. Thank you for that.

And we go to Traveler SF. Thank you for that. Super chat. Heinz Heinz Kutch, thank you for that, super chat. Ladoshka says, hi Alexander. The difference with Georgia is that her politics finally said no. In Europe, especially in the UK, there are no such politicians. Well, I don't know.

I mean, put aside the question of whether Farage will say yes or no. And by the way, I think Farage is an extremely clever man. in some respects, and I think he does understand the folly of this policy. But, you know, let's put him aside. Every day, one gets the sense more and more that there are people in London, in the political system, who have increasing doubts about this policy. I mean, we've had military people as well. I mean, Lord Richards, for example, has come out and said what he said. So, you know, I'm not going to say definitely that there is no one in Britain in the political system or who might emerge out of the political system who could decide to change. Again, let me repeat what I said.

It's a council of despair and I don't believe in councils of despair. I prefer councils of hope. And yes, it may be hope over experience. But let's cling on to that. Let's continue our argument. Let's make our gaze. Let's hope that we will be listened to and heard and that sanity will ultimately come back and prevail. Heinz Koch has given us five gift memberships. Wow. What does that?

How does that work, guys, in the chat? Five gift memberships to the Duran. Thank you, Heinz, for that. Jungle Jin says chances of Putin being merkled again. they're not non-existence. And if you go to Russian media, social media, even some official media, there's always that tension and nervousness there.

Whenever Putin and Trump speak, in advance of it, you get that sense of tension. People say to themselves, will he make the concessions? Will he surrender something important? And up to now he never has. From Dr. Marifa 546 says, thanks for the articulate response.

Historically, how did processes like Lancaster conferences, the French equivalent, create vulnerable states and conditions for what Alexander and Brian have described and now seen in Asia and Africa? Well, this is an enormous question. If you're talking about colonial policies, the policies of the British and French governments in the 19th and 20th centuries, Well, that is something that I think would require a huge discussion,

probably in a dedicated program and a very long program, if I have to say. Suffice to say that everything that the Americans do, what is it, that is done today, not just by the Americans, but by the West used to happen before. We have elaborated it and refined it. We use social media now, which didn't exist in the 19th century, for example. But, for example, educating elites to think in a Western way was something that the British absolutely perfected in the 19th century and getting, winning them over to your side, persuading them that your civilization, your way of doing things is superior to their own. So there's nothing new there.

Commander Crossfire says, how could Putin allow that Syrian terror freak in Moscow outside a cage? How many Russians died fighting that lost war? Who wouldn't Putin talk to? Well, if you ask the Russians, mostly they say to you, look, we don't have the privilege of not talking to people. We must talk to everybody. and that is what we do. After all, Putin has talked to Erdogan, in fact, has a relationship with Erdogan,

who is much more of a rattlesnake, if I can say so, than Al-Shara Jolani is. So absolutely, it is not a good look. It's not popular with many people in Russia, but it is something that Russian statecraft does. Ladoshka says, I don't think there will be any positive outcome in Budap, after the summit, in a few days after we will hear again that Trump disappointed.

I would be surprised. I think it's entirely like if I was going to, if I was a gambling man, I would put money on. Commander Crossfire says, I wonder if Georgia owes its past existence to Putin. Well, probably. Who knows? I mean, the fact is the Russians could have occupied Belisi and made the entirely wise decision not to do so. Georgia is a very educated society and eventually as I said people did push back and there were certain aspects of Georgian society the important role of the church of religion

the sense that the West was trying to subvert certain traditional values that the Georgians had. All of that did play a part. But this is a bit. a complex story. I don't pretend I have all the answers. But nonetheless, the fact remains that Georgia said no. Katie did online says, do you think Trump wants peace? I think part of him does. And I don't think it's just about the Nobel Prize, actually. I think that Trump probably at some level senses that peace is good for the United States and for what he wants to do there.

But the trouble with Trump is that he also is terrified ever of showing weakness. He interprets achieving peace as achieving a situation where the United States, which in this case is conflated for him with the person of Donald Trump wins. And that gets in the way of everything he's trying to do. From Andrea Mayope says the point of an EU-Ukraine having no voting rights sets a precedent of a hierarchy of states in the EU. Hungary could be added to that list. Absolutely. I think it's a disastrous idea. I think it's an awful idea.

And it is one, let me repeat again, that is completely contrary to the treaties. If we get into this situation, then as I said, we have a situation where not only is the no accountability, but there are no rules other than the ones that Brussels makes up. Once they have your currency, once you're on the euro, they don't need any treaties or any Lisbon anything. They control your currency. You're done. You're cooked. You are cooked.

They want to do away with the treaties. They want to do away with the treaties, which is why Hungary should never get into the euro. Stay away from the euro. Correct. Yeah, because that's where they have you. Iranian kiddo says, people expect Trump to be like emperor, emperor Domitian, a highly effective autocrat. who gets everything done, except that he's an 80-year-old show host with a fake spray town. Your erudition always impresses me.

I'm going to be a demission. No two leaders I can think of are lesser life than demission and Donald Trump. Anyway, suffice to say, I agree. I agree with you. I mean, fundamentally, I think you're right. Natalia says, but talking to Trump, Putin wins time. The escalation goes quite slowly while Russia uses this time and is winning on the battlefield. I think it is a smart move.

What do you think? A lot of people say this, and I think there is some point in this. Bear in mind, though, that doing all of this must be taking an awful lot of Putin's time. And Putin has many, many other things to do. I mean, he's got all kinds of, I mean, he has, for example, he's been discussing recently an awful lot about demographics and family-related issues. And that requires a lot of attention. And instead of giving it attention, he's having to have long conversations with Donald Trump and meet with him and put himself at risk in the way that he's going to do in order to meet Trump. And all perhaps for nothing at all, perhaps you find you can buy yourself.

a few more weeks and months, and then you have to do it all over again, and again, and again, it is, it is, it is exhausting. Andrew Novak says, thank you gentlemen. Thank you, Andrew for that. Samuel Maroni says, what is your best estimate of losses on both sides? I think I know what the Ukrainian losses are, so I'm not going to, but as it was provided to me by somebody with contacts in the American government, I'm not going to. going to say. What I will say is this. It is at the very, very much at the highest end of the estimates, not the absolute highest end, but at pretty much the highest end of the estimates.

About the Russian losses, I have come to the view that the information that's been provided by media zona is probably overstating them. I think that there's a degree of double counting going on there. And they become contaminated by, I think, confirmation bias. It was doing better. MediaZerner was doing better about a year ago and then something happened. And then something happened, exactly. The media or the government got involved.

Exactly, exactly. But bear my mind, when you go back and look at who they are, I mean, they're absolute Russian opposition. I mean, connected with Pussy Riot and all of that. So, you know, they were always perhaps less reliable than people assumed. But anyway, I mean, they're still probably the closest to what, you know, you'd be looking at, you know, which is, but but not fully reliable anymore. A fraction of what the Ukrainian loss figures are. Linda says Russia can't even capture Donetsk after four years, comparing Russia.

to United States military power is a joke. Well, the United States has failed in all its various wars recently. The question is not whether you capture any particular place by a particular point in time. It's that when you do capture that place, do you hold it? And what is the result? Yeah, it's pretty useless to capture a place and not be able to hold it after 20 years.

Yeah. Bo Gruntman says, Alexander, can you explain in a little more detail what the strategy is in Europe when it comes to Ukraine? Are they all just puppets of the USA? They seem nothing but self-destructive. It's very difficult to understand whether there is a strategy anymore. What they want, what the objective currently is, is to keep the war going, and to keep the going on in war going indefinitely, or so it seems.

I don't think they have any plan beyond that. If they do, they haven't explained it. Alexander, that's everything. That's everything. Well, an absolutely great live stream. I must admit, I mean, conversations with Brian are always so massively satisfying. An excellent live. Excellent guests.

Excellent questions. Flip moderators Zaryel, Harry and who else? I think I saw Peter in there as well. So thank you to our moderators.

And I think that's the live stream. I don't see any other questions. We've got some videos to upload Alexander. Thank you to everyone that watched us on Odyssey, on Rockfin, on Rumble,

YouTube and our locals community, the duran.locals.com. Iranian Kido says the problem with Trump is that he got an attention span of five minutes. Probably true. All right. On that note, from Iranian Kido, we will end the live stream. Take care, everybody.