The Duran Podcast - US/NATO escalation to strike Russia

Episode Date: May 30, 2024

US/NATO escalation to strike Russia

All right, Alexander, let's talk about what is happening in Ukraine. The Russians continue to take village after village, at least that's the way it seems. Every other day, a new village is being captured by the Russians, the Ukraine military, is spread out across the entire front line, which was the purpose of the the offensive in the Kharkov region. A lot of talk about an offensive in the Sumi area as well. And we have a lot of panic in the collective West, and they continue to talk about green lighting weapons,

NATO weapons to strike Russian territory, even though the Italians seem to be pushing back that idea. but the rest of the collective West, the Italians, Hungarians, take those two out and you pretty much have the rest of the collective West going along with using weapons to hit Russian territory, a very, very bad idea. Anyway, what is going on? Well, I think the first thing to say is that there is now, I think, no doubt at all, that we're looking at a Russian offensive right across the front lines.

Now, you mentioned that the Russians are taking villages one day after another, you know, whole streams of villages falling. I think talking about these as villages is a bit of a misunderstanding, is that what they really are are component parts of a Ukrainian defence line. And some of these places very heavily fortified. And of course they're not just taking villages. They're also close to capturing small towns. Krasnogorovka, for example, which the German media now is basically telling us is about to fall.

There's an epic battle going on for Chasafiak, but everybody can see that the outcome there is really hardly in doubt. And I read somewhere in one of the Western media outlets, comments by Ukrainian-Skern. soldiers who are trying to defend in Chassev Yard, and they're talking about the situation being catastrophic and irretrievable. They're massively outgunned, that the Russians are far too strong, that they're putting up as much resistance as they can in Chassehyaar, but it's only a question of time before the defences there collapse. And this is going on right across the front lines in every part of the front lines. It's even happening in Kharkov region.

Now, you know, the point about the Russian advance into Kharkov region is, as we discussed in many programs, it was to extend the front lines, put more pressure on the Ukrainians. Sirsky and Zelenskyy redeployed huge numbers of troops that Ukraine is desperately short off to try to plug the holes in... Kharnikov region. They've both recently been talking about the Ukrainians launching countertacks in that area. Some commentators took that seriously, including sections of the Russian media as well. And this morning we got news that there have indeed been advances in the Kharnikov area, particularly in the town of Volchansk, that they've not been achieved by the Ukrainians as a result of

counter-attacks. It seems that the Russians are continuing to advance there still. And so it's a Ukrainian front line that is being extended, stretched to breaking point, and a Ukrainian army that is being stretched to breaking point. And we've had article after article, commentary, after commentary report, after report, comments appearing on telegrams, channels on Twitter X, all from Ukrainians now saying that they're short of everything. They're short of men. They're short of machines. They're short of shells. That problem has not been resolved. They're short of drones. The Russians have far more drones than they do. They're short of men. And increasing doubts now about the mobilisation law making any difference and about the Ukrainian

army being very depressed and the soldiers being, you know, losing belief in what they're doing. So all of this very bad. And it is important, again, to reiterate, that the bulk of the Russian forces that are gathering in Western Russia have still not been committed to the battle. And we've seen reports that the Russians are building a major, um, logistical hub and centre in Lugansk region, in other words, in Dombas, which looks like it's intended to result in, you know, to provide a base for further advances westwards. And of course, we had those reports about two weeks ago. In fact, not the reports, they're confirmation that the Russians are building a new air base in our Belgarod region, which also looks like it's intended to

advance, support further westward advances. And so that's the situation. And I think the important thing to say is that even in the West now, you don't find those commentaries any longer about Ukraine winning the war. Even people like Timothy Gartanash, fervid support of Ukraine in the media in Britain, in Britain is now accepting that Ukraine is losing the war. So everybody can see that Ukraine is losing the war, but everybody can also see that the West's credibility now is on the line. And, well, we had the panic a few weeks ago with Macron talking about sending troops to Ukraine. That's abated

slightly, but it gets revived every so often. The Baltic states talking about sending troops to Ukraine, Poland, or at least Radek Sikorsky, talking about Poland sending troops to Ukraine, and of course, lots of terrifying articles appearing in the media, won by Eli Cohen in the foreign of foreign policy, basically calling for unlimited war against Russia. It's astonishing, horrifying article, but it's not, you know, it's one of numerous articles like this. And of course, lots of talk about authorising Ukraine to launch missile strikes deep into Russia. This seems to be the current idea. It's found all sorts of advocates

in the United States, some apparently in Britain. The Italians, as you rightly say, dead opposed. In Germany, a divided government, but Olaf Schultzner coming out saying he's dead opposed. Yen Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General,

of course, saying that he's in favour. and I have to say I think it's only a question of time before it happens. And the Russians, of course, making it very clear that if it does happen, they will respond. So, I mean, a situation where the Russians are now clearly winning and the West is getting extremely desperate and alongside that desperation becoming increasingly reckless. As we've discussed many times, these people have no reverse gear. They don't even have a break. They can see that things are falling apart.

And they're thinking incredibly dangerously over further escalation. Right. The narrative is that Ukraine is fighting Russia with one hand tied behind its back. That's the new script that's been handed out to everybody. We're supposed to believe that. People are supposed to believe that. They're not saying that Ukraine is winning the war. They're not saying that Russia is losing.

That's been forgotten. No one even talks about that anymore. The narrative now is that Ukraine is there. They're fighting Russia with one hand tied behind their back. And it's just unfair. It's unfair. That's what they want everybody to believe. I'm just trying to figure out if they're using that as an excuse to explain away their failure.

I mean, their failure. I'm not talking about Ukraine. I'm talking about the collective Western NATO. or if they're serious about hitting Russian territory. I think that's the big question. And we're going to find out. I think eventually they will give weapons to hit Russian territory. And we're going to have to see what she does.

I have absolutely no doubt about it. But maybe they're bluffing. They could be just using this as an excuse. I mean, that's possible. I doubt it. But it is possible that they're using this to explain away their incompetence and their failures. Some people probably are. some people are building themselves the alibi for when it all fails and goes wrong and ukraine goes down to defeat

they're already preparing what they're going to say they're going to say that it was all because ukraine had to fight with its hands tied behind its back it wasn't given the weapons it needed it wasn't given them on time western resolve wasn't strong enough and of course we must make sure that when we get into the next war, perhaps with China, this time we don't make that same mistake. You're going to see, of course, a lot of that. But I have to also say, I have been reading and following very carefully what some of the people who make these, who call for this, are saying. And I think they're absolutely serious. I think that is exactly what they want to do.

I think, by the way, that this isn't a new plan. it was first hatched in the autumn around the time when Ukraine's offensive was finally defeated. I can remember reading articles then about creating some kind of great Maginot line of fortified barrier behind which Ukraine could withdraw and then it would launch missile strikes deep into Russia and that would force the Russians to come to terms. I can remember reading lots of that. That was the plan that clearly Victoria Newland, by the way, was supporting. I think she was completely serious about it.

And I think it's what some people have returned to. They've now realised that the fortified lines, the great fortified lines, don't exist. They're only existing, their own imagination. But the events in Harukuf, I think, have exploded the myth. of Ukraine being able to create these great fortified lines, its own copy of the Suravikin line. But because that part of the plan has failed, they're now redoubling and quadrupling and quintupling on the other part, which is to authorise the launch of missiles onto Russian territory. And I think the Ukrainians over the last couple of days

have given us a hint of the kind of targets that they're telling their friends in Washington that they could go after if they were given missiles of that kind by attacking the Russian early warning radar complex in Krasnodar at Aramavia. Now, they only attacked it with a drone. It appears apparently, as I understand it, did only superficial damage. So, you know, sea holes and all of that.

But this is a modular radar can be repaired very fast. But the Ukrainians are saying, look, just give us the missiles. And we can start going after the Russian facilities. We've given us some attack teams. which has been at the present time we've been lobbying them to no great effect at Crimea the Russians have been shooting most of them down but if you give us the green light

we can go off to targets in Russia targets which it will really hurt the Russians if we strike against and I think they've demonstrated what they intend to do as a result of this attack on this radar station in Arbavir which is part of Russia's strategic systems. It's intended to protect Russia from missile attack by the United

States. Right. Well, you're attacking Russia's nuclear defense umbrella. It's a huge deal. It's a huge deal. And so far, the Russia Ministry of Defense hasn't said anything. At least I haven't read any statements from the Minister of Defense. So they've been very quiet, it seems. And I think that comes to my next question or observation. Ukraine, let's say the West goes ahead and green lights Ukraine military using attack homes and storm shadows to hit deep into Russian territory. The Russians will either treat these attacks in much the same way they treat the attacks towards Premier or Belgorod, which is that they'll defend every now and then they'll launch retaliatory strikes. But basically they will just bet on shooting down the missiles that are launched into Russian territory. and they'll continue with their current military operations,

or they will retaliate hard. Which option do you think it's going to be? Because if they just go about this in the same way that they're handling the attacks towards Crimea or Belgarod, then I would imagine that the neocons in the West will be further emboldened to launch even deeper and further into. to Russia and territory and start picking out more targets inside Russia, rather than just say, the targets which are in close proximity to the Dombas, which is what they're looking at right now. But, you know, the attack homes and the scalp and the storm shadows, they could have the capability to hit, from what I understand,

400, 500 kilometers distance? I mean, they can reach pretty far. And if the Taurus come into play, then what are we looking at a thousand? No, it's far, well, according to...

800? 800? 800 kilometers, some are saying... 800, 800, so 800 kilometers, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, certainly certainly Armavir, the radar complex in Armavir is within range. of attack of missiles. I mean, that I think, you know, launched from the Herson region. The storm shadows go further. The storm shadows go further, but, you know, I don't think, again, I think the Russians are on top of the storm shadow problem. The tourist missiles would be a

further escalation as well, and they can go further still. My own personal view, and I think this is absolutely clear. The Russians have made themselves absolutely clear in many places is that if the West green lights this, then the Russians will react hard. I don't think there's any doubt about that. And I think that people have misunderstood certain comments that Putin made in Minsk where he's just been. He said that we are not looking for escalation, which is true. The Russians are not looking for escalation. But of course, that throws it back at the West. It says it's the West that seems to be looking for escalation. It doesn't mean that the Russians aren't going to respond to a Western escalation. Now, you listen to what the Russian ambassador, Washington has been saying. He's been speaking

very, very toughly. And I have absolutely no doubt at all that the Russians have also been speaking very toughly in private to the Americans, especially, with whom they still maintain some levels of contacts, as we know. And the reason they haven't publicly spoken about the attack on Armavir, even though photographs of the attack exist. And what would love to know who took them, I suspect the Russians, by the way, and I suspect it's the Russians themselves who have released, those pictures onto the internet. But the reason they're not talking about Armavir is because if they did, I think that would oblige them, according to their own military doctrines,

to respond in ways that for the moment they don't want to do. So that's why they're maintaining silence on this issue. Now, having said that, what the response from the Russians would be is another question again. When they've been discussing this issue with the British, they told the British, they called them the ambassador to the foreign ministry. They handed the foreign minister a protest note. They gave the ambassador a lecture. They said if Britain is involved in launching storm shadow missiles at Russia, the Russians would be at liberty to attack anywhere they wish against British military facilities, including by implication. against Britain itself.

And the British back down. I mean, of that, you can see, the British said absolutely nothing. They didn't push back against the Russian statement. They were obviously spooked by it. Now, with the United States, realistically, I cannot imagine the Russians retaliating directly against the United States,

because if they did, that would be a World War III type event. And I don't think the Russians have any desire to get drawn into World War III. But as I've said on my programs, there are no shortage of US targets spread out around the world. And I think the Russians

are going to be making it fairly clear to the Americans, just as they've said to the British, that if there's attacks like this on their facilities, their strategic facilities, inside Russia, then the Russians will consider themselves free to attack American facilities anywhere in the world.

That's what they said to the British. Why should they not say the same as against the United States? And of course, they can do so giving themselves plausible deniability through proxies. I think people in the Pentagon will take note of that. And I think that they will, I mean, one can see that there is. alarm on the part of some people in Washington about the way this is going. And there's been a strong article today in the Daily Telegraph, by the way, which has clearly been encouraged by some people,

saying that the attack on Armavir, Ukraine's attack on Armavir, was a mistake and something that Ukraine should not have done, and that in fact it tilts the argument against giving Ukraine. freedom to launch missile strikes deep inside Russia. Let me play devil's advocate here. Let me try to put myself in, I don't know, Blinkin's shoes. Let's see, how would Blinken be looking at this or the neocons that want to escalate? Give Ukraine the permission to use attack them to hit deep inside of Russia.

to hit deep inside of Russia, whether it's nuclear early, early warning radar systems or whether it's military bases deep inside of Russia, even going after big major cities. Ukraine should have the permission to use our weapons to hit those targets. We'll provide surveillance and help for them to do that. And Russia will do nothing. It happened in Crimea. It happened in Belgorod, Russian territory. We used our weapons, storm shadows, scalps, attackums.

And Russia has not escalated or retaliated in a way that they claimed they might. They've just gone about their war strategy and in the way they've been going about fighting this war over the past two years, incremental, slow, measured, one step out of time. So why should, should this be any different? I'm playing devil's advocate. And I think this is pretty, I'm being very simple about, I'm being very simple about it. But I think this is how they are selling this. Yes. Oh, absolutely. You're afraid of escalation, Mr. President, Mr. President Biden, you're concerned. I don't think Biden's afraid of us. Because you're concerned, President Biden, about escalation.

Let me explain to you what we've been doing over the past two years, the red lines that we've crossed, the fact that we are hitting Russian territory, and we haven't seen a significant retaliation. So there should be no concern. Yes. Let's let's talk about Belgarod, because, of course, the Russians responded to the attacks on Belgarod in exactly the way they said they would. if those attacks continued. The point to understand about Belgarot

is that the United States has never said that it supported the attacks on Belgarod. It always said that it opposed them. That is what the US said. It gave itself and the Russians that quality of deniability. So the Ukrainian attacks on Belgarod did not actually cross with respect to the United States, any Russian red lines.

The attacks on Belgarod did cross Russian red lines with respect to Ukraine, and we have seen the Russians reacted. They have advanced into Kharkov. They've now started missile strikes and bombing of Harkas city. In fact, it's turning into a disaster for Ukraine. It worked out entirely differently. Now, what is being proposed this time is qualitatively, totally different and far more dangerous. It is missile strikes, not with, you know, shells, unguided rockets, those kind of things.

It is missile strikes using British, American, potentially German missiles deep inside Russia, missiles which can only operate with the help of German, American and British technicians, as Western governments have admitted, and with the United States in effect openly providing targeting data. Now, that is a qualitatively different step. That is an astonishing escalation. And there's no doubt at all it would cross Russian red lines. Now, how the Russians will react to those red lines is up to them. They can do so, as I said, in all sorts of ways.

They have a huge toolkit, and there are lots of targets that both Britain and America make available to the Russians. in all parts of the world. But this is, in my opinion, a Russian red line with respect to the US in a way that an attack, the kind of fumbling and ineffective attacks that Ukraine launched against Belgarod, which did kill people, but which were ultimately completely unsuccessful, those attacks did not cross a Russian red line with respect. respect to the US in the way that the what is now being proposed would do now you know I say this I I don't think it's easy to talk about one individual I mean Blinken I really am never going to

try and work out what he's thinking but if you're talking if you're talking about neocons the neocons go to this article in I think it's foreign policy which Cohen has co-authored. He is a Ariel Cohen, I think he's sorry, he is a notorious neocon.

And what he basically is calling for is unrestricted, unlimited war against Russia. He wants attacks on Russia at every single place that it can be attacked using every conceivable means

whereby those attacks can take place, of course, using a thin Ukrainian cover. But he isn't trying to avoid unlimited escalation. He clearly wants unlimited escalation up to and including the risk of World War III. That's the kind of person we need to worry about. And the fact that he's able to publish articles in places like foreign policy tells you the immense influence. that these sort of people undoubtedly have. I understand everything you're saying, and I've read that article.

It's crazy, but I think, let me rephrase my question and my comment. Perhaps the fact, in these people's minds, the neocons, and once again, I just use Blinken as a recognizable example. I'm not saying he's the one that's saying this or not. It's just an example. But perhaps the neocons. cons, seeing the way Russia has been fighting the war over the past two years, have misunderstood

Russia's restraint or Russia's strategy, and they think that they can get away with this type of escalation and expect the same type of restraint. Does it make sense that maybe they're not differentiating it the way you're differentiating? It maybe they see it as, you know, we already crossed the red line of Crimea. We already crossed the red line of attackums. We crossed the red line of leopards and Abrams once upon a time, once upon a time to talk about crossing red lines. The Russians were saying they'd be outraged if they saw leopard tanks, German tanks in Ukraine. I'm not saying the Russians issued red lines.

I'm just saying that was a narrative coming out of Russia. But perhaps all the neocons, they've, they've, they've, they've, they've, they've, they're looking at the past two years and they're saying, you know, we've heard this before from Russia. We've heard this before from Putin and from Lavrov and from Medvedev. So we can continue to escalate. And eventually, we will get that regime change in Moscow. Eventually, Putin will back down. Putin will back off.

I mean, that's the way they're seeing it. If I had to take a guess, that's the way they're looking at this. I don't think they're seeing it the way you're describing. I mean, you're describing the realistic rational way. I believe the New Conner are saying over the past two years, we've crossed all these red lines, whether real red lines or not. I don't believe they understand that Russia didn't put red lines or did. I don't believe they see it like that. What is happening?

What you're actually referring to? and it ultimately brings us exactly to the same point, is narrative construction. The neocons have constructed this narrative that the Russians laid out red lines about Abrams tanks, fighter jets, attack them's missiles. They never did.

And I mean, I want to say this again. I mean, they obviously said that it would be a terrible thing if this was done, but they never said. believe they did. They never said that it was a red lines. The neocons constructed narratives saying that the crossing by the west of its own red lines, because it was the West that repeatedly said it wouldn't do these things, that the crossing by the West of its own red lines was a crossing of Russian red lines. The Russians have never said that.

But the problem is, these people are not only very skilled at creating narratives, they live inside them. I mean, you know, the fact that they've spread this story about mythical red lines, which have been crossed without consequence, mythical Russian red lines that had been caused, you know, cross without consequence. No, leads them to say, well, we can now cross actual Russian red lines without this having any consequence. In fact, when the Russians have set down red lines and the West has come up and trying to cross them, well, we see what the reaction has been.

That is why we have a war in Ukraine. That is why the Russians have crossed again into Kharkiv. That is why the Russians have done all the various things they've been doing over the last a few years, including, by the way, seizing now confiscating assets of Western companies in Russia itself, in retaliation for similar things that the West is doing. So, you know, I think I could see what the point you're making. And as I said, it leads us to the same point. ultimately, which is that the neocons, either they believe that the Russians never enforce their red lines, which by now they probably do, or they believe their own narratives, their own narrative, their own self-constructive narrative, that the Russians don't enforce their red lines.

you can choose whichever you prefer. But as I said, it takes you directly to the same point. I've no doubt this is going to happen, by the way. I mean, I want to make this absolutely clear. I don't think this is a bluff. I said at the start of this program that this debate that's taking place is not a bluff. It is what the neocons,

who realize that they are losing and who realize that they're losing big, and that their entire project of breaking up Eurasia and isolating China and doing all of that, they can see that it's now falling apart. They're also worried about their own positions in Washington. And of course they do what Neocons always do, which is they escalate. And they've been talking about this plan ever since the autumn. And now they've gone into high gear over it.

The people who might serve as a break is the Pentagon, which I get the sense is not keen on this idea, partly because it wants to prepare for a war with China and doesn't want to be sidetracked into another conflict in Europe and certainly doesn't want to take on the Russian army. But also, perhaps some of the presidents, people around him, the people on his, on the electoral side of the political, you know, his team, who'll worry that this kind of escalation is not going to play well in the election.

Though I'm far from sure about that, because I don't know what those people ultimately think. The problem is the president himself, who has always crossed his own red lines. Now, I think that's the thing to say. The president himself is a hardliner. He has always been so. He has an obsession with Putin. He is again saying all kinds of incredibly rude things about Putin at the moment. I get the sense that he's working himself up to the point where he's going to do this thing.

I think it's already been decided. I said a couple of weeks ago, this has already been decided. I believe this was decided months ago. And now they're just kind of meetings. Well, probably, if so, around January, February time, when the attack of some missiles were delivered to Ukraine. I mean, that looks like the moment when this decision was made. Probably after it became clear that Abd al-Dhdiakka was about to fall, and that the Russians are definitely on the offensive and likely to win the war.

Probably around that time, when it was understood that the war is not in stalemate, the decision was made then. And I believe that their narrative control is so strong, so polished that they will not only strike deep inside of Russian territory, try to hit deep inside of Russian territory with their weapons, with their targeting, maybe even with NATO mercenaries, operators coordinating those. those strikes actually launching those strikes, they will also come out and then say, we're not a party to this war. Oh, yeah.

Stoltenberg has actually hinted at that. Stoltenberg has said, when we deliver weapons to Ukraine, he said it just the other day. When we deliver weapons to Ukraine, they're not NATO weapons anymore. They're not U.S. attackums. They're Ukraine attackums. So we can strike deep inside of Russia using the attackums, and we're still, and we're still, not a party to the war because once we deliver those attack, and once we deliver the targeting and the coordinates,

it's all Ukraine's targeting coordinates and weapons. So, I mean, they're already preparing the narrative to come out and say, oh, no, we're not a party to this war. We're just helping Ukraine defend itself. That's what they're going to come out with. That's how bold they are about their narrative creation. That's how much they believe in the strength of their narrative. if creation.

And that's what we're going to see. Yeah, I wouldn't use the word bold. I would use brazen. Reckless, brazen. Because this is reckless. I mean, this is beyond reckless. And this is the problem. I mean, narratives are fictions.

Their works of the imagination. They don't win wars. And this is a point which I've been making, you know, right from the start of the spectrum. military operation. You can spin whatever... But it is their strength. Well, it is their strength.

It is their strength. It is their strength, but it's also their trap. Because you're absolutely right. I think they think that provided they can spin a story that will look good in the New York Times, and which many people who watch MSNBC will swallow, that that somehow wins them. It wins the point for them. It doesn't work like that on the battlefield as the Ukrainian soldiers who are now fighting the Russians

every day are complaining. They're complaining about the fact that this isn't playing out in any way like the West has said it would. So as I said, this is their trap because if it encourages them to do dangerous and reckless things, then of course it's well there is no finite point to this because there is no finite point to any work of the imagination that you can come up with I'm just saying I mean you know imagination is an infinite thing that is what I have been saying about the neocons all along

that is what makes them so dangerous. I've no doubt they're going to do this thing. I mean, you're probably right in saying that this decision has already been made, just saying. We haven't yet seen it put into effect, but that doesn't mean that the main decision hasn't already been made. I think it will be, and I think at that point we are in the most dangerous phase of the war, by far. Yeah, I agree.

Because when and if the Russians do retaliate, what's going to be the next escalation? What's going to be the next narrative that the neocons construct? If imagination is infinite, what's going to be their next narrative? Tactical nooks what? What's next?

No, I did. The soldiers on the ground? Yeah, I'm just saying, you know what I mean? It's, you know, the Russians retaliate back then the neocons are going to get some more wild and crazy ideas, and they're going to construct some more crazy, dangerous narratives. And they're going to sell it. They're going to sell it via the media.

They're going to post the articles. And we're going to get to the next escalation. Well, one of two things has to happen in order for this to stop. The first is that the Russians win. That will take time, but they will eventually get that, provided World War III is avoided. But I mean, that is one thing. And when it does happen,

despite all that we've said about them creating alibis and explaining things away, it will be a big blow for the neocons. There will be a lot of recriminations. All sorts of people in Washington will come back and say, look, look where you've brought this again. Another disaster. This one against the Russians,

for God's sake. So there's that. The other thing that has in the past acted as a real break on what they do is public pushback in the West. So far, there has been no sign of that. And one of the most dangerous things at the moment is that this whole idea, this whole dangerous idea, reckless idea of launching strikes against Russia, isn't it? properly argued about in the media at all. I mean, it's eerie. I mean, you know, I heard anybody suggested such a thing say at the time of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

There'd been a massive uproar about it. People would have been saying, are you mad? What are you suggesting? I'm old enough to remember way back in the early 1970s when some people in the US and the US military. We're talking about launching air strikes against Soviet ships, taking, delivering weapons to North Vietnam, to the North Vietnamese port of Haiphon. And again, there was absolutely uproar. People were saying, what are you thinking of? That's unbelievably dangerous doing a thing like that. We can't actually start taking pot shots at the war.

Russians? The Russians, for God's sake. But today, there's no discussion at all. People just talk about it. They're talking about war with China, by the way, in the same way. I was reading an absolutely terrifying article over the weekend in the Daily Mail about how a war in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits might play out and about how the US Marines are training for it on the islands in the Philippine Straits and all of that. And all of this has been spoken about and talked about. And there is no public reaction. That's the trap, the narrative trap, the neocons have successfully led us into.

I think most people don't even know what's going on. We will end it there at the durand.orgals.com. We are on Rumble Odyssey, bitchchew, telegram, rock, fin, and Twitter X and go to the Duran shop. Use the code, get ready 15 to get 15% off all merch. Take care.