The Duran Podcast - Vladimir Putin's legal arguments, checkmate in Ukraine

Episode Date: February 1, 2025

Vladimir Putin's legal arguments, checkmate in Ukraine

All right, Alexander, let's talk about what is going on in Ukraine. And actually, let's start with Putin's second interview in about a week's time with his favorite journalist, Zarubin. An interesting short interview where Putin said many interesting things, but many things that he's been repeating for the past couple of months. And many things that he said last week, he just kind of repeated them again during this short interview. Anyway, what is your take on what Putin said? He talked about Zelenskyy's legitimacy and he talked about negotiations. And he also put a legal spin onto it, which I thought was interesting. Your thoughts?

Well, of course, this is Vladimir Putin, the lawyer. He's reminded us all recently of a point that we make many times on the giraffe. that he is actually a trained lawyer. In fact, as I've said many times now, I believe that he's not just a trained lawyer. I think he's the lawyer who's actually practiced lawyer, law at some point. I think at some stage in his career,

in ways that have never been explained or disclosed, he's actually done actual formal legal work because he thinks like a lawyer and talks like a lawyer all the time in ways that you just don't do. if you've merely started it. Now, briefly, my big take on these interviews that Putin has given with Zarabin is that, yes,

he is prepared to talk. He's certainly prepared to talk with the American. But one person that he's not keen to talk to at all is Vladimir Zelensky. And in fact, if you go through the very carefully constructed legal arguments that he's come up with, he basically says that you can't talk to Zelensky anyway, because there is no actual legal sense in doing that. He says that Zelensky signed this decree on the 2nd of October 2022, which prohibits Zelensky or anyone else from conducting negotiations. with Russia, whilst Putin himself remains leader of Russia. Putin, of course, himself is not going anywhere. Putin says that in order for talks to begin, that decree has to be rescinded.

Now, the Russians have been saying this for the better part of the year, ever since people started floating the possibility of talks. But now Putin is going further, and he's saying that Zelensky himself can't rescind this decree because he's no longer the constitutional president of Ukraine because he's exceeding his term, his constitutional term ended in May 2024, so that he is no right to sign any decrees or any bills or laws or anything of that kind, which means that he cannot sign a decree canceling his own second of October decree. Someone else must do it, but it cannot be Zelensky. Now, when of course Putin says something like that, what he basically is saying, Zelensky isn't somebody that the Russians can have as a party

to negotiations. I mean, he's basically saying Zelensky is such incredibly damaged goods that decree or no decree, he is simply not a suitable person to have in a negotiating room or to negotiate with. And of course, Putin has gone over the whole story of the original negotiations that took place in March and April 2022, the ones that led to Istanbul, the ones that fall apart. And if you track carefully what he's saying, and of course, Putin has always talked in this very measured way, but you can track what he's saying. He basically says that, you know, all right, the Americans did their thing, the British did their thing, Boris Johnson played a role. But ultimately, Zelensky himself must take a very heavy, perhaps even the main part of the responsibility for. the failure of Istanbul, perhaps he was actually trying to pull the wool over the Russian's eyes all along and it was never really intended seriously. And that in light of all of that,

he can't be trusted. And you can't negotiate with this man. You can't trust anything he says. You can't trust anything he writes. You can't put any faith in his signature on any document. he's gone, the better. And I think this is a message he's trying to convote to the Americans. I mean, he's right. Isn't he? I mean, he did say in the interview, any agreement that were to be signed would come under a lot of a tremendous amount, he said, of legal scrutiny. Yeah. Absolutely. Yes. So, I mean, the first thing that lawyers would say is, well, this signature, which says Volodymyr is Olensky, well, is it really a binding signature to? this negotiation, to this treaty, whatever it comes about. And there's going to be a lot of question

marks there, obviously. Absolutely. Yeah. And Putin was hinting at the fact that maybe the Rada, maybe the parliament, they're the ones that can rescind this decree because as president, Zelensky can't, well, as the illegitimate president, but the West sees him as the president, he can't really rescind this decree. And so maybe the parliament does. but where the parliament rescind the decree. It's just a whole big, it's a big mess that they've gotten themselves into. Absolutely. And by the way, Putin is right.

Because whenever there's been any attempt to come to any agreement with the Ukrainians, we go back to the compromise, for example, that had been hammered out between the Ukrainian parties in February 2014, just before the Midenot events, which was supposed to say, set out a timeline leading to elections at the end of 2014 and which was supposed to bring to an end the political crisis and the protest in Maidan Square. Within hours, the Ukrainians went back, the Maidan movement, which is, of course, the movement to which Zelensky himself belongs. They went back on all of that. The European Union, its ministers acted as guarantors

for that agreement. The moment it collapsed, they completely forgot all about that, said that was one agreement that fell apart almost instantly. And then the Russians have recently been providing a lot of information, Lavrov especially, about the negotiation of the Minsk Agreement of 2015, which was also supposed to provide a timeline to end the war. And again, the Ukrainian signed it, Poroshenko signed the declaration that went with it. The Ukrainian representative on the trilateral contract group signed it. The European leaders, Merkel and Hollands, apparently assured Putin that they would act as guarantors of this agreement and they would see that it was done. The UN Security Council voted for it. And again, of course, what immediately happened was

that the Ukrainians started to play games with the agreement. They started spinning all kinds of stories about it. The Rada played all kinds of games and maneuvers with it. So Putin says, look, I'm not going through all of that again. I tried one last time in Istanbul. And it all fell apart. Again, for the same reason, the Ukrainians come along. They present us with a document, which they've initialed.

They ask us to withdraw our truth from Kiev. We withdrew our troops from Kiev, and everything again falls apart. This has happened three times now, and I'm not prepared to take any risks that it will happen again for a fourth time. So clearly, the Ukrainians have to get their own position in order. They have to have proper representatives, representing them in the negotiations, whose signature they except as binding to any agreement that he's done so that when the agreement is made, they have no wriggle room this time and can come up with any kind of excuse that they want, that they don't need to honour it.

Now, of course, putting it in that way and looking back on the previous history, given that whatever happens, let's say Zelensky goes, let's say someone else takes its place, Let's say it's the Speaker of the Rada, who Putin says at the moment has the constitutional authority. The reality is that the Ukrainians will always come up with some kind of reason, excuse a mechanism to go back on whatever it is that they've agreed. Putin knows that perfectly well. So, yes, he is right, but he's also setting in effect an impossible condition because clearly he doesn't believe that the Ukrainians are interested in.

in a real negotiated solution. And he's probably right. Well, it's an impossible, it's an impossible position, but it's a position that Zelensky put, and the Ukraine government put themselves in. Absolutely. Because they rescinded, let's not forget why they rescinded this, this negotiation. They rescinded it because they thought they were going to win the conflict because Boris Johnson told them they're going to win the conflict, then Blinkin and Sullivan. They told them, you are going to defeat Russia. We're going to place 40,000 sanctions on the Russian economy. It's going to crumble. Putin's going to be removed, and you're going to be the victors. So they said, great, let's just get rid of the ability to negotiate with Putin just in case.

But even if the Rada, the parliament, the Ukraine parliament, rescinded this decree, isn't it then at admission that Zelensky's illegitimate? Yeah, absolutely. That's basically the Rada saying, well, This illegitimate guy can't rescind it because illegitimate it's so well. Absolutely. They're boxed in. It's the end of Zelensky. I mean, if that happens, if the Rada starts making decisions of that kind, then what is

Zelensky's role? I mean, he just admits to the fact that he isn't any longer the constitutional president. It's checkmate, exactly. Now, he is nothing, if not, an extremely skilled player at the, this sort of thing. And that's basically what he's saying. So, I mean, what he's basically saying is no, I mean, Zelensky clearly cannot be involved in negotiations. Zelensky has no legitimacy. Zelensky must go. And what takes his place, of course, is thrown up into the air is who, exactly who takes his place? It's thrown into the air. There's no simple answer to that one.

I think that's a very legitimate question to ask, who? Is there another election? Is there election from the canceled election of March? Do you hold an election to figure out who takes his place? Is someone appointed? Does the U.S. sign on Ukraine's behalf? I mean, who? Who takes his place?

Putin's 1,000% correct on this. Yeah, absolutely. You cannot fault his legal reasoning. And can I just say, again, I mean, I've come across all kinds of of attempts to, you know, try and argue that some of the points that the Ukrainians have made about February agreement in 2014 and the Minsk Agreement, that there are some points to make that. I don't believe there's arguments. I've actually checked with an international lawyer recently, and he told me the same thing. Just just a second. But the point is that what I think people who

trying to make those arguments don't get, is that when they make arguments like that, they're taking away any possibility of negotiations at all. Because you can always come up with some excuse, some reason not to recognize your own signature to a document. But of course, if you do that, you destroy all possibility of trust and you remove all options for negotiations. So Putin, I think is absolutely right. He's absolutely. He's taking a completely watertight position, legally speaking. I don't think it can be faulted. Notice that no one has actually taken on his legal arguments and straightforwardly refuted them.

I mean, I haven't seen anyone. Who's going to? Who's going to? Exactly. I mean, you can argue. And I think there's a fair point in May that Putin isn't the person to decide on. Ukrainian constitutional issues, but the Ukrainian constitutional court, which ought to be adjudicating on these things, hasn't had a quorum for years. It's long before the start of this crisis.

So there is no final legal rejoinder to Putin, and he's clearly had this thing researched for him very carefully by the people in his foreign ministry. I don't really think there's a way around this. No, their argument is going to be that Russia wanted to take Kiev in three days, and then they cut off the gas to Europe, and we need to get a ceasefire and place peacekeepers, 200,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 peacekeepers in Ukraine. That'll be the solution. It's the same stupid arguments that they always throw out there, the unrealistic arguments that they throw out there.

And Putin during this interview, he also once again, said that our terms are spelled out. Those are the words that he used. He said, we have spelled out our terms for negotiation. So that brings us to Trump. That brings us to Rubio. That brings us to Kellogg. Kellogg quiet.

Very quiet. He threw out the whole oil crash thing to hurt the Russian economy and Russia's war machine. And OPEC Plus has blown that apart. They're not going to change anything. Rubio, he finally called the European Union, finally he had contact with the European Union. The EU is inviting Rubio and Ukraine to some sort of meeting on February 12th, which will be the first time that they're going to have contact with Kiev. February 12th, the first time the new administration is going to have, maybe, because Rubio hasn't accepted this invitation, maybe the first time they're going to have contact with Ukraine. That's a lot of time has gone by, time that Ukraine does not have, time that the West does not have because Russia continues to advance.

And Trump has also been silent over the past week. Now, as we're recording this video, he may post something this afternoon on Ukraine. Who knows? But as of the moment of this recording, for about a week, he hasn't really said anything about Ukraine. Yes. Which is actually a good sign, at least in my opinion, because it means that, They're all starting to think about it and they're saying this is a complete mess. Absolutely.

Now, bear in mind that a couple of a week ago, we were told that it was all going to be sorted in 100 days and there was supposed to be a 100 day timeline. And there was reports about a peace plan that has been circulated and which has been sent to Kiev and passed on to them by the Europeans. And it looked for peace by the 9th of May. and it's on gone. I mean, because with every single day that passes, that that 100 days

is being eaten away. Now, I think this is absolutely a good thing. Can I just say this? I think this is absolutely the right approach for the Trump administration to take. I think that they came in maybe on the 20th of January. They were expecting

that the Russians would be phoning up that Putin would want to speak to Trump immediately. that they'd be able to get some kind of process going, that they assume that the Russians really were suffering of appalling losses and that their economy was really in crisis. And I think they've now gradually come to understand that none of that is true. And it may be, and I'm just throwing this out, that notorious, that infamous post on truth

social that Trump published a week ago. You know, the one way he threatened the Russians with massive sanctions and tariffs and taxes and all of those things was basically a last attempt to get Putin's attention and to jog the Russians into some sort of panicky contact with the Trump people. Well, I think they've now realized that the Russians actually are in a very strong position. The Ukrainian military chief, Budanath, apparently has said that Ukraine has six months left in terms of continuing the war. And beyond six months, its survival is in question. Now, there have been attempts in Ukraine to argue around that. They've been attempts to say that Budana had never really said that. But Donov was given an opportunity to deny it.

He was actually caught on film. But he asked him a question, did you really say it? Did you really didn't? And he responded with a joke. So he didn't actually properly deny, which makes me think that he probably did so. So the administration, the new administration, the Trump people now understand, I think, I think how much more complicated the situation really is, how bad Ukraine's situation is becoming, and how strong the Russian position at the moment is.

So I think very wisely and sensibly, rather than rushing forward into a negotiation, which they're not really prepared for, trying to get everything sorted out. in 100 days, they're now taking their time and they're thinking about what to do and probably Rubio will meet with the Ukrainians on the 12th of February. But as you say, that's, you know, the better part of three weeks, more than three weeks after the inauguration. I mean, it's a big delay. And at some point, probably they will send Kellogg to Moscow. But I think that they're waiting and they're trying to come up with a strategy and negotiating strategy because I still get the overwhelming sense that Donald Trump's priority is to extricate from the United

States from a war which he does now understand is being lost. So I think this is what they want to do. And I think that finally they're going about this in the right way. that flurry of comments that we saw in the first days after the inauguration has ended, and instead of, as I said, them rushing forward and getting themselves into a mess with some of the strongest negotiators on planet Earth, anybody who's dealt with Russians in any capacity in a negotiation will know exactly what I mean. The Russians are incredibly well organized in negotiations. Rather than rush into that, the Americans really need to get their own position sorted out

and their own understanding of where this is going. Well, the problem that the Trump administration has, and I'm going to put this in very simple terms, very simple terms, and I want your thoughts on this, and it ties into our next topic, which is the foreign aid stop order. So this will lead into that. if you're the Trump administration and say you're going to negotiate some sort of a peace deal, and if you believe that Zelensky has some agency, let's just say that he's not completely a puppet, and he has some agency, then your way to apply pressure or leverage on Ukraine is to tell them that

if they don't get to the negotiating table, if they don't rescind these bans on negotiating with Russia, all of these things, then you're going to stop the money and the weapons. And this may not mean a stop right away. It's going to taper off. I think a lot of talk is,

you know, this has to stop today. Probably going to taper off the money and the weapons. It's not going to, you know, just stop it right away and everything just stops. But anyway, that's the leverage that you have over Ukraine. You tell them, negotiate a deal, you're going to accept it. And if you don't, the money and the weapons stop. The problem that you have is the only leverage you have over Russia is you go to Russia and

you say, if you don't agree to a deal, we're going to ramp up the weapons and the money to Ukraine if we have the money and the weapons to give them. But anyway, you say, we're going to ramp up the money and the weapons to Ukraine. We're going to escalate. I mean, you're in such a tough position. Yeah. And the big problem that you have is that whichever outcome, whichever direction you go, if you're the Trump administration, is that Russia's going to win this war. You know it. You already know Russia's going to win. So what do you choose? Do you choose the quick way to get yourself out of this mess, which is to stop the money and the weapons? Or do you decide to go the long way, which is to continue to try and escalate, continue to try and give weapons, continue to try and

give money, which is also going to make you very unpopular at home, which is also going to take away a lot of your political capital that you have. I think the decision's very clear. And I think, I mean, if you're negotiating, if I'm the guy that's negotiating, this is Trump, I'm looking at this, and I'm saying, well, I think our option is crystal clear what we have to do. And this leads right to the foreign aid, stoppage. You know, you start stopping the foreign aid. The weapons will start to to taper off, eventually Ukraine's going to have to, they're going to have to do something, or it's just going to run its course. And Russia's going to continue to do what they do, what they're doing. I think that's absolutely right. Now, it seems to me that there are certain

things that the Trump administration needs to prioritize. Firstly, they do need to start some kind of active dialogue with the Russians again, not necessarily, and perhaps not even particularly about Ukraine. There are so many things that are building up all over the place in Russian-American relations, which because of the fact that there's been no dialogue for three years, we've now reached a real crisis point on. I mean, Russia and North Korea, Russia and Iran, nuclear weapons, development of the Russianic missiles, what do they mean? How much, what What ideas did the Russians have about them? Would they be prepared to consider limitations on deployments of a rationing missiles?

Just say, all of these things. Energy, economy, oil, or gas, yeah. Or gas, every conceivable thing that needs to be talked about. And they're not able to talk about this. So they need to get some kind of a dialogue with the Russians going again. Because even if you can't agree with the Russians on every one of these matters or even some of them, nonetheless, it's important to know at least of something of what the other side is thinking. So they need to do that.

They need to get some kind of dialogue, communication with the Russians established again. They need to have a proper ambassador in Moscow and they need to have a proper Russian ambassador in Washington. They need the hotline working and they need all of those things working again. So that's one priority they need to think about. The second is a political priority, which is that the Trump administration is now moving forward on all fronts, but it needs to preserve in order to continue to overaw its opponents in the way that it has been doing. It needs to preserve an appearance of strength and of it being a winner.

At least that's my own sense. And that argues against becoming involved in a very, very long negotiation with the Russians of the kind that Richard Nixon engaged in with the North Vietnamese in Paris, leading ultimately to only one outcome, which is a Russian military victory. So I would have thought, just as you said, that this is not really a good plan for the Americans to be in. So I think that the simplest thing for the administration to do, a place where it does come out, at least as a kind of winner, it say to the Ukrainians, look, this is your war.

We've done, the US has done everything you possibly can to support you. The Europeans are doing what they can too. But you're losing. There's only so much we can do. You must start negotiations yourselves with the Russians and talk to the Russians. So you've got to get yourself sorted out. You've got to decide what Zelensky's role in is. You've got to also decide and get rid of this reshid decree.

that you've imposed on yourselves, and you've got to sit down and talk to the Russians and see whether you can achieve a peace, and that means that you might have to make very, very big concessions. And we're prepared to support you through those concessions, but that's what you misdo. And that throws the responsibility back onto the Ukrainians and onto the Europeans. And in order to get the Ukrainians to that point, you impose leverage, the very real leverage you have over them, you enforce the stop order, aid stop order, which is what we are seeing at the moment.

Of course, it is a general stop order on all foreign aid to all kinds of countries, but it's particularly relevant to Ukraine at the moment. And it is having a major effect. And it's causing serious ructions. In Kiev now, it's creating, it's increasing the political pressure in Kiev. And you're starting to see the signs of this. Firstly, you see the signs of this in Zelensky's own comments, which are becoming even more Baroque and weird that they usually are.

You see this in Budan of submission that you create a very much. just six months, that the war could be lost. You see this in this crisis that there is now within the defense ministry, with the defense minister facing allegations of corruption. And when that happens, that is a clear sign that there are political tensions going on in Kiev, because everybody knows that corruption in Ukraine is a given. And corruption battles are always and invariably symptoms of a deeper political conflict. That's been my experience, and I see no reason to change that. And gradually, gradually, you squeeze until finally you get the Ukrainians to talk, and then they talk to the Russians, and then you leave them to themselves

and see what they can do. And I think that is probably the only real negotiating strategy that the Trump people have. I don't think it is in their interest to get into a protracted negotiation with the Russian about Ukraine. I have never thought so. I've always said that I thought that was a bad idea. We've been saying that for a while now. We've been saying that for many months. But I agree with you. I think actually the best way forward for the United States, for the Trump administration, is to play to your strengths. And your strengths are marketing, the media, the messaging. make it appear as if you need to engage diplomacy in diplomacy with Russia on many topics. Ukraine is one of them.

But throw out there, throw many topics out there. So at the end of the day, it is a win for you. That's the trick that you want to put out there, the impression that you want to give. Yes, Ukraine is a tough one. We're trying to get Zelensky to talk to Russia and to wind this thing down. but we have X, Y, and Z issues, which are even more pressing, more urgent. Nuclear war and inflation and the economy and energy and gas and oil and more money in the American citizens' pockets because we want to bring prices down.

All these things, you can throw all this stuff out there. You minimize your involvement in Project Ukraine. This is the perception that you want to throw out there. You minimize your involvement or make it seem like your involvement is minimal. and you blow up all the other issues that you have to discuss with Russia. And yeah, like you said, you keep on squeezing Zelensky, and eventually something's going to pop. If you squeeze hard enough, something's going to go. I mean, just real quick, the stop of foreign aid even goes to the media companies.

And we're seeing the media companies in Kiev, in Ukraine. They're begging the EU for money, which you. which is incredible. It's now revealed, it's out in the open that they were state-funded media. U.S. state-funded media. The Ukraine media companies were U.S. state-funded. I believe a Ukrainian MP gave an interview and said that nine out of ten, 90% of all the media companies in Ukraine were 100% dependent on U.S. money from the U.S. State Department.

There's some problems here as well, Alex. This was never disclosed. These media companies actually did have an obligation to disclose that they're getting their money from the United States. That's a problem. They never disclosed that. And it shows that over the four years of this conflict, pretty much all of the information that they were giving out

about the conflict in Ukraine was originating. You can make the assumption that it originated from the Department of State. In other words, from Newland, for Blinken. from all of these people. It just went in a circle. Correct. That's exactly incredible.

That is exactly true. It was a closed media bubble funded by the US tax ban. In fact, the fact that people don't understand. And by the way, which is barely recorded here in Britain. It's embarrassing. And I understand in most of Europe. But it's absolutely correct. The stop order has exposed the fact that the entire media landscape in Ukraine,

which is the landscape. It's from the Ukrainian media that the European media and the American media itself has been taking stories was actually at all times funded by the State Department. That includes casualty numbers, Alexander?

Casualty numbers, everything. He who pays the piper calls the tune, as we all know. And given who we're talking about, Blinken, Newland, for the others, we can very well imagine the tune that these people were setting. I mean, it's been actually an astonishing revelation. And of course, that's only, I suspect, the start of it, because the media people have

been immediately affected. But gradually, we're going to see that more and more of what passes for Ukrainian civil society, the various NGOs and charitable organizations and things of that kind that function in Ukraine, and which again have been the people that Western journalists, when they go to Ukraine, go to and speak to. It turns out that they were actually being funded, in fact, ultimately employed by the U.S. State Department, by, again, the Western journalists and other, you know, people from other Western NGOs and whatever it is who went to speak with these people, they were just being replayed. the tooth that the State Department was setting.

So this is, it is an astonishing revelation. And we're now getting more and more little segments of admissions appearing in the media in the United States, that this star port is affecting at least some military supplies to Ukraine. It's very unclear how this is happening because obviously we have the big ticket items that have been sent by the Department of Defense and which were being funded through various appropriations. But as you have pointed out in program after program that has been done, so much of the wall almost certainly was being done by off the book items through. funds that have probably been administered, mostly, I suspect, by the State Department again

and are probably not cleared through congressional appropriations. And a huge amount of that is now going on, and it's now all being brought to a shuddering stop. and apparently there are people in Washington who are now saying that there needs to be proper accounting gun and who are they throwing under the bus? And they were starting to throw people under the bus. Who in Ukraine? The defense minister has been thrown under the bus.

It all makes sense now, yeah. And all sorts of people in Washington are being suspended, pending investigations. So this whole, you know, boom dogle is now coming to a stop. And I mean, it gradually, with every day that it continues, we're going to learn more and more and more about this. And I wouldn't be surprised if when we finally, if we ever do get to the day, when we get the real figures, we're going to discover that they're not just more than Congress authorized, which I think is a certainty. I think it's there'll be multiples more than Congress authorised. It's going back many years probably, all done through all kinds of shady off the book, devices, mechanisms.

And I remind our viewers that, you know, when Congress did previous appropriations, earlier appropriations, I remember you saying that a lot of this looks like an effort to close. of the book items that have been taking place to try to sort of, you know, put the accounts in some kind of order by, you know, basically recycling and funding money. And I suspect a huge amount of that has been going on. Yeah, sometimes I wonder that if Trump pressured Mike Johnson, remember when they were trying to get the $68 billion or whatever passed through, Congress, the Biden administration. It was eventually Trump that told Mike Johnson, okay, approve it.

I wonder if Trump, this is just a wild, wild guess. I wonder if Trump back then said, you know what, let them approve it. I've got a feeling that all of this stuff is corrupt. And if I win, then I'm going to have them. I've got them by the you know what, because we're going to do an audit and we're going to find all of this stuff, which eventually leads back to a lot of Washington, right? And if you want to clean up the swap, well, you know, you've got a nice money trail that you can audit. But Zelensky is already trying to say that Omerov is one of the guys that that was taking money or he's under an investigation or something like that. So they're going after their own defense minister. I imagine they're doing this because, well, it's got to start

throwing some people into the bus and start pinning the blame of all these huge holes in the books. They've got to start pinning in on somebody. Someone, yeah, absolutely. So, you know, throw someone to the wolves. Yeah, we'll keep running, running at the meantime. And anyway, we'll see how far this goes and what happens. And, of course, in the meantime, they're crawling to the European Union and asking for money from there. And probably they will get some.

But as we know, there is budgetary crises now across the entire European Union, too. And one way or the other, you know, keeping the money flows going. It's going to prove harder and harder. I, by the way, even if the stop order is reversed at some point, I think the process has already has begun. And it's probably irreversible. The freeze in funding in one form or another is going to continue. It's going to be more and more difficult for officials in Washington to find sources of funding to keep this thing going. Absolutely, because now American citizens, they're seeing that their money went to pay the salaries

and fund the business model, if you want to call it that, the revenue model of all of these media companies in Ukraine. I mean, this is what effectively was going on. A lot of money was going to prop up all of these media outlets, and there's a lot. Yes. They were paying operations. They were paying overhead. They were paying salaries, all of these things.

Yes. Absolutely. Just a final question, very quick. And we'll wrap up the video. Do you believe that now that all of this has been exposed, that the Ukraine media companies are effectively U.S. state-sponsored media outlets, will the big U.S.-UK.-EU mainstream media outlets start to distance themselves from the Ukraine? media outlets and something like that happening. I mean, do you see something like that going on now

or were they still work with them and get their information from them? Right. Now, there's two things before I get to that, there is one very important point that I do want to make, which is, of course, that the stop order is supposedly stopping funding for, you know, right across the board, except for Egypt and Israel. I think it's important to make one thing. absolutely clear, which is that Ukraine is by far the biggest funding program, foreign aid funding program, going through Washington. It's been going on like that for a long time, probably since before the conflict began, in fact, going all the way back to 2014 and before then. And as we discussed at the time when the Afghanistan thing collapsed, an awful lot of the funding

that was going to Afghanistan was also going, being laundered through Afghanistan and finding its way to other places, probably to Ukraine itself. The point is, Ukraine is not only the biggest funding program, it is probably the ultimate source points of a lot of the other financial flows that we have been seen. seeing, including financial flows, which of course have flowed back into the United States itself. We've made this point in previous programs. So stopping Ukraine funding is going to have a big impact right across the entire funding

NGO universe. Just saying, and it's going to affect what State Department has been doing, what the various alphabet soup of intelligence agencies have been doing and what all sorts of people in many other parts of the regime change community have been doing as well. So it's very important to understand this about Ukraine. Now about whether the Western media companies in Europe are going to stop relying on Ukrainian information supplied to them from Ukrainian media companies. For the moment, I would say no. I mean, they're still very invested in Project Ukraine. I can't imagine that the Financial Times de Spiegel

Le Monde guardian are simply going to stop and sever their contacts with their Ukrainian buddies. I mean, to some extent, remember, they also belong in the same echo chambers. So I don't think that's going to happen immediately. But of course, if investigations start, if people start facing investigations in Kiev, in Washington, then this will spread. And at that point, it will begin to become very embarrassing for some of these European media companies, which probably wouldn't want to answer certain questions about themselves. I'm being very careful what I say.

And then, of course, we could very well see a flight for the exits from people saying, you know, well, actually, you know, we're not really that involved in Ukraine anymore. And they start to come up with different stories to discuss about other things closer to home, you know, the green transition or something of that kind. You know, so I think that is possible. But don't expect at any time from these people, any admission that they did anything wrong. No, not at all.

All right, we will add the video there, the durand.orgal.com. We are on Rompelodesty, but you telegram, Rockfin, and X, and go to the Duran shop, pick up some merch. We have free shipping for all orders over $70. That is worldwide free shipping. So check that out as well.

The link is in the description box down below. Take care.