The Duran Podcast - Zelensky political crisis, enter Zaluzhny

Episode Date: December 4, 2025

Zelensky political crisis, enter Zaluzhny

All right, Alexander, let's talk about the political crisis in Ukraine. We have the resignation of Yermak. We have an interesting article from Zaluzni in The Telegraph. And if you believe that Zilluzni wrote that article, well, then I wrote the Declaration of Independence. But it was an interesting article, most likely authored by various three-letter agencies, perhaps in London, the city of London. I don't know where they're located in London, but anyway, he's the ambassador to the UK, by the way. He's a Lusjni. And Andy talks about security guarantees for Ukraine. He talks about Ukraine getting nuclear weapons, about NATO forces in Ukraine or another

large military in Ukraine, and that is how you can get to proper security guarantees. But effectively, his article was, I think it had two main reasons, two. main purposes for this article being put out there in the UK Telegraph. The first one is to basically signal that what is needed is a ceasefire. Yeah. Right. A pause, a ceasefire so that Ukraine can get some rest and then gain the strength again to go up against Russia again because the article talks about defeating Russia, right, destroying and defeating Russia. So basically the article is saying we need a pause and we need to rebuild. And then I think the second purpose of that article is for Zilluzni to say, here I am as the next leader, right?

And so this plays into the corruption scandal going on in Ukraine because it is thought that Zeluzni, Klitschko, Poroshenko, are kind of one clan. You have Zelensky and his script writers and theater kids are another part. And then you have other factions as well. So anyway, that's the situation in Ukraine. What do you think is going on? You are absolutely right on every single point. Zalusi did not write that article. Somebody in London wrote it for him, and it's not difficult to guess who. And again, it follows very much the agenda that you'd expect coming out of London,

a ceasefire of freeze of the conflict, rebuilding of Ukraine, massive rebuilding of Ukraine. And obviously, Zelensky himself is no longer, you know, he's damaged goods. everybody could see that sooner or later he's going to go, but you want somebody reliable, someone loyal, somebody who's going to be on side with London and with the Europeans, enter General's illusion, with him the British have long had a very, very close relationship and who is, of course, now currently ambassador to London. So that is what this is all about. And of course, it tells us a lot about what is really going on in Kiev.

Now, we've discussed the corruption scandal before. We've discussed how this is all small change. There's been actually, as far as I am aware, no actual charges brought against Yermak, Stelensky's chief of staff who abruptly resigned. There's been no charges made against him. He's just had his house searched or very unexplained by Nabu. There's lots of stories circulating. still about money and corruption, but nothing very, nothing that's really crystallized

beyond what we already knew two weeks ago. What you have to understand, and this is something that I think a lot of people are not guessing about this, is that this isn't a corruption scandal. What this is is a symptom of a crisis in Kiev caused by the fact that Project Ukraine is about to collapse. The Ukrainian army on the battlefronts is falling apart. I think this is now widely acknowledged, even within the West, and it is certainly well understood in Kiev itself. The Europeans have run into massive roadblocks over their ideas about funding Ukraine. The 140 billion euro loan has run into massive opposition.

from Euroclear and from the Belgians. The Belgian Prime Minister, De Weaver, Bart De Weaver, has written an article to Ursula, which has apparently been circulated to all European countries, saying that this idea is fundamentally wrong. He wants all of the European states to cover Belgium and Euroclear for any losses and to accept joint and several liability.

So what he's basically saying is Germany, you pay it all. Because joint and several liability means that each country individually is liable for the whole amount. So if there's a crisis, if there's a legal crisis, if Euroclair loses a case, loses its case, and Belgium is liable. DeVeva says that he's got to have an irrevocable guarantee, which cannot be, which is full proof, and where the money is provided on demand, and he's entitled to go to any European country to get the full amount of that money immediately. Germany. It's Germany, it's Germany, it's Germany, obviously.

I mean, it's not, he's not going to go, I mean, realistically, he's not going to go to Malta for 130, 183 billion euros, which is what he's asking for, by the way, from Malta. He's going to go to Germany. No other country could even in theory raise funds on this scale at once, on demand, in that kind of way. So this means that, well, I find this very difficult to see now. given that this letter exists, how the Europeans are going to go forward with this. Because this letter, I mean, it may be confidential, but if there's a legal case outside Europe, which there will be, then this letter becomes evidence. And any objective court looking at this letter, at this letter, we'll see this letter as an admission, as an admission that this entire operation,

is completely illegal. Otherwise, why say it's fundamentally wrong and why seek this kind of guarantee from the other European states? So the people in Kiev know that this is happening. They must know that there is now a big question mark about whether they're going to get the 140 billion euro loan. I mean, they will get some money from Europe,

but not as much as they were hoping for before. And so there is now that sense that everything is falling apart fast and we've got to act quickly. We've got to fill up our suitcases quickly. And we've got to push the present group of people who are there in control. Yermak, perhaps ultimately even Zelensky himself, though maybe not Zelensky because he's still the president and we don't maybe want to remove him immediately. but push all of the others aside so that we can get closer to the source of the money flow, and we can take control, and we can bring perhaps Zulusini in. And Zalusini may be able to stabilize the situation, at least for a few months,

perhaps persuade the Europeans to stomp up a bit more cash, perhaps get the Americans to stomp up a bit more cash, and that way the money keeps flowing. and at least a little longer so that when we leave, we have secured our own position. Because that is what I believe this is about. I know that there are theories out there that the Americans wanted Yermak out. And I've no doubt they did want Yermak out. But I don't think it's just the Americans who are pushing this investigation.

I think that it's been pushed mostly by people in Kiev itself. The Europeans, by the way, are hostile to it, as they've made very, very clear. But the investigation is now moving fast, and it's a sign of an imminent or incipient collapse. Why would Zilluzni be any better? I mean, he's, you know, there's so much, there's hype around Zillusioni, but why would he be any better than the Zelensky regime? I mean, when you take a step back and break down the myth of Zillusini, there's really nothing there. He wasn't a very good general. He was a failure in the 2003 super-duper counter-offensive.

That was him. He was the guy behind the failure. That was the 2023 counter-offensive. I mean, he's been defeated by the Russian military. to tarry over and over again. Allegedly, this is not me saying this, Alexander. This is the BBC and much of the collective West media. Allegedly, he was the mastermind behind the Nord Stream sabotage.

Yes. That's not me that's saying this. The BBC has written articles about this. The Wall Street Journal has written articles about this. How, why would this guy be any better than the Zelensky regime? Well, he wouldn't be. I mean, he's, he's, I mean, you've described him very well. I mean, he's a massively overrated and mythologized figure, but he is himself hardly, remotely competent to stabilize the situation in Ukraine.

I mean, he's perhaps a bit more popular with some of the soldiers, so particularly the far-right brigades. The Vander Right brigades that he was very, very close to. but and maybe he's more popular with wider Ukrainian society because he's not Zelensky, by the way, that's all. But he absolutely lacks the political skill and absolutely lacks the military skill to achieve any kind of stabilization. And he is no more interested in a negotiation with the Russians than Zelensky is. So again, I mean, people are coming up. with Zillustni because they still believe the myth to some extent. But I think the major reason

is that they want someone there as the totem pole, if you like, who will be their man. So the British are backing Zillusione because they feel Zillusione is loyal to them. They don't want somebody like, say, Klitschko, who might be closer to the Germans. I suspect there's behind the scenes a awful lot of that going on too. And the British are backing Zillusini. The Germans, one here, would prefer Klitschko. Ultimately, whoever wins out, it's not going to make any difference. It's not, by the way, by the way, can I just say something else?

It's not going to, contrary to what people, some people may assume, it is not going to stabilize the situation in Kiev. It's going to accelerate the collapse, because if Zelensky is leveraged out of his position, then everybody knows that this can be done. And from that moment on, the moment somebody like Zaluzni starts to fail, and he will fail very fast,

Others will say, well, you know, solution he wasn't the man. So we must put in Klitschko instead. And if it's not Klitschko, then we must bring in Timoshenko. So we're going to start getting a revolving door of people moving round. And by the way, this is not unusual in situations of deep crisis when everything starts to fall apart. Why wouldn't Zelensky be okay with this? I mean, at the end of the day, it could be his exit. He could leave Ukraine with his suitcases of cash, his many, many, many suitcases.

And he could leave Ukraine and say, you know what? There's a new sheriff in town. There's a new government. Okay, fine. I'm gone. And he could go in one of his homes in Europe or wherever in the United States. And much like Kuleba or Resniko, remember those guys? Yes.

They bolted. They're God. They're out and they're fine. They're much better off for it, right? They got out early and they're much better off. So how come he just doesn't take Zelensky-Kilchko-Potoshenko? How come he just doesn't take them up on their... Zoluzni, sorry, Potoshenko, take them up on their offer and just say, okay, guys, the MI6.

Okay, guys, I'm out. I'm out, see you later. First of all, I mean, you know, there are all the claims that Zelensky has now developed, some kind of Napoleon complex, which I think is partly true, by the way. I think he does have that issue. But put that aside, there are more pressing reasons why he probably is resisting doing that. Firstly, before he does anything like that, he would almost certainly want guarantees of protection, some kind of amnesty, at the very least, I would say, but probably something more than that. So he would want to bargain for protection for himself, his family, his friends, and his money.

He's not going to want to be prosecuted and pursued around the world, you know, by investigators from the United States and wherever. So he would want that to happen first. And probably, given that any guarantees like that, which he's given now, might not be full, full, they might always be capable of being set aside. He might calculate, and this by the way, I do believe, that his safest bet of all would be to remain president of Ukraine until the very last moment and then leave and then form an exile government somewhere in Nice or London or Miami or someplace like that

because then he would still have the protection of being recognized. by the Western countries as the president, the lawful president of Ukraine, and he would have sovereign immunity for himself and for his assets. Getting Zelensky out for the collective West is beneficial. I can see the benefit in it in that, you know, for the Europeans or even for the U.S., Molly Hemingway of the Federalist put out an interesting tweet, a post. on X, where she basically said that the corruption in Ukraine is so extensive and so deep. I'm starting to think that anyone that had a Ukraine flag in their bio was probably involved in the

grift. That's pretty much what she said. I'll put her post up on screen so people can read it. But she's right. She's spot on. Yes. So I guess a good way to extend the grift, if you're part of the collective West, is to get rid of Zelensky. and to get someone new in there, so you can then present to your citizens. Like if you're the United States, you can tell the people of the United States, or if you're in Denmark, right, you can say to the people of Denmark, you see, we've got a new leader so we can now continue to pour money into Ukraine. We've removed this corruption problem.

And by the way, it also shows that democracy is working in Ukraine because, you know, they had a corruption problem and we took it all the way to the top. And we got rid of this problem. And now, you know, everything is okay. And we can start to send the money back to, back to Kiev. You've explained the whole corruption scandal. I mean, this is the reason why there are people in Kiev who want the corruption scandal to continue and the investigations to continue because they want the grift to continue. And they believe that putting in someone else, like Zillusioni, will reassure people in the West so that the money flow can continue until the moment of collapse comes. But of course, there are other people in the

West who, for exactly the reason that you've said, also want that. The problem is this is a difficult operation because, well, Putin, of course, is coming along and is saying that Zelensky has no legitimacy. He's outstanding. his term, he's somebody who has usurped power. But within Ukraine itself, it is Zelensky that everybody knows as the president of the country. If you just remove him, then you could easily find a situation where instead of the situation stabilizing and the grift ending, the situation becomes destabilized and chaos, political chaos, starts to develop. And then, of course, the grift has to stop.

Stranagh, a Ukrainian dissident news site, which by the way publishes from abroad, but which still has extensive contacts in Ukraine itself, actually said that, that this is a concern and that people in Ukraine and in the West understand this danger and want to prevent that kind of collapse, that kind of collapse happening. And the only way they can do it, I suspect, ultimately, by the way, is by keeping Zelensky in post. So maybe you bring in Zoluzni, you make him prime minister, you make him vice president, or you make him head of the Security Council, or you give him some important position. You reduce Zelensky to some kind of ceremonial role.

Maybe you try to do something like that. But anything of that kind is extremely difficult. And the whole operation will require a lot of care if it is to be achieved properly. You can see, by the way, why, if you want to achieve that outcome, you would want to get someone like Yermak out of the way. because Yermak, having gathered all the threads in his hands, would by definition be an obstacle to achieving anything of that kind. He would have acted definitely to squash it. So, of course, you basically set out to destroy him politically, and that's what we've just seen.

Oh, yeah, with Yermak gone, Zelensky's absolutely exposed. Absolutely. He's very exposed. Just a final thought, there is some political analysts in Kiev who do claim that Zelensky by the new year will exit on his own. There's some analysts, very respective from what I understand, analysts in Kiev. You do say that Slensky is just going to wait until the new year, and then he's going to make an announcement that he's out. Which is, I suspect, by the way, that that also is to some extent influence, because that was what happened with Yeltsin, Boris Yeltsin. He waited until the new year, 1999, before he announced that he was leaving, but he left early.

So Zelensky, and this is not impossible. But if so, then Zelensky is going to use the next few months, as I said, to get those guarantees of his protection. It's not impossible, but, you know, I can imagine other outcomes. And for the moment at least, he's giving no public sign that it is his intention to go. Yeah, maybe that's why he wants to meet with Trump so badly. Well, indeed. Yeah, right, to discuss these guarantees, perhaps. Absolutely.

All right, we'll end the video there, the durand.com. We are on Rumble, X telegram, and substack. We are also on substack. So check us out there and go to the Durant shop, pick up some merch. There's a link in the description box down below. Take care.