today's news talk radio TNT. All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the program. I'm Patrick Henningsen, your host. It's great to have you with us here on this Wednesday. And as I said before the break, we'll be covering a couple of big stories internationally here. Of course, the Sevastopol attack in Crimea by Ukraine and NATO killing civilians on the beach, a war crime, massive war crime, and there should be charges at the ICC for this. But will there be? Who knows? We'll talk about the ICC. We'll talk about Sevastopol. We'll talk about Russia's latest foray there with the Hague. They're trying to drag a few more high ranking Russian officials in there. Also the Julian Assange case, let me bring on to the program right now, independent researcher and journalist Freddie Ponton joining us from France. Freddie, great to have you with us. And as I said yesterday, it's not often we get good news. It's just so depressing and down. But this Julian Assange hugging his wife, walking free. I mean, this is incredible. It's a bittersweet victory though. plea bargaining with the US government. But just the fact that he's out of a maximum security prison alongside terrorists and serial killers where his health was was suffering badly, Freddie. I think this is something I'm very happy to see despite the plea bargain, your thoughts on the Assange latest. Yes. Patrick, excellent news. I'm like, pretty much everybody around the world delighted with the news, you know, any freedom of speech law, very light, really will be delighted for this news. Of course, as you said, it's a bittersweet kind of news because it comes with a guilty plea, which was for her literally out of the defense of Julian Assange. At this stage of almost 40 years passing that in behind bars, I think you really want to do whatever he takes to get the men out because I don't think he had another six month in him, to be honest with you. So to see him out the way he did it, and the amount of support, all the team that has never let him down. I mean, this is an incredible story. And that's something that will be, you know, staying with a long time as part of the story of journalism, because he didn't fight on me for himself or for the church. But I think he really fought for journalism, what he believes in and what he's entitled to sigh on the law. And I think that is very important, although as we all saw the government forced him in this kind of a guilty plea to say that he was guilty of spying against the United States, all that is absolutely unfounded. But yeah, you know, he's out. It's interesting to see that his lawyers didn't want him to place that plea on the U.S. continental space, but wanted to do that in a more commonwealth, the Pacific settings, making sure that, you know, at least he has some kind of a way out should they change their mind. So that's what's part of the latest send to the prosecutor's office on Monday and was basically negotiated. And it's good to see that earlier this morning he was able to play two places is guilty plea and get out of there. So it's all good, it's good to see him with his family reunited with his friends. And of course, we all in patience to hear his first official statement, I simply hope that he's not going to go basically declaring that he's not guilty. I don't think it's his best interest because he will be perjuring himself since he was placed on the oath at the federal courts in say, pan, so he really wants to keep that for himself. And there is now time to rebuild and we need to give the guys the space. I think he really need that amount of space and I think he wants that. So yes, I'm very, very happy to see that. Although, as I say, I will never accept the fact that he was guilty simply because there is enough precedence in the legal context in the United States with the Pentagon Papers, the case, the United States versus Washington Post and the New York Times, there is a very explicit about the freedom of speech, the freedom for any publishers or journalists. It doesn't matter how you acquired the information. He has no literally criminal or civil liability for revealing that information. It's very clear since 1987. So this has been a precedent, this has been a common practice in the United States. The real question is, why should you in a sense was treated differently? And that is the real question here. My personal view, as I said, is this was not a case against Julian, Julian, it stands itself. This was a very strong warning from the United States as far as don't get involved with our business, our dirty laundry. If you get too close, we'll come after you and we'll punish you and we'll make an example of you. And that is absolutely disgusting, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm happy to see him out. Yeah, it's great to see Estella Assange, you could see on the video there hugging her husband. He'll be able to see his children who are growing up while he's been incarcerated and under arbitrary detention before that at the Ecuadorian Embassy, before he was rendered out by British police in an active breach of international law, extraordinary rendition, crossing into Ecuadorian territory to basically kidnap somebody who had asylum. And so there's a bit of a stitch up, that's another scandal. So it's very regrettable what's happened, but you know, you know that his health was flagging badly while he was in Belmarsh prison. So how long would he survive? They made a calculated move here. Of course, we can speculate about the timing Freddie with the US election. I certainly think this might come up in the debate tonight. I would not be surprised if it does come up in the debate and Biden is doing a victory lap over Trump's indictment of Assange. Then you know, then you know what this timing is all about. So we'll put that off to the side. We'll wait and see what's happening. This will be in a few hours. You have the Trump Biden debate or is coming up. I think it's tonight. I think. Yeah. So it's going to be really soon. So that's one thing. I mean, the other thing, you made some good points there Freddie as well. It does not raise to the bar of the Espionage Act. Not even close. Not even pre create conditions, Freddie. There's no gagging order on him. He can speak freely. He can say what he wants. I would think also his legal team, I hope would appeal the initial charges to possibly get those to be dropped because it doesn't stand under law or any precedent as far as you mentioned there as well, Freddie. So I think it's important to establish this legally because if this stands, this plea stands, it does mean the US government can go and go after other journalists that might get knocked back into Supreme Court later. But as it stands now, they still retain that power that they can hold someone under duress, effectively arbitrary detention, torture, holding somebody unconvicted for years on end and then force them to do a plea bargain to save their life. I mean, it's outrageous, Freddie. Go ahead. Yeah. The whole thing is outrageous. I mean, there's no other word to describe what he had to go through, what his family had to go through. As I say, there's no ground on it, but you have to be very careful just to go back to the perjury aspect when you place on the oath in a federal court, even if you don't have any gag order. It doesn't matter. You'll be considered as pergering yourself because you say that you will guilty. So he's got to be careful with that. I don't think there's nothing in them for doing that. Because if they want to basically reengage in an appeal, and of course, open a new course of justice, then that's up to them to do that, but doing it in a proper manner so that he's not effective. Although, I really doubt that the Australian government will be in any way inclined to release them to the United States authority after what he went through. So, look, I think it's a happy time for him, for his family, for all of us that have believed in what he's doing, that has supported him in our own ways, all along. And I think that again, journalism needs to not be intimidated by these kind of actions. We cannot take that as an intimidation. We all journalists, whether we're independent or not, it's irrelevant. What matters is we have to protect our source. We need to be able, because we leave. That's how journalists work. We live through our sources. We develop these sources in different environment, different circle, whether the diplomatic circle, whether the law enforcement circle, military circle. We all have these kind of sources, and we use them in time to assess, in time to, for our example, to make sure we understand properly what's going on and sometimes to expose when it's needed. Yeah. For instance, with this flexibility of application, of the law, or the espionage act, or whatever, us to stop them from, you know, going after Seymour Hirsch, because he says he has sources that take the Nord Stream pipeline story, for example, his sources are potentially high ranking or in government. They might fall foul of the official Secrets Act or something like this. It depends how much they want to press, because before, that was not prosecutable. But there's no rules anymore. And it seems like the only rule is who has power and who doesn't? Freddy. Yeah, that's absolutely what it is. And I think, and I spend countless hours in looking on how these things are going down, you know, how this is legally possible, and what is the oversight over that, you know, and we can clearly see today that this, the, you know, the judicial system in the United States is completely corrupt, you know, and people have to really fear for their rights you know, their constitutional rights has been completely is under attack, and it's been under attack for a very long time. And so any investigation we put our finger in, we can clearly see that there are ways the United States uses to get to you, one way or the others. And it's really across the spectrums, you know, this is, these are rogue actors. So we're promoting democracy around the world when clearly democracy is not, you know, even and doesn't apply under United States soil. And in the case of Julian Assange, this is a clear breach of fundamental right for journalists to use sources and reveal. And as I say, the way he gathered that information is absolutely irrelevant because it must be deemed any steam of public interest. And from the moment steam of public interest, which I believe what Julian Assange has more than qualified as far as something that interested the public on that particular instance, he should have been let let alone, but it was a political move. This was an aggressive move from the United States. And it's a warning. It's clear warning about don't get involved with intelligence operation. Don't get involved with, you know, all the rugged stuff we do out there around the world. You don't want to talk about what we're doing, you know, do your journalism, talk about little politics and domestic issues, but don't get involved in covered operations or dirty business because we'll come for you. And that really is, really, I hope there is going to be an appeal for the down the line. That's going to really, you know, look into what happened over the last past 14 years and whether this was legal or not. Yeah, I mean, the main argument against Assange is that they make against him is a political argument or an opinion. And it's actually propaganda. It's that he put, you know, US agents in the field, he put their lives at risk because of the stuff that was published on WikiLeaks. Now, I know, I point out, I hasten to point out to everybody where he worked with the New York Times, with their journalists, with the Guardian, with Lamonde. I think El Pais, possibly in Spain, there's all part of a consortium to release and to manage the release of this information. The one who basically put everybody at risk was a Guardian journalist named Luke Harding, who published a book regarding cable gate. And in the book, he put the password to the encrypted files that basically allow people to get in when that book was published. And it wasn't until Assange and WikiLeaks team were basically alerted about this. Then they got on the phone to the State Department and said, Hey, this book is out and this is compromising. If you have anybody in the field, you know, you better get in touch with them. And nobody to their knowledge was hurt or killed or put in danger. So he did the responsible thing as a journalist. It was it was the mainstream rogue, you know, propagandist Luke Harding that put people's lives at risk. And he should be in the dock, if anybody, not Julian Assange. And as you said, what WikiLeaks publishes is very much in the public interest, very much in the public interest, but they're trying to wind back that concept Freddie. There's no such thing as the public interest anymore. Because it's not in the interest of power or go. It's no longer in the public interest, says the establishment. Yeah, exactly. It's about, you know, leveraging their interest against your interest. You know, and if their interest is more important than your interest, then it goes your freedom of speech and your, your, your journalistic rights, you know, so it's disgusting. I mean, it's a for everybody to see, but the fact that what we're amazed me is that they have absolutely no shame, you know, they can conduct that. Prosecutors was asking for as a 62 month as part of the peer agreement. But thanks, but he already served five years in Delmarsh, you know, so that you don't have to serve that otherwise you will have had to serve that again, you know. So all that for me is like, this is a harassment. This is really a level of harassment of an individual simply for publishing something comes directly from a, a, a vetted source. And that is not for Julian to, you know, to, to, to kind of, you know, take your responsibility in any way to have any liability as far as publishing this, this information. Because he come directly from a military operative. So as far as I'm concerned, you know, there's nothing really legal in that instance. But as you say, a lot of propaganda, a lot of PR went into that, you know, it's basically the U.S. putting the muscles on that and trying to scare everybody. But we're not scared. We're not impressed. We're happy that Julian is out. I'm so the fight continues. We're not going to, we're not going to give up because there's a lot of more to talk about. We'll talk about it today as well about the basketball, I suppose. And we'll see again what's going on and we're going to be absolutely amazed about, you know, how this is all articulated and how this is all put together. Last thing I'll say on, on the Assange story of Freddy is, and we commented on this yesterday with Basil Valentine and Taylor Hoodack on the show. And, you know, Julian was very powerful. And he was absolutely wreaking havoc on Twitter before they took him away. And they shut his Twitter account or he was off social media at that point. But he was absolutely savaging the British government over the scripal Ferrago. That's a complete pantomime of an event. Sergey's the Novachok, the Novachok crisis. So he was, you know, he was really, really making an impact. Now, if he ever returns, if he ever returns to X or Twitter. And by the way, I'm going to, I'm going to put my money down now. The first interview he's going to give, the first, I think it's going to be, it has to be Tucker Carlson. I'm going to put, I'm going to put the money on the table. It's Tucker. I'll bet you Tucker's even in Australia as we speak, probably lining that one up. So that's going to happen. And if he gets on social media, Freddy, what kind of a, I mean, he's going to be the biggest account on Twitter. There's nobody, he's going to be bigger than Trump. Freddy, what do you think? He's going to be even bigger than Elon Musk. He's already a leading legend. This is really rare, you know, he's one of a kind, you know. But yeah, this is going to be very interesting to have this, hopefully they'll deliver it on Twitter as well. So really get a good reach so that everybody can understand how he feels. You know, it's not bad having the full story, but really understand, you know, what did learn. Because when you spend so much time on solitary confinement, you're, you, you dig inside, you know, you're going to go have that journey inside yourself. And you're going to really, really explore all the avenues and, and trying to understand really what does it mean, what this fight really means, not only for him, but for the world. Because I think the fight that is conducted is a, is a welfare, it's a fight for humanity, even beyond journalism. This is about, you know, the United States age amount that is trying to tell us how we should think, what should we do, what is possible, what is not possible. And this really been repeated around the world, you know, in the Western countries and other countries as well, where more and more our liberties are being attacked upon that have been basically diminished and less and less constitutional right is appreciated and offered to citizens, which really explained the frustrations that we are seeing in the Western world at the moment. And this is only going to go and increase, you know, more, more events like that occur, more justice happens and more frustrations will be liberated until the government understand that at the end of the day, the power is with us. It's not with them. It worked for us. That's what's really important and journalism is there to maintain a balance, you know, you know, fair balance so that people can actually access the truth. But we've been offered the mainstream media. Nobody forces anyone to watch the mainstream media. As what I say, anybody that say I'm not informed because the mainstream media is aligned to me, nobody forces you watching the mainstream media. Go and look for people that actually do the homework, you know, people like yourself and so many out there that actually spend of their own time. They're not getting rich at doing it. We all know that, but at least we're doing something that is of a public utility and we hope we make a difference. And that's where the information should be going because MCM is not interesting in giving us the truth. Yeah, we do what we can with the resources we have Freddie. We do the best we can with what we've got. And for all we've got is our voice and our brain, then so be it. We'll use that in whatever platforms that we can possibly use like TNT. Today's news talk has been a great platform for the truth as well as 21st century wire and countless other independent media outlets Freddie. You're absolutely spot on right there before the break we mentioned Ukraine. Sylvester Paul Crimea over the weekend. I mean, that's a huge story. Not only that, you get these really shady terrorist attacks, Gladio style attacks in Dagestand. That looked like a way to paper over the real story, which of course was in Crimea. Really horrific at a time when people are talking about a negotiated settlement. The timing of that, of course, is no coincidence. It seems that Freddie, there's some people that don't want a negotiated settlement. So I think there's a split in the establishment a little bit. There's people that want to back out of this thing. And there's other people in other agencies that want to move ahead and escalate just first of all your reaction to the horrific scenes that we saw in Sylvester Paul. Yeah, absolutely disgusting. I mean, you know, five individuals, kids, two children's been killed, 155 people basically injured, but shrapnel. And we're told a story that this was a, you know, basically, these people got caught, you know, in a cross firing, you know, by the United States and John Kirby. So again, what we are seeing here is a manufactured lie to trying to get away from a situation that turned out to go pretty wrong. And this operation was, I think a catastrophe to be honest with you. And more importantly, there is absolutely some unequivocal, all the data shows that this was a target on the city of Sylvester Paul and not on some bellbake airport base or whatever. This was not the case. This was clearly an attack during the very important Christian Orthodox holiday in Sylvester Paul. And I think that the Russians have literally escaped from a major catastrophe, because if that, those missiles, I think it was five missiles that were fired on Crimea on Sylvester Paul. And if that has landed in the middle of Sylvester Paul, I think we would have talking about a lot of casualties. So I'm glad this was a verdict, but very clearly, and although very straight, because I want to address the point about the context. And what is it that we are looking at? Because this is part of a much bigger picture. And I think it's important to describe it. So we can clearly see that the NATO apparatus, the United States apparatus, is extremely active in this kind of operation. They provide the logistics, anything that used GPS automatically links back to the United States in this particular place. In case the Russians are very clear about it, this was supported by experts in attack, MS missile, which was the missile use for this operation. We can see the use of cluster ammunition, which clearly, I think it's the M-75 cluster ammunition. This is absolutely forbidden in war times, especially against civilians. But of course, the United States is not participating in this kind of agreement or treaty. And then on the other side, what's very important to see is obviously the initial reaction from the Ukrainians was going to blame the Russians for trying to defend themselves. And they are attacking basically Crimea. That Crimea is still Ukrainians. And the United States is looking basically at a terrorist attack and not even saying a word. So that's really worrying. But what's really important here, Patrick, is to understand really how this comes about. And the question that needs to be answered now is to, on the which framework these operations are conducted and where these repetitive terror attacks are coming from. Now, I've done some research, as you know, on the North Stream pipeline on NATO, for quite some time. And what my investigation revealed in Ukraine is interesting, because we got to go back and rewind a little bit to the 2017 National Security Strategy, the NDS of the United States. It's got a lot of brainstorming about reshuffling the cards on where this new national security strategy is going to lead the United States Intelligence Community and Defense Community. And then part of this brainstorming comes to 2018 as the final product where clearly we can see in the irregular warfare annex attached to the NDS that the United States, with all the lessons they learned from the war on terrorism, the war on terrorism, so-called war on terror, all the lessons learned. Everything that they've done was basically shifted. And the irregular warfare annex is absolutely unequivocal. They clearly talk about a shift words, basically, a new enemy, what they call a near-peer adversary, a peer adversary, and it's clearly China and especially Russia. So we're talking about 2018. We're not in '23 and '22. This is not about, you know, Russian might invade Ukraine or not. This is really part of a global strategy. And what is interesting in that is to understand that there is a framework. And that's really interesting to understand that, because whether you talk about the North Stream sabotage or to talk about it, the various terrorist attacks that have happened in Belgorod, in Russia itself, it's all part of the same construct. And this construct, we can actually see it and we can recognize it. Now, what I'm going to discuss now is probably, you know, people have very little, few people have understand it or even researched it, but it's very interesting. It's about the US Department of Defense, and over the years they have developed two doctrines, and these doctrines are known as operational preparation of the environment, okay? It's known as OPE. And when joint intelligence basically operates, it's a part of this intelligence operations. It is known as GIOP, which is a joint operational preparation of the environment. Now, that is very interesting because these are basically classified and categorized as a traditional military activities. The reason why they are categorized as traditional military activities is because they simply help bypassing basically the notification process to the Congress and the House, and they barely basically make it to the oversight intelligence and defense committee, which normally look into this kind of operation. So whether we talk a bit of OPE or we talk about GIOP, these doctrines, which have no stated, basically allowed, basically, something that is purely an intelligence operational, considered as a covered operational, clandestine operation, being this guy has an OPE and to avoid and bypass the oversight process. And that is basically the doctrine that is basically the program, the onack knowledge program, that is deployed abroad, whether through NATO, the glove of NATO, or the glove of Ukraine. So if they're going to work on an operation with the intelligence in Ukraine, the United States Department of Defense are going to use these particular doctrines, the OPE or GIOP, to insert themselves into the Ukrainian glove, working with the Ukrainian intelligence to carry out what is known as irregular warfare, which is basically falling under the unconventional warfare. And what you find in this umbrella is sabotage and act of terrorism. So this is where we're going with this new strategy, and this has been going on for 2018. So when we're talking about an operation that we saw in Sevastopol, this is a GIOP, this is a joint intelligence operational preparation of the environment, meaning the environment, this is all setting up all the conditions for a military operation and a major military operation, which means that it involves collections of evidence, a lot of data, whether this is space data, which is located data, this is about using informants within the countries, using sleeping terrorist cells inside the country. We saw in Dagestan in similitaries, at the same time this happening in Sevastopol, you get these cells are basically starting to come out in Dagestan and starting to kill people, attacking churches, autodogs, Jewish synagogues, attacking basically police stations, sleeping in the throat of the priest, all that is part of a covered operational clandestine operation behind enemy lines. And the only process and only doctrines and only program unacknowled program that we can identify that can bypass basically the oversight committees are the OPO, the GIOP. And that's exactly what I wanted to say to that because I think when you understand that it's going to help us understand that we only see in the beginning of these various irregular warfare activities taking place on Russian soil. Okay, so asymmetric warfare, hybrid warfare, total warfare, irregular warfare, lots of different terms that are used to describe this. So basically what you're saying is, you know, all rules are suspended, all is fair in love and war. And certainly this is what we're seeing these terrorist attacks, shades of operation, Gladio, those horrific decades in Europe, where NATO intelligence was staging terrorist attacks throughout the continent. I'm talking about the 50s, late 50s, even 60s, 70s, and of course 80s, culminating with the Bologna bombing that killed so many different people there turned out to be Operation Gladio is done by NATO against European citizens. Nobody's ever been held to account for that. But now we find out through peer reviewed work, the great work of Daniel Ganser and other great academics and journalists that this is exactly what happened. CIA had an autonomous cell within NATO that was only answerable to itself. In fact, NATO command didn't even know about it. Most of them didn't even know it existed. And yet all of these activities, these terrorist attacks were being staged right across Europe, a strategy of tension. And that's exactly what we're seeing happening in Russia now with the Crocus City Hall attack, which was in March and also in Dagestan here. There's other events that we could put in that category too, Freddie. So basically they're playing dirty. They're playing dirty, by all means necessary. But what is the objective, Freddie, besides tension to keep the war going, it just fits Gladio chapter and verse. But they've just rebranded it now calling it a total warfare, hybrid warfare, irregular warfare. So it's incredible. Well, what people call the glad you be, which is really pretty much a desk at US so calm, which basically work alongside the CIA, is allowed himself to conduct and using NATO as a glove to insert unconventional warfare programs. So these programs are on manipulation. And they intensify depending on how well they're doing. So for example, they're losing the battle with Ukraine against Russia. And clearly they're not able to respond because the manufacturing of ammunition of 155 shells and so on is replaced by, you know, by dip and other close diminitions and so on. Clearly, we can see that the United States and NATO cannot respond to the intensity of warfare going on in Ukraine at the moment. So what they do is to compensate that they use this form of unconventional warfare and irregular warfare. And that's when you start to see sabotage sabotage and act of terrorism. So act of terrorism about contracted by a various cell. We know in Dagestan al-Qaeda is there, ISIS is there. And of course, CIA, MI6 is definitely, you know, one fun call away. So this is about destabilizing the country. This is about weakening Russia from inside. And unfortunately, what we can see is that it's strengthening Russia. The people are so infuriated about what happened in Sevastopol that they are asking the government, you know, and telling them this is, you know, crossing the Rubicon. This is about crossing the red line now. What are you going to do about it? And that's why you got Sergey Lavrov coming with a statement saying, look, this is not going to be remain unanswered. We're going to go after you and we're going to come after US personal and asset in Ukraine. I don't think they're going to go for Romania or Poland, but they'll definitely go for asset in Ukraine, especially those that targets that logic stick, that unconventional warfare, logistics that you're going to see with special operators, you know, and those that provide that GPS logic stick for the special operation. And then the second part we should anticipate as well is the possibility that Russia might decide to close at least some parts of the of the Black Sea airspace as well, because there's been just so many publications. We don't hear all of it, but there's a lot of propagation with B-52, you get a lot of jet fighters, US NATO, that basically comes at the border, circling the border of Russia. And this has been a provocation that has been gathering for years. So I think that Russia is going to put an end to that. And I think we're going to see a serious proportionate, but a very serious census from the Russian Federation, because that Sevastopol attack is absolutely disgusting. Yeah, we also have just quickly the announcement from the US that they'll be deploying military contractors now openly in Ukraine. So you're talking about the Blackwater-type firms, private military firms. So I mean, this is a huge escalation, and they're not going to be spared, obviously, by the hands of Russian Kinshel missiles and so forth. But it just shows you the privatization of the military and creating a privatized arm to bypass any sort of restraint that they might have regarding international law, working around NATO. It's just really just to extend the fact that Ukraine's military is flagging, they're having trouble recruiting troops. I don't want to throw this clip, which is circulating on X right now. This is Ukrainian recruiters going around trying to basically abduct anybody, any man with a pulse between the age of 18, if they can find them, and maybe up to 60 years old. I think the average age, we'll bring this clip on screen here, the average age of the Ukrainian conscripts and so forth. It's just under 40 years old, Freddie. I mean, this is not a look at this. They're just kidnapping this guy. They're fighting back. There's record numbers of incidents of families fighting these recruiters because they're trying to take their breadwinners away and throw them in the trenches and dumbass Freddie. I mean, this is like happening all the time all over what is left of Ukraine, this can't be a viable fighting force. Your thoughts, Freddie? Yeah, well, I mean, this is desperation. This is what's going on. This is desperation. And as we all know, this is something to the last Ukrainian. That's what Zelensky offers to his people. This is not the Ukrainian people that wants that. I think the Ukrainian people are smart people. There is no reason for them to understand that this war has been basically commanded by the United States under the promise that there will win this war and the United States will be there for them. But the bottom line is that the Ukrainian NATO can even help themselves. How can they help Ukraine? And these kind of actions allowed to happen, clearly demonstrate the level of desperation within the governments. What is even more worrying Patrick, is that the last declaration and statement made by Putin that I came across, I think it was on the 20th of June, when he talks about Zelensky and about his mandate, the illegitimity of his presidency at this current moment in time. But what he's talking about is that this conflict is going to drag until the spring 2025. And that's an important clue as well, because what he's telling us is that this is not the end. We are in the long game. And if you want to pay, you're going to get fine. But Russia is not going away. And if he's going to go, of course, until spring 2025, then the winter 2024, he's going to be a hard one. And it's not going to be a main power to sustain this kind of intensity. And I believe at some stage something is going to explode in Ukraine. The people of Ukraine are going to react at some stage. They cannot carry on like this. They must put an end to that. Just a couple of minutes left, Freddie, I want to get your comment as well. I'm something a little closer to home for you. Headline of France faces threat of, quote, civil war. This is something Macron is bending about. You probably seen this in the news. Freddie, I know you follow the French press very closely. What's this all about? Well, that is the promise of chaos that the media in France are starting to build up. The idea of chaos, revolution, because this is what has been planned. What has been planned is from the moments that Macron dissolved the National Assembly and called for a snap election. It was very clear in his attitude and decisions that he didn't want anyone to get ready quickly. He wanted to get these very quick elections, get it ready. He knows that he's going to lose the selections. The polls are already showing that he's going to lose it. That might not be a majority for the National Rally, but enough for forcing Macron to have to basically finish his mandate on the National Rally strong influence in the National Assembly. So because of that, the global leaders and the European Union, the underlying club, is going to push for creating chaos, because this is where these guys thrive, because when you create chaos, you can use emergency power. That's where they go into it. They're going to try to grab as much as emergency power, perhaps even for the first time, all the way to the COB, to the year, continuity of governments, which give even extra power. So they're going to basically agitate all these movements of public opinions. And this is going to turn eventually into a violence competition on the street. There's no doubt about it, because that is the intention. And what we are seeing in the price is going to do exactly what they've done for COB. They're going to inject enough fear and enough controversy for that people starting to fight against each other. If they finally get each other, they're not fighting against Macron. That works fine. Yeah. And a lot of people are starting to realize here and talk more publicly. I mean, they're a little bit late and Freddy, but basically saying, what a toxic individual Emmanuel Macron is and has been for the political system in France. I mean, they're just talking about that now. I mean, we were covering this for years, in fact, and how dangerous he was with the vaccine rollout. McKinsey Gate, the fact that arguably US intelligence is running a fair share of the French governmental functions, if you talk about McKinsey Gate. And this guy is running around basically like he is the second coming of Napoleon III. So he doesn't really want to relinquish power. And we know why, because he was installed for a reason. He was put in by the main central banking powers, because he is the guy that was going to bring their football down for a touchdown in the end zone. And that touchdown hadn't quite materialized yet, nearly there, but not quite hence they're desperate right now. It's going to be very interesting, Freddy. Let's continue this conversation next week. I'm looking forward to that. I hope you're going to stay well. We will see you very soon. Hi, it's been a pleasure. Thank you very much for having me, Patrick. Yeah, he goes, ladies and gentlemen, Freddy Ponton. Live and direct from France, once again, great analysis as usual. Top of the R and news headlines coming up. We're going to break. We'll be back on the other side. We're going to go to South Africa, live and direct with Kim Heller. Talk about what's going on there and a lot more. Stay with us.
