The Duran Podcast
UK missiles ready to strike Russia. Putin warns US/UK
All right, Alexander, let's talk about what is happening with the situation in Ukraine and the situation in Russia, specifically the long-range missile strikes, into pre-2014 Russian territory. Qurstammer is going to be meeting with Biden. The word is that Alinsky is also going to be traveling to the United States to present his victory plan. And Biden's going to make a decision about long-range missile strikes into Russia. Blinken has just returned from Kiev and Blinken said that he's going to inform Biden about what he gathered from speaking to Ukraine officials in Kiev. So Putin gave what I consider to be his strongest warning, maybe even his final warning, to the collective West, to the United States and to NATO about the long-range missile strikes. Let's talk about it. What is happening here? This is big news. This is huge news, especially Putin's warning, I think, is very serious for the United States and for the UK. You're at your thoughts on this. I think it is huge news. And by the way, obviously it is addressed to the US, but it is also heavily addressed to the UK. And of course, also to France, because these are the three countries that have been talking and discussing this question of conducting missile strikes. Now, of course, the word in the US is that no final decision has been made. If you read the British media, and if you read the Russian media, and if you listen to what Russian officials are saying, they say that this is all Kabuki theatre, that in fact Biden has already made a decision, and that the decision is to authorise the British specifically to assist Ukraine to conduct missile strikes deep into Russia, using long-range missiles. So that's another storm shadow missiles. So that is what the Russians are saying, and that's what the British media is saying. And it's clear to me that alongside Zelensky, it is the British who have reopened this whole discussion, and of course, Blinken as well. They are agitating. They've been lobbying and agitating to do this. This is why Blinken went to Kiev. It was basically to talk to Zelensky, tried to get Zelensky to put his ideas forward. It's why he brought Lamy, David Lamy, are deeply incompetent and out of touch and inexperienced British Foreign Secretary, who is just new to the job, has no real background in foreign policy, and doesn't really understand foreign policy very well. And of course, in taking this step, the Americans and the British, and potentially the French, if they're signed up to this, are crossing an actual genuine Russian red line. Now, there have been many talk, much talk at various times about red lines, and we've discussed this many times, and we've pointed out on various programs that we have done on the Duran that, in fact, nearly all the red lines, in fact, all of the red lines that people have been talking about since the fighting began in February 2022, our Western self-imposed red lines, never Russian ones. The Russians have never said that the US cannot supply or Britain, the West cannot supply tanks or high mass vehicles or fighter jets or whatever to Ukraine. That has never been something the Russians have said. The Russians have made very clear what their red lines are, and one of them is that the Western powers cannot be engaged in direct fighting with Russia. And Putin's point is not that these missiles can hit inside Russia. He is point which he repeated yesterday, is that the Ukrainians are already carrying out strikes deep inside Russia with their drones and all of that. The point is that these missiles can only be operated with the direct participation of British, in the case of the storm shadows, or American in connection with the attackers and the Jassims missiles. Technicians, in other words, British and American technicians need to work on these missiles, program them in advance of their launch so that they hit the targets. Now, I've talked to military people about this. All of them tell me the same thing, Putin is right. We had that leak a few months ago in which German officers were discussing tourist missiles, and they were saying exactly the same about the tourist missile. And Daniel Davis, Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis of the US military, he has actually also confirmed this in programs, in a program that he has done publicly as well. So this is true. What Putin says is, if these missiles are launched against Russia, American and British technicians would have to be involved in launching them. So they would be participating directly in missile strikes against Russia on Russian territory, on territory that they recognize as Russian. And that is an act of war. And on every single point, he's correct. I mean, I defy anybody to argue. Otherwise, the British especially continue to deny that this is the case. But if you go to the British media and the way they've reported Putin's warning, and by the way, I agree, this is a final warning, the way they report Putin's warning is that they always delete those words where he says that the reason, the real problem with these missiles is that they can only be launched with a direct involvement of, in the case of storm shadows, British technicians. They always remove that. You find this, this is so in every article in the British media that I have read so far. Because of course, the British public, they don't want the British public to be aware that in effect, British technicians, British soldiers would be involved in organizing missile strikes on Russian territory against a Russian nucleus superpower. So this is a Russian red line. And it's easy to see why it would be a Russian red line. And Putin has made it clear that since it is infact crossing a red line and it is an act of war, the Russians will respond accordingly if it happens. Now we'll discuss in a moment what the Russian response is because we're starting to get a clear sense of what it is going to be. But you can tell that the Pentagon is very unhappy about this. They don't like this at all. There's an article today in the New York Times in which they're saying this is really scary because the Russians are now going to start supplying weapons of their own to our enemies, our adversaries in the Middle East, and that's going to put American lives at risk. So the Pentagon is clearly strongly opposed to this. The word that's going out now is that because this decision supposedly has been already made, this is a British, this is what the British media was saying, the Biden has already actually already agreed to this. The word that's going out now is that the Americans will not allow attack on missiles to be used for deep strikes against Russia and Jasms missiles to be used for deep strikes against Russia. It'll only be the storm shadows. Storm shadows are fewer number relatively ineffective. It can only happen when it's all incredibly carefully planned and when Zelensky is able to explain and the Ukrainians are able to explain what these particular missiles are actually going to do when they strike their target, that there's not going to be any announcement that this decision has been made and that the only confirmation that will be given will be once the strike has already taken place. So you can already see the problems with this and the way in which the Americans once again let the near-confaction in the State Department and this dithering out-of-touch occupant of the Oval Office who has these visceral feelings about Putin and about Russia. How all of this has led them to take a decision which they really don't want to take. The military in the United States basically fundamentally opposes it. They say it makes no military sense but which the British have stupidly and recklessly embraced and what the Americans seem to be preparing to do is that they're going to let the British do this at some point and then leave them hanging out to dry. In other words, the British will do it. The Americans will say, "Well, we've no part in it. These are British missiles. Our technicians aren't involved in putting the programming into these missiles. It's only the British who are involved." And at that point it will be the British or by themselves who will face the retaliation, the response from Russia. And I get a cup quickly now to what the Russians are going to do. They signaled it this morning. They've already expelled six British diplomats. They say, "We're engaged in spying." What they're clearly hinting at is that the moment storm shadows crash into Russia. It'll be the end of diplomatic relations. The Russians will consider themselves to be in a state of war with Britain. Diplomatic relations between Russia and Britain stop. And of course, once two countries are in a state of war, the Russians can move. And quite legally this time, confiscate all British assets, private and state assets, including, by the way, embassy buildings and consular buildings and all of those things that are located on Russian territory. And of course, that will only be the start. The Russians can move forward and do all sorts of other things. They can start providing missiles of their own to strike at British targets around the world. They've already told the British that that's what they will do. That's where we're heading. That's where this incredibly foolish, this incredibly reckless, out of touch British government chasing newspapers run by lobbyists and manipulated by the near cons in Washington is taking us. Yeah, this has not confirmed that the Biden White House is going to authorize the UK, but they're not going to launch missile strikes into Russia. So we're still waiting and seeing maybe by the time this video goes up, we'll have a clearer picture as to what the Biden White House has decided, or at least what Jake Sullivan has decided, because I believe that Jake Sullivan is the one at the end of the day that's going to make the ultimate decision here. And obviously, Kierstammer and Zelensky are going to be in DC, so that Sullivan and his team can direct them as to what the policy is going to be going forward. I mean, that's how I see it. It's not that Kierstammer and Zelensky are going to the US in order to present their plans and consult with the Biden White House. I think it's the Biden White House that's going to basically give the orders. This is how it's going to go down. This is what you're going to do, and this is what you're going to do. And the reports are that they're going to tell the UK, go ahead, start launching storm shadow missiles, and let's see what happens. Let's see how Russia reacts. And I agree the expulsion of the six diplomats. I think that's an indication that diplomatic relations are going to break off between Russia and the UK. That's a big move in and of itself. But the military retaliation or what could possibly be a military retaliation from Russia in the form of aiding proxies or helping proxies hit UK bases or British soldiers around the world. My question, I guess, to you is, everyone knows the US is exposed around the world with hundreds of military bases and hundreds of thousands, thousands of soldiers all over the world and all kinds of conflicts, big and small skirmishes all over the globe that the US is involved in. But the UK and France, how exposed are they if Russia decides to take the route of arming proxies? The simplest example that people give, that all analysts give, and we give it as well, is giving missiles to the Houthis, for example. I mean, that's a simple, easy example to put forward. Russians give missiles to the Houthis, and then the Houthis do what they've been doing but now with Russian tech. But obviously, Russia has many, many more options. And I imagine that they've game planned this out for many months now as to how they're going to hit back not only the United States but the UK and France. And they've warned the UK and France before as well. Three, four months ago, they called in the ambassadors to the foreign ministry in Moscow and they warned them. So they've already had one warning. What are your thoughts there? Well, the short answers, the British are even more exposed than the Americans are because yes, it's absolutely true. The Americans have these sprawling bases all around the world on a scale that completely dwarfs anything the Britain has. But Britain does have a presence in many places around the world, a military presence in many places around the world. It's got bases in the Far East, it's got bases in the Middle East as we know. Well, at least in the Eastern Mediterranean, two of them are located in Cyprus as you know. So they are trying to be everywhere. And of course, there's British assets and British targets that could be reached. And the difference between the United States and Britain and the United States and France, France has even more than Britain does, by the way. And they're even more present in even more places around the world than Britain is. But notice that the French are taking a step back. Probably it's partly the political crisis in Paris. Probably it's the fact that there's much more opposition to all of this in Paris amongst the French, both Le Pen and Melon Shaw and many others in France are speaking out against this. And Macron himself looks in a weaker position to press forward with this idea. But the British are moving forward with this idea even though they're desperately exposed because they are all of these bases. They have their fleet, which tries to move around the world. The two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, very vulnerable aircraft carriers, by the way. But they don't have the ability to defend themselves and the ability to conduct retaliation that the United States does. So if they start coming under advanced missile attack from the Houthis, for example, if they started deploying ships to the Eastern Mediterranean or whatever, they don't have the sophisticated air defense systems and all of those things that the Americans do. I mean, the absurdity, the really shocking thing about this whole affair is that the British are drifting into this confrontation with the military and nuclear super power, which is, of course, Russia. When the state of the British military is terrible, we're down to 40 operational attacks. Again, I repeat that number. It's been it's been confirmed in many places. We're down to 40 operational tanks. We have perhaps a hundred in total, but you have to cannibalize, well, a couple of hundred and don't. Apparently you have to cannibalize some to keep the others running. We have a Royal Navy, which by all accounts is in a very, very bad shape. The Royal Air Force isn't in great shape either. And we are nonetheless provoking intent on provoking and bringing down upon ourselves the wrath of a nuclear super power. And Russia can cut off diplomatic relations with us. By the way, it won't affect them. Why would it? But if Britain cannot speak to the Russians who are a major nuclear super power, then inevitably Britain's influence around the world, such as it is, is going to be diminished further because the British are going to be pushed out even further from international diplomacy. And when that happens, countries like Germany, in France, who want to maintain diplomatic contacts with the Russians at various levels, and of course the Americans for whom it is essential that they do, that will be another reason why they step back. So we're going to do something that is going to isolate us and make us vulnerable. To what purpose? Because by every admission, Ukraine has already run through most of its storm shadow missiles that the British supplied. The number that is available is very few. It's now been confirmed that Britain no longer makes them. Maybe they can make the odd one, but the facilities to produce them in quantity no longer exist. The French still make them, but apparently in very, very low numbers. And although the major targets or the military targets are either heavily protected in Russia, or the assets which the storm shadows could hit have been withdrawn deeper inside Russia. So we are taking this utterly reckless, foolish step in which, as I said, the Americans are giving every impression that they're going to leave us hanging out to dry, to no useful purpose, to achieve nothing in Ukraine. It's not going to change the military situation in Ukraine. Patrick Ryder, the Pentagon spokesperson. I've just said so. Austin said it. Austin said it. So what's the point of this? So what is the point? Why is the UK doing this? Why are they being led into this? But I don't know, are they being led into this by the United States? Or are they the ones that are trying to provoke Russia in order to draw the United States into the conflict? I mean, we get this question all the time, and I think about this a lot as well. Who's leading who is the US telling the UK? Are they going to sit down stommer in DC and say, look, here, stommer, this is what you're going to do, and he's going to do it. Or is Kierstommer going to the US to say, look, this is what I would like to have happen. I would like you guys to give me authorization and Kierstommer's hopes or the people that run Kierstommer, because I think it's clear that he's not really the one that's coming up with this with these policies. The hopes are that that Russia does act in a way that's very unlike Russia, acts in an emotional way, which would then bring the United States and NATO closer into into this conflict. We discussed this with with Jim Webb in a live stream that we did the other day, the goal of trying to pull NATO, the United States, effectively into the conflict in Ukraine, because that is the only thing that can possibly, it won't even, I'm not going to say it's going to save Ukraine, but possibly save this collapse of a project Ukraine and these landscape regime. I mean, I guess my question is, this is the billion dollar question. Who is, who's leading who here? Right. I think there's a very short answer to this. I think it is the British together with the Neocons in Washington. Now, all the way back to the conflict in Yugoslavia and to the Iraq War and all of that, we can see that there is now a complete symbiosis between the Neocon faction in Washington and essentially the entire bureaucracy, the foreign policy and defense and security and intelligence bureaucracy in London. I mean, they had effectively merged, we're talking about one and the same thing. Where the labor are conservative. Where the labor or conservative. In fact, whenever people, either in the labor party or in the conservative party, speak out against this. The political class, the establishment in Britain acts immediately to isolate and remove them. And the Neocons have a much stronger grip on the political discourse in Britain than they do in the United States. I think that's the first thing to say. So this is something that all of them, I mean, both the American Neocons and the British and of course the Ukrainians have been working on together. I think this is absolutely, this is why Blinken, who is clearly the prime American advocate of all of this. That is why he took the decision to go to Kiev with Lamy alongside him. So as to the objective, you are absolutely correct. The objective is to provoke the Russians. I mean, it's an insane objective, by the way, on its own, on its own calculus. It's an insane thing to want to do, to try to to provoke a nuclear superpower into some kind of extreme overreaction that you can then use to expand the war. But it's what the Ukrainians want. It's what some people in Britain want. It's what some people in Washington want. They all want it. And that's what they're working towards. So that's why they're constantly agitating to go further and deeper all of the time. Now, the United States, much more complicated, far more sophisticated country, many more decision makers there. Lots of opposition on the Republican side, as we know. Some opposition on the Democrats side, notice the vice president, who's now the Democratic Party nominee, is steering clear of all of this. She's not going to meet Starmer or Zelensky. She's keeping away from Washington. I mean, one gets the sense that she doesn't want to have all these her advisors are telling her, not to have anything to do with this. She's keeping the away from the losers. Keeping well away, which is, which is quite indicative. So the Americans, somehow or other, are going to get out of this. But Britain, which is, of course, my country, and I just remind people of this, is what it's doing to itself is beyond comprehension. As part of some complicated, near-con strategy, which is, as I said, already irrational, provoking a nuclear superpower, we are going to be left in a situation where everybody will turn on us and leave us hanging out to drive. That's the question, by the way. I tried to address a gym web yesterday, but he looks at it, obviously, from an American perspective. I look at it from a British one. I can see where all this is going. We are now being set up. We are going to be the ones who are going to help the Ukrainians launch the storm shadows at Russia. When the Russians come after us, the Americans, the Pentagon, has already signaled quite clearly that we're on our own. They're not going to come to our rescue. Why would they? I have two questions for you. Let's see. Which one should I ask for us? We saw this cooperation between the neocons, the British elite, and even Ukraine during Russia gate. Your thoughts? We actually saw this alliance forming during Russia gate. We saw it in full operation then. We've seen it in full operation ever since. We saw it operating in the Middle East conflicts in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, in all sorts of places. Somehow or rather, somewhere along the line, the British political class and establishment was completely captured by the neocons. When exactly it happened and how it happened, it clearly crystallized during Tony Blair's time. I think hardly open the discussion now. But how it happened and why it happened is difficult to understand. But I remember Margaret Thatcher. She must be turning in a grave at this moment when at all of this was going on. Nobody would ever say that Margaret Thatcher was anything other than a deeply loyal friend of the United States. But she would be furious at the way in which Britain has been maneuvered or has maneuvered itself into this position. The neocons thinking may actually make some sense. I'm not saying it's going to work. It's going to backfire. Of course, it's going to backfire because everything the neocons put into motion backfires in terrible, unexpected ways. But if you try to put yourself in their shoes, their calculus is one of two things, in my opinion. You get the UK and the UK is on board, they're all in agreement. Storm shadows into Russia and you provoke Russia. Option number one, scenario number one is you actually provoke Russia to act irrationally and to strike back in a way that will bring in NATO so the neocons and the British establishment see this as mission accomplished. It worked. That's scenario number one. Scenario number two is that they believe the narrative that Putin's not going to do anything if red lines are crossed. It's all bluster and it's all Putin talking tough, but he's not going to take any action because he hasn't taken action in the past when red lines, their red lines were crossed. Putin did nothing. So let him talk, let him threaten, let him huff him puff. He's not going to do anything. And in their mind, they're thinking, okay, if we launch the storm shadows into Russia and Putin doesn't do anything, then the hardliners or forces inside the Kremlin will make a move to either try and and remove him or it'll cause some type of chaos of infighting, palace intrigue inside the Kremlin in Moscow. That will then benefit us. I mean, I could see that's the way they're thinking about this. To them, they're saying, either way, we've got Russia cornered because when we make this move, you know, we're forcing Putin's hand in one way or another. And he's going to be in a difficult situation. They think they're playing chess, but they're actually playing, I wouldn't even say checkers. I mean, but this is how they're thinking. This is how I believe they're thinking. Then all your phone checkers, because checkers is a very sophisticated game. You're absolutely correct. You are totally right. That is exactly how they're thinking, because they are consistent. This is, by the way, a feature of the near cons. They consistently underestimate the intelligence and sophistication of their opponents. They always assume that they can manipulate the situation and play it out. And that the Russians are going to be left with two options, either to go all out and start World War three or provoke native intervention in Ukraine, which is what we're talking about, or in the alternative to do nothing, in which case they are humiliated. But of course, the Russians, as he rightly said, will game plan this. And there's all sorts of things they can do between those two extremes. They will certainly do something, but it will not be what the near cons expect. And that's why their plans always fail, because they never really understand that the other side in this kind of situation has options. So let's just talk about, let's forget about World War three, doing something that will provoke NATO intervention, because the Russians are not going to let themselves fall for that one. The Russian deputy foreign minister, Sergey Diabakov, made that absolutely clear in an interview he gave the other day. So let's talk about the other scenario. Putin does nothing. And the result is that this provokes a political clock crisis in Moscow, in Medvedev, and the hardliners take over, and there's some kind of a do. And that creates enormous volatility in Russia, and brick starts to unravel, and everything sorts to fall apart. It's not going to happen. Firstly, because the hardliners are highly disciplined people in Moscow, they're never going to move against Putin in that kind of way. But secondly, they're not going to move against Putin, because they won't need to move against Putin, because Putin is going to make a decision to react, though he's going to do it, as he always does, after a lengthy series of consultations, which I'm already, by the way, probably mostly taking place, about what the reaction is going to be. And the reaction is not going to be to start World War three or provoke NATO into sending troops into Ukraine or do any one of these things. It is going to be calibrated to achieve Russian objectives. And this is where breaking off diplomatic relations, seizing British assets, including as is at the embassy building, one of the particular buildings, by the way, just saying the Stalin gave the British this enormous mansion just opposite the Kremlin on the south bank of the Moscow River. The Russians have been trying to get it back for decades. It looked as if for a moment they would get it back. And then Margaret Thatcher talked Gorbachev into agreeing that they should British should retain it, and Gorbachev did the extreme annoyance of the Russian foreign ministry. If Britain and Russia in the state of war, the Russians will seize it, and that would be the end of the matter, once and for all. Anyway, that's a minor thing. There's all kinds of other assets that there are, British assets that there are. I mean, BP British oil company, it's staked its entire future development on oil exploration in Russia, for example. So all its assets, and they are substantial in Russia, could find themselves being confiscated. So the Russians will respond in that way, and then of course, at their own time, and in their own place, they will respond militarily against the British, wherever it is that they choose to do. Now, they won't tell us when. We won't know what the Russian timetable or plans are, but going back to the scenario that you outlined, those people who will know are the very same hardliners, that the neocons are looking to carry out the coup. So the whole scenario, which I'm confident, by the way, is a genuine one. I'm sure people have been talking about this, in their various meetings and discussions, which do take place, by the way. That whole scenario that the neocons are creating, when you scrutinize it, and look at the situation in Moscow and understand how Moscow actually works, which is something, by the way, that they are completely ignorant about. It immediately falls apart. It's not based on any reality, or how Moscow is actually organized. Yeah, correct. Final question, and we'll wrap up in the video. Let's look at things from the US perspective. The Wall Street Journal, they put out an article, and they basically said, as they were talking about, the meetings between Biden and Kyrstommer and the long-range missile strikes into Russia, the Wall Street Journal said that what the Biden White House is hoping to accomplish is they would like to put Ukraine in an advantageous position before Biden leaves office. Whether it's Trump, whether it's Harris, it doesn't matter. The Biden White House wants to put Ukraine in an advantageous position, whether it's going to be to negotiate or continue the conflict, which is an admission from the Wall Street Journal, that what the US is hoping to accomplish by getting the UK to do this, by having the UK do this, is they're hoping to not have a collapse while Biden and Sullivan and Blinken and all these guys are there in Austin, while they're all in the positions that they're in. They may see this. There may be parts of the Biden White House that see this as, "You know what, UK? You want to go along? You want to do this? You guys are really, really up for this? Stormshadows in Russia? Go ahead. You know, it'll probably buy us the month or two that we need to get over the November election hump and maybe even get to the January inauguration. Even if it is Trump, at least Ukraine doesn't collapse on our watch. I thought that Wall Street Journal article was very revealing as to what the actual objective of the Biden White House may be in all of this. You're absolutely correct, it's just to keep the whole thing, the kick the can down the road a little bit longer. Of course, the elegant aspect of this, from their point of view, is because they found the mug who's going to come along and do the kick before the British. They're not themselves exposed, but you could see the attraction and that's no doubt what they're saying to themselves, at least those of them who are not all out for the Neocom project. People like Newland, I mean, who's given an astonishing interview, by the way, which showed how maximalist and extreme her view of the world is, in my opinion. But anyway, that's another topic for another day. But I suspect you're absolutely right, I wouldn't be surprised at all that. This is, say, Jake Sullivan's thing. Jake Sullivan, yeah. We, you know, log the old missile that will throw the Russians into disarray that will keep your crane, hold your crane together for another month, for another two months, we'll get them past November, we'll get them past January, and if it all falls apart afterwards, well, we've all gone and we've all got our fully paid jobs in the NGOs and the think tanks and all of that. So, you know, absolutely. I think that is completely correct. But I wouldn't make one observation. This whole mantra of putting Ukraine in an advantageous position has been one that the administration has been peddling pretty much the moment when the Special Military Operations started. I remember Biden himself, of course, he didn't write it. Jake Sullivan probably wrote it for him. But anyway, Biden himself wrote an all-pad. I think it was for the New York Times, which he said is exactly the same thing, that, you know, our objective is not to win a victory for Ukraine, it is to put Ukraine in a better position. Well, that was in the summer of 2022. We're in the autumn of 2024, and we can see how much better the position that Ukraine is in after all that aid that the US has been giving over the last two years. So, I think you absolutely write about the thinking and the intentions. But if you're talking about the actual results, will you see how disastrous this whole approach has been? Yeah, they've been talking about an advantageous position now for three years. They had the advantageous position with Minsk I and Minsk II. If they had just followed that, that was the advantageous position. I don't want to make this video too long, but I have to ask you very quickly your thoughts on J.D. Vance talking about Trump's plan for for ending the conflict in Ukraine, a demilitarized zone, Ukraine pledging to neutrality and having the European Union flip the bill for reconstruction for Ukraine. What are your quick thoughts on that? A massive step forward. In terms of what this is proposing, it's probably not enough at the moment to satisfy the Russians. Just to say, but it is something that the Russians and the Americans could talk about. The Russians could look at all of this and say to Trump, Vance, and whoever the Secretary of State is, that look, we're interested in your ideas. There's an awful lot of work to do, but let's talk about this. I can see this. This looks to me like a serious attempt to take a serious view of the problem. It's massively in advance of everything else that you're seeing. So much more in advance of all the nonsense that we've been discussing in this programme. A lot of the odd storm shadow at a Russian air base, most of which have been evacuated by yourself for another month and hope that the Russians either do something stupid, like provoke negative intervene or carry out an internal coup against Putin. All of which, by the way, I absolutely convinced is how they're really talking. That kind of thinking is not based on reality. The Vance Trump plan, if you can call it, that is. I mean, it may not be, as I said, enough to end this war, but it at least gives the Russians something that they can work with and talk about with the Americans, and work towards finding an end to this war. At least it finally says Ukraine doesn't enter NATO. Which is simple, but it's there. Which is the key thing. This has been the fundamental sticking point ever since 2008, when the West made that disastrous decision to invite Ukraine to join NATO. So it's the major break. It's for the Russians. That was always as Bill Burns, when he was ambassador. He doesn't say talk like this anymore, now that he's CIA director. But as Bill Burns said, it was the bright shining red line that the Russians would never agree to have crossed. And at least now, someone in Washington understands that. So as I said, it's a basis for discussion. There's a huge amount that would need to be worked on to translate this into some kind of agreement. But there could be an agreement taking this as a starting point in whatever negotiations that follow. This could result in an agreement which would satisfy the core interests of the Russians and the Americans, though, of course, the Europeans will be left to foot the bill. And just to say something, that would suit the Russians perfectly. They would be absolutely delighted with an outcome like that. I mean, they're angry with the United States. They're angry with the near cons, but they feel betrayed by the Europeans in a way that they simply don't feel about the U.S. All right, we will end the video there. The Doran dot locals dot com. We are on Rumbola to see a picture telegram rock fin and Twitter X and go to the Duran shop. Pick up some merch like the t-shirts we are wearing today in this video. Take care. [Music]