The Duran Podcast
Project Ukraine Risk Of Collapse w/ Garland Nixon (Live)
OK, we're live, Alexander, back again. We are waiting for Garland, there might be a time mix up, but we decided that we'll go live and hopefully Garland joins us soon. But there's a lot of news that we can talk about, Alexander, as we wait. So Project Ukraine risk of collapse. I put this title pretty much from the Politico article. What are your thoughts on that? Well I think that is what the article's title is, but I would actually correct the title if I was the editor of Politico, because it's not saying to me that it is at risk of collapse. I would say it is collapsing, because this is the most extraordinary article up to now that we've seen produced in the Western media since the start of the Special Military Operation back in February 2022, because it is based on interviews with, we are told, senior Ukrainian military officials. So these are Ukrainian military officials, and we're told that they're connected to General Zaluzhny, I actually believe that one of them is General Zaluzhny, the former commander in chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. I mean, it's very typical of him, by the way, to hide while he's telling us things. But anyway, the longer the shorter the article is that Ukraine is losing the war, that there is nothing that can be done to change the situation. And that the Ukrainians are outgunned, that the Russians have more men, that they are, if they launch an offensive this summer, Ukraine doesn't have the means to withstand this offensive, that the $61 billion appropriation in Congress, if that is authorized, is not going to make any difference, that the F-16s are not going to make any difference, that the Russians will be able to shoot them down, that there aren't enough weapons in the West to make any difference, that Ukraine would need a minimum of around 4 million shells to be able to hold its positions. And of course, there aren't that many shells in the West, or in the international arms market. So effectively, what this article in Politico is telling us, is that the war is lost. And I think that that is the first concrete admission that we've seen of this, and note that it is coming from Ukrainian military sources. So this looks authoritative and definitive to me. And I don't think there's any arguing with it. And we're getting all kinds of other news, which essentially corroborate what it is saying. And it explains why there is this huge panic, an alarm in the West, that the Ukrainian army is unable to hold, that it's shorted men, ammunition, machines. We've had further proof that it is out of machines, because then converting mechanized brigades into infantry brigades. In other words, that the men in these brigades are going to be able to operate inside infantry fighting vehicles or armored vehicles, because they're now apparently desperately short supply. And of course, the mobilisation law that Zelensky has been talking about is still stuck here in the parliament, and even if it is passed, which eventually it will be, it's all going to produce enough men to make up for the losses. So we have just been told in Politico, mainstream media outlet, very pro Democrat, very much on the progressive fist side of American politics, very pro-vide in all of that, they're telling us that the Ukrainian military themselves realised that the war is lost. Yup. Interesting article. Hello, Valias. How are you doing? Thank you again for moderating this stream. I didn't say hello to everyone that's watching us, Alexander, on this stream. We're a little bit, we're a little bit, because we're still waiting for our guests. Yeah. Yeah. Rockfin Odyssey. Rumble. The doran.lockus.com and on YouTube. Thank you for joining us once again, and thank you to our moderators who are helping us out. Fantastic stream that we had earlier with Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Alexander, why do you think there's rusaphobia in Britain? You believe it's as Jeffrey Sachs explained, or is there something more to it? It is hard wired in the system, because again, it's very, very difficult to come up with a rational explanation for it. But bear in mind that Russia and Britain are at the opposite ends of Europe. Russia has never invaded Britain at any time in its history. The extent that there have been wars between Britain and Russia, they've all been fought by Britain against Russia on Russian territory. In fact, there's only really been two. One was the Crimean War, which we discussed in the program with Jeffrey Sachs, which was to be absolutely clear, a British war of choice and attacked by Britain against Russia. We know the archives, we know that the plan was to break up the Russian Empire. That was the plan. Of course, the British intervened in Russia during the Russian Civil War, directly after the Russian Revolution, and of course, they failed. Other than that, there's not been wars between Britain and Russia. On the contrary, the World Wars, the Napoleonic War, the First World War, the Second World War, Britain and Russia have fought on the same side. Why do the British have this complex about Russia? Well, I think the Jeffrey Sachs nailed it. It's this big, powerful country. It stands in the way of the first of British, and now the American hegemony. It's important to remember that in the minds of the British establishment, it's not the American hegemony. It's the Anglo-American hegemony. Now, they're quite wrong about that, by the way. They're completely exaggerating their own importance in this partnership with the United States, but you can absolutely see why they have this complex about Russia. I think it's got worse over the last few years for two reasons. Firstly, after the Cold War, they thought that Russia had been defeated once and for all, and they're horrified to see that he's coming back, and secondly, they're worried that because of the rise of China, the Americans who are there, the ultimate senior partners in this enterprise, are drifting away. They're more interested in China than they are in Russia, and that's spooking up the British because the British, obviously, are always more concerned in the end about Russia than they are about China. So, it's not rational, but it's understandable. Yeah, but China is big. China is a big threat at the moment, the biggest threat as far as economic parity, or something like that. But Russia, the Russophobia is always much, much bigger. Yeah, the point about China is it's a far more, it's a lot more magnified with Russia than the hatred. Exactly. I mean, China is far away, it's all the way off in the Pacific, so it doesn't affect Britain as immediately as Russia does, because Russia is a power in Europe, and of course, the other thing for the British is, on the one hand, that makes Russia potentially more of a challenge to Britain than China will ever be. But secondly, it means that if the focus on the United States is on China, Britain becomes less important, because Britain isn't able to contribute anything to the fight against China, whereas to the fight against Russia, the British, in their own fantasies, think that they can play a role. So, that's why they are so obsessed with Russia. I wonder if there's anything to, to, sorry, Nicholas, in that line period as well. What do you bring it in? Well, John Nicholas, the first, or John Nicholas the second, because they do have, they do have, the British Royal Family has a guilt complex about this, because we now know that both Kerensky, and by the way, Lenin, quite keen to back him off to London, and the king, King George V said, "No, I'm not having Nicholas here in Britain." Very strange decision, by the way, never fully explained, and they didn't just prevent Nicholas coming to Britain with his family, but they also took his money. I mean, he put most of his private money, which is considerable, in an account in the Bank of England, and the British seized it in circumstances that they've never clarified to this day. So, yes, I think there is that. If you follow an American TV series called "The Crown", by the way, which is all about the British Royal Family, the modern British Royal Family, there's a very famous sequence in it, where the late Queen skulls Boris Yeltsin about the fact that the Romanovs were killed in Russia, and haven't been given proper burial, and you see, after it, Yeltsin is absolutely furious, and he says, "Are you, we all really know," because he's talking to himself, basically, "we all really know that the real place where the Romanovs were murdered was not in your cartoon book." It was in this very same palace that I'm standing in there. Wow. I think we have Garland with us. Excellent. Yeah. I think he's in the waiting room one second, let me pull him in. Hey, Garland. Hello, Garland. Hello, how are you? Oh, good morning. I don't know. Did I have my time? Right? I had it. You know what I was telling Alexander? We had this last week as well, because of the US. You guys switched your time? Yes. Yeah. I think we had the time, I think eight o'clock your time, three o'clock, but the whole time switch of the US and Europe has thrown the scheduling a bit off. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Yeah, let me move. Let me move up one light. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Take your time. Yeah. So, I mean, it's actually a wonderful scene. You have the queen there, you know, looking very pleased with himself, because she's just scolded, Yeltsin. And you see Yeltsin sitting standing next to her, absolutely furious, and talking in Russian. And say, you know, how dare she lecture me, you know, when, you know, we know what the real thing is. And he says, you call this a palace, you come and see our palaces in St. Petersburg. This is a, you know, when he uses very hot, very rude work to describe Buckingham Palace. And the translator, he's then asked, what is he saying if we know a sort of translator saying, and the translator said, oh, well, you say, well, absolutely delighted he is to be here. And of course he's not. He's absolutely seething. And of course, it is, he's bringing up the question of, you know, the lecture he's received about the murder of the Romanovs. Well, we're, I have all of Garland's information, by the way, everyone, it's in the description box. I'll have it pinned. So we're just talking, Garland, before we get into the show about rutaphobia. In this case, we're talking about the UK and rutaphobia in the UK. But in general, we're just talking about where does it come from? Where does the rutaphobia come from? Where does it originate from? That's what we're discussing right now, you know, which is an interesting topic. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Dr. Saxo and that, I've always felt that it was not related in any way to anything that Russia had done to any, or any, that it was neither religious nor ethnic nor ideological, that it was simply Russia stands in the way of hegemony. And it was the same way for England. And it's been said many times by many different people, if you tell your populace, you must hate Russia because they are communists, and then they're no longer communists and you're say, okay, well, fair enough, now you should hate them because they're at some point, you realize you're not giving them the real reason because the reason to hate Russia works for the ruling elite, technically work doesn't really work, but works for the ruling elite. But if the working class knew that they were being dragged along, you know, just for the reasons of hegemony that would never benefit them, they'd never go along with it. All right, well, let's keep on discussing what's going on with Ukraine and anything else that's happening in the world, Alexander Garland, Project Ukraine risk of collapse. I took that from the political article from the other day, which talked about how all of a sudden they're reporting about how Ukraine is collapsing. So Alexander Garland, let's get into it. Well, you know, my position from the beginning was that the, you know, because the question from the very beginning is, how does this end, how does this thing, you know, all conflicts end at some point, even the infamous 100 year war? Well, at some point 100 years was up and that war was over. So the question is always how does it end and generally, you know, some form of diplomacy or one of the two parties involved is simply defeated. I mean, those are your options and the winner, you know, decides what the, how the outcome will turn out. I think in this particular instance, I always felt that the way that Russia fights war dictates the way this ends. Certainly, since this conflict is not about Ukraine, that Ukraine is a political tool of the US Empire, right, then how it ends for Ukraine, the USM, it's, it's the US masters could care less. Ultimately, I thought that as long as they get, you know, they don't care what happens to Ukraine. If at some point it gets smashed, they'll throw it aside like a piece of trash. As long as it weakens Russia enough, they'll be happy with it. I do feel as though the way Russia fights war is to chip away at the foundation of their adversary. And by that, I mean to the foundation of your army is your war material and your personnel. So they chip away at your war material and your personnel until no, you can no longer fight. They exhaust your enemy until they're tired of fighting and they chip away at their ability to fight until at some point they can no longer fight. It's like chipping away at the foundation of a house, at some point the house collapses. I also felt that the one of, well, that's what the Russians do. But one of the, I guess, added benefits of that for the Russians is that it would make it much more difficult for the hot heads in Washington as the term that they've used to intervene. If you, I've heard it say this way, you don't want to do anything real quick in front of a crazy person, you know, you don't want to make a sudden dramatic move in front of a crazy person. You want to move slow and steady. And if there was a sudden dramatic move, the neocons in Washington would be stunned and they'd have to make a sudden decision and they make really bad decisions when they make sudden decisions. And even worse when they make slow decisions. But if the Russians were able to chip away at Ukraine's ability to fight at some point, there would be nothing for the neocons to come in and support. They can't come in and say, we're going to support the army if there's nothing left of the army. We're going to support the, we're going to support the infrastructure, the whatever. If this thing all collapses and they look at it and they're like, we can't support them. We would just simply have to send in an army to fight because there's nothing left of the Ukrainian military construct to fight. I think that's the way that I've always felt the way that's the way this thing ends. And I don't know if it's the intent of the Russians, but because they fight the way they fight, I think that was the inevitable outcome and I still think that's the inevitable outcome. I think this is absolutely typical of the way the Russians fight, by the way. The Russians have been fighting wars or their history. They do have an enormous understanding and experience of war, which is much greater than that of any Western country today, and it is very, very much part of their sort of DNA that they know how to fight wars, especially when they're fighting wars on their own territory. And it's important to remember that all the fighting that is going on in Ukraine at the moment is being fought on territory, which the Russians consider to be there as theirs. They consider Donbas to be theirs. Zapparojia has some to be theirs, Crimea of course to be theirs, and even Harkov region, I think deep down they consider it to be theirs. The people that they're fighting amongst are Russians. They speak Russian, they're Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox Slavs, and indistinguishable in every conceivable respect from Russians. And in every war that the Russians fight on their territory. They fight it against the army, what they see as the invading army, that they must defeat. So this is one reason I think why they're less focused on capturing territory than we in the West tend to expect, because they know that once they defeat the enemy army, that territory will come back to them, because it's theirs. So I think this is something which I don't think we've quite grasped about what it is that the Russians do. So I think they're fighting it in an entirely Russian way, which is very different of course for our own way, because we now in modern era tend to fight wars of conquest. They fight wars of defense, defending the motherland, and ultimately that's exactly what they're doing in this particular war. But I think the things have turned out in some ways differently, even from the way the Russians expected, in the sense that I think the Russians overestimated our ability to keep Ukraine supplied with weapons. I think even the Russians themselves are astonished at their own success in our producing this. I agree, I mean I think they also, the error that they made, and it wasn't a terrible error, was they assumed that they were dealing with rational adversaries, and that they were dealing with people that had the at least the ability to be good faith actors went back into a corner. Hey, these people may not be good at faith actors, but they're going to be back into a corner at Ukraine, and at that point they can become good faith actors, and I think the Russians have realized they're not dealing with rational people who even have the ability to be good faith actors when they need to be. I also think, and this is important, because one of the discussions, one of the terms, there are terms that are used when we talk about these kind of conflicts, globalism, imperialism, things of that nature. I think they are really important, and I think the term imperialism is important, and one of the keys to the importance of that is that the neocons actually use that term. They refer to Russia as an imperial war, you know Russia is, this is an imperial act, why? Because they know the importance, they know what it is, and they know the importance of the term, and how negative it is viewed. But I think what we're talking about gives you the evidence, gives you some of the evidence of the issue of imperialism here, here's what I mean. The US, what do empires do? Quite simply, they expand and contract. An empire sees countries in two manners, nations that it has conquered, and nations that it is intended to conquer, nothing else, or a nation that it loses, right? And as empires die, they die, they, for a number of reasons, but they contract. They lose city states, and they lose countries, and they lose grounds that they've taken okay. The US empire was expanding, expanding, and then what happened, when did it start with contracting? I would argue Syria, Syria started to control, because it, okay we're going to take Syria, we got our mitts on Syria, and Russia said nah, that's not going to happen, and the axis of resistance says you call it came together with Russia, and they stopped, but maybe they didn't lose Syria, but they at least weren't able to expand into Syria, right? One of the part of their expansion was Ukraine, they took that land. It was important to them, we took that from Russia. It has been said that Tony Blinken once said Ukraine is ours now, I've heard that from insiders, whether he said it, I don't know, but it makes sense now, because that's an imperial thought. Hey, we're going to take this island, we're going to take this nation, et cetera. So from their perspective, they're always talking about will Russia take this town or lose this town, take this city or Russia wants Kiev, why? Because through the context of how they see international politics, it's about seizing more, it's about expanding your empire, or your empire contracting. So in reality, they were fighting two different wars. You know what I mean? Russia was fighting a military war, a defensive war, on their border, on their territory, so they could militarily conquer their enemy. The neocons were fighting a political war. That's why they used all, they're going to use all of these political machinations, such as the infamous soft power, and they're going to censor people on the internet, they're going to write all kind of articles, they're going to do things not on the battlefield, because it was a political war, even the offensive was a disaster. Why? Because my understanding is, Newland had a big hand in it, she's a politician. So it was a political act, it wasn't a military act, and it had to fail, because the other side has been fighting a military battle all along. And so that's why I think the issue of imperialism. Russia is now saying, you will not expand at our expense on our border. And China is actually saying, you will not expand into Taiwan. We saw what you did in Ukraine. So the issue now with the US Empire, why they're so desperate is, what they're really saying is, we have a right to expand anywhere in the world, anytime we want to, and we'll continue to do it. And Russia and China and other countries are saying no, and I think that's the fundamental argument we're looking at. I completely agree, I think that is exactly right. I think that the Chinese and the Russians are in fact now increasingly setting up limits on what the United States can do. Now, we've had this article in Politico in which all these Ukrainian military officers come along and tell Politico in effect that the war is lost. I've already said in various places that I believe that one of those military officers is in fact none other than General Solutiony himself, the former commander. It's completely consistent with his known thinking. And Politico tells us that some of these officers are connected to him in some way. And so a public admission from within Ukraine by Ukrainian commanders that the war is effectively lost. And just after that Politico article appears, two things have been very quite interesting. Firstly, Biden calls Xi Jinping. And this apparently came out completely out of the blue. The Chinese side did not expect it. There'd be no previous indications that Biden wanted to call Xi Jinping. If you look at the readouts that the two sides have produced, the American and the Chinese, the American readout is extremely uninformative as they always are. The Chinese readout is more interesting. And you talked about setting limits and the Chinese now setting limits over Taiwan. It contains this word, these words, this is a sentence from the Chinese readout about this call between Biden and Xi Jinping that has just happened. And it says this, "President Xi, stressed that the Taiwan question is the first red line that must not be crossed. In the face of Taiwan independence, separatist activities and a separate external encouragement for them, China is not going to sit on its hands." That is, I think, the strongest warning that the Chinese have ever given for the Americans on the subject of Taiwan, it's absolutely clear. They're talking about that now as a red line. Now, the two readouts, the Chinese readout and the American readout, give us some information. The Chinese readout gives us some information. But I understand that the internal Chinese media, which I can't read because it's in Chinese, but anyway, people who do speak Chinese are telling me that the speculation is China is that Biden who initiated the call, that there is no doubt, called Xi Jinping principally to discuss Ukraine, the fact that the situation in Ukraine is going incredibly wrong. And they're linking it in China with a visit that Blinken has just made to Paris, the fact that he's there said all kinds of things like that the Russians will never take give. And directly after Blinken's trip to Paris, something else happens which is that the French defence minister, Le Corneux, telephones, Shoyu. Notice it's not the foreign minister, the foreign minister is not calling Lavrov, Macron is not calling Putin, it is the defence minister who is calling Shoyu. And it's very interesting call because you can tell that Shoyu was on the receiving end. Again, the Russian readout reads, on 3 April 2024, at the urgent request of the French side, Minister of Defence, Sergey Shoyu held a telephone conversation with French defence minister, Sebastian Le Corneux, at the urgent request of the French side. So what is the urgency? What is it that's making it so urgent for the French to call the Russians? And there's discussion of the Crocus city hall attack. There's a very strong warning from Shoyu about the idea of sending French troops to Ukraine. He says, you know, that if that happens, it will create problems for France itself. Well, we know what that means. But then at the very end, the Russian readout contains these words. The sides express their readiness for dialogue on Ukraine. Now, this is when you say the sides, that means Russia and France. The starting points could be based on the Istanbul Peace Initiative. Without Russia's participation, it would be holders pointless to hold a meeting in Geneva. So my take of this, Blinken goes to Paris. The Americans are very frightened. They don't want to talk to the Russians themselves. So they get the French to contact the Russians. Her Corneux says, are you prepared to engage in a dialogue with us? That's to say with France. The Russians say, yes. The French say, will you return to what was agreed two years ago, Istanbul? The Russians say, no, because that's what this basically says. It says, we're prepared to take Istanbul as a starting point for future discussions. But we're not going to agree to that again. So why the urgency? Why the discussion of dialogue? Anyway, over to you, darling. A couple of things. I think I've helped this all along, I've said this from the beginning. I feel that when the Russians come to the point, when they have their adversaries to a point where their adversaries must negotiate with them, that they will print out their December 17, 2021 memo that said, we need to talk to you about NATO expansion. And yeah, when we first started, we maybe could have talked about Ukraine. That doesn't matter because we've got that in the bag. Now if you want out, remember that little memo we gave you with a number of points about NATO expansion? That is the only way that we will turn down the volume on this thing. Otherwise, we're going to take everything that we want and you can't stop us. And we know that you're bluffing militarily. We know that you don't have, what are the French going to come in? When they got a dozen hours or something or 50 or 100 tanks, that'll last them an hour. So the Russians know the position that they're in and the NATO's bluffing militarily. And it's trying to pretend as though, hey, remember that deal that we had that we walked away from? Can we have that deal now? And the answer is clearly, no, you can't. This is going to be now with the Russians. They want to clean this whole thing up at one time. They're going to say we have to deal with the sanctions have to go, all of them. All of the sanctions have to go and the issue of NATO expansion has to be dealt with. And I don't see politically where the Biden people can do that. So they're just going to sit down and have to sit back and watch this thing fall, you know, fall apart in their lap. I also think that the urgency is about the Middle East. The urgency is about they know that they are in a world of hurt in the Middle East, that Israel has spun out of control. They can't control that mess, that they're afraid that on any given day that this thing could end up, you know, abroad an expanded war, they know the dangers there. And particularly, they know that if that happens, that there's no chance, there's not much chance now of Joe Biden winning the election. But they know if that happens, oil prices go through the roof and that's the one thing in America that no politics, you know, no president has a chance of winning if the if the gas prices are, you know, eight or 10,000 gallon. So I think the desperation is about the fear of expansion in the Middle East of the war. And I think that from the other perspective, this is China and Russia could never be in a better position. They've got they know that the US is in a bad way. And now if China is not of a violent nature, if they were, they would take a Taiwan right now because it is the perfect time because the US couldn't engage in that fight. So but I don't think they really, you know, I don't think they're of a nature to, you know, to start a war that they won't unless they're absolutely back into a corner, they have to. But I think they're signaling they're starting to feel back into a corner and they're starting to feel powerful enough. They see the dynamics. They're getting more powerful. You're in a jam in Ukraine. You're in a even probably worst jam in the Middle East. And you don't know how to get out of it. And one of the things that Chinese doing is they're tightening the screws as they start to say, you know, we're more likely to move, we're thinking about acting on Taiwan. That's a red line. They're tightening the screws. They're tightening down the pressure of the neocons. I think that's sorry, correct. I should just add, I mean, you're talking about the Russians of the Chinese feeling more powerful. Again, there's something I always keep an eye out for myself. We've got more economic figures coming up from Russia today. So GDP growth in January and February was 6%. GDP growth in March apparently was 7.6%. That's the estimate from the economics minister. So that gives you some sense of, you know, the kind of surge, economic surge that we're looking at. And this is fully in line, by the way, with the PMI numbers. So, you know, that's just just just say. And inflation does seem to be destabilized and there's some signs that are starting to fall. But that just to throw that in quickly, briefly, there with the Russians. But anyway, let's just focus on Ukraine because I mean, I think that the urgency is partly about the Middle East, I agree. The urgency, I definitely think, is about the American election. I think that if you're talking about the people in Washington, this is always the overriding concern for them, quite apart from anything else, they don't want the Orange Man back. That is, you know, a thing that they're all terrified about, they've all got themselves worked up into a state of over it. So, you know, that's another thing. So they don't want to collapse in Ukraine before November. But it looks like they might have a collapse in Ukraine before November because go back to that political article. It basically gives a date, actually, it says August, there's a Russian offensive in August, the Ukrainian lines won't hold. And this is very much in line with what we've been saying on our respective channels now for some time. Eventually, the Ukrainians are going to be ground down, they've received that they've been ground down. And I have to say, I think that a lot of the panic is because I mean, they can do the maths in, well, maybe they can't do the maths very well, but they can do the maths approximately well in Washington and Paris and London and Berlin. And they can see that there aren't enough shells or drones or fighter jets or bombs, they can make a difference. The Russians, perhaps more of them, and this must be for Western leaders, the single most shocking thing of all. I don't think at any point since the Second World War, they have been put in that position. Yeah, I agree. They're learning that material industry and material things are far more important than narratives and magic money of derivatives and things of that nature. Because when they started, it was we've got plenty of capital, we can pump all of this capital into Ukraine and we can defeat Russia by pumping unlimited amounts of capital into Ukraine because we can print unlimited amounts of capital. Well, even now, they can still print plenty, even though the long-term effects notwithstanding, but there's nothing to buy with it because people can't make the shells and things of that nature. So they're learning, they're going that the world, ultimately that the importance of money represents sugar and rice and beef. And that ultimately you need sugar and rice and beef and the money you can't eat money. And that's what they're learning the hard way so they can't defeat a Russia that still understands the conservative nature of Russia's culture is not just conservative when it comes to religion and things of that nature. It's also conservative when it comes to how do you maintain the physical underpinnings of society that allow you to keep going, you keep factories and you maintain them and you maintain your industrial power and you could grow food, again, we get back to this. The U.S. sees food and oil and things of that nature as political tools. We're going to stop this country from growing as a political tool so they have to buy our stuff and we can inflate or deflate the prices and so it's an oil over here, we're going to use oil so we can cut you, choke you out so you can't get an oil, raise the prices. So they're seeing these commodities as machinations for policy. Russians realize this, you can heat things with your energy. You've got to have food in case somebody comes to get you, you've got to have food set up for the winter. It's cold, you have to be prepared for the winter. So it's a conservatism that is a realistic kind of view of the world, you've got to have physical things, you just can't make this stuff up. And so they're always physically prepared for the problems they're going to have. And now we're saying that that old school conservative, let's be ready for the winter, let's be ready for bad weather is going to win out every time in the long term. And I think that, yeah, go ahead, sorry. No, absolutely. I could be bigger than the other area where they're conservative is in debt because again, I mentioned a slew of economic figures GDP debt to GDP ratio in Russia, 17%, 17%. I mean, the United States adds a trillion dollars, and this is this this was confirmed to death, a trillion dollars of debt every hundred days, no, Russia's debt. Apparently it's fallen, in fact, because again, the GDP is rising. So the GDP is growing faster than government spending is. Right. Well, and the basically the West's economy now works, runs off of debt. It doesn't run off of making things or digging things out of the ground. It runs off of debt. It has to have debt to survive. So since it runs off of debt, the nature is to expand the debt, to keep looking for someone else to lend money to, to overthrow another country. So you can lend money there and you can buy things. It runs off machinations that are all related to debt. So it only makes sense that sooner or later the debt would run to a point in economic, you know, excuse me, industrial, excuse me, corporate debt, personal debt, and government debt to a point where it's unmanageable. And as you already know, you know, unpayable debts don't get paid. So now they're in a position where they're back to a corner economically. I think that another important thing about Ukraine now that Russia's doing that shows that they smell blood in the water. And that is that they're going after the infrastructure. They're going after the electricity. People talked about why the Russians didn't do that. Why do they allow them to have internet and all their electricity and blah, blah, blah. I think with the Russians, it was a timing thing. I think they wanted to get to a point where they got nearly where they saw a tremendous amount of weakness. They want to degrade the military capabilities and create some level of desperation, right? Constantly with body shots, body shots, body shots and punching. And now they hit the electrical grid when things are terrible, they're falling apart on the battlefield. Now we're going to punch the electrical grid. And now we're going to give you, you know, a shot right to the right to the chin. So I don't think that the Russians are reacting to something when it comes to going after the electrical grid and the infrastructure grid. I don't think that they're like, well, we're mad. So we're going to get revenge over Crocus or this or that. I think it's a long term plan that says at a certain point, when we have weakened you military to a certain militarily, boom, when the population starts rejecting the next mobilization, when you start having internal, when all the things start falling apart, lap out, that's when we're going to punch your electrical grid and we're, you know, and kind of yank the rug out of the whole operation. I think it's entirely correct. I think that this is a very carefully prepared and carefully thought out operation has been prepared for a very long time. A goal and you're American. You live in America. Are the American people psychologically prepared for a world in which the U.S.'s adversaries can outproduce it? This has never happened before in American history. Well, I think what you have to understand about something that's really coming to the forefront now and that is the American people are starting to understand that the ruling elite in America don't represent their interests. You know, the American people in reality are just like everyone else. They're wandering around, living their lives. They want to hang out with their families. They want to work. They want to send their kids to college. They want to do the same things as everyone else. So one of the things that the ruling elite has been able to do is as best they can make sure that their imperialist moves and government overthrowing and all the CIA, you know, undermining and of various people around the world that that didn't affect the American people. So they could do it and the American people wouldn't feel the pain and the American people could go. Not enough that they would really know it and they could go on about their lives because they knew the American people, just kind of like everyone else, they want to go about their lives and live their lives and not be feel that there's any, you know, not have any major problems. And what's happening now is the American people are starting to feel the pain and they're getting upset. And what they're saying is we want you to alleviate the inflation, the economic pain, the problems, the anxiety and stress that we're having and you're not doing it. And now that the ability of the ruling elite to pursue their imperial machinations around the world without having that pain visit the American people is no longer present. And now the American people are starting to ask questions that they didn't. It's like, why is it hurt? Why is it caused so much? Why is this what? And the answers have to do with foreign policy. I see now as an example, and I've said this, I see now Donald something I've never seen before. And that is, there's a significant amount of support for Donald Trump in the black community in America. And it's funny because I heard I had someone who's Jamaican say to me, oh, I don't like Donald Trump. Oh, he called my country a, you know, asshole country blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but I'm going to vote for him. And it had to do with economics. Well, it costs so much more to do this and that and, you know, when I was, I have another friend of mine has a landscaping business does well, raises his family. He was talking to me about, well, gas costs so much now for my, you know, equipment and lawnmowers and all why when Trump was there, it wasn't there starting to get this kind of romantic. Well, you know, when Trump was there, things were better off. And ultimately, you know, that's what people vote on. So I'm starting to see that in a community that is a little one of the foundational constituencies of the Democratic Party, they lose the black community. They're, you know, it's game set master's nothing left for the Democratic Party. They're not, they're not even barely a national party. So anyway, go ahead, you thought. No, I mean, what, what would they say because, I mean, we got all these adventures that are going wrong. Project Ukraine is going wrong. Middle East is going wrong. What would they say if the US government now said this is a situation where we have to intervene directly in order to restore the situation, you know, we've got to send more roots to you to the Middle East, you've got to say, send more boots to Eastern Europe, indeed even possibly to Ukraine itself. There are some suggestions in Russia, I understand that the purpose of local news called to show you was to try to see whether the Russians might be prepared to stand back and allow French troops into Ukraine, which, of course, again, I mean, you know, they got completely disabused about this. I mean, what would the Americans say if they were asked to do that this time? Would they say yes? Would they say no? Would it be a situation like we saw in the 60s over Vietnam, people protesting and coming out and opposing it? What would the reaction be? You know, that's a good, that's a very interesting question because if you look at the dynamics right now in the polls, the people that support these wars, the least, the people that support the Biden administration, the least, are the people that they'd have to ask to fight. The people 30 and under, my God, nobody 30 and under, like Biden, they despise him. The younger people are furious over the Israeli conflict and what's going on in Gaza. So for Joe Biden and the administration to come to this group that hates them, that hates these wars, that have suffered the most economically, the COVID shutdowns who suffered the most economically, 30 and under, who's tied up with these unpayable college loans, 30 and under, right, to come to those people and say, we expect you to fight is an invitation for disaster. They tear this country apart. It wouldn't happen. Basically, most of them, I would argue, would just simply say, I'm not going to go. You're going to have to throw me in jail. I will not do it. Now, what are you going to do? Are you going to jail tens of millions, are you going to jail tens of millions of people who are saying we're not going to go or we're going to go to candor or whatever they're going to do? So the issue, I think, is that would be the ultimate example of this bumbling imperialist U.S. foreign policy coming home to visit the American people. And they do not have the support in any way, shape, or form to do for that. In fact, I'll go even further, the U.S. military is in a decay for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the young people don't want to serve in the military because of the foreign policy. So they've got the people that they've got in the military now. What's going to happen as those people age out or get out because they're concerned and as young people say, we're not going to go in. So they've got the military they have now to work with, but as far as going into fights where they're going to have to expand that military, draft people, bring in more people. Well, good luck with that because that's the end of any hope of civilization in America because young people have burned place now. I understand. It's very like Britain, by the way. I mean, one of the great myths about the fall of the British Empire is that the people in London suddenly woke up one day and decided that they didn't really want to be an empire anymore, but they were going to start granting independence to all these various countries. It wasn't like that at all. It was one of two reasons. Firstly, the United States didn't want the British Empire around because they said we should be the Empire now. But the other one was that the British people weren't prepared to fight, to preserve the Empire for the elite any longer. This is specifically very vividly the case in India where the British Army basically said the soldiers there said, you know, enough's enough. We want to go home. We don't want to be involved in this. This was true right across the Empire. It became impossible to maintain conscription. It had to end in Britain in 1960 and the British public, overall, became in the '60s and '70s. As I remember, very, very hostile to imperial adventures and to attempt to preserve the Empire in places like Yemen and Libya and all of those places as well. So that was what brought the British Empire down and it looks to me as if America is at the start of something similar. If I could add this, you know, if you look at Russia and China right now, the recent election in Russia, you know, you might as well say 100% for God's sake, it was darned unanimous in favor of President Putin. If you're going to mix it up with other world powers, you know, if you're going to be in a dynamic where the people are put in danger, right, you're going to have to deliver for the people. You're going to have to have them behind you. So the Russian government has delivered for the Russian people. You know, the economy is growing. They have jobs. As we know, people go there. They open the soup. They go to the supermarket and there's all kinds of beautiful green, fresh fruits all over the place at a reasonable price. You go to China. China is delivering over 90% support for the people, for the government in China. U.S. polls show that. So these governments are delivering a job. They can raise their children. They can send their, they have a future. They're looking towards a better future. So they have the support. The U.S. government is not delivering for the people. And I put it like this with Russian China, even to take on an imperialist power like the U.S. They have to have buy-in. They have to deliver for the people to be even able to take them on so that what the U.S. empire wanted, which was the people to turn against Vladimir Putin's leadership and take his government down. You have to deliver for the people or that could possibly happen. So since the Russians are delivering for the people on a day-to-day basis, they've got a job. They feel somewhat safe. They feel like the government's there to protect them. They've got food on the table, reasonable energy prices. You're delivering where we're behind you. We're in here. They're not delivering for the American people. The American people are getting restive. They're getting angry. They're getting upset. So now the ruling elite is no in no position to pursue a foreign policy that would require them to drag the American people in and put them out there to make the ultimate sacrifice because they haven't delivered for them. The U.S., the people in America have nothing to fight for. They have nothing to fight to protect. And they don't believe and trust the ruling elite in this country. They have been wholly discredited. And they're only going to get discredited again as they've got three current major conflicts going on, which is Russia, China, and the Gaza conflict, and they're in the process of losing all three of them. Absolutely. Let's go back to Ukraine because that's the topic in a way of our program. How does the American elites react to the loss, to the failure of Project Ukraine? Because that's now what we're seeing. I mean, we've seen this article in Politico, which is partly intended to inform the American elite that this is most coming. How do they react to that? I mean, this is something that, I mean, they must be getting a bit used now to foreign policy phase, but this is one against the Russians, the old adversary. And it's in Europe, very close to the heartland territories of our empire. And it's been a technological war. And, you know, we always thought that we were superior in technology, and it's the other side is using an air force, like we use an air force and they're doing it perhaps even better than we do it. So how do they react to this? Does it frighten them? Does it make them angry? Are they going to come back and say we've got to try and hit back at the Russians even more? Or do they say to themselves, well, finally, do they finally say to themselves, well, the moment has come for us to try and find some kind of understanding with the other side because they're too strong. My suspicion has always been based on their record. You know, we were never in Vietnam for, you know, a decade or so. And they said, we can't possibly leave Vietnam. If we do, you know, we're going to have the domino theory, you know, the communist will come eat us and now everything will go bad. And at some point, things went bad in Vietnam. They laugh. What did they do in Afghanistan? They went on and, you know, we can't, it will be an incubator for terror and, oh, all kind of terrible things. We can't ever leave there because of terrorism, blah, blah, blah. They wake up woke up on a given Tuesday, they left. And bad news, well, really good news actually, but I'll put it like this. Bad news for the ruling, good news for the people of Europe. Bad news for the ruling elite who have stuck their neck out so far on this thing. At some point, the ruling elite in Europe are going to say, what are we going to do? And they're going to say, what do you mean, we, we're, we are going back across the pond and calculate our next diabolical scheme. As for you, you know, call us, have a nice day, hope for the hope you figure this thing out. Oh, by the way, we've got some more shipments of LNG at five or six times the price that don't keep coming to you. See, you have a nice day. It is my delete for all of those who believe that the United States will put the U.S. in danger and danger of nuclear war. The U.S. is not going to sacrifice anything for Europe or Ukraine or eastern Europe. They're going to walk away from this thing and leave the Europeans holding the bag. I argue, I've argued this all along. If the Russians were to attack the Balkans, which there's no possibility of that, but just for the sake of argument, if they were to attack the Balkans tomorrow and dash on the pieces, the U.S. wouldn't invoke Article 5. The U.S. they wouldn't sacrifice a fingernail for these people. Proxy militaries are there as cannon fodder. That's the job of Ukraine. And when the cannon fodder runs out, the U.S. is not supplants cannon fodder for them, not for Europe, not for the Balkans. They're there for themselves and they're not going to go in and fight for anyone. That is my opinion. The neocons, they, they, they're not coming into Ukraine. They're going to walk away, leave everybody holding the bag and move on to their next diabolical scheme. So that, that, that, that internalizes and just move on to the next, to the next one. They'll come up with articles of how they didn't really lose and you know how it is and how the, this hurts the Russians worse and now Europe is really going to be, you know, blah, blah, blah. And it's more important that we deal with China right now and on and on everything else in the world, but they're going to walk away. They always do. Why would they do something different? Yeah. And America can. That's, that's, that's, that's the thing. I mean, it has that a, that, I mean, that exorbitant privilege to misquote, you know, their strength has always been, as has been stated, their country with insignificant powers to the north and west and fish to the, I mean, to the north and south and fish to the east and west. That's their strength. And when in doubt, that's the strength they're going to play. Oh my gosh, we started messing a chaos over here. We're going to go home. Good luck fixing it. That's the game that in the end, the strength is we're a long way from, from the action. And that's the strength that they will ultimately play. What should Europe do? I mean, we hear we see, I mean, I'm convinced of this that the French Defense Minister is acting as the messenger boy for the Americans and calling calling Russia, but what should the Europeans do? I mean, you know, it's not turning out very well for us at all. I mean, you know, we have the Russians on our doorstep. We've antagonized them. We're short of gas. If you spend any time in Europe, you know what that means. Do we move away from the Americans? Do we huddle even more closely to them? Do we talk to the Russians? What should we do? I think we've got two, that's two separate questions because you've got the ruling elite of Europe who have completely, you know, given their souls over to the neocons, will be left hold in the bag. And even after this is over, their concern is not the concern for the masses of the working class anyway. They're, you know, how can, oh no, the US Empire is falling. Macron has said things like, well, we need our own European army and we need our own European army, he wants, his thing I think is, or the ruling elite of Europe is, we want to be, since the US Empire is falling, we want to be the new empire and we want to come in and we want to be able to do all of the things that the US used to be able to do, but they can't do anymore. That's the ruling elite. I think that the working class people in Europe, the everyday people in Europe are going to wake up and begin to kick these people out of office. Everything is interesting too, because people who are conservative have argued, yes, it's all, this is going to go to the right, Europe is going to go completely to the right. Look at George Galloway, George Galloway is an avowed socialist and I saw people online who were conservatives saying, yeah, I voted for him because, you know, I didn't, I wanted something different. So I think, and look at the two people in the East, the guy in Slovakia, I think the East, theta, feet style, whatever that's for now, and Victor, and Victor Orban, two people who you would think ideologically don't get along and they're, I'm not going to say they're the best of friends, but when it comes to looking out for the needs of their country, they are aligned, maybe not ideologically, but aligned from the perspective of what's the job of the government to look out for the interest of the people of its country. So I think that there will be a combination of some countries are going to get leaders to the left, some countries are going to get leaders to the right, but people aren't going to be looking necessarily for a leader who aligns ideologically with everything they want, but they're going to be looking for a leader that they feel is independent. And that's, it's going to go from, we got to go hard, right, we got to go hard left to, who's independent of the US, who wants some level of independence and sovereignty, how can we get leadership that looks out for our people? And I think that's what I learned from watching what happened with Galloway. I think that's a shows that the future in Europe is going to be not a, and even then traditional right and left, the definitions of them are changing. Here I am a traditional lefty, far lefty, but when it comes to a lot of things, I'm aligned with some libertarians. I work with conservatives, some Trump, MAGA people, we all get along really good because in the end, we believe that the job of the government is to look out for the needs of the people first and foremost. And I think that's the new, it's not even right, left, that's the new ideological alignment. People who want a government who looks out for the people, and they're not going to be as concerned with traditional right and left as they are going to be with traditional structures of power and representation. I think it's entirely right. I think it's also true in Germany, by the way, where we see these a Saravaganex movement and the IFD, and they're both growing, interestingly, it was assumed that Saravaganex would take votes from the IFD. She doesn't seem to be, she seems to be taking votes from the Greens and from the SPD at the moment, from what I can understand. So this is an interesting phenomenon, but you're absolutely correct. And in some respects, they complement each other in Germany as they do in Britain. And you're perfectly correct in Britain, many people who historically would have considered themselves conservatives are happy that Galloway has been elected to the British Parliament because they found themselves much closer to him on many issues now, and much more able to understand him than they understand people within the so-called conservative party. So just saying so, I think you're absolutely correct. Well, we are in strange times in some ways in the world, very complicated and dangerous times too. Is there anything, is there any, because we've had a rather optimistic programme overall, is there any danger that things could go horribly wrong, that seeing things getting out of control, sensing that they're in an end of empire moment, they might decide the people in charge in Washington, if that makes sense in Europe, let's go for a break, let's go all out, let's try something big and desperate, and if it works, well, we've bought ourselves another 20 years, and if it fails, well, you know, we all go down together. I mean, some countries have done that to themselves, Japan did it in '41, Germany obviously also did it. Is there any risk that something like that might happen? I don't think there is at least until the election. I think that the US election is going to be something that ties the hands of the Biden administration. I think they're going to be very much afraid of doing something that would cause them to lose big. You know, they take a big chance, they lose, it doesn't work out well, and then they're completely destroyed. And let's not forget, you've got Biden and Blinken and Sullivan who, and people who having, you know, infuriated and Trump in charge of him with everything, but mochaery on the high seas, they understand that should he come to power, he may be looking for, you know, he may be looking to sick his DOJ on them and their hands are really dirty. He's not, you know, the any competent investigator is not going to have to look long to find a litany of crimes when it comes to the Biden administration. And the things that they've done in you, I will guarantee you this, in the Biden administration right now, there are probably numerous people who if given the opportunity would be happy to start singing about the things that they know and they've opposed for the last four years. So they're horrified of losing and similar to Netanyahu, you know, they're afraid of going to jail. Should they lose? I think that's something that's going to restrict them at least until the election from doing anything major. That being said, if there's any danger, it's a danger of incompetence. It's a danger that they could stumble, that they could make an error that they go, well, we'll do this. This isn't much. Okay, and it ends up being something major that, you know, even particularly on the coast of China, that they could do something that China finally says, okay, that's a red line. We're going to act and China ends up taking an act, you know, some kind of a military action against a U.S. installation or something like that. So I think a foolish move is more likely than an intentional move that gets out of control. I do think, of course, that, you know, as you know, the big concern right now is how is Iran going to respond to what's happened? I think people are holding their breath. I do believe this in the same way that the Russian, when it comes to the Crocus attack, that the Russians are not going to do anything foolish, that the Russians are not going to allow that to distract them from their plan that is working. They're, you know, I think they're going to act. The Russians have a military plan in Ukraine, and that plan is working. And I don't think they're going to look at the Crocus attack and say, well, we're furious now we have to throw hypersonic missiles at a remedy or something. That's not what they're going to do. I think they're going to pursue it in a legal fashion, internationally legal. Who knows? They may end up at the UN court presenting evidence, whatever the case may be, but I don't think they'll be destroyed. The Russians will be distracted from their winning strategy. I also believe that the Iranians are carefully coordinating with the Russians and the Chinese, that they are discussions. So even the Iranian attack may be through a proxy, you know, it may be whatever they do. I suspect, you know, who knows, maybe you know, the answer a lot will show up with some nice new missiles that can, you know, cause further damage than the ones that they have. I think they will, they're going to act, but I don't think it'll be an outright punch in the face that the Israelis can use to expand this thing. And I believe that the leaders of Russia and China and Yemen understand the inextricable link between the three conflicts and that they're treating these as one conflict and that the three will come together and they will decide upon Iran's, you know, certainly it's Iran's region, et cetera, but I think they will consult their, the other powers, because let's say, say Iran needs Russia, they need China. And so I think it will be a, there'll be, it will be a, it will be green lit by their partners, whatever they do. I agree. I think it's also important to point out that the Chinese and the Russians, they may not need Iran, but it is important to them, I mean, they will not want the Iranians to run off and do something reckless, which might hurt Iran, because that will hurt Russia and China as well. So, I mean, they are all in it together in a kind of sense, so, and I think that one of the great features of Iranian policy since the events of the 7th of October is that the Iranians have shown a astonishing discipline and restraint, and I think they will continue to do so because it is playing out to their advantage. So, I mean, you know, I think they understand perfectly well that the Israelis are trying to provoke them. So the best way to deal with that is not to be provoked. This is my own view. Yeah, I also think that I don't want to underestimate the value of the Iranians either, because, you know, location is important, and their location, one of the things I think the Russians and the Chinese understand now is that these two choke points, Baba al-Mindob Strait and going into the Red Sea and the Straits of Hormuz, that those are Iran's choke points. Iran owns those choke points and they can open them and close them at will, and that is extremely powerful. I also think that if you look what's happening now, the Russians, you know, I recall the leader of North Korea coming to Russia and he ended up at the Roscosmos Space Center wandering around with Shoyu, and now every time you turn around, the North Koreans are trying another new missile with solid fuel and they're putting another satellite in the sky. I think the Russians have learned from the Iranians, if that's, if learned is the right way to put it, that the importance of having allies and arming your allies and putting your allies in a position to put pressure on your adversaries. So I think that in this, one of the brilliant, the Iranians, the people who invented chess had played absolute brilliant chess in the Middle East utilizing and arming their allies. We can see that from Yemen. And I think the Russians are now looking at that, another thing that's critical. The Russians now are starting to whittle away at the international sanctions on North Korea. The Russians are, I think, planning on getting rid of those sanctions on North Korea. They understand the importance of North Korea, again, like Iran, where it sits and the alliance that it has with China. And so I think that the Russians are starting to do the Africa. I'm reading that some of the African countries are saying, "Yeah, we're starting to receive missiles and all kinds of things. They won't say who they're getting it from." So I think the Russians also are learning from the Iranians, if that's the right word, the importance of empowering your allies militarily and economically, so you have a broader reach. So I think that the Iranians have been extremely important in this international conflict wherein the neocons are at war with the world. I think you're right. I think you're absolutely right about this. I think the one thing I will say is that I do agree with you that one should never underestimate the possibilities for incompetence and stupidity and panic and anger are the part of some of these people in Washington. I mean, they are, "Well, no reverse gear," and it's on your shirt, it's just the same. There's always that potential there. There's always that inclination from them there. And once you've never underestimate the risk from that, but overall, I think you're right. I think we are getting through, in fact, I suspect, actually, that we probably turn the corner, certainly in Ukraine, I think the way the Russians have run it means that I think we have turned the corner in Ukraine. Middle East, not what to worry about, China, the Chinese are now drawing their very clear red lines, but I think that, as I said, the risks are less great than, you know, they might have appeared to be a few weeks ago, just saying. And I also agree, by the way, just to infer emphasis over all the points that you made about, you know, the crimes in Washington are all there to see. And of course, just to remind everybody that, Garland, you've been an actual investigator. I've never been an investigator. I've been the person who's read reports from investigators, but I've never actually done it myself. So, but I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that any investigator who, you know, offered the opportunity to investigate some of these things, well, they would have lots and lots and lots of material on their hands because of these things have been done, frankly, you know, in clear view, quite remarkable, actually. So anyway, this is where I finish. I think we've had a great, you know, run through things and specifically with Ukraine. If you're all right to stay, Garland, they're going to hand over to Alex. And I think he probably has some questions to ask. Certainly. I've got some time. It's time. Great. A lot of questions. Garland, but let me pick out some questions to throw at you here. Dr. Moreau says, "Gentlemen, hello, and what do you all think about the recent revival of Havana syndrome in U.S. media?" Garland, "Is it part of political propaganda? Why now?" I think it shows desperation to some extent. I mean, it's absurd, you know, it's ridiculous. And I mean, it is, to me, it shows that they're looking for anything they can to throw with the Russians, you know, shotgun effect, throw everything against the wall and see if something sticks. This has no intrinsic political value. People can... It just keeps people busy. It's like chewing gum for the brain, basically. So I think it demonstrates desperation. They're looking for something to throw at the Russians. They don't have anything. So they look, "Do we have anything?" "Oh, we got a Havana syndrome." "Okay. Give me a Havana syndrome. We'll go with that if we don't have anything else." That's the way it comes across to me. Yeah, you know, just quickly and on that, I think it's also directed at Trump, actually. I think this is like, you know, the Taliban bounties story, that the Russians are paying bounties to the Taliban. You remember how that was used during the 2020 election? I can very easily see Havana syndrome being sort of pulled up here, you know, asking Donald Trump questions, like, you know, "Are you going to stand up to the Russians over Havana syndrome?" Trump says, "What?" He doesn't say that he's ridiculous, and they say, "Ah, well, that proves that he's soft on the Russians, and he's following Vladimir Putin's orders." So I think there's some element of that in this as well. The other thing I'd have to comment is, I think it's something else that demonstrates that the ruling class, the political class in the US are totally and completely out of touch with the working people. Average people are concerned about the cost of a pack of chicken wings. You know what I mean? Average people are concerned with their basic things, and they're trying to come up with these, you know, imaginary, if you think about it. Even if it was true, it's not the average person on the street that's affected. What they're saying is somebody's doing something to members of the ruling elite class, to the diplomats that we send, to the CIA. They're suffering headaches and, you know, discomfort in their stomach. Isn't that horrible? And most people would say, "Yeah, the discomfort in my stomach is I can't afford to put any food in it." They're not concerned. They're not concerned. So it shows they're out of touch, even if it were true. The average person could care less. They want to look out for themselves and their family. So it shows just how out of touch these people are. It's absurd. And it's going right over that. Yeah, I don't see. I'm in America. I haven't heard anybody on the street, anybody I know, any friend say, "Hey, Garland, what about Havana syndrome? What are we going to do about that?" It doesn't happen. It's a conversation they have amongst themselves. And then they say, "Oh, we've got a good one. Let's run with this." And the people on the street don't even hear a break. Go right over their heads. Come on, Garland. You're telling me you don't go to the bar or the pub. In the minute you walk in, everyone's like, "Carly, man, we've got to talk about this. I've had a syndrome stuff, man. Come on." Listen for it. Do you hear the buzzing? I don't know. How about you? Boy, yes, Sparky says, "Great to have Garland Nixon back from vacation." Thank you, Sparky, for that. From Elena, question two, Mr. Nixon, "Is people in the USA discussing the fact that actions of Israel are not open for criticism as shown with the sacking of Candace Owens? If yes, what is the opinion of the people?" And the issue of free speech is a major discussion here. The Israel, at this point, not popular amongst the general public, and the numbers are just continually to draw the number of people that support what's happening in Gaza is continuing to fall. What is interesting about the U.S. and that is I'm seeing a phenomenon that I don't normally see. The mainstream media, the neo-con media that acts on behalf of the Biden administration and on behalf of the intelligence community, are now starting to report things from the Middle East conflict that would not normally be reported. So it's interesting. I don't know what that's about, but when it comes to Ukraine, the Russians are out of missiles and you turn on CNN, the usual, they're out of missiles, the Ukrainians are advancing on Red Square. You know, you get the usual propaganda, but when it comes to Israel, there's some truth slipping through there and a good bit more. I'm not sure what that's about, but I find that surprising. So Barano Brazil says, "Do you think the plan to drain European Union resources for the war against Russia will be approved and kept, as NATO's chief mentioned, is the hundred billion? Will NATO control Europe's armies against Russia?" Yes, it felt all along. The reality is this. The only thing that can stop the de-industrialization, if it can be stopped and the complete impoverishment of Europe is the European people. The ruling class is 100 percent on board with the neo-cons. They could care less about their people. So whatever they're told to do by their, the ruling elite here in the US, they're going to, by their economic class, their ruling class, their own board with it, if the working people, if the voters of Europe decide that they want to act through voting and/or through, you know, taking to the streets and the various things that they've done, they can change this. And I always bring this up. In John Bolton's book, he said that basically the neo-cons viewed China as their top economic adversary and problem and issue and the EU, the European bloc, is number two. So realistically, the neo-cons have been trying to take out Russia, China and the EU and they've been successful economically taking out the EU, not so much on the others, but from one perspective, they can look at it and say we have had some success in this Russian conflict in that one of the three powers that we wanted to really destroy, we've been able to do that. And they, the ruling elite have, you know, gone right along with it. Yeah. Keep, keep Germany down, one of NATO's goals. Yeah. John Roberts says, "Love this discussion. What role do you think third party candidates will play in the US presidential election this year? Will they hurt Biden or Trump more?" A couple of things. RFK Jr. just picked, I forgot the woman's name, but bottom line is there are a lot of people complaining saying, "Oh my gosh, you know, the conservatives that had considered voting for RFK are saying, 'Why'd he pick her?' And she comes across as a member of this liberal class that we are very reticent about trusting. This was a big boon for Trump because a bunch of conservatives now that would have voted for RFK are going to look at him and say, 'No way, I don't trust him now. He's gotten one of these Google people, et cetera, and they're going to go back to Trump.' RFK Jr. because he hasn't, you know, pushed for a peaceful resolution in the conflict in Gaza has significantly hurting him. I would argue that he'd be in first place if he'd get, if he, if his position were even moderate on Gaza, he'd be in first place. So I do think that one of the possible outcomes that isn't discussed, that is a potential outcome, and that is that if neither of the candidates get 270 electoral votes, which is what third parties could do. So they could come in and they could get enough electoral votes that neither of the parties get 270, and then of course it goes to the House of Representatives and we go from there. But I think that third parties are going to be significant. And they're going to be significant in how the, in the electoral process in the things that Biden and Trump have to do to address the danger of third parties, how they have to run the policies that they have to push. They've got to look at what a Joe Biden or whoever, excuse me, what JFK Jr., whoever, what they're doing, the things that causes their numbers to go up or down and how they need to latch on to some of those policies or reject some of those policies based on that. So I think third parties are going to be very, very important and critical, more so than ever, but more so since, I believe it was 1990 with Ross Barrow. That's cruel. Yeah. Sparky says elites nowadays have let their countries down with incompetence like they did in the austere UK in the 1960s and 70s, with the added bonus of being evil. I would put it differently. I would argue that they haven't let the people in a way, in a way, the people that they represent, they're not letting them down. I think what's happening is that people, the average working class, regular old citizens, the voters out here are starting to understand the reality and that is that the ruling elite don't represent them. That the ruling elite, there's an old joke, I don't remember how it is, but what exactly it was, but I can paraphrase it where they say basically the politicians tell the poor people we're going to protect you from the rich and they tell the rich people we're going to protect you from the poor, right? There's an old joke about that, I don't remember, but you get what I'm going to do. The reality is this, they're there to mitigate that anxiety between the poor and the ruling elite, number one, on behalf of the ruling elite. So simply the people are starting to learn the truth, just like in Europe, the people in Europe are starting to understand, we don't have independence and sovereignty. We're just colonies of the United States and our leaders are our governors as, you know, or whatever they would call them during the British Empire, right? Our leaders are governors of these colonies and we want independence and sovereignty and now they're looking for independence and sovereignty, it's in the same way that I think Europeans are starting to understand that their ruling class represents someone other than them and is acting detrimental to their interests, I think that's what the American people are starting to understand. So it's not a matter of the ruling elite letting us down, they never represented us and now we're starting to learn, we have to either, you know, we have to get them out and bring in some people who represent us. One more, one more for Garland, it's from Soparano, Brazil. You believe Israel will drag USA to a conflict in the region. Israel is saying it is going to get into Lebanon. Is it good for the USA to hold more ground in the region considering China and Russia are investing there? A couple of things, I think Israel, well here's what's interesting, Israel and Ukraine both. Both of them understand that they have no chance unless they drag the US into their war, right? Both of them are at the same port. Both of them are at a point where they've clearly lost based on what their objectives were in the first place, right? And they cannot ever achieve the objectives they want, you know, we're going to take back Crimea, we're going to, you know, push all the way to, you know, to the Pacific coast of Russia, whatever, right? And we're going to defeat Hamas and we're going to push Hezbollah back to the Latani River and on and on and on, well they know they can't do those things. And now they both know the only chance they have of even survival is to bring the US in to fight for them, but the US doesn't have the where with all, to fight all over the place. And it's something that makes it important. One of the things that was discussed earlier when the US sent this gigantic flotilla to the Middle East, and that was the Pentagon said, we're having trouble paying for this. It's extremely expensive. So the US right now has this, all of this money has gone into Ukraine, really economically hurt them. But they're pumping all of this money into, they just built some base on an island, the Napa Island, right, $400 million. Meanwhile they've got to keep an armada floating in Israel. So one of the issues right now is the US really can't afford, how long can the US afford to float two and a half wars? So the US is in deep and serious trouble economically. And I think its allies feel like, you know, it's like someone who says, my dad's rich, he can buy me anything I want. And he's got unlimited money and their dad's like, not exactly, I'm starting to run out of cash. And I think that's part of it here. Nobody talks about the actual physical economic costs just to buy fuel, buy bombs, pay soldiers. That stuff is real and it's getting really expensive for the US, you know. Fantastic. Garland Nixon, thank you very much for joining us on this live stream. I have Garland's information, his YouTube channel, I believe, Rumble as well. Correct Garland? Yes, yes. I'm Rumble and Rock Finn. Also I have all that information in the description box down below and I will add it as a paint helmet as well. Garland, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you. Anytime. Thanks. Thank you, Garland. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Take care. Whoo, great show. Great show, all right. Alexander, let's answer the rest of the questions. Do you have the energy? Are you? Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. All right, let's do it. From KL, I listen to this channel and military summary the most. And when Alexander gives a credit, I knew this place is legit. And thank you. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Val. Yes. I agree with that. Peter says, will a Biden loss be the ultimate Zelensky curse? Yes. Actually, it would be, no question. Yeah. Sparky says to Duran live streams in the same morning. We are blessed. Thank you, Sparky. For that, Peter says the US wants this to last till after the elections. Why would Russia not want to finish it sooner to prevent a Biden win? Well, I think that the Russians are going to take that time to do it correctly. I mean, they're not going to let the American political calendar determine their military action. It might end before the election, by the way. Zisha, I think that's super sticker. Monty 105 says, going back to the live stream with Professor Saks, to what extent, in your opinion, is the hatred towards Russia in the West caused by the whole filiquet controversy. That's an interesting question. A religious one. A religious one. I think there is an element of this. I think it became particularly strong in the 16th century, when Russia began to assert itself as an independent power, and Ivan Grozny, Ivan the Terrible, as we call him in the West. The correct translation, if he's named by the way, announced himself that you saw Russia, and that meant that you had a new power emerge in Europe, which was distinct from Western Christianity. So I think it has been there. I think it's always played a certain role. It's waxed and waned. It was very important, by the way, at the time of the Crimean War, just saying. I mean, one of the things that the British were able to do was that they were very successful in mobilizing the Catholic powers against Russia, Austria, and France. But I think that today, in this post-Christian world that we're starting to see in the West, it's ultimately geopolitics and other factors. However of the Russian team says, "It's total madness, all this blind hatred towards Russia." Completely great. Momma Laska says, "Great to see Garland so proud of the Duran." Thank you for that. 7295 says, "Yay, welcome, Garland and Duranians." Thank you for that. OMG Puppy says, "Some more support." Thanks for your interesting answer to my previous super chat. I just read about the Volgadon Canal. Remarkable. Yeah. Absolutely. Danko says, "Very insightful, guys, as always. Maria S says, "Thank you, gentlemen, following every day from Denmark." Martin, thank you for that super sticker. Elena says, "Let's imagine USA faces Balkanization in the future. What state would end up with the nuclear weapons? Who is the natural Russia of the USA?" Well, that's a good question. That's a very interesting one. I mean, the reason, one, is the short-term, so I mean, Russia dominated the Soviet Union. It was accounted for, what, two-thirds of its territorial, three-quarters of its territory, more than half its population, something like 60 percent of its GDP. There is no equivalent to the United States. What you might see, and I don't really like to speculate about these things, because, to be clear, I do not want to see America, fragment and more organized. Well, you might, I suppose, see, particular sections of the US, the regions, start to assemble. So New England, for example, the Midwest, who knows, something like that. Yeah, your answer is basically there's no equivalent to what Russia was to the Soviet Union. No. No, yes, yeah. That's true. Elza says, "Yellen is in China telling the industry what it should and shouldn't do." Sounds like she had some mushrooms again. Yeah, I agree with that. I mean, it's just absurd. And what, you know, she goes along, tells the lectures, the Chinese, and who's economy on basis of purchasing parity is bigger than that of the US. It must sound very strange to the Chinese, actually, to be lectured in that way. But the Americans assume that they can do this. By the way, there was an extraordinary article, "The Nature Times" by a man called David Goldman. He's a very interesting man. He gets invited to all the big security meetings, and he's done another brilliant sketch of one. And he says that China can produce 4,000 cruise missiles a week, which is more than the entire American arsenal of cruise missiles. Now, I have to say, I find that figure so staggering that I just want to have whether it can possibly be true. But, you know, I made a few inquiries, and I've told you can, it probably is. Custer Pi says, "It's scary if our president Johannes might be the NATO chief. He is the same or worse puppet than Stoltenberg." Yeah, I agree with that. Now, from Rumbolek Perka says, "Is there a will and enough force on the part of Iran to save Armenia, or is saving Armenia a lost cause?" It's as far as the Iranians are concerned, it's a lost cause. I mean, the point is, I think a lot of countries sympathize with the Armenian people, but nobody sympathizes, or likes Pashinyam, upside the NATO year of the Atlantic bubble, yeah, absolutely. Pashinyam is such a weird dynamic. You go to Armenia many times, and you can't find one person saying one good word about the guy. No, no. Yet he's been in power for a long time. Absolutely. All right. A summer of 1970s says, "Thanks, Duran, and Garland, Matthias says, 'A new Russian outpost near the Golan Highs, India News.'" Yeah, this is true, but I think this is a precautionary move. I don't think this is intended as a move of escalation. I think it's intended by the Russians to try to sort of sober people down and to make them think, "Well, look, don't escalate because the Russians are there now." Sebastian, thank you for that, SuperSticker. Is that here? Thank you for that, SuperSticker. Sebastian, thank you again for that, SuperSticker. Havernack says, "Shall we fight with peaceful means? Limits are set." Yeah. Very good comment there. "From Sobrano, Brazil, do you think that other countries will fight Russia as proxies too, like Ukraine or will it be with mercenaries or both?" I don't think any other countries going to want to say come in Russia to what they've seen happen to Ukraine. I think the one thing that has happened over the last year, especially since the failure of the Ukrainian offensive of the summer, is that people have come to understand that the Russian army is a very, very serious adversary to take on. And I think people are not armies around the world, especially NATO armies, are not too key to tangle with it. Sparky says, "Who would have thought the industrialization would turn out so badly? It seemed like a good idea at the time." Oh, it was a brilliant idea. We all knew that it would turn out splendidly, but, you know, something somewhere mysteriously has happened, which just doesn't make sense. D2FEDRA7 says, "Everyone, please go listen to the international Jew by Henry Ford." Okay. Neo McCarthyist says, "Seems like NATO will double down and enter soon. Operation Steadfast is defender nearby, French equipment and troops prepped, Finland and other signing security agreements and Trump's looming re-election." I don't think so, actually. I think this is a lot of talk, a lot of laugh. I think that the Americans have made it very clear that they're not going to participate in any venture in Ukraine. In fact, they're angry with Macron for bringing up this topic. I think the Germans are the same. I think in Germany, there would be a very strong reaction. We've just heard what from Garland, what the reaction would be in the US. I think the same is true as Britain. I don't think there's going to be any real intervention by NATO in Ukraine that goes beyond what we've already got, which is actually quite a lot, really. I mean, there's quite a lot of NATO personnel in Ukraine already, and we see that they're not making any difference to the war. Yeah. Ricardo Afan, so I think if I'm a super sticker, so Badano Brazil says, "When do you think about Poland? Where are they heading? Do they want to be the next Ukraine?" Many, many polls ask themselves that question, and the answer they overwhelmingly give is no. I think at the start of this conflict, at least at the start of the Special Military Operation in 2022, there was a huge amount of rallying in Poland that would get its support Ukraine. You know, the fears of Russia, the ancestral tensions with Russia were reawakened. But I think with every week and month that passes, I think Polish opinion is solidifying against getting further drawn into Ukraine, to the astonishment and dismay of Poland's leadership. So you saw that the previous party, the Law and Justice Party, was very strong on behalf of Ukraine at the beginning, and then they completely sound on the project towards the end. And I think the new government, Donald Tusk's government, is going through the same process. So Tusk's still talking about, you know, we're in a 1939 moment and all of that, but the officials around him are saying Poland is not sending troops to Ukraine. Yeah. Ricardo Alfanto says there's always, there are always all the migrants they can use for wars. Yeah, they can try, but I mean, bear in mind, migrants are not particularly motivated soldiers. So, you know, it's probably not going to be a hugely popular enterprise amongst the actual people of these countries to see their armies in that, you know, operated in that kind of way, and being led into wars, which the people of these countries don't want to see. Yeah. Klaus Batney says, "I doubt NATO will collect a hundred billion." Your thoughts? I agree. I agree with that, actually. It's another fantastic scheme, rather like President Pavel's scheme, to buy 800,000 shells from the international arms market, which exactly as we predicted on the Duran is already falling apart. Mm-hmm. Sparky says, "What's different between now and the U.S. war in Vietnam is if people dodge the draft by going to Canada nowadays, Trudeau would immediately press them into action in Ukraine." Oh, I agree. And that will make the situation in the U.S. even more volatile, because the fact that people were able to leave the U.S. to dodge the draft, they were able to come by the way to Britain as well, lots of British Americans in Britain at that time, and Europe. But because they can't do that, they're more likely to stay in the U.S. and protest there. Yeah. So, Badano Brazil says, "Do you think that these corrupt European leaders' financial toys are going to be kept in power, or there is any chance of change? Is Europe in the financial pockets for good?" Now, I think there will be change. The question is when and how much damage will be done in the meantime. And that's what we've been saying on the Duran, basically, since we started, you know, doing our programs in 2018. Sooner or later, this project is going to fall apart. It's bound to the laws of gravity, if you like, dictate it. But in the meantime, the process of keeping it going, we see the damage that's been done. And it's cumulative, and it's getting worse. And by the time it collapses, well, the wound that Europe will suffer might, in terms of its global standing, be mortal. Yeah. K.H. Wax is super-sticker. Thank you for that, K.H. Wack. Claudia Spencer, thank you for that super-sticker. Mahindra says, "Thank you for mentioning Indian naval revolt in Bombay. Brits were over-dependent on Indian soldiers in many parts of Asia. Revolt changed everything." Sassy says, "Russia intervention is equal to regime change, equal to swamp, drained." Summer of 1970 says, "George Galloway is a rare and truly inspirational politician." Absolutely. I mean, he's by far the finest orator in Britain today. And the amazing thing about it, the other thing quality he has is that when the media takes him on, he wins, he's extremely good at this, to an extent that no one else in British politics is. He's not scared of that. They're scared of him. It's quite amazing, actually. K.H. Russell Hall says, "Will you ever do a show discussing what appears ostensibly to be the long-standing myth of Putin's secret fortune? It seems to be a root narrative." We should do it one day. I once wrote a huge article about this, going through all the various allegations systematically debunking them. And making the point, by the way, that what is most strange about one of these allegations is that they are debunked many times. All of these stories, you can actually take them apart and they've been taken apart. And yet, they get quiet for a time and then they come back and they just seem to find a way of just killing this thing once and for all. Just to say, it is absolute nonsense. I mean, I worked out, and I actually went into great detail, but he's not even in a particular, but by the standards of the international rich. He's not even a rich man. K.H. Lutang says, "Hi, gang. Look at you." Andrés says, "There is an ongoing attempt by Hungarian politician Peter Magyad to split fidesh by forming a new right-wing party. The attempt seems dead on arrival, which makes me suspect Western intelligence. I agree." I mean, I didn't know about it, but I agree. Eric Hatchett, thank you for that super chat. He says, "Go Yemen, fight the power, envy, storm in." He put the Iran membership, Sam Witsky says, "Was the Middle East better off under Ottoman rule?" As somebody has asked me this question before, the thing to understand about that is the Ottoman rule was part of history, but it ended in 1917. I mean, it hasn't existed since then, so we're talking about a world that is long gone and existed in a completely different context from the one today. Now, the Ottoman centuries, which basically existed in the Middle East, were about 1500 to about, as I said, 1917. They were very long centuries. They were relatively peaceful, relatively peaceful, but at the same time, it has also to be said that they were a time when economic and social development slowed and when this region started to fall behind. But until then, it had been a relatively rich and advanced region in the Eastern Mediterranean. We're talking about the medieval world. By the time the Ottoman Empire fell, it was perceived as poor and backward. So you can't say that it was better off. It was more peaceful about. Of course, dead 9/10 says, "My two favorite YouTubers with Garland, the magnificent best regards to all of you, Kosovo, yes, said Bia. P.S., can you invite Dimitri Orloff to be a guest?" Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Very interesting man, actually. Yeah. Yes. You have to get in touch with him. Dimitri Orloff, yeah. Yeah. Sparky says, "Maybe if Trump gets back in office, he can change the military industrial complex to the space industrial complex. Maybe it would distract them and nerd oligarchs from war and in utopia for a while." It says, "A thought, and I know he's out of the market for ideas, he'll still face an awful lot of resistance from them in the meantime, I guess." Sam Whiskey says, "The West is short-minded the East never forgets." True. True. A pash says, "Gentlemen, what was Obama's visit to the UK about?" You know, so many people have asked me this question. You know, we don't really know. It was all very mysterious. He just turned up so soon out in Downing Street, made himself very visible doing that. And we've never had a true explanation for what that visit was. There's been rumors. It was about Assange, for example, others that he's trying to do something with Ukraine or that he's interested in investing in Britain, never did he really as a good explanation. "My guess is it's about the election, the American presidential election. I think what Obama is doing is he's coming to the British and saying, 'For God's sake, give us all you've got so that we can stop the orange man winning. And if you've got any dirt on him, please make it, please publish him.' I think that's basically what I think it was about. Another Halper, or Mr. Sude, or something like that. Sam Whiskey says, "If Biden wears the purple again, will that make him America's Constantine the servant?" Give me the last emperor, Byzantium. I would say this, the last emperor, Byzantium, constant on the elect was a heroic figure. If you read his last speech to the troops before the city fell, I mean, it's still very moving, actually. And he was a man of immense dignity, tremendous courage, tremendous authority, intelligence, somebody who knew he was going to lose, but he was determined because he was the emperor of an empire that went back to Caesar, Augustus and beyond, that he would fall with dignity. And, well, it's not the mind you've bought. Henry says, "Good morning, jets have been here for a while, missed you guys, don't want a magic mug, but do want a shirt recommendations. Also, will you consider going on due dissonance show?" Yeah, I think they're doing shows with Jimmy Dore, I want to say, I'm not sure. Yeah, I think so, yeah, absolutely, as far as shirts, no reverse gear shirts that we have. Those are great. Yeah. Yeah. Valvi Pollard says, "Does the 79 attack on the US Embassy mitigate Israel's attack in Syria?" No. I mean, I don't see that it mitigated in any way, actually. What the Iranians did in 1979 was a growth violation of international law, as the United States at the time correctly said it was, getting backing on that issue, by the way, as I well remember from the Soviet Union, what Israel did just three or four days ago in Damascus was also shocking violation of international law. But one doesn't mitigate or excuse the other. Yeah. Sherry says, "Thank you, Duran, for all you do and for having Karl and Don today." Thank you for that. And then the crossfire says, "Russian killer robots in their effort to save us, they may doom us all." I agree. I have to say, I find the whole business very scary and rather spooky. And if you see them in action, there's a film. It is very disturbing, but it is the new face of war. And, you know, if it hadn't happened in Ukraine, we would have seen them soon somewhere else. But that's technology and the trend of technology now. Yeah. Paul says, "Please have Seth Vadine Amis, author of Bitcoin Standard on the show." Sure. Sure. We'll try to get a touch. Harry C. Smith says, "What happened with the Turkey elections, with the Turkish elections?" I think we discussed this briefly. I mean, I think Alex put it very well. It's all about economics. Erdogan himself is not threatened. He's still president of Turkey. His foreign policy has not been challenged. He's not been criticized with his conduct of foreign policy. But he lets inflation get completely out of control in Turkey because he wouldn't raise interest rates. He's now decided that he's got to bring inflation down. He is a tight and monetary policy hugely. That has led to an economic recession. There is always a time lag between tightening monetary policy and inflation falling. So at the present moment in time, people in Turkey are experiencing both an economic downturn and very high inflation. And so what do they do? They vote against the ruling party. It is normal. Yeah. I agree. Yeah. Absolutely right. Paul says, "Safidin is also the economic adviser to Na'ib Bukalay." Okay. Okay. That would be interesting to get someone from Bukalay's staff to go on the show if they would come on the show. That would be great. Absolutely. Kefan says, "Russia should sell weapons to NATO." They did. You know, the ones that follow the time they did? I've been greased for some. Yeah. That would be true, right? It's not going to happen again. Yeah. Fauley Pollard says, "Your answer to my previous question must be no." The question was that. I'll go back and see. Anyway, I'll go back and see. I can find it. Pauli said, "Did NATO invoke Article 5 in February 2020 in Man's Belgium in secret?" A video shows it, but nothing has been written on the subject. Thank you. I don't think so. And certainly, as you correctly said, there's been no real confirmation of it. Does the 79 attack on U.S. embassy mitigate Israel's attack in Syria? Was that a no from you, Alexander? Yes, it was, it was a no. Okay. Russell Hall says, "I've never seen anyone even question the myth of Putin's fortune. It's a narrative. He's constructed early in his career to prepare for discrediting him." Yeah. Well, as I said, I mean, I have written a long article about this, which is probably somewhere. You can probably unearth it somewhere on the internet, it's still there, I'm sure. But I've written a long article about it. I mean, to my mind, it's a program we can do, but as night follows day, the same stories will repeat themselves. I mean, you can spend all your life disproving it, but it's not going to change people's beliefs about this. I mean, take that with the stories about his yacht, there's this huge ship somewhere, which is always to strive as Putin's yacht. No one can find a single instance of Putin ever visiting this thing. Don't want... It's a yacht. You've never seen Putin on a yacht. You've never seen Putin on a yacht, absolutely. And, you know, you go to his website, you can track his movements very, very precisely. I mean, it's so difficult to know where he is at any one particular point in time. He's never been on this yacht. The guy's working nonstop. Nonstop. Yeah. By the way, on that, he actually made a comment about it. He said, you know, that his life feels like he's under a waterfall, stuff. Things never stop. He said this. You know, if I'm in a meet, if I'm meeting somebody, I know that the moment the meeting has ended, there'll be a phone call from someone, there'll be another phone call immediately after, and then I'm going to prepare for another meeting to go directly into that. But he also said, I actually like my work. He said that, and it gets easier as time passes because you get more into the habit of making decisions. He said, before I became president, it was incredibly daunting, the thought of leading the country was very, very daunting. And then the moment I started doing it, it began to fall into place, but as a system of time, as he said, you never has any. Where's he going to go into a yacht? Yeah. Shiva says, as a destroyer of world, I highly recommend the neocons, five stars out of five. Absolutely. Absolutely. All right, Alexander, I think those are all the questions. Let me just do a final check. Your final thoughts from a double header of live streams. Oh, it's amazing. Amazing ones. But you see, there is actually a link because, of course, what we have, what Jeffrey Sachs was telling us about was the fact that there isn't any diplomacy going on. These people don't negotiate, they can't negotiate. This isn't in there. You know, they just don't have any conception of how to negotiate. And in a very different way, but Garland was telling us exactly the same thing. And because they don't negotiate, because they don't talk to other people, things are going wrong all around them, but they don't know what to do. Because in the normal response of a government, if it senses that it's facing a crisis and things are starting to come apart, is to talk to the other side, and the Americans just don't do that. That's one difference with the British. The British did. The British were always very into diplomacy, and, you know, a time of Indian independence. They talked to Nehru. They talked to Gandhi. They talked to all the people in India. They knew how to talk. The American leadership today doesn't. Nigel says both third in May, November for change. Yeah. Yeah. You're Nigel for that. And Commander Crossfire says Putin needs to take a vacation. He needs a yacht. Isn't it true? And Bobby Pollard says, is Erdogan a good faith mediator in Ukraine? No, he's not a good faith mediator in any respect. He's always there for what he can get. The one point I would say about Erdogan is that sometimes if, you know, he's there and he's helping you to negotiate something, if it's in his interests to get a good deal, he'll do it. But never trust him. I mean, he's absolutely he's as slippery as an eel. You don't really want him as your mediator. That's absolutely what I would say. Yeah. And one more Alexander and we will wrap it up from Alex. I miss both live streams, but we thank you for the hard work piece. Not war. And Russell says, the thing is, I doubt any of your guests even stop to think about questioning the narrative of Putin's wealth for its purpose. No, I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I'm not going to speak for them, but I think we interview people who are pretty intelligent and pretty true. And I think they can put the two and two together just as much as I did. When you actually study it, the story of Putin's wealth is so thread bad. It is so lacking in any substance at all that it almost immediately falls apart. It took a long time to write an article because there's so many different allegations, but each allegation in itself is absurd. It's a little bit like Russia gave them that respect. I mean, lots and lots of smoke, but absolutely no fun. Yeah. Thank you, Bally. Yes. Thank you, Zariel. Thank you, GAB, formerly GEC812. Thank you, Peter, and reckless abandon. And I think those are our moderators for today. Thank you for everything that you do and Spartan warrior queen as well. Thank you for helping us with the live streams today. And thank you to everyone that joined us on Rockfin Odyssey Rumble, thederead.levels.com and YouTube. Take care, everyone. [BLANK_AUDIO]