The Duran Podcast
Macron teams up with Cameron for Russia conflict
All right, Alexander, let's talk about the possibility of France sending troops into Ukraine. About two weeks ago, Macron was really talking this up. Then NATO member states told Macron to forget about this idea, and now all of a sudden it's being talked up again. And it looks like Macron is going to go ahead and send troops into Ukraine. And it looks like he is going to do that with the support of Lord Cameron and the UK. So what is going on here? Yeah, I mean, he's completely obsessed with this, and he's determined to do it. And he's been told by the Germans and the Americans that they don't want him to do it. The note of bureaucracy for once doesn't seem to be keen on this idea either. It's now absolutely clear that the purpose of his call of the call by his defence minister, Sebastian Le Corneux, to the Russians, the one that was took place last week, the one that came out of the blue, in which Le Corneux calls Shuygu. I mean, partly it was what we discussed. It was the freeze, the whole idea of freezing the conflict. But it seems that as well as seeking a freeze for the conflict, what happened was that the French basically tried to tell the Russians or told the Russians, "You're going too far unless you freeze the conflict." Now, if you continue to advance westwards, we will commit troops to Ukraine. And apparently, Shuygu responded, "Well, if you do that, they're targets." Which was not what the French were hoping to hear, but that was what Shuygu said. So the French seem to be, Macron personally seems to be committed to this, and he's going around now trying to find allies. So he's gone to the Baltic states, and of course they are allies up to a point, but not in a big way, because they don't have armies. The Finns have sort of dithered about this, but basically overall, they're not really up to doing this either, because their military is quite weak. The Germans are totally opposed. I mean, they are completely against this whole project. Most of the other big European states are opposed to that project. So now he's gone to the British, and today I'm reading in the daily telegraph article that the British and French foreign ministers have jointly written, "Hailing the New Entente between France and Britain," talking about how it secures the piece of Europe, and of course it's not difficult to read between the lines, the Entente. The original Entente was this alliance between France and Britain, which was sealed before the First World War. It was what brought the British and the French together during the First World War, and by the way, during the Second World War. As well, it wasn't officially, formally an alliance, but dawd intents and purposes. That is exactly what it was, and the French and the British are hailing the same thing. But of course, what makes this all so strange, what makes this all beyond understanding actually, is that both the French and the British militaries, by their own admission, by the admission of article, after article appearing in the French and British media, are both in no condition to take on the Russians. I mean, the British have 40, I'm just going to repeat again, 40 operational tanks. They could perhaps scratch together a tremendous effort, an expeditionary force of about 20,000 men. That would be a very hard thing to do. The French are in no better condition, apparently. Their storm shadow misance that they've been using in Ukraine already have really failed to achieve very much. Britain has given away all its self-propelled guns, basically its entire artillery force to Ukraine already, and it's been systematically destroyed there. So these are two militarily very weak powers taking on the Russian Colossus. It makes absolutely no sense they've been given the clearest warnings not to go, not to go there by the Russians. So I think the entire gamble has to be that if the French and the British do go into Ukraine and the Russians attack them, which is what the Russians say they will do, the Americans will, after all, come to the rescue of the British and the French. Now, I think this is a major misreading of the mood in the United States. I'm putting aside what the Biden administration might want to do. That's one thing, but I think the American public is emphatically overwhelmingly hostile to this idea. I also think, by the way, that both the British and French governments, but especially the French government, are miscalculating opinion in their own countries, and in France, from what I understand, public opinion there is completely hostile to this idea, also, as is most of the French military. But Macron is determined to do it. The British, having taken such a strong line over Ukraine, are unwilling to retreat. And so there we go. Right. So, okay, well, before I get into my comments here, you mentioned the opinion in the United States. I agree, the opinion in France. I agree. What about the UK? Right. Well, it's the opinion in the UK. Let's go to war. I mean, are the people in the UK? Yeah, let's go. Let's go get Russia. Is that what they're saying? No, they're not. I mean, I think this is, again, an important point to make. If you follow the British media, I mean, it is monolithically hostile to Russia, both the television media and the printed media, the old legacy media places. We don't have in Britain the huge alternative media that you find in some countries, like say, the United States. I mean, it has never really gone off the ground here for all kinds of reasons. But I can say with quite a great deal of confidence that this is a highly civilian country. The British public will support a war provided it is a long far away, and the British themselves are not directly involved in it. They will not want to get involved in a war with Russia in Ukraine. I think that anybody who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the mood in Britain, doesn't understand the mood amongst the British people. And I'm going to add something else just to complete this support for Ukraine, enthusiasm for Ukraine, has diminished very significantly in Britain, especially over the last year, around the time when the special military operation began, every other house had its hostess Ukrainian flag in the window. Many people were actually flying Ukrainian flags from the roofs of their houses. All that has just completely disappeared. You don't see them anymore. And I think that there are so many other problems in Britain that most people just have become tired with this whole affair, and there is no appetite to take on the Russians. And of course, the media in a kind of a way reflects this with all its multiple admissions every day, which we read about every day in Britain, about the dire state of the British armed forces. Right, so the article from the Telegraph, "The World is Safer for a Renewed Untant." And then this article, Cameron and the French Foreign Minister, Sujane, whatever his name is, they make the case. Yeah, I mean, note by the way, how inconsequential a person, this Foreign Minister is, once upon a time, the name of the French Foreign Minister was known to the whole world. Everybody would have known who was the Foreign Minister of France. France produced some of the greatest diplomats that have ever existed. Tallying on, I mean, just to name one. I mean, you know, the French developed the whole concept of diplomacy. Today, I mean, you know, inconsequential nobody. But anyway, just going to carry on with you. Yeah, that's my point. He's an absolute nobody. But the article, I agree. The minute you read the article, it is crystal clear. Cameron and Sujane, they are basically saying that we're going to go to war. We're going to align and we're going to go to war with Russia. We're going to enter Ukraine and go to war with Russia. That's how I read it. Yeah, that is how I read it. And as you said, yeah, it's crystal clear. Now, I'm not saying that's what's going to happen. I'm not saying that but but that's that's their intentions. No doubt about it. Obviously, their goal is to pull in the United States. No doubt about that either. I think you you left an important step in the escalation escalator out. Here's my thoughts. Cameron also announced that he's traveling to the United States to meet with Blinken. Okay, but to really meet with Mike Johnson so that he can unlock the 61 billion. My my thought process, my thinking is that this escalation escalator is going to happen in this sequence. Cameron first has to unlock the money, the 61 billion. Once that money's unlocked, then we go into what you said, we go into war mode. So I think a lot of this hinges on that 61 billion. If they can get that 61 billion unlocked, not only is it money that goes to to the war effort, but for them, it's I guess in their minds, it's it's a way to confirm that the United States, the government, is backing them up is with them. So they can get to the point where the French enter Ukraine. Once the French enter Ukraine and get bogged down, the British come to the rescue, they get bogged down and annihilated by the Russians. And then, of course, they say, America, America, come and save us, please come and save us. That's basically how I see his playing out. What do you think? Absolutely. But of course, there's a huge to say. I agree with you, by the way, I entirely agree. And by the way, a lot of this is intended to put pressure to pile on the pressure on Mike Johnson and on the Republicans to prove this package also. So, you know, the British and the French saying, you know, please, you must have proved this package, because if you don't, all sorts of terrible things are going to happen in Europe, and there's partly that too. And as I said, but also, once they get the package, the idea of now intervening in Ukraine is out there. So we will start to see movements of troops and people towards Ukraine as well. I have no doubt about this. This is, again, like yourself, I'm not necessarily saying it's going to happen, but this is the talk, and this is the intention, and it's certainly the intention that they're playing. And of course, it's all as you're absolutely right, you say, based on the absolutely insane gamble that the Americans will come to their rescue. And I mean, honestly insane, consider two possibilities, first that the Americans don't come to the rescue, which is what I believe, by the way. And by the way, Macron has already played a duplicitous game with both the Germans and the Americans, because he said that your French troops enter Ukraine and get attacked there, then Article 5 doesn't apply. So he says, you know, don't worry, if I get into trouble, you know, it doesn't affect you. But of course, we all know that what he really thinks is that if I get into trouble, then you will come to my rescue. So there's already a fundamental piece of dishonesty and duplicity there. But let's assume I'm right, and we're right, and the Americans don't come to the rescue. France defeated, Britain defeated, huge losses, massive political crisis in both Britain and France. It will severely weaken NATO. It will severely humiliate both of those countries. I mean, it is a reckless gamble. And of course, it's a reckless gamble with the lives of British and French soldiers. That is one. Let's assume that we are wrong. And the United States does intervene. Well, no less a person than Joe Biden himself back in 2022 said that if American and Russian soldiers fight each other, it's World War Three. So what these people are trying to lead us into is into a scenario which amounts to World War Three. And of course, we are talking about nuclear powers. The Russians have the biggest and most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world. There is no reason to think that they wouldn't use it. Putin recently said as much. People tend to overlook that. He actually gave a warning. He said these weapons, these nuclear weapons are not there just for decoration. They have the actual purpose. I mean, the whole thing just doesn't bear even thinking about these are gambles on a scale that he's all but insane. It's yeah, it's inevitable. If the US were to get involved, I believe it's inevitable that you're going to have a nuclear war if the US gets involved. I mean, it won't be, you won't be able to stop it whether whether the US delivers a punishing blow to Russia, whether Russia delivers a punishing blow to the US, whichever way it goes, you're going to have a nuclear escalation and end of story. What Macron and Cameron are doing is they're trying to push us to World War Three. That is exactly what they're trying to do. I mean, this is beyond crazy. It's dangerous, criminal. I don't have words for it. These people have really lost their minds. Over what? Over Olegsky? Over your trade? Really? Is that what this is all about? Okay, comment on that. I've got a real quick follow-up question for your comment on that. What I'm saying, you're absolutely fine. I mean, they're gambling with World War Three and doing it, by the way, also in a completely duplicitous way. They're not coming out and saying straightforwardly, you know, what we're planning is war with Russia. What they're pretending is, what they're pretending to the world is, it's sneaky, exactly, you know, that we can do that, call the Russians bluff. No sign at all that the Russians are bluffing here. We can call the Russians bluff and we can win in Ukraine after all. And of course, if it doesn't work, then it's our bluff instead, which gets called or, and this is what they will then say, we have to intervene to stop that. So, I mean, it's not, I mean, it leading us into World War in a manner that is completely dishonest. Okay, so you kind of figured out my follow-up question in a way. You mentioned option one is, is France goes in, the UK goes in, they get annihilated, the US doesn't doesn't come to their rescue. Option two is the US comes to their rescue, World War Three, nuclear war, God help us all. What about option three? Russia backs down, or Russia doesn't attack the French, wherever the French may be located, whether it's Odessa, I mean, I've heard talk about Dessa, I've heard talk about the Deneeper, I've heard talk about French troops in the North, in Belarus, whatever. Let's just, let's just say Macron deploys these 20,000 troops and Russia doesn't do anything, call it restraint, call it backing down, whatever. Let's just say Russia says, okay, we're not going to touch these troops. Yeah, I think that is all of us. Yeah, I mean, that is all but, I mean, then of course, Macron wins his gamble, but I think it is all but excluded in the Russians. Before you go on, before you go on, what does that mean, Macron wins his gamble? What does that mean? He wins his immediate gamble, what would that mean? He wins his immediate gamble in that he limits Russian military operations to basically the East Bank of the NEPA. The West is left with a broken, impoverished, destroyed Ukraine, which the Russians can attack anywhere it will. And it's another massive burden on Europe and on the United States and the West. But I have to say, I don't think that's going to happen. I think that the Russians will see that as a challenge. If you follow track Russian comments and Russian commentaries, they're absolutely clear that they do not want to see any millimeter of Ukrainian territory operated by NATO. They would still see that as an existential threat to themselves. They would say, look, if we sit back and allow French troops and British troops to establish themselves in Sayyadessa, as night follows day, nuclear weapons would go then. So, I mean, I don't think this is going to happen, actually. I think the Russians will react, and I think they would react reasonably fast, maybe not immediately, but I think they would react reasonably fast. And it's clear from the Russian readout of the Shoigu Laconu conversation that that was the warning that Shoigu gave. Is there something that Russia would be able to do to prevent the French troops from moving into Ukraine? Like, as I mean, we are going to be talking about 20,000 troops. I mean, you can't hide this. They're going to have to come into Ukraine. They're going to need logistics and vehicles and all kinds of things. I imagine. It's going to take a long time. Yeah, it's going to take time. It's not going to happen. And the Russians will see this coming. All of us will see this coming, right? So, can the Russians do something up until that point when they step foot in Ukraine to stop them from actually stepping foot in Ukraine? Or once they enter Ukraine, like once they cross over the border to do something militarily to stop them right there before they even press for? I mean, I'm just throwing stuff out there. No, I think they're going to start launching missile strikes against these French troops as soon as they arrive. And of course, they'll be calling meetings of the Security Council, obviously issuing threats and warnings. Other countries will be backing them. There will be a massive response in the international system. China will weigh in. India will weigh in. The global majority will weigh in. The most likely outcome of this is that the West will back down. Just saying because, I mean, you know, Mo, the pressure of international opinion on Britain and France and on the Western powers and, you know, the internal public opinion also. I mean, it'll be Iraq, but magnified 100-fold. So, that, I think, is most probably where we're heading. I mean, as you correctly say, it won't be a situation of the French and the British just quietly moving into Ukraine and the Russians sitting on their hands and doing nothing. So, you know, and I think that will be the Russian reaction. I mean, it makes much more logical sense to me that the Russians will react immediately rather than they will sit back and allow these deployments to happen. I mean, given the stance that the Russians are taking and given, as I said, that there is always at the back of their minds the concern that if Western troops enter Ukraine, nuclear weapons will eventually follow them. The Russians will react, I'm sure, as they say that they will. They will attack these troops right from the first day. I mean, if we get to that point where Macron is sending troops towards Ukraine, now, I would imagine that the Russian leadership would make the call that in order to circumvent the possibility of the United States getting involved, we need to nip this in the bud right away. And we need to do something right away to discourage France from moving any further into Ukraine or any further east. I mean, I don't know. I would imagine that would be the call that they make it. That would probably be the right call to save all of humanity. I would say, yeah, I mean, they'll be making warnings and letters and they'll be calling urgent sessions. Security Council, as I said, all sorts of countries will weigh in behind them. And I think that is exactly what the Russians are going to do. They're not going to sit on their hands and let this thing play out. I think that if Macron thinks that and if Cameron thinks that, then their faults. That's my worry. They've misjudged the Russians so much in the last two years, the last 10 years, they misunderstood the Russian so much that they may actually be thinking Putin will back down. And then once Putin backs down, his government will crumble, he'll lose support. And his government will crumble. I'll put money on it that that's what they're talking about. That's how they're, the smart guys are strategizing this, the power of the French military, the power of the British military will force Putin to back down. And then he's going to lose all of his support in the Kremlin and everything will come crumbling down. That's what worries me, is how wrong they've been in judging Russia. They made one mistake. They made one mistake after the other. There's a good article about this, by the way, today in the national interest, or at least not today, it's been there several days, actually, by a man called Matthew Blackburn, who has finally made the point we've been making all along, which is that the West has consistently and completely got Russia wrong. They got it wrong at every single level, economic, industrial, technological, scientific, political, military. But there's never been any acknowledgement of that. There's never been a public acknowledgement. That the West has underestimated Russia and misread its intentions. So, given that that is the case, it's very easy to see how these weak politicians, because that's what they are, unable to rethink things through, are simply doubling, tripling, quadrupling down. They're putting all their chips on the same number and turning the roulette wheel once again, and the stakes are humanity. Yeah, a final question. Macron's panic is madness. Do you believe his madness is due to the fact that France has lost its position in Africa? He's going to Russia for that. He's lashing on it, Russia for that. Could a part of his madness be connected to the insinuations, I guess? The claims from Medvedev in recent tweets, in recent posts that France and Macron were somehow accomplices. His words, not mine, Medvedev's words, accomplices to the whole ISIS-K, crocus, city hall, terror attack. Do you think that's gone in Macron spooked? What are your thoughts there? Once again, those were Medvedev's words, not mine. He's the one that said France and Macron are hiding in the shadows or accomplices to the attacks in Moscow. You see, the difficulty with Macron is that he's such a complicated and difficult man to read. I mean, I don't know whether you remember, but just in our last program with Geoffrey Sachs, Professor Geoffrey Sachs, he said that one of the problems with Macron is he says one thing in private, he could say something completely different in public. Moreover, I also get the sense that he himself moves around, changes his position from one day to the next. I think he is furious about Africa. I think he's taken this incredibly personally. I mean, why he has, why he specifically has taken it so personally. I don't understand. The Russians themselves are a bit bewildered for that. You know, he should feel so bitterly about the collapse of the French position in Africa. And as Putin correctly said, that interview he gave to the Medvedev kissily of, this is not something that the Russians brought about. It was something the Africans brought about. I mean, if he wants to blame someone, why doesn't he blame them? Why, why is he blaming the Russians? But I mean, I think there is an enormous amount of anger about the African, about the Africa thing. I think he also at some very deep level feels very, very angry with the Russians. And this isn't just about Africa, but when he first became president, he seems to have thought that he could somehow win the Russians over to supporting his European project. He gave this long lecture to Putin about Peter the Great and about Russia's turn under Peter towards France and Europe. He also apparently tried to persuade the Russians in 2021 to give up on Minsk and told them, you know, Minsk is a completely foolish thing. This is before the war, by the way. Foolish thing, give up on that, meet Zelensky, accept the Donbass should be returned to Ukraine. He seems to have thought that he could somehow spin and talk the Russians round and specifically Putin, man. And I think he feels very, very angry that he failed. And I think that at some personal level and Medvedev's comments might have intensified this. He feels somehow humiliated by the Russians. And, you know, we know how vain Macron is. I think there's a last factor which is not to be underestimated, which is, I think, he senses also the collapse of his domestic position in France. He had all kinds of massive ambitions when he became president of France. He thought that he would be able to assert the French leadership over Germany, that he would succeed in getting the Germans to accept his leadership in strategic matters. He also thought that he could carry out massive reforms within France. None of that has turned out. And I think that all of this taken together for a man with as big an opinion of himself as Macron has. Has, you know, imagined him. I think he feels that he's got to do something big, because if he doesn't, well, he's not Jupiter or Napoleon or Lou the 14th or whoever, he imagines himself to be from one day to the next. He's just the inconsequential failed president of France, Emmanuel Macron, who's just a punctuation note before the really important and, you know, game-changing presidency of Marine Le Pen begins. So I think this is partly what's driving him. A frustrated, angry Macron wants to break the world, wants to discriminate. Everything he's done, everything he's tried has failed. Nothing that he's attempted to do has turned out as he expected. And I think for a man like that, a conceited man like that, he's very conceited. It's unbearable. And as I said, for some reason, he's particularly fixed it, fixed this animus against the Russians. I'd say he's more than a conceited, you're being very polite, but I find a question. Yeah, a final question before we add the video. How does the, how do the Paris Olympics fit into this timing-wise? Well, that's a very good question, actually, because of course, he's already going around telling everybody that the Russians are trying to, in some way, sabotage the Paris Olympics. How are they, how are they going to do that? I have absolutely no idea. But, you know, do you think we all think it would serve as a distraction? Do you think he would try to time it for after? Once again, this is all if, if this goes through. I mean, how, how would he work around the Olympics? You must all the spotlight is going to be on France. Yeah, I know. I have no idea. I mean, what I'm hearing is that Paris is not really organized and ready for the Olympics. That a lot of problems are still there unresolved, but that's a story you always hear in your head of every single Olympics. So, you know, maybe that's an, that's an exaggeration. But, maybe, and this is another factor, you know, the Russians are organizing these friendship games, which apparently are going to attract an awful lot of athletes. They're not time to happen, by the way, at the same time as the Olympics. But just as with everything else, you know, all the sanctions are leading to the creation of alternative financial and trade systems, the exclusion of the Russians from the Olympics, the absolutely straightforwardly discriminatory steps that have now been taken against the Russians with the Olympics, causing the Russians to start an alternative games of their own. And it is a drawing. It is attracting, it is attracting more and more countries. So, it could be again that at some level, along with all the other things that we've just been talking about, Macron sees this as somehow personal against him. Remember, again, I say he's a very vain man. Bain men tend to see everything as being about themselves. You may think that the Russians, by setting up these alternative games, are somehow trying to draw people away from the Olympics. And that might also be making him very, very angry. Instead of, as you correctly say, working hard to make the Olympics as successful as possible, make sure that Paris has cleaned up and ready to receive the athletes. And to be frank, calming nerves amongst countries that participate in the Olympics, telling them that he also thinks that excluding athletes is a bad idea, and trying to persuade the International Olympic Committee to allow the Russians, at least in some form to participate. That would be the clever thing for Macron to do. But of course, he's not really clever. He thinks he is. And that's a very dangerous thing. All right, we will end there at the Duran.locals.com. We are on Rumble Odyssey, picture telegram, rock fin, and Twitter X, and go to the Duran shop, and pick up some limited edition merch, link is in the description box down below. Take care. [Music]