The Duran Podcast
Ukraine math does not add up. Istanbul Plus
All right, Alexander, let's talk about the conflict in Ukraine. And let's focus on Istanbul Plus. You coined that term, Istanbul Plus. So let's remember that. A very good way to describe the possible, the possible framework for negotiations to take place between Russia and Ukraine or Russia and the collective West. But before we get to Istanbul Plus, before we get to some of the statements coming out of the United Nations Security Council with regard, with regards to Ukraine, if Istanbul Plus is rejected, which most likely will be, but we'll get to that. Let's actually start off the video talking about the op ed in the New York Times a couple of days ago from JD Vance. And JD Vance said it very clearly, the math simply does not add up Ukraine cannot win because the numbers do not add up for a Ukraine victory. We're going to lose this conflict. That's what JD Vance said. The math is not in Ukraine's favor, not even close to being in Ukraine's favor. So let's talk about that article from JD Vance was a senator from Ohio. Yeah, and I thought I have to say immediately, I thought it was one of the best comments made by an American political figure about the conflict in Ukraine that I have seen. It's a relief, in fact, to find that there is some political figure in the United States who's able to add up and look at the situation and face it squarely. Now, I will say this, the entire article, I mean, it does pull its punches towards the end, but he makes the point that we've been making and so many other people have been making Alex machine in foreign, poetic, you name it, lots of people that ultimately those people who demand that the United States, that Europe go on fighting and supporting Ukraine until victory, whatever, however that is defined, are being completely delusional. The United States isn't making enough weapons. It's not producing enough ammunition. It's not producing enough misery of missiles. It's not producing tanks or infantry fighting vehicles or whatever. Nowhere near enough to enable Ukraine to prevail over Russia, nor is Europe, nor is that going to change in any future point in time so that any money sent to support Ukraine is simply money thrown away. It's the sunk costs fallacy taken to the extreme because that's all that that would be. It's not an investment. It's just throwing more money, good money after bad. So, it's a relief to see that J.D. Vance at least is coming up with these thoughts and there are some rumors that J.D. Vance is one of the people that Trump is considering for Vice President. I hope by the way that doesn't happen because I think J.D. Vance is my personal selfishly based on this article. It seems to be one of the saner heads in the Senate and I think he's strongly needed there. But anyway, there we go. I mean, it was an excellent article. It's already been criticized by a number of people. There's an article in National Review which says that J.D. Vance is calling for surrender, which by the way, he absolutely doesn't. He still clings to this theory that Ukraine can defend itself by building fortifications and holding the Russians back like that, but he does want negotiations. Anyway, one way or the other, it does show that there are some people in the United States who are setting it out as it is and I can't help but think that over time comments like this, ideas like this are going to gain increasing traction with more and more of the political class. And by the way, with parts of the military as well, the military must be becoming increasingly worried about the extent to which Ukraine is becoming a massive drain on American resources to no useful purpose. Yeah, and Ron Johnson gave an interview to Glenn Greenwald to send it around Johnson, I believe Wisconsin, if I'm not mistaken, I could be wrong about that, but he gave an interview to Glenn Greenwald and he pretty much echoed what J.D. Vance said. He basically said that Ukraine wants to get Ukraine cannot win this conflict. And the Biden White House, they're just trying to find a way to drag this out, at least until the election. More and more voices, hopefully more and more voices will start to come out and say that this work can't be won. Even if they support Ukraine, even if they, you know, a year ago they were saying as long as it takes today, the situation is that the numbers are not in your favor and they will not change. And J.D. Vance spells that out. He says, even if we're to double our ammunition production, the United States and Europe, we still cannot match what the Russians are doing. So even under the best case scenario, the numbers do not add up. And one final comment on J.D. Vance pulling his punches, I believe all the politicians that are now going to come out and start to say that this work cannot be won. They're going to always have to add that caveat towards the bottom of the article, which says, you know, I support Ukraine, Putin's a dictator, Russia's bad. You know, they can, maybe they can hold out and we can get to some sort of stalemate before negotiations. They always have to put those caveats in there because, you know, at the end of the day they still are politicians. So what are your thoughts there? Oh, absolutely. And can I just say those who criticize J.D. Vance, and he's coming for, you know, quite a lot of criticisms of that article. They don't argue with the facts as he's laying them out. That's not so frustrating about this. So he's laying out the facts. People just don't want to face them. They talk emotional language about surrender and all of that. But they don't want to, you know, look at the situation squarely and say to themselves, well, you know, maybe, maybe he's right. Maybe we can't produce enough shells. Maybe we can't produce enough air defense missiles. Maybe the Russians are going to prevail irrespective of what we do. They don't want to face that. And I agree. I think over time this is going to gain traction. It's also going to gain traction with the American people outside the political class who are already very, very skeptical about this. And J.D. Vance does have an audience. He does have a reach. He can reach people because he's a senator, US senator, that others, like, you know, Alex Rashina or, you know, God help us ourselves, probably can't do to anything like the same degree. So it is very good that he's talking like this. And I have to say, not for the first time, I say to myself, you know, an American senator is able to come out and write an article like this and get he published in the New York Times. And another American senator is able to come and talk about this to Glenn Greenwald. There is at least a debate in the United States. High time we had that same debate in Europe too. We are suffering far more from this more than the United States is. We've brought disaster upon ourselves upon disaster. And we're still talking absurd ideas like Macron sending troops to Ukraine and all our shawls saying that he won't pick up the phone and talk to Putin until all Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine, including Crimea, by the way. And, you know, the British, all of them still talking in, you know, the language of as long as it takes, as long as it takes as the worst, stupidest slogan ever made. I mean, it was the classic blank check. If you want to, if you want to see what a disastrous thing it was, listen to Zelensky. He wants four million shells, a point that Jadie Van said. Actually, he really wants seven million shells. He wants, I would say, 150 patriot launchers. I mean, you know, tell him, tell him as long as it takes, you know, as much as it takes, he'll demand everything. He'll demand everything you've got, and then he'll come back for more, which is exactly what he's doing. You never write blank checks for people. I mean, I cannot understand why that isn't understood any business that writes out blank checks. It very, very goes bankrupt. As a night follows day, individuals who hand out blank checks do the same. Jadie Van's at last is pointing that out. Yeah, never write blank checks to to dumb actors. That should be like one of the golden rules in life. Anyway, how about the sun? By the way, how about the sun coming out with an article talking about the plan to conquer Crimea? I don't know if you saw that, but they have maps and everything. Even to this day, there's still going on about about 20 storm shadow missiles, a swarm of drones, then the Ukraine army starts storming the peninsula, the Russian army retreats, and the war is what I mean, it's, it's, you know, I don't even know what to say about that. Comment on the UK's, some of the UK publications and crazy articles. Yeah. It is surreal. And we get, by the way, that it's not one typical of the British media, I should say. Now, the British media has been absolutely bonkers throughout this war. I mean, they've been writing a cartoon war, describing a cartoon war that has absolutely no basis in reality. They talk about 20 storm shadows. The Russians have shot down 20 storm shadows in a day. Ah, I remember it. I remember what had happened. I talked about it. They are able to shoot down storm shadows. Ukraine is retreating. It's military units are surrendering. There have been more news about this recently, you know, that Zelensk is complaining about this. Siriski is making threats about this. They have been to mobilize, you know, 20 year olds and throw them into the battlefield without training. I mean, talking about the marching and taking Crimea is absurd. But of course, the sun isn't about lighting realities. It's about, you know, increasing its circulation numbers, which by the way have plunged in recent years. It's no longer the force that it was. So that's what they're all about. But of course, what they're doing at the same time is they're utterly misrepresenting, misinforming the UK public and doing so in a disastrous way. Exactly. It's very sinister what they're doing. I mean, it's cartoonish, cartoonish to the max, but it's also very sinister. What they're doing anyway, this is a good segue into reality and real proposals. And that that takes us to Istanbul Plus. What is Istanbul Plus? Yeah, this is a very interesting thing. And it came out from a meeting that Putin had with Lukashenko a couple of days ago. And we had the introductory comments. They were all shown on television on Russian television and the Kremlin provided a readout. And then directly after Putin spoke, we got further clarification about what he meant from his spokesmen, his press spokesman, Dimitri Pascal. So Putin was talking about how there'd been this negotiation between Russia and Ukraine back in 2022, that it was not true that Russia was against negotiations. It's always been in favor of negotiations. You made that very clear. And he said that they reached that agreement in 2022 in Istanbul. And then the Western power sabotaged it. Now the Western powers are in trouble. The Russians, however, are not going to punish them by refusing to talk. They're still prepared to talk. But any new negotiation basically has to accept the existing realities. Now, as we can't just return to Istanbul and Putin then floated the possibility of this. He did, you know, he's seen in present there because, of course, Belarus still has an embassy in Kiev. So there's still contacts between the Belarus government and the Ukrainian government. He floated the possibility that just as Belarus played or tried to play a mediating role back in February, March 2022, that they might do that again. And that the Russians, when they get into a certain position, and he actually said that, you know, when the moment comes, Putin turned to with the shank, he said, I might contact you in order that we can put our proposals, whatever they are forward. And Pescov then provided clarity. He provided further clarity as to what those proposals might be. And they will be based, to some extent, on the Istanbul agreements. Now, it's important here to reiterate what those Istanbul agreements were. The first is that Ukraine doesn't join NATO. I mean, that is absolutely ruled out. So Ukraine will not join NATO. That's one. Secondly, there will be strong protections for Russians. Russian speakers in Ukraine. That is too. Thirdly, there will be the elimination of people with, you know, the neo-Nazi ideology. We know now, contrary to claims that the Ukrainians made that they did enter into those commitments in the draft Istanbul agreement. So that is already there. So that's, however, only the starting point, because Pescov, like Putin, said that any new agreement must, however, accept the existing realities, the existing realities must take into account the territorial changes. So that means, and in minimum, Zaporosia, Herzon, Donets, Lugans, Crimea, being recognized now as part of Russia. So we're going far beyond the Istanbul-plus arrangement, the original Istanbul arrangement, which only covered Donbas in Crimea. I've no doubt at all that it will include also the buffer zone in Khalka region that the Russians have been talking about. And my own personal view, waste again on what Putin was saying, and has said many times, and on what Pescov has been saying, is that there will be Russian troops at least at the very least stationed in other places in Ukraine. Dessar, Kiev, probably some other places too, to protect Russians and to defend Russian interests. Now, all of that was said, on the very same day, that the Russian ambassador to the UN, to the UN, Vassilina Benzia, an incredibly tough and formidable figure, by the way. And somebody who's clearly very high-standing in Moscow, and who clearly was speaking with authority from the Kremlin, he said, in effect, that the only subject that people are going to be discussing before long is the unconditional surrender of Ukraine. And I read that to mean two things. Firstly, that if Istanbul-plus is not accepted by Ukraine, then the Russians will press on and dictate terms. But I also, and thinking about this further, I also think it means no negotiations with Zelensky himself. Zelensky, as part of any deal, will have to step down. Yeah. What are the chances for the collective West, but the United States, because that's the country that matters, to actually follow up on this proposal from Russia. If you want to call it a proposal, this idea is hint at a negotiation from Russia. It's just to make it clear, there's not an official, like the Russians haven't officially said, this is what we would like to talk about. But they're throwing it out there. What are the chances? If Biden is president, none at all. I mean, I think that's the first thing to say. I mean, there is no conceivable way that Joe Biden is going to agree to anything like this. He has recently, or officials, Biden administration officials have recently said that it would be for Ukraine to decide for itself what against them, what concessions it makes. But of course, we saw that when Ukraine did break concessions over the Istanbul process, the United States blocked them. I cannot imagine Biden accepting anything like this. I cannot imagine the near cons who populate the Biden administration accepting anything like this. I can't imagine the Europeans agreeing to this either. So I think that's the first thing to say. So if Biden is elected in November, this is absolutely out. It's not going to happen. If Donald Trump is elected in November, then maybe we might look at this again. If Trump were to want to come to some kind of real deal with the Russians, Putin is laying out what the Russian terms are, and going back to what J.D. Vance was saying, the article, I J.D. Vance in the New York Times. It's important to stress Istanbul plus, if it's implemented, does not undermine U.S. core interests on the country in a kind of a way that preserves them, because it means that there would be a negotiated resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, which would not affect the existence of NATO as it stands now. So at that point, if Trump were elected, if he wanted a deal, he's got, I won't say a deal there on the table, but possibly of the makings of one, whether of course he'd go for it is another matter. The problem with that, Alexander, is that today, it's April. Trump becoming president would be, well, November is the election, but you're looking at January 2025. A lot is going to change until then, and most likely, it's going to get much worse for Ukraine and for Ukraine and for the collective West. So you're probably looking at a much harsher deal being presented by then, if Trump went to the collective West. This is absolutely correct. I mean, I think that there's increasing talk that the Ukrainians might be forced back to the West Bank of the NATO before the end of the year. That would mean, in effect, the loss of 40% of Ukraine, with that to happen, I don't see the Russians giving that up. I'm just saying. And I still think they would want something to sort out with the Dasser as well. But anyway, I mean Putin has given the first hint of what he is thinking, but the threat, unconditional surrender is still there. And I think that is looming on the horizon. I think that the military situation in Ukraine, as we've discussed in many programs, is deteriorating fast. Indeed, over the last few hours, there's been more reports of further deterioration, as I said in the program. Zelensky is now admitting that whole military units are surrendering and troops are being encircled, Ukrainian troops are being encircled, and all of that. So, you know, more likely than not, if by November, the existing Istanbul class is not accepted. By January, when Trump is president, the terms will be much harsher. And beyond that, I mean, frankly, I wonder whether the Russians will even be interested in a negotiation at all. Yeah. You know, watching all of these statements come from Putin. You watch his meeting with Lukashenko. I just think there's Lukashenko next to Putin. At one time, five, six, 10 years ago, I don't know, Lukashenko in Russia were, you know, hit or miss. And Lukashenko was also playing the European EU angle. He was playing the Russian angle. Now there's Lukashenko sitting next to Putin, you know, Belarus, Lukashenko, Russia's number one allies, number one friend, 100% with Russia. Wouldn't it be ideal for the Putin administration to have a government in Kiev along the lines of Lukashenko? Would it not be an ideal and optimal outcome to Absolutely. Absolutely. That's why they're talking about the Istanbul class, because to be absolutely clear, if Istanbul class were ever implemented, that would be the result. I mean, we would have a pro-Russian government in Kiev, very much like the one we're seeing in Belarus, probably even more so actually, because Lukashenko retained some leeway and some level of independence, a new government in Kiev, installed after a clear cut and disastrous military defeat, would be far, far weaker relative to Russia than Lukashenko is, who's been there a long time. But, you know, I think that may be one reason why the Russians are not going to get that, because I think the West will not agree to this. I mean, if the optimal outcome for the Russians is a pro-Russian government in Kiev, the West has been working over time ever since 1991 to stop that happening, and I think that they would still be insistent on not letting that happen. I've said this before, and I get to say this again. I think that the predominant view, at least in Europe and with some hardliners in the United States, is that they would rather Ukraine went down to total defeat in circumstances where they can go on pretending that it's, you know, the weakness of Biden, the refusal of the Republicans to authorize funding, you know, the Trump, the failure of all our Scholz to provide, you know, 10,000 Patriot missiles, China, China, all of that, China's support, you know, all of that, they would rather have that happen than agree to any sort of compromise over Ukraine, which would, in effect, amount to an acceptance that the overarching near-come project has failed, and that there are limits to American power. Completely agree. All right. The Doran.locals.com. We are on Rumbalada Seabitchu Telegram, Rockfin, and Twitter, X, and go to the Doran shop. Look for a limited edition merchandise. The link is in the description box down below. Take care. [Music]