The Duran Podcast
Russia advancing, Ukraine gains erased. NYT, CIA spy war in Ukraine
All right, Alexander, let's talk about what is going on in Ukraine and let's start off with what is going on on the front bikes. That's a good place to start because the Russians are making a lot of gains. Well, indeed. The situation on the front. I mean, they're pounding the Ukrainians right across the front lines and the results are starting to show. So just literally before we started making this program about five minutes before confirmation from the Russian Defense Ministry that a village called La Storchkinot, west of Avedevka, has been captured. It seems in reality that the Russians have captured a whole string of other villages, west of Avedevka, the Russian Defense Ministry is very conservative about giving that kind of confirmation. But anyway, the key takeaway is that the Russians are advancing from Avedevka, westward, and they are advancing fast. They're taking place after place. The Ukrainians are being pounded. They're losing lots of men and machines. And they doesn't seem to be any way that they can stop the Russians. And they don't seem to be any fortified lines that the Ukrainians can fall back to or indeed create before the Russians advance still further west towards two important towns, Mirovgrad and Pakrovsk, beyond which is the deeper. So it's a really bad situation in Avedevka. But the point is it's a pretty bad situation wherever you look. So if you go back to the place where the famous Ukrainian offensive of the summer took place in Zaporogia region, the Russians are now rapidly taking back under their control. All the gains, such as they were, that the Ukrainians achieved during that time. You remember that village of Rabortino that the Ukrainians captured about 30 times. Anyway, it looks as if the Russians are in the process of completely taking it back under their control. They control around half of it, according to the very latest reports. So Ukrainians badly smashed up there. The bridgehead across the Nipur and Klinki that we were hearing so much about that's apparently gone. Russians are pounding the Ukrainians with their craft and missiles on the West Bank. They've also advancing elsewhere in the Bakhmut areas. They're close apparently to capturing an important village called Ivanipska. Even the Ukrainians are acknowledging this and they're pressing forward to a small town west of Bakhmut called Chassafjard, which was an important position before they advance further still. They're attacking another town called Krasnogorovka near Donnette City. They're close to cutting off all the Ukrainian supply lines to the southern Donbas. And we've just had comments from an important member of the of the Radha in the Ukrainian Parliament, which says that the Ukrainians are really worried about the situation right up in the north in the town of Kupiansk. The Ukrainians are clearly concerned that the Russians are about to renew their attack on Kupians. And this member of the Radha said that if the Kupiansk falls, it's likely that Kharkov Ukraine's second biggest city will fall also. I mean, that's what she said. I mean, I'm not saying that that's somebody from the Ukrainian side has now said that in a TV interview. And in fact, we're getting reports that the Ukrainians are now busy pulling people out of Kharagov, important government-made workers, archivists, people who worked in the prisons, the same prisons where Gonzalo Lira was. Anyway, they're all being apparently evacuated to Western Ukraine. So it's a very bad military situation wherever you look. And on top of that, we're getting now lots of films of the Russian Air Force and Russian missiles destroy. I think they've destroyed three patriot systems in the space of a week, all of them located very unwisely on Ukraine's front lines. There were pictures of two more being destroyed, two more patron systems being destroyed just yesterday. And there's an article in military watch magazine, a US military magazine, which says it's impossible to replace these patriot systems because the US, quite apart from funding issues, is so short itself of patriot missiles. So it's a very bad situation. However, you look at it and you're getting the sense of this right across the media commentaries in the West. And perhaps the starkest indication of how bad the situation is, is that no less a person than Analina Bevok has just been visiting Odessa in West, you know, on the southwest coast of Ukraine. She was supposed to go on and travel to Nikolayev, which is an important town on the Nipa. And if I'm not in the Nipa, I think it's the Nista, but another river near the Black Sea coast. They suddenly realized that her motorcade was being observed by a Russian drone. So of course, Analina had to turn around and go back. She couldn't go closer to the front lines because the Russians were monitoring what she was doing. So there we go. I mean, that gives you, I think, perhaps the best sense of all of how bad the situation on the front lines has now become. I don't think Analina had to worry. I understand the precautions, but we don't know. Maybe it was a Ukraine drone, but I mean, Russia's not going to do anything like that. Who even knows? Who knows? Who even knows? Honestly, yeah. What does the 61 billion do then in this situation? Because we are getting admissions, none other than Victoria Newland, who says that the 61 billion is going to be used to make weapons in the United States. I mean, if you go by her logic or her statement, there's going to, there's going to be some time that's needed to make these weapons before you get them to Ukraine. This is not going to be something that's going to be manufactured and delivered in a couple of days. If you go by her statements, which is, this money's going to stay at home. That's what they're telling us. 61 billion is going to stay in the United States to provide jobs and to make weapons for Ukraine. What do they mean with this statement? The 61 billion will go into contracts, and then the United States will give whatever weapons they have in their inventory to Ukraine. Whatever Patriots, for example, they have an inventory to Ukraine as they then make new systems or what's happening here. Because if I'm understanding everything that I'm seeing, Ukraine maybe has a month or two. How about you? Absolutely correct. Before it runs out, before it gets critical, I don't want to say before the collapse or lose, before it gets very critical. I guess that if they were to get the 61 billion today, they would probably find some old weapons they can dust off and rush to Ukraine pretty much at once. And the most likely plausible ones of those are the attack of missiles. I mean, they've signaled now that they finally come round to supplying Ukraine the long range attack of missiles we've been hearing about for the past two years actually. The reason that they haven't sent those attack of missiles is not because they're really worried that Ukraine would use them to attack Crimea or you know, deep in Russia. They've never been bothered about Ukraine attacking in these places as we have repeatedly seen. But the fact is they are very, very short of attack of missiles. The replacement system is still not ready to go into production. So that's why the Pentagon, which wants to hold back its attack of missiles because it feels it needs them for the Pacific. That's why it's been unwilling to supply them to Ukraine. But the situation is now so critical. The so little of everything else left to supply that probably that is what the Biden administration would do. But that's only a fraction. That will only account for a fraction of the 61 billion. The rest, it's going to be used for exactly the things that we've been talking about on these programs for weeks now. And for months now, you've been talking about it, I think, most of all, and best of all, which is it's just about sending money round. I mean, it's not really about helping Ukraine anymore. I mean, there was some of that right at the start of the war in 2022 and early 2023 when they seriously thought Ukraine would win. But now they've said this, they've got this whole thing running. They got all of the people with their open hands there. They need the money to go round. So that's what the 61 billion dollars is for. It's to close off, to pay off those people who need the payoffs, the military industrial complex in the United States, which is probably already to some extent invested in long-term new production facilities. Because that's what they were told to do. Normally, it's for Ukraine, but nobody really believes that because most of that production will only start to materialize in two or three years. They will be angry if the money doesn't come. So it's partly to pay all of those off. And all the myriad of other contractors, workers, mercenaries, who are not really mercenaries, all of those people in Ukraine, who are already there, and all of the other people who are involved in this whole operation. So that's what it's for. So it's the same, by the way, about the 55 billion euros over four years that the European Union is talking about. So it's all about that. That's its real purpose. It can't change the situation in Ukraine. J.D. Vance has been actually talking about this really well. He says if all that money couldn't change the situation, the money that they gave them before, all the weapons they gave Ukraine before in 2022, 2023, much more than 61 billion, couldn't win Ukraine the wall. Well, how is the 61 billion going to make any difference? And others, people who are commentators on military matters, Daniel Davis, who we've interviewed, Michael Valtasen, who writes about these things from Sweden on Twitter, they've been making exactly the same point. This is just more money. It just goes to keep all of the things going round and round, but it isn't going to change the situation on the battlefronts. Everybody knows it. Only think deep down even the Ukrainians do. Why is it coming out and saying that Ukraine is in an advantageous position? I understand he wants to sell. I mean, he's trying to get the 61 billion, but you have to also believe that he's still in a belief that Ukraine can win. I mean, yes, he wants a 61 billion, but is he in a type of bubble where he still believes that Ukraine can win this thing? It was an extraordinary, because yesterday he gave one of the most amazing press conferences, even in his career. I mean, it was really off the scale, actually. So he tells us that the total number of Ukrainian soldiers who have been killed is just 31,000. He says that Ukraine is on the pathway to victory. All of the things we've just been talking about, like the start of the program, the Russian advances, the ball of Devka, the fall of back, the defeat of the Ukrainian offensive in the zone. None of that happened, according to Zelensky. I mean, Ukraine is actually winning. I mean, they're well on the way now to marching on Moscow. I mean, if you heard him, if you listened and took apart what he was saying, I mean, that was the impression. Now, I think at some level, I remember he's an actor. He's somebody who says these things because it's part of the script. He wants to keep the money still flowing. He's got lots of people to pay off. I mean, you know, Ukraine is within Ukraine. There are lots and lots of people who need to be paid off. There's all kinds of contracts that have been written out, for example, for 40 to build these 45 lines. The reports that are coming out of Ukraine suggest that these 45 lines, to a great extent, have not been built or are not being built because the money is being embezzled. But, of course, you're not investigating that in any seriousness because the whole point about giving out contracts to build 45 lines is precisely in order to get money into the hands of the right people, so that those people are then paid off. And, of course, it goes back straight back to the US and to all of these interesting jurisdictions, most of which, by the way, are operated by Britain, but never mind. So, partly, that is why he's saying these things, you know, that 31,000 total is the total number of people killed, which is, I mean, if you listen to what Ukrainian soldiers are saying on the front lines, that most of their comrades are dead, that they're down to four men in a company or something, you know, we've had lots of reports like that. Clearly, he's not listening to any of this, but I think, at some level, he does also live in a bubble. What did they say about actors that, you know, in order to be convincing, they have to talk themselves into the role. And Zelensky's been playing this role now for two years. So, at some level, he's got to believe these things that he's spinning, and I think he does believe them. I think he really does think that, you know, if Ukraine can keep going for a few more weeks, a few more months, the Russians will collapse, the victory will be his, and he will not just be President Zelensky. He'll be President Zelensky for life, and he'll be awarded the Nobel Prize and all of the other things that come with that. So, I think at some level, there is a gerry relief in this. And, you know, going back to the Simon Schuster articles that were written about him a short time ago, they were all, he was already saying that this man is becoming increasingly delusional and out of touch, and has no idea what's going on, and that even his military people are no longer obeying his orders because they're becoming increasingly rational. And, of course, we go back to the dismissal of Zaluzhny and his replacement by Zaluzhny because Zaluzhny was clearly pushing back on some of these increasingly irrational orders, and Zelensky thinks that Zalensky will carry them out. It's just a few weeks ago, two weeks ago, for example, that Zalensky and Zalensky were talking about a counterattack in Abdeifka to, you know, repel the Russians there and to keep the town under Ukrainian control. And everybody who was following the battle could already see that this was completely you know, delusional, and yet the order was given, and the troops were ordered to go there, and they arrived, and many of them fell into a trap almost instantly, and many of them were killed, and others often turned round and retreated, and the air defense missiles, the Patriot missile systems that were deployed to the Abdeifka area in order to support this great counterattack. Well, we see the Russians are now picking them off one by one. So he does believe it. At some level, I think he's talked himself into believing this fantasy, which he's constantly spinning. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I agree, he's acting. He knows he's selling. He's trying to sell Ukraine in order to get the success of Ukraine in order to get 61 billion, but you look at him and you understand that there is a belief that he has, that if he can just last another two weeks or four weeks or three months, he's going to win. You can see he's internalized this. He's been in this role for too long. It seems like he's been acting this part for way too long. Exactly. So, yeah, and he's not alone. He's not alone because I was watching an interview with Sullivan. I believe it was on NBC, Jake Sullivan, and he also said that if the 61 billion is approved, Ukraine can win. I'm paraphrasing what he said, but that's pretty much what he said. If we get the money, we can pull this thing off and we can win this conflict. So, I mean, you could fault Zelensky and say he's been in this role for too long. But if he's got people in the Biden White House who are also telling him this, then that reinforces his role. They're not helping the situation these guys. Well, indeed, they're not sitting him down and saying it's over. You know what I mean? Keep on acting Zelensky. Let's just get the 61 billion and then you can go to Miami and it's all good. No, no, they're reinforcing his belief, his collusion, reinforcing his delusion. You are absolutely right. And they're coming up with increasingly far-fetched and crazy schemes. Now, you know, I got an email over the weekend for a very, very good source. He's been in touch with you also, I believe. Anyway, he was talking to me about this latest plan to create this iron triangle from fortified cities on the Nipa River, Zaporocia, Nipro, Crivoirog. And this is going to be apparently the last, you know, the great big fortress line, which is going to hold back the Russians. It looks like, you know, this is being prepared in anticipation of the loss of Kiev, by the way, just saying that, you know, it's, it's sheer total fantasy. I mean, it's, it is impossible to imagine that something like that could conceivably work. I mean, I've had a lot of people coming and pointing up to me the utterly, you know, militarily irrational nature of this plan. And but, you know, again, we come back, where is this plan coming from? Nor does it suspect Ukraine. This isn't the Ukrainians themselves coming up with plans like this. In fact, we know that Ukrainian plans are being micro-managed. The Russians say that there's actually a headquarters in Poland that actually makes the military decisions. This plant comes in people like Sullivan. I'm convinced of it. Just as Sullivan was the person who was behind Sullivan and Newland, we're behind the summer offensive to a great extent. They're apparently in the, in the US in the inside, you know, among the insiders. I've been told, again, by a good source, a different source, that the summer offensive last year was referred to as Vicki Newland's offensive. Yes. Yes. I've heard that. Yes. I've heard that too. I mean, yeah. So, I mean, you know, it's the same thing. So, you know, that didn't work. So, we come up with this new great plan, the fortify cities that are going to be great. The iron triangle, the fortified cities that are going to stem the Russian advance. It's just, again, it's the people who don't understand war. Haven't been following the war as closely, perhaps, as you and I have done. Aren't talking to the right people. Remember when we did the program with Daniel Davis, how you were saying that they just don't talk to the right people, the real military people, who understand these things. They're talking to the wrong people, the ones who tell them what they want to hear, said they come up with these absurd ideas. And I suspect, by the way, that the $61 billion somewhere at some level within their thinking, maybe Newland's thinking, is partly intended to create this great fortified line, you know, the three, the iron triangle and all of that. But there we go. I mean, you know, this whole affair, the whole Ukrainian affair has floated on unreality, basically from the moment it began. It's partly a point that I think you made, that there's been so much time, narrative spinning and controlling narratives, that they ultimately come to believe in the narratives they themselves spin, and they lose touch with the actual physical reality around them. Now that can work quite well in, you know, within the United States and in politics, to a certain extent. But when you're up against a military force like the Russians, it just falls apart. Yeah, and you know, if you look at Yerasimov, and then you compare him with St. Millie, I know Millie's gone now, but let's just use Millie. Another big problem that they have is Yerasimov is not even close to a politician, nor does he care to be a politician. He doesn't even like the photo every now and then. I mean, he avoids, he tries to avoid any type of public appearance at all. Well, while the people that the military people that the Sullivan's are consulting with, yes, Millie was in the military, but he's now more of a politician than a military person. I think there is a huge problem in the collective West with the military people that they are consulting with, because they've morphed into politicians themselves. So yeah, I can absolutely see Millie sitting with Newland. I'm exaggerating it a bit, but I can see him sitting down with Newland and Sullivan. I can see them strategizing a summer counter offensive. I don't think it's it's something that that is out of the question if you ask me, because Millie is is also a politician in a way. He's become a politician. And I use Millie. I know there's a new chief of staff, but seems like he's better than Millie, by the way. I get that impression. Anyway, you're absolutely about Millie. You're absolutely right. And of course, there's also Patreus and Penhoges and all of these people. The guy Bauer, the tornado, the toxic, all these guys, all these guys, Admiral Radiket in prison. They're all, they're all, they are all like that. I mean, I would say this general Brown, the very fact that you hear so little about him scores very high marks for me as far as I'm concerned, it suggests that somebody much more, you know, level-headed and practical, and you know, really professional is now finally in charge. And you're absolutely right about get asked him if get asked him if you get the census of professional, a military professional, his fingertips. He's also, by the way, an unusual thing in the sense that he's apparently a kind of military intellectual. He's thought a lot about war and things of that kind and about how war should be conducted. And you also get the sense that, unlike Zaluzhny and Siersky, not a mention that people will be talking about, he is the sort of person who has understands how to conduct an operation, a military operation with hundreds of thousands, millions of men, you know, and over, stretched out over vast territories using huge numbers of different weapons. He has that kind of knowledge, that kind of skill. I mean, he reminds me a little, I'm going to say this, of the sort of Prussian general staff officers and Russian general staff officers of the Second World War. He isn't that kind of tradition. You get far less of that today in the US. And, you know, there was a Prussian chief of general staff on Moldka, who once said the general staff officer should be voiceless. That's good, hasn't it? Yeah, absolutely. So what about this, the CIA? Let's shift gears a bit and talk about this New York Times article, the CIA and Budanov, the New York Times article. Everyone's talking about it. Let me find the title of it real quick. The spy war, how the CIA secretly helps Ukraine fight Putin. You know, this is a... What are your thoughts on this article? Because I'm not going to say anything I want to hear your thoughts first, but I'm just going to tell you this. I have a lot of doubts about this article. Let me hear your thoughts, let me hear your thoughts. Well, I mean, the whole thing is, the whole thing is extraordinary, because I mean, one, one, one does wonder a great deal about why this article has appeared now. And what exactly its purpose is, because if you take a step back and think about it, you know, we've had all these, you know, assassinations going on, and, you know, the Donbas, of Donbas militia leaders, all kinds of activities deep inside Russia, going on for a long, long time. And if you take a step back and think about what this article says, it tells you that the CIA has been involved in all of that, that they've actually been micromanaging it. So, you know, after all those denials, after all those pretenses, those militia leaders were killed in international conflicts, it makes it sound certainly like it was a CIA operation all along, because when the CIA works with an intelligence agency and trains it, that basically tells you that the CIA is really running it, because Ukrainian intelligence isn't going to not follow CIA instructions. And say that Badanif was trained by the CIA, all but identifies him as a CIA asset. Now, I don't have true any of this is by the way, but it does make one wonder whether there is a somebody there in Washington, who says enough, enough, we've got to stop all of this. You know, we're going to, this, this whole story about what the CIA has been up to for so long. It's time we closed this whole operation off, because it's getting out of control. And I would have thought it was Badanif himself in a very difficult position. Anyway, those are my immediate thoughts. I was wondering what you think. No, I was just wondering, I wanted to ask you, do you think this is some sort of pitch from the CIA to get funding? Because when I was reading the article, I mean, it made a lot of interesting claims, like it was this operation that foiled an assassination attempt on Zelensky. It was this operation that prevented Yanukovych from coming back. It was this operation with MH17, and found the audio recording of the Russians during MH17, and pointed to the Russians. The siege of Kiev, the Russians are planning to encircle Odessa, but it was this group. I mean, the part that I have, I agree with you, it's so strange because the New York Times is basically telling us that the CIA had 12 secret locations in Ukraine where they were sabotaging the Russians, giving drone cord, and it's all of these, these things, a assassination of these officials. And these like secret locations, and all of a sudden, the New York Times is allowed to enter one of these bunkers and just get a report about all of this stuff. And I don't know, I mean, and Burns was in, I just want to say that Burns was in Kiev just like a week ago, and then you have this story come out. And Burns was there because the narrative is he wants to reassure Ukraine about money? I don't know. That's who knows. My mind went. I didn't pay very much, take very much notice about all the claims, about all the successful operations that are described there, because I mean, a lot of that looks to me absolutely made up and fantasy. It's an attempt to try and make it all look as if, you know, they were involved in all sorts of clever things. I should say, I mean, you know, some of it actually, if you take a step back and think about it hard, might not even reflect particularly well on the CIA, those radio intercepts, for example, on AMH 17, there is, I mean, I think I'm right in saying even the court accepted that they had been manipulated. So I mean, you know, it would imply that, and that is by the way, the whole basis of the case that's been brought against the militia, the Donbass militia, in AMH 17, in the AMH 17 case. So it doesn't actually, that doesn't look really good, but it looks as if to me, they're stringing together a whole list of supposed successes that I am very, very dubious about. But you're absolutely right. I mean, why has he come out now? Why has this strange story been disclosed at this particular moment? It could be that it is the CIA. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall. They're saying, you know, we get it, we get a showcase, all that we manage to do, all our great achievements. So give us more money, give us more support, give us money going forward because we're obviously the right people to engineer this insurgency in Ukraine, which is plan, you know, plan Z or whatever, reach, reach, plan is reached. It could be that. I also have to say, I do wonder whether at some level, it might not just also be, somebody has had enough and is saying, look, the CIA's been up to all this kind of stuff. And it's the murders that I think are the most damaging part of it. And the time has come to close this whole thing down. I mean, the Russians must be getting very close to overrunning some of these bunkers, were told some of them on near the border. And the Russians supposedly are coming very close to taking Harkov, for example. So it could just be aware closing this whole operation down, bring the people back, saying enough, enough, we end this. Or it could be, as you said, it could be that they're trying to prepare themselves for something else. Yeah, I wonder if this is also maybe this is Ukraine, PR and media working with the New York Times to try and safeguard the CIA's presence and the money flowing to these Intel agencies. I don't know. Oh, you could say this, maybe this was the CIA and the New York Times, but maybe this was actually Ukraine and the New York Times in order to keep to try and keep the CIA in and to try to keep the money in most importantly for all these people that are working there. I don't know quite plausibly. Can I just make one point, which is that going back to the political crisis in the United States, the two place after the 2016 election, with all of this going on in Ukraine, I mean, even if you accept that there's an awful exaggerated that really very greatly exaggerated, but I'm sure there is a kernel of truth to this, that the CIA was operating in all of these kinds of things. Having a president coming in who wants to shut this all down must have been deeply alarming for some people in the CIA, given how much they had clearly been investing in this operation. And it clearly has its origins in the Obama period. So just think on that too. Yeah, just the final thought in closing. When you read this article, it makes you wonder, what are the Russians thinking? I mean, if anything, this article actually makes the case for the Russians to to make sure they. I mean, what can you say they control as much as you create as possible? I mean, because you know, this is this is a huge security risk. I mean, that's all laid out 12 secret bunkers along the border, surveillance, targets, everything. I mean, if you're the Russians, you say, well, we got we got to control as much as this is possible, because, you know, they're launching attacks against us. Well, going back into agencies. Well, going back to 2022, going back to the Russian perception that Ukraine's entry into NATO would be an existential threat to themselves. Going back to Russian claims about NATO and US aggressiveness towards them. Well, you just had the proof. All of this was going on long before. Notice again, long before the special military operation was started and was all going on even as supposedly the Russians and the French and the Germans were purportedly working to try to get the Minsk agreements implemented. So all of this going on like that, I mean, it's it's very dark and very, very ugly. And I would have thought it goes some way to establishing the Russian case. Just saying. Exactly, which one? Once again, you get back to the question, why is this published in the New York Times? Why exactly? Yeah, I'd have thought it. I mean, as I said, to me, in the end, it looks damaging rather than helpful despite the attempts that have been made to try to talk up, you know, all the great achievements and successes and all that kind of thing. I can't really see that it helps either the CIA or the US or NATO at the end of the day. If anybody, if it helps anybody, it helps the Russians. I mean, you know, Putin, when he meets Modi or, you know, Lula, when he meets Lavrov, or Putin have to do and Lavrov need to do, or take out this article in the New York Times and say, look, this is what the Americans were doing to us. How can you say we were wrong in doing what we did? And, you know, Lula, Modi, almost certainly great. Just saying. Yeah, it's yeah. It depends who this was written for. What's the audience? Because there's a lot of money at play here. So I don't know, you know, maybe they don't care. Maybe they don't care what Putin and Modi think. Maybe this is targeted at Congress. And this is targeted at just getting more money funneled to the CIA or maybe this is about getting more money to Ukraine or the people working in the Intel agencies in Ukraine. I don't know. You may very well be right about the second. It might be, it might be that whoever is publishing this actually thinks that in terms of US politics, CIA reputation in the US, support for Ukraine, this is all going to be helpful. If they really think that, then it demonstrates again why the US is losing its international position. Because in India, in China, in Brazil, across Africa, in the Middle East, we just think what's someone like MBS, for example, who is unsure or where of this article? What he's going to make it. All right. Maybe one day we'll find out what's going on anyway. We'll leave it there at the derad.locos.com. We are on rumble odyssey, but she telegram rock fin and twitter X and go to the derad shop. 15% of all t-shirts. Take care.