Connect with us



Staff Picks

Here’s why a Russia-U.S. alliance makes sense – a memo to President-elect Trump

Shared culture and national interests make the US and Russia natural allies. The US policy of hostility to Russia makes no sense and should be reversed.

Walter Dublanica




A US-Russia alliance stretching from Seattle to Vladivostok would be a win-win for both the United States and Russia as well as all the countries of Europe.

We now have a House of Representatives Resolution 758 which declares Russia to be America’s enemy. Resolution 758 was passed on December 4, 2014, with only 10 votes against. Such a Resolution, passed in connection to recent events in Ukraine, makes no sense compared to the much bigger challenges that face both the US and Russia.

ISIS terrorism is a danger to both the US and Russia. Both countries share common enemies. Over the last 13 years US policy in the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster, with no end in sight and with thousands of lives and trillions of dollars lost.

According to former US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel, Saudi Arabia is the US’s main ally in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is the diametric opposite to the sort of democracy the US claims to want to see in the world. Fifteen of the twenty  9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the prime sponsor of the radical Muslim Wahhabi sect, with which Jihadist terrorism – including ISIS – is associated. 

China  is a challenge to the United States. China is still a Communist country. Moreover, it is close to surpassing the US as the world’s biggest economy. China competes directly with the US for world energy and mineral resources, which Russia does not, since its vast energy and mineral resources make it self-sufficient. China has also taken millions of US manufacturing jobs, whereas Russia has taken none.   

China also thinks of itself in terms of the ancient ‘Middle Kingdom’ destined to control the world. Russia does not, though understandably enough it does want to influence countries on its border as does the US.

Military conflict between the US and Russia is unthinkable. No one in their right mind in either country would contemplate nuclear war. As for a conventional war, Russia clearly can defend itself.

Who in fact would attack Russia alongside the US? Certainly not Germany and France. Both of these countries have previously attacked Russia and both were badly defeated. Germany and its allies during the Second World War lost 4 million troops fighting the Red Army on the eastern front. That means the Germans and their allies were losing more men fighting the Russians each week than the US has lost in the Middle East in 13 years of war. 

There is no way Germany and France will go to war with Russia again for the sake of the US.

The US and Russia need to get past their previous antagonisms and live in peace with each other. The US should invite Russia to join NATO and do so without delay. Why not? Russians and Americans are both culturally Europeans. Russia is a Christian nation as is the United States. Russians have abandoned communism and have adopted democratic principles.

The US has fought wars with many  countries: Britain, Mexico, Spain, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany and Italy – the list is endless. However it has NEVER fought a war with Russia.

The United States and Russia have fought common enemies together like Japan and Germany. The fighting the Russians did during the Second World War in Europe saved millions of American lives.

Russia has been on the US’s side throughout much of its history.

During the American Revolution the British King asked his allies in Germany to supply Hessians to fight against the Americans, which they did. He also asked the Russian Tsar for Cossacks to fight the Americans. That was not surprising since the Cossacks had the reputation of being the best fighters in Europe. In the war of 1812 between France and Russia, Napoleon labelled the Cossacks “a disgrace to the human race” because of their bravery in fighting and defeating the French army – supposedly the best in Europe. 

The Tsar, however, refused the British King’s request.

During the American Civil War, the Russians sent ships to New York harbour and to San Francisco to support the Union. The British supported the Confederacy in an attempt to split the US.

In 1867 Russia sold Alaska (about 660,000 square miles) to the U.S. for $6,500,000. That’s $10 per square mile or  less than 2 cents per acre.

In the 20th century the US and Russia were fighting common enemies: Germany in the First and Second World Wars, and Japan also in the Second.   

This brings us to the present  tensions relating to the Ukraine, which began when President Victor Yanukovych – Ukraine’s elected leader – refused to sign an association agreement with the EU. Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs) arranged the coup which overthrew him, being caught in a recorded phone conversation with the US ambassador to the Ukraine deciding who the new Ukrainian Prime Minister should be (“Yats” i.e. Arseny Yatsenyuk) and famously  saying “f..k the EU”.

The US established a “putsch” regime in Ukraine much as it has done so often in Latin America in the past.  Nuland even publicly admitted that the US spent $5 billion dollars to influence events in Ukraine and to prepare the ground for the coup.

The crisis in Ukraine comes from the fact that the US leveraged into power a small group of extremists originating mainly in the province of Galicia in western Ukraine, and a bunch of oligarchs who want to control Ukraine in their own selfish interests.

During the Second World War, under the leadership of Stephen Bandera, some Galicians  collaborated with the Nazis and were actively involved in the Nazi programme to exterminate the Jews and the Poles. The present day radicals in Ukraine look upon Bandera as a national hero. Are those the sort of people the US should support?

The majority of Ukrainians want a peaceful relationship with Russia.  Why does the US support fanatical neo-Nazi extremists and not the ordinary citizens?

Why shouldn’t the US be friends with Russia?  What problem is the US solving  by confronting Russia? 

If the focus is Ukraine, then Russia and Ukraine have been neighbours for over a 1,000 years and originated from the same cradle. They will be neighbours forever and in time friends again. What does the US gain by trying to stop this? 

If we are talking about nuclear weapons, the US and Russia have between them 95% of the world’s nuclear stockpiles. Why is it a good thing to have them pointed at each other? Does it not make more sense to stop doing so? 

Surely it makes far better sense, and is far more in the US’s interests to have Russia as a friend and ally, bringing it into the West rather than have it join the East, where because of US hostility it is already forming alliances with China through BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in opposition to the US.

There is an old joke that one can divide people into two categories. First there are those who wear suits and those those who don’t.  Well Americans and Russians both wear suits.  Then there are those who drink their liquor straight, and those who drink it mixed. Russians unlike Americans drink their vodka straight.

Is that a significant enough difference or reason to make them enemies?

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Every dirty Democrat trick shows in bid to oust Kavanaugh

American democracy truly is mob rule now, and the mob is stupid, with no one taking a moment to truly consider the situation.

Seraphim Hanisch



The most amazing thing about what is ostensibly the last minute “Hail Mary” smear campaign by the left against Judge Brett Kavanaugh is how utterly transparently partisan it is. Let’s look at the list of tactics used thus far in this very dirty escapade:

  • Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein sat on this allegation for three months, until after the confirmation hearings were over (and after no other barnstorming tactic during the confirmation hearings worked against the nominee).
  • The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat, and a feminist. RT notes that she appears to have a strong interest in politics.
  • Reports of “death threats” against Dr. Ford have been reported. This is a common feature of any anti-Trump attack, to relate him to some sort of “right-wing” radicalism. This radicalism does not exist among conservatives, but the media is determined to say otherwise.
  • Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, naturally, believes Ford’s story.
  • Every Democrat senator is in agreement that this matter should table the confirmation vote. Some Republicans were at first but appear to be backing away.
  • A woman Democrat senator,  Mazie Hirono, went on record telling men to “shut up and step up.” It seems abundantly clear that this assumes that there can only be one “step” that the men are expected to do. A second lady senator , Patty Murray of Washington, gave all men a warning against stepping off the plantation by saying “Women are watching.”
  • The Senate Republicans offered a chance for Dr Ford to testify on Monday. She refused, but now she is offering to come “next Thursday” – this is ten days later, past the October 1 start date of the US Supreme Court, and closer to the November Midterm elections.

We interrupt this list to make this point. The issues at hand are threefold.

First, the Democrats and other left-wing activists are terrified that they will lose the “Warren Court”, which is the name of the Supreme Court Justice who was a major left-wing judicial activist that enabled the Court to “legislate from the bench” along liberal policy lines since 1969. If Kavanaugh comes in, even if President Trump is somehow magically removed from office, his mark will remain on the Court for at least a generation. Of course, the removal of President Trump is predicated on the Democrats regaining control of the House, which actually looks somewhat likely if polling data is to be believed, and of course a Democrat Senate. (The actual tiny caveat that the President has done absolutely nothing which warrants impeachment will not be taken into consideration. He is to be eliminated. That is Democrat point number one, and make no mistake.)

Second, if the Judge is confirmed, it will look great on the President’s achievement list and energize his voter base even more than it already is. The result could be that the Senate expands its Republican majority, and gains Trumpian conservatives in its ranks, which would likely help the President continue his really great agenda. A defeat in the House that holds or expands GOP, again with Trumpian conservatives, would solidify this, and make it more difficult to stop Trump’s re-election and further solidification of reforms in 2020.

Third, and probably even more important, is that the possibility of a third seat getting vacated on the Court in the time period between now and 2024 is relatively high. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest Justice on the Court, and she is a raving liberal. If she retires (which she promises not to do), or if she is retired by the processes of old age, Trump can score a three-peat and get a third constitutionalist justice into the Court and that will signal the closure of one of the biggest avenues of liberal activism.

To return to the list, some of the further characteristics that make this situation patently obvious are these:

  • As reported in The Duran, the smear job is looking a bit ragged around the edges as time goes by. President Trump called Dr Ford’s bluff by saying he is interested in having her come to testify and that it would be “unfortunate” if she didn’t do so. Ford’s response was as shown above, to try and delay this testimony.
  • The Hollywood “sisterhood” is on record defending Dr Ford. For them, she’s right. She said Kavanaugh did this, so she is right. And why? Because she is a woman, a feminist and a Democrat. She is one of them. It would very interesting to know if the sisterhood would stand behind a conservative woman raising such a concern against a Democrat, but we have President Clinton to show how well that all went.

This by no means concludes the list of characteristics, but as noted earlier here, anyone that does even just a little critical thinking about this can see that this issue is no moral outrage, it is strictly partisan hackery, making use of the greatest weapon against conservative men put in use over the last fifty years – the sexual allegation from a woman, who must always be believed, because the woman is always right. 

The unfortunate truth is that this tactic works. It works because most men are actually gentlemen. We honor women, and we are taught to defer to them in America, because that is what a gentleman does. Feminism takes this characteristic of men, especially in modern times who really want to make sure they treat the ladies right, and it throws it back in their face in contempt. It is so bad it even has a physiological effect on men, who are now marrying less, and having fewer kids. There are even physiological changes that result from this abuse.

Further, there is an appalling lack of critical thinking in our society. The British news site, The Independent offers a poll with questions about the Kavanaugh case. The astonishing lack of critical thinking is clearly evident as the reader votes his or her thought and then sees the results for that question. Going through the questions and observing their responses can be very illuminating.

Dr Ford is demanding an FBI investigation, but she has no date, time or location attached to the incident she accuses now-Judge Kavanaugh of perpetrating. Rush Limbaugh did a great job at showing just how absurd this demand actually is, given these glaring areas of non-knowledge and we include some of that transcript below:

What would happen, let’s say — I don’t know — in the last 10 years up to last week if any woman had walked into any FBI office in the country and said the following: “Hi. I’m here to report that I was abused 35 years ago. I was — I was — I was at a party. Uh, I was 15, a little bit to drink, and a 17-year-old guy pushed me down on top of a table and laid on top of me. And then — and then and then I think — I think — a friend came in and did something and anyway they left and I was left locked in the room. And I want to you to investigate.”

Do you think if somebody shows up at an FBI office with that story, if they show up in person with that story, that the FBI is gonna give it any time whatsoever? The agents are gonna look at each other with kind of wary eyes and they’re gonna crack silent jokes to one another. I’m not kidding. You take this out of the realm of a letter to a crazed, partisan United States senator, Dianne Feinstein, and just move this into the victim walking into an FBI office, “It was 35 years, 34 years. I’m not sure where. But I know that when I was 15, I was at a party, and some guy jumped on top of me.”

So let’s say the FBI agent decides to actually take this further and in a very respectful way says, “Well, Miss, were you raped or injured?”

“Uh, no, not really.”

“Did you report this or tell anyone at the time, 36, 35 years ago?”

“Uh, no.”

“What year was this, again, that this happened?”

“Uhhh, I’m not — I’m not sure. I think it was 1982.”

“Where did this happen?”

“I don’t know! I don’t know. I was so traumatized; I don’t remember any of it. I just remember some guy jumping on me and I was drunk and — and I don’t know. But I want you to investigate it.”

“Okay. Ma’am, were there any witnesses?”

“Just the one friend of his that pushed him off, and then they left before he could do anything.”

What would the FBI do with this, if that scenario happened in one of their field offices? I will tell you what they would do: Zip, zero, nada. And the reason for bringing it up this way is to try to shine some kind of a different light on this and try to put this kind of allegation in some kind of context. The president is handling this in a quite fascinating way. He’s saying, “I hope she shows up. I want to hear what she has to say. I really hope she shows up. I’m very interested in what she has to say. We all are. And if she shows up and if she’s credible, why, then we’re gonna have to do something about that.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Russian Hierarch explains Ukrainian issue in detail (VIDEO)

A Russian Orthodox Hierarch explores the incursion of earthly politics into the life, pastoral activity and needs of the Orthodox Church.

Seraphim Hanisch



RT’s “Worlds Apart” interview program recently interviewed Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), a hierarch who heads the Department of External Church Relations for the Moscow Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. The Duran has covered the crisis in Ukraine surrounding the activity of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, of Constantinople, intended to create a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This effort falls completely outside the normal and authorized operating procedures of the Orthodox Church, but to the lay listener it is difficult to understand what the fuss really is all about.

Metropolitan Hilarion and Oksana Boyko do an excellent job with both the answers, but more importantly, the questions, since Ms. Boyko asks the questions that someone who knows nothing about the Church might ask. This situation is completely about politics and not about the true work of the Church, and Met. Hilarion answers these questions very completely and thoroughly.

One of the really interesting points that Met. Hilarion makes is the idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch seeks to bring about the creation of a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church from these four groups:

  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (which is canonical and which has not requested self-rule, called autocephaly
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church “Kyiv Patriarchate”, led by Filaret Denisenko, which is a completely schismatic group. This group, and Filaret, are leading the charge.
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church – another schismatic group that is not in communion with Filaret’s church
  • The Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine – and this is truly interesting, because this group is not even Orthodox, but is an Eastern Rite group under the Pope of Rome, and is in fact Roman Catholic.

The notion of bringing together such a disparity of groups is stunning to the Metropolitan, and yet he understands the motives of the men driving this idea, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew, and Filaret Denisenko.

While the United States is not mentioned in this interview in any prominent sense, it should be noted that this move also does have strong US support as the American political leadership has been advocating for the Poroshenko government in an effort to continue to surround and isolate Russia. As we have noted elsewhere, this series of moves may well create more problems for Russia, by design.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


James Woods Suspended From Twitter Over Satirical Meme That Could “Impact An Election”

James Woods crushes Jack Dorsey: “You are a coward, @Jack.”

Alex Christoforou



Via Zerohedge

Outspoken conservative actor James Woods was suspended from posting to Twitter over a two-month-old satirical meme which very clearly parodies a Democratic advertisement campaign. While the actor’s tweets are still visible, he is unable to post new content.

The offending tweet from July 20, features three millennial-aged men with “nu-male smiles” and text that reads “We’re making a Woman’s Vote Worth more by staying home.” Above it, Woods writes “Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible.”

According to screenshots provided by an associate of Woods’, Twitter directed the actor to delete the post on the grounds that it contained “text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.

In other words, James Woods, who has approximately 1.72 million followers, was suspended because liberals who don’t identify as women might actually take the meme seriously and not vote. 

In a statement released through associate Sara Miller, Woods said “You are a coward, @Jack,” referring to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. “There is no free speech for Conservatives on @Twitter.

Earlier this month, Woods opined on the mass-platform ban of Alex Jones, tweeting: ““I’ve never read Alex Jones nor watched any of his video presence on the internet. A friend told me he was an extremist. Believe me that I know nothing about him. That said, I think banning him from the internet is a slippery slope. This is the beginning of real fascism. Trust me.”

Nu-males everywhere non-threateningly smirk at Woods’ bad fortune…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter