G.O.A.T. of geopolitical analysis, John Helmer, and my thoughts: stop with this simplistic and childish analysis. Overhyping your side and underestimating your enemy is a grave mistake.

Lately, I’ve been feeling really frustrated because people keep gobbling up this sloppy narrative without questioning it, and I’m having a hard time finding people who offer proper analysis. There are so few who see through this absurd narrative about a split between Europe and America that it’s becoming really difficult for me to find good geopolitical analysis at all.

On top of that, the overhyping of one’s own side and the constant underestimation of the enemy – this childlike, simplistic form of analysis – is so widespread that it genuinely disappoints me. John is also touching on this subject.

38:29

Adding all of these things up, you have a complicated picture. Podcasters tend to turn complicated pictures into confusing ones and exaggerate in one direction or another. One exaggeration is that this war is close to ending because Russia has the military initiative on the ground and can force the Ukrainians to capitulate. That is an exaggeration; it is not accurate.

The Europeans are characterized as dwarfs, mad, dumb, or stupid—a number of characterizations that are also exaggerated. They are in line with a number of simple propositions that the Trump regime endorses in this operation. We see a combination of endorsements that produce the confusion of propaganda.

But I don’t think we are confused here. What we see here, just as you said, Dimitri, is a very calm Trump standing next to a war criminal, proposing to attack Hamas and proposing to attack Iran again, and accepting that you can pull an operation with the Russians while at the same time attempting regime change by armada in Venezuela. All of these things are failing to achieve what Trump needs, except for money.

The man is in his counting house, becoming roughly three times richer than he was when his presidency began. Yes, three times richer. We are talking about billions of dollars for a so-called businessman who has operated on the verge of bankruptcy for his entire business career, who suddenly sees a significant borrowing credit line and the capacity to wipe out all the threats of debt that have plagued his business career so far.

So, he is getting rich. And the Russian side says, “We know how to deal with people who want to be rich: we give them money.”

I will not get into casualties in the Ukraine war here because I already touched on this in one of my posts, and it is something many people do not agree with me on. I also disagree with John’s position on this subject, as I have a different assessment, but discussing it would take too long.

What I would like to point out instead is a fact I have shown realistic pro-Russian analysts who say this war will last until the end of 2026, or even 2027 or 2028. Unless Western propaganda can be defeated in Ukraine and Ukrainians finally understand what is really happening – which could collapse the will to fight, something I hope for but is not certain – this war will continue.

However, this talk that Russia could easily defeat all of Europe or even all of NATO is extremely disappointing to me. I have written about this before, and once again it was not received well. I argue that Russia could not easily defeat even European forces alone, let alone the entire NATO alliance. If rational pro-Russia commentators say that a war against Ukraine alone could take Russia until 2026, 2027, or even 2028, how can anyone believe Russia could easily defeat the entire European force?

This childish overhyping of Russia and simplistic analysis is frustrating and disappointing. I have said before that there will be no war between Europe and Russia because Russia would see it as an existential threat. The moment Russia sees European air forces over its territory, it would likely use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, probably in the western part, such as Lviv, and then contact the West demanding that it stop. Either the West would stop, or European capitals would end up with nuclear mushroom clouds covering them.

I suspect some Europeans are actually hoping for this scenario, as they want an excuse to attack Russia, which would then provoke Russia into using nuclear weapons as a warning in Ukraine and provide Europe with the narrative of “bad Russia using nuclear weapons.” But Putin and the Russian leadership are not stupid; they are fully aware of this. Those calling for bombing European capitals or NATO centers are simply playing into the hands of Western warmongers.

If Europe were to send most of its soldiers, which they have over one million professional troops from European states alone, excluding Turkey and American forces – Russia would be forced into massive mobilization, which would not be well received by the Russian population. The idea that Russia could defeat the entire European force with one hand tied behind its back is childish. Don’t get me wrong: Russia is strong, and its army is strong and capable, but it is not a magical, invincible force. Treating it as such is naive.

Even Putin himself has said that in the case of a wider conflict with Europe, Russia would use nuclear weapons. Russians are not stupid; they understand that defeating European forces would not be easy and would pose an existential threat. Yet I still hear people talking like children, saying “my side (Russia) is invincible and could beat everyone easily,” which is deeply disappointing.

The goal of this war was never the military defeat of Russia, because it is impossible to defeat a nuclear superpower. Even if we imagine – by some miracle – that Ukraine starts winning and marching toward Moscow which is impossible, does anyone seriously believe Russia would not simply use a nuclear weapon on Kyiv or elsewhere in Ukraine and demand that Ukraine stop advancing? Such a situation would represent an existential threat to Russia. I do not understand why people fail to grasp this.

The real goal of this war has been to tie up Russian military resources. When Trump sent an armada to Venezuela, Russia sent military assets to support Venezuela, and the same happened with Iran. Even now, with what is happening in Iran, Russia is sending military planes there. Just imagine how many more military assets Russia could send to Venezuela and Iran if it were not engaged in the Ukraine war. Imagine how many S-300 and S-400 systems Russia could supply to them if it did not need them to protect its own airspace and assets from Ukrainian attacks.

I have written before that yes, Trump may be willing to make peace with Russia, at least temporarily, but only on the condition that Putin and Russia abandon BRICS and the Global South – which I think and hope Russia will not do. Why would Trump want to stop the Ukraine war if that would allow Russia to free up military assets currently tied down by Ukraine and send them to Iran and Venezuela? Trump is only comfortable with a ceasefire because Russia would still need to keep its assets at home, under constant threat of renewed fighting.

Now I’ve gone on a bit of a rant. I really have so much more to say. I could write a hundred pages, as always, but let’s end this here and return to John’s interview.

23:16

On the Russian side, Foreign Minister Lavrov has not been happy with the behavior of Kirill Dmitriev in the negotiations since they began with the Trump administration as far back as Riyadh. When Lavrov says that a negotiating stance will be revised, what is he potentially talking about politically? The answer is that he is concerned about the kinds of concessions—made for financial and factional reasons in Russian terms—that Dmitriev has been offering to Witkoff and Kushner in the so-called “Miami plan.”

For example, points 13 and 14 would have surrendered $300 billion in Central Bank reserves to US control and turned them into a US investment fund. There are many ways in which Foreign Minister Lavrov, the General Staff, and the intelligence agencies have expressed their unhappiness with some of the concessions Dmitriev seems to be making. Taken together, these reflect a presidential policy of using money to lure Trump into decisions that the Russian side knows very well his subordinate agencies—intelligence, military, the State Department, and so on—do not want to make.

So, you have factions on both sides. They add up to conclusions that are sometimes confusing and contradictory. When I talked to my Russian sources over the last few hours since the attack, one of the points made was that, for the time being and in recent days, Lavrov has been shut out of the negotiations between the Kremlin (represented by Dmitriev and Presidential Assistant Ushakov) and Witkoff and Kushner. This has been described to me as a contradiction that has to be resolved.

We can talk about how the Russian terms and the negotiations with Trump would resolve the contradiction between Lavrov—representing the security establishment, or the “deep state” on the Russian side—and whoever represents the deep state on the US side, because Trump does not.

This is a very interesting point, which I have also heard from different people: that Minister Lavrov is being sidelined. I have great respect for Minister Lavrov, and in my opinion, he is right in this case. However, this brings us to an important fact – Russia is not some invincible, overpowered entity, as some commentators try to present it by overhyping Russia. John will touch on this subject later.

30:52

Trump is unique in being unable to read and write as a commander-in-chief. What he does is give authorizations that are vague enough to mean that the CIA—the operating boys—go away with the belief they have got a presidential authorization for some kind of violence or some kind of war. Second, this president is entirely remiss in double-checking what has been done on his orders because he does not read. He listens and sees pictures—pictures delivered by the CIA, pictures delivered by Stephen Miller, Susie Wiles, and the others, and especially Vice President Vance. His memory capability of what he said, what he authorized, and what was done—and his ability to understand when he is being countered—is very limited. He knows when he is being crossed politically. He knows when he is being crossed financially; when money is at stake, his capacity to understand and follow the details is much better than when politics and warfare are involved.

So, what I see in the calm demeanor is the result of essentially a reassurance meeting that was held in Miami at Mar-a-Lago with Zelenskyy, in which you had the entire array of the U.S. decision-making group: from Miller and Wiles on the one hand, to Witkoff, Kushner, and Grenell on the other hand. General Kellogg, Rubio, and Hegseth were all there. There were too many there to negotiate, and out of that, what was announced were two new working groups to go over the details. The working groups were originally agreed upon between Rubio and Lavrov in Kuala Lumpur in the middle of July, and they were reiterated in the last round of Ukraine-Russian talks in Istanbul later in that month. Six months have gone by, and they announced something new only because what they had originally agreed upon had not happened.

So, what I see here is Trump authorizing a double game, which is in his mind a form of pressure on Putin. The Russian side understands this perfectly well, and so they have a discussion of what is the best way to deal with Americans who cannot be trusted to say and commit to anything they say, cannot be trusted to stick to what they do, and cannot be trusted to link and coordinate between saying and doing. What is the Russian perception of this? I asked this question and my sources answered—and we have answered this over and over. The Russian side thinks that Trump is an opportunity. Why? Because he can be bribed, to be precise about it. The Russian side believes that Trump is an utterly cynical criminal mind. Why cynical? Because he does not care whether this war between Russia and Ukraine ends now or later.

By the way, you have just answered my next question, which was: why did Lavrov say that they are not going to disengage from the negotiations? I think you have given us a good sense of that. Is that essentially your assessment of why they are saying they are not going to withdraw from the negotiations despite this attack?

Exactly. The view is that Trump is capable of all of these things, but he is a better opportunity to negotiate with because the Russian side also wants a pause. Now, the U.S. side wants to sequence its war capacities and refocus them against China in the East and against Iran in the Middle East, to put pressure on India through Pakistan and Bangladesh in the subcontinent, and to focus on regime change in Venezuela. That is what the Russian side understands to be the sequencing of priorities. At the same time, the Russian side understands Trump is running out of gas. For a politician to be facing a rising level of disapproval as he goes into the year of the midterm elections means he is getting weaker and weaker. Trump recognizes the polls, too, so he stages ceremonies like the Mar-a-Lago negotiation. You have just put up a table from realclearpolitics.com which indicates this negative spread on President Trump’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine war is growing. Look at how big it is now. Peacemaking is not what American voters think Trump is doing. Russia understands this, too. They understand: why not negotiate with an opportunistic president in a way that Biden was not?

The use of the label “neocon” is not very helpful because we are talking about detailed political calculations here against people who change their minds because they have to. In Trump’s case, he has to improve his vote base before next November. Everything he has tried for a whole year has failed. He has failed to achieve regime change in every target he has picked. He has failed to achieve peacemaking in every war he has assisted in and every peacemaking operation he has assisted in. He has failed to build a significant winning vote base, not only for the midterms but for 2028, and all the people around him—especially people who want to succeed him like Vice President Vance—understand they must do better in 2026 than they did in 2025.

Speaking from long-ago experience of Jimmy Carter’s presidency: if your first year was as much of a failure as this one has been, your second year is not going to be much better and you are going to be punished at the midterms.

Now, I have brought this up before because I often hear people asking why Russia and Putin go along with this nonsense – that America wants peace and is a neutral negotiator, and that it is only those “evil, pesky Europeans” who are ruining everything. Again, reading too much into what Putin says and basing geopolitical analysis on that is childish. One of the best examples of this kind of analysis is Alex Krainer. He is pushing “Orange Jesus” nonsense simply because Putin has said some nice things about Trump. I have given this example before.

Biden’s Media Image Has ‘Nothing to Do with Reality,’ Putin Says – The Moscow Times

U.S.

“The image of President Biden, which is portrayed by our, and even the American press, has nothing to do with reality,” Putin said.

…

“Biden is a professional, you have to be very attentive when working with him so as not to miss something — because he does not miss a thing, trust me,” Putin added. 

Putin said that Biden was fully mentally capable and simply jet-lagged, even though everyone could see that he was clearly mentally diminished. Now people like Alex Krainer would tell me that Biden was “braindead” only because Putin said so? Putin is a politician operating within the Overton window, and he will say whatever benefits him most.

As John says, “The Russian side believes that Trump is an utterly cynical criminal mind,” yet they would never openly say that, similarly even if they knew Biden was cognitively impaired, they would not say it. Instead, they described him as jet-lagged.

This is why I really hope people stop reading too much into what Putin says and stop asking why Putin goes along with these nonsense narratives. Putin is a politician working within the Overton window and within a world of the naive shaped by narratives. That does not mean he does not understand the truth; it simply means he cannot say it openly, because that is not how the world works.

41:53

Well, this is again a topic where, if we bring in the evidence, we immediately run into the propaganda version. The U.S.-European propaganda version is that the Russian economy has peaked on the employment and income values of the war, and that what the Russian economy is facing is a recession. The scenarios for recession originated, as we have discussed on this program, from the Central Bank of Russia a few weeks ago, and there is clearly a slowdown in Russian economic growth and the danger of recession for the next two years in Russia—unless President Putin obliges the official he has protected all these years, Elvira Nabiullina, the governor of the Central Bank, to lower the key rate.

We have talked about this before: at a 21% key rate for the Central Bank, you cannot finance your operations cost-effectively. You cannot finance investment cost-effectively. So, you have preferential interest rates throughout the economy favoring the military-industrial complex and any other business that can achieve, by negotiation or other means (called administrative measures in Russia), lower interest rates. Overall, the effect of Nabiullina’s high interest rate policy has been to crush the economy and, as a democratic economy, Russians have criticized it.

We now face an inflationary spike with the rise in VAT and other administrative measures that come into effect in January. So, we will have a 1% inflation hike at the same time as Nabiullina has been obliged to lower the key interest rate to 16%. It is still too high, and inflation is still a serious Russian domestic concern on the part of consumers, businessmen, and oligarchs.

So, what we have is a perception on the U.S.-European side among officials, propaganda outlets, and analysts that Russia can be pressured into seeking concessions for a pause. There is a real dynamic in the Russian economy and in Russian politics. Remember, Russia also faces parliamentary elections and then a presidential succession or a reelection of the president in 2030. Russia constantly has to resolve its internal domestic political calculations. These favor—my sources tell me—a pause for as long as Trump is there, and a reduction of the cost in human life of advancing westward across Ukraine.

Now, would I be correct that a precondition to that pause would be the withdrawal of Ukrainian military forces from the rest of the Donbas? There is no doubt about that. In the last few days—and we are changing the level at which we are talking here, so the evidence is a bit different—President Putin has made very public a series of negotiations, briefings, agreements, and consensus with military commanders. The summing up of what has been said is that the Russian side now agrees that it will take all of the Donbas—that is, all of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. It will not withdraw from its positions in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, but it does not appear to be committed to taking all of the Russian constitutional territories of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Of course, it goes without saying that Crimea is going to be Russia, and it is not negotiable.

So, on that particular issue, you can say there is a Russian concession there. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions are constitutionally now part of the Russian Federation, but they are not militarily entirely under control. The Russian side is getting there, but it is getting there slowly—about 10 kilometers a week—under conditions in which the following rules apply militarily: when the Russians achieve a tactical breakthrough in an area of about 10 kilometers square, they require two to three days of further preparation to consolidate that breakthrough. If it becomes an operational breakthrough, they capture a pocket—a village, a town, or an area—in the movement westward. They then need a week to ten days or two weeks of artillery, drone, and other preparations before they move on.

What does that mean on the ground? It means slowness. It also means the least exposure to casualties. What does it mean politically at home? You can go faster with more men, but mobilization is politically impossible and will not be adopted in Russia. There will be no more men than those who volunteer. What does “volunteer” mean? It means that the war is being fought by the poorest of Russians in poor regions relative to Moscow, St. Petersburg, Tyumen, and other regions. The war has to be fought by them, and is being fought by them. We can show the sociology another time.

The war is being negotiated for a pause to benefit the elites of Russian society—the oligarchs and business interests interested in reviving international trade with the United States. Russian business and Russian oligarchs do not want to be at war with the United States. They do not accept the military and intelligence assessment that the United States is a permanent enemy of Russia. They do not accept what Lavrov spelled out in the 2021 treaty. They do not accept that Russia needs a permanent peace, which can only be achieved with mutual security guarantees between Europe, the United States, NATO, and Russia.

So, you have a factional combination that needs a pause. Russian public opinion needs to believe the army is winning and needs to believe the president is negotiating. If the enemy insists on fighting, Russian public opinion will fight, but they will not waste lives, not waste money, and not generate inflation at the level of the “kitchen basket.”

Add all of this up, and you have a consensus behind a pause, with the understanding at the Russian General Staff level and at the Kremlin that by the time we come to 2028, when Trump appears to be going, the war will resume in the next term. If you take that as your strategic long-term or five-year idea, then what you want now is to prepare for the war later, right? But you don’t talk about that publicly. I can, because who will believe me?

This is something you don’t often hear from people, and in my opinion, it is an objective view of what is happening – that’s why I respect John so much. Instead of overhyping Russia, he looks at it objectively. While John supports the Russian side, overhyping Russia and underestimating your enemy is a grave mistake. This objective view of the conflict is what is so hard to find nowadays.

Most commentators overhype Russia, presenting it as able to defeat all of Europe with one hand tied behind its back and as having no problems of its own. Literally, internet commentators do the same thing as the mainstream propaganda presented in the media – but in the opposite direction. While mainstream media present a picture of Ukraine winning effortlessly and overhype Ukraine, alternative media do the same thing regarding Russia instead of looking at it objectively.

This is so widespread that it is really hard for me to find a good source of information and analysis because they either believe a slop narrative about divisions between Europe and America or they overhype Russia. That’s why I say my view is very close to John’s and Brian Berletic’s. While Brian Berletic opposes the Western capitalist empire of evil, as I call it, he also often emphasizes in his videos that we should not underestimate it. Besides military force, it has financial power, the ability to shape narratives through media, and a global military structure.

We should look at these things realistically, without overhyping the side we support or undermining the side we oppose. I will give you a quote from one of my latest posts on this subject, based on a video from the channel Colonial Outcasts.

Do you have any idea how looming, powerful, deeply rooted, and interconnected the United States’ military assets and economic pressure are? We are looking at the beginning of an era of belligerent, outright expansionism by the United States

You can just look at Iran to see what undermining our Western Capitalist Empire of Evil leads to. We still don’t know if they will succeed in Iran but it shows you how powerful this our Western Capitalist Empire of Evil is and we should not underestimate it.

53:16

Let’s look at the level. Prime Minister Modi is the Prime Minister of the country, whereas the Chinese response is about as low-level as you can get; it was a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry. Why couldn’t the Foreign Minister open his mouth in Beijing? No, he couldn’t; he didn’t want to.

The level shows that India was also the first to come out with a statement endorsing the Russian announcement of an attack against Putin. Now Putin, President Xi, and Prime Minister Modi have declared themselves not only to be strategic allies and partners but friends—personal friends. Narendra Modi showed Indian personal commitment, being deeply concerned at that level. The Chinese muffed it. The Chinese did not express, at the level that India did, a belief in the veracity of President Putin and a belief in the legitimacy of his cause in this war. There is a huge difference in level, and there was a huge difference in the speed of solidarity. If you are strategic partners, you show comradeship, don’t you? And comradeship in war means that India relies on Russia and Russia relies on India in their two wars against state terrorism.

In India, state terrorism means Pakistan, and Pakistan now means Trump. The U.S. revival of the relationship with Pakistan involves moving Pakistan as its new subcontinental platform for war-fighting against Iran, against Afghanistan, and against India, in an attempt to split India from the rest of the world. There is a huge difference in the way they responded.

Then there is another point here; it relates to the Iran war by Trump and Israel, and it relates to the Venezuelan situation. Let me just add that on the 30th, Foreign Minister Lavrov issued a statement which looks odd. I’ll just read it out because it was issued in the afternoon of the 30th, in which Lavrov says—and I’m looking to my side to read it exactly right: “Moscow is genuinely thankful to its foreign friends and partners for condemning the terrorist attack carried out by the regime on the night of December 28–29 against the state residence of the President of the Russian Federation in Novgorod. We appreciate the words of support and solidarity addressed to the head of the Russian state, the government, and the people of Russia.”

Now, who showed solidarity? The answer is: India did. China didn’t. There is, so far as I know, no statement from Iran, and no statement from President Maduro of Venezuela. Maybe they are too busy, but they did not. There were statements of solidarity from Belarus and from India, but not exactly solidarity from China. Why did Lavrov go to the trouble to say this in a statement? It wasn’t just dropped into an interview. The Foreign Minister gives interviews all the time; this was a special statement. It was a special way of saying on the Russian Foreign Ministry site, “Look, we are grateful to those who support us, and we promise to support you.”

Lavrov has been very defensive when questioned by Iran State Radio. In an interview a few days ago, he was asked the same question that Russians are asked in India: “If there is a conflict between Israel, the United States, and our country, Iran, what side will Russia take? Will you help defend us?” Lavrov went to some trouble to say, “You can count on us. You can count on the strategic partnership we’ve signed with you.” He also went to some trouble to say, “We did not betray the Assad regime in Syria,” which is what the Iranian radio correspondent accused Russia of doing.

The Russian side is very sensitive to the public international criticism that it has not done enough to stop the genocide in—sorry—Palestine, in Gaza. It is sensitive to the idea that it has not done enough to support Iran against its enemies and is not doing enough to support Venezuela. Those are very sensitive criticisms. They are felt more deeply by the Foreign Ministry, the intelligence services, and the General Staff than other elements of the Russian government.

So, what we have here—and I don’t think I’m exaggerating or blowing it out of proportion—is the Russian side trying to maintain and advance its strategic partnerships. It has to demonstrate that when it is under attack, its friends will show solidarity in support. That is not what the Chinese president did regarding this attack. President Xi said nothing. That is not a demonstration of solidarity. And yet, Lavrov has made a very explicit endorsement of Russian support for the defense of China’s position in the Taiwan Straits if that comes to war.

So, we have ambiguities and confusion here, but we need to understand what podcasts and propaganda agencies obscure. Each side is on the edge of war, and we have wars—semi-active or fully active—over the entire globe, pushed by the United States and its various allies. In war, there obviously comes a moment when you ask, “Is your ally going to come to the rescue when it counts?” Russia has a case to answer on that, and it is endeavoring to do it. Lavrov is intending to do it.

This is why these messages of support have been responded to in this way, and why we move on to the next stage: What’s next for India from Russia? What’s next for China from Russia? What’s next for Iran and Venezuela from Russia?

This is also something I have pointed out and written about. Again, it reflects the childish analysis of people who think BRICS is one big family and that all its members are united. I referred to a secret document written by the Chinese outlining plans for China to annex Siberia and the eastern part of Russia in case Russia collapses.

The fact that China has not supported Russia from the beginning of the war, and the fact that China did not start building the Siberia pipeline as soon as Nord Stream was destroyed, shows that China is playing a double game with Russia. I explained that China sees Russia as a relic of Western imperialism and views the vast territory of eastern Russia – which is populated by people of Asian ethnicity – as belonging to them rather than being ruled and administered by some white man in Moscow.

Instead of siding with Russia from the start of the conflict and building the Siberia pipeline immediately – which would have helped Russia – they decided to wait and see whether Russia could survive on its own. Only after they were sure Russia would not collapse did they begin to side more openly with Russia. This is how opportunists act – not how allies or friends behave.

There are huge divisions within the Axis of Resistance, which I explain in my post titled “The Other Side of the Coin: The Axis of Evil, or, in Other Words, the Axis of Resistance Against Our Western Capitalist Empire of Evil.” In short: Russia doesn’t fully trust China because China played a double game against them; Iran doesn’t trust Russia because of its ambiguous position toward Israel; and India doesn’t fully trust Iran because it is an Islamic state, nor Russia because it doesn’t know which side Russia will ultimately take India or China.

John was recently in India, and I saw him on an Indian podcast and TV. He was trying to convince Indian people to get closer to Russia, because a significant pro-Western part of India still does not want to align too closely with Russia – they prefer stronger ties with the U.S.

Unfortunately, there are still huge divides. Now, looking at what is happening in Iran, if our Western Capitalist Empire of Evil succeeds there, you can forget about the next Iranian government staying in BRICS and siding with Russia and China. We can only hope they fail in Iran.

1:06:06

So, let me try to recap a bit. First, coincidences do happen in politics. Second, there is an urgency on the part of Zelensky to get to Trump personally, and he did. Then, he had to leave in order to meet with the Europeans. I have forgotten exactly where and when the next Zelensky summit meeting with the Europeans will take place. There is also the pressure of the holiday season; New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day holidays pressure everybody into trying to jam business into the last few hours before they want to take off. So, there are those factors.

Let us be very clear: I do not know the answer to your question. Where was Zelensky when Netanyahu arrived? Where would they have met inside that vast, gilded palace of Mar-a-Lago that Trump was showing off when he asked Zelensky, “Did you enjoy the food?” I mean, could they have met in one gilded anteroom? Yes, they could have. Could it have leaked into the Israeli press? Yes, it could have. Would it have been leaked into the Ukrainian or U.S. press? It could have, but it didn’t. So, as far as I know, there is no leak that the two of them met. There is every reason why they would hurry; they are the clients, the vassals, the battlefields, and the mercenaries of the United States. To go to the emperor’s palace is something that mercenaries and legionnaires like Zelenskyy and Netanyahu would do. So, it explains their being there.

Now, you raised other important points and you answered them. Yes, there is an Israeli military connection to the Ukraine war that is hostile to Russia. That raises a question for President Putin, who often refers to the very sizable, multi-million-person Russian-speaking population of Israel, whom he regards as a political constituency of his. But if they are supporting Ukraine against Russia, why then does Russia have any obligation to those of its enemies who happen to speak Russian? In Israel, that raises a serious political question at home in Moscow.

You answered that question too. Yes, there is an Israeli arms supply, parts supply, electronics supply, and drones issue—supplying Ukraine to hurt and attack Russia—and Russia has objected to it. Can the Myndych matter and the corruption issue have come up? Well, I think you misspoke. Myndych was not a right-hand man for Zelenskyy; he was a back-pocket man. There is a difference between hands and pockets, obviously—hands are in pockets. Myndych was one of the money men for Zelenskyy, but not the only one. There are others who are more powerful; one of them, Ihor Kolomoisky, is currently in jail. The Israeli interest, the Jewish community interest, and the Chabad sect interest in all of these things is important, but we do not have time to talk about it.

The general Israeli rule is that it does not extradite Jewish people to the United States or to any other prosecution service. That is a general rule. It can be broken when it is politically expedient or necessary for the State of Israel to do so, and it has done so. On the other hand, the corruption campaign that identified Myndych and ultimately cost the resignation of Yermak has not resulted in a significant purge of all the Yermak people around Zelenskyy. It has been interpreted—and we have discussed it, as have your other guests—as an operation by the U.S. to put pressure on Zelenskyy to come to heel and do what he was told, facing the possibility of U.S. prosecution.

You have left out the other inhabitant of Miami, U.S. citizen Umerov. Umerov, who heads the Ukrainian negotiating team for the settlement talks with Russia and has been the Ukrainian Defense Minister, is a target for a corruption investigation or a witness against others. He is a U.S. citizen. His family lives in Florida, in Miami, I believe. He has buried his fortune in the United States. He is a Ukrainian-American hostage in all of these so-called corruption campaigns to end the war.

Umerov is also in Miami, and therefore there are many ways in which he could be involved. It is a matter of public record that Umerov is currently speaking to the FBI. He may need to arrange a plea bargain with the FBI and may be providing evidence against Zelenskyy to possibly be used if Zelenskyy goes too “rogue” from a White House point of view. All of these things revolve constantly around Miami. We are not making a conspiracy theory about how various groups can concert their activities and plot; we see the plots openly. They are real plots. I cannot add any more to your interpretation of the coincidence.

Here again, I would like to point out only one thing:

“There is every reason why they would hurry; they are the clients, the vassals, the battlefields, and the mercenaries of the United States. To go to the emperor’s palace is something that mercenaries and legionnaires like Zelensky and Netanyahu would do.”

Both Zelensky and Netanyahu are mercenaries, legionnaires of our Western Capitalist Empire of Evil. I now often hear about the so-called “Pax Judaica” that Professor Jiang Xueqin talks about, and while I agree with a lot of what Professor Jiang Xueqin says, I don’t agree with everything, including this “Pax Judaica” concept.

The Israel project was started by the British as a beachhead in the Middle East, and this project was later taken over by the Americans. I suspect Israel played a huge role in establishing the petrodollar for America and in serving as its unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Just like Britain, America wants the Middle East divided and weak so it can continue dominating it, as it must enforce the petrodollar system.

Israel does not control America. Instead, Israel serves as an American tool. How else could America be sure that Arab nations would not unite and oppose American dominance, if not through Mossad creating and managing our McJihadists in the region? Mossad works for the CIA. America is too far away to maintain strong control over the Arab world and keep it divided, so it uses Israel and Mossad for that purpose.

America needs the Middle East weak and divided, and to achieve this, America needs Israel and Mossad. How could America be sure that Arab countries would not unite and oppose American dominance without this “little cancer” in the Middle East in the form of Israel, which creates and controls all this jihadist activity, which in reality consists of our McJihadists?

I have written about this a lot, and while I hate Chomsky, he sometimes says something true and smart, and I have used this video before.

Now, let’s get back to this “Clash of Civilizations” thing. Huntington’s – you know, everybody is flailing around for some paradigm, some big thing that you can use to control people, and Huntington’s idea was the “Clash of Civilizations.” So, you know, there’s Islam and us and all these other things. And the idea is that the reason why the world is so disorderly is because now, with the Cold War gone, you’ve got all these ethnic groups killing each other and so on. Well, as usual, it’s always a good idea to start by asking about the facts. Whenever you hear anything said very confidently, the first thing that should come to mind is: “Wait a minute, is that true?” You know? So, is it true?

…

Now, what about the principle “Clash of Civilizations,” like saying the big bad guy is Islam? Well, there are a few problems with that. The most fundamentalist Islamic state in the world is our big ally, Saudi Arabia. How does that fit? You know, I mean, Saudi Arabia is real—it’s not fundamentalist enough for some of the people in it, but it’s pretty extreme. Are we trying to undermine Saudi Arabia? Of course not; they’re sitting on the oil. In fact, they are clients; that’s a family dictatorship that we keep in power because they make sure that the money from oil doesn’t go to the people in the region but goes to London and New York. So they’re okay; there’s no “Clash of Civilizations” there.

That’s state fundamentalism. What about individual—you know, non-state? Well, by far the worst ones are the guys who are tearing Afghanistan to pieces. If you find crazier Islamic fundamentalists around than them, I don’t know about them. Where did they get their power from? Well, your pocket, you know. They got $6 billion or so, it’s claimed, from the United States and Saudi Arabia through the 1980s. Now they’re tearing Afghanistan apart, but it’s not—you know—anything that we did. We’re only wonderful people.

So, how—where is this “Clash of Civilizations” between Islam and the West? I don’t see it. I mean, Indonesia is an Islamic state; do you see us trying to undermine Indonesia? I mean, a lot of rotten things happen in Indonesia; like, for example, wages are about half the level of China, which is not so munificent. Do you see us doing anything about that? I mean, I think this is all a farce. I don’t mean to say a total farce, but there must be a new paradigm—you know, something that people can build their careers on and write books about and so on and so forth—which can then be turned into a device for controlling people. That part is true, and maybe this will work, or if it doesn’t, you try something else.

…

The legacy of Ronald Reagan: during the Reagan years, Pakistan was ruled by the most awful of its many horrible dictators, Zia-ul-Haq. He had two major policies: one was to carry out the radical Islamization of the country with the funding of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the center of radical Islam and also the center of funding for jihadism, and yet it is also the leading ally of the United States and Britain.

Traditionally, the U.S. and Britain have been supporting radical Islam throughout the region. There are good reasons for that, and they continue to do so. You can tell this from the internal documents – British and American internal documents. The reason is a kind of rational analysis: the real threat, they say, is the “virus of secular nationalism.” That is dangerous. Secular nationalism – take Nasser, for example – can lead to the possibility of efforts to take the resources of the region and use them for their own populations, rather than for the benefit of the West and the super-rich ruling families.

So, that is a real problem, and the only barrier to secular nationalism – to the “virus of secular nationalism,” as it is called—is radical Islamism. Therefore, the U.S. and Britain as well have been strongly supporting radical Islam for a long time and continue to do so. It is a little ironic when you hear them complaining about the Muslim Brotherhood, which by comparison is moderate Islam.

That remains true. Saudi Arabia, for example, is given free rein to crush demonstrations – there is no talk of no-fly zones there. There was a “Day of Rage” called in Riyadh, but the police presence was so extensive that nobody could even show up; they were too intimidated. The same happened in Kuwait. These are rich oil states which have loyal dictators; therefore, they are free to do anything they like.

I will end it here thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always…

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

“The real danger we face is not from terrorism but what is being done under the pretext of fighting it.”

― Michael Parenti

“The media have been tireless in their efforts to suppress the truth about the gangster state.”

― Michael Parenti

“To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.”

― Michael Parenti

“You don’t take down a conglomerate by shooting them in the heart. That’s the thing about conglomerates, they don’t have hearts. You take them down limb by limb. And as they unravel, their illusion of control unravels.”

― Mr. Robot

“Sure, there are grays, but when you come right down to it, at its core, beneath every choice, there’s either a one or a zero. You either do something or you don’t. You walk out that door, you’ve decided to do nothing, to say no, which means you do not come back. You leave, you are no longer a part of this. You become a zero. If you stay, if you want to change the world, you become a yes. You become a one. So, I’ll ask you again: are you a one or a zero?”

― Mr. Robot