Catching Up With The Duran: Pipeline Sabotage, Russia Hoax, UK Pound Crisis, Nuclear Hysteria

Over the last two days The Duran has featured some fascinating discussions. The problem always is that these discussions tend to meander and it’s difficult to boil them down to their essentials. I’ve attempted that in what follows.

Yesterday, The Duran hosted a two hour long conversation with Jackson Hinkle—an American about whom I know nothing. He expresses the opinion several times that Ron DeSantis is “pure evil” or other words to that effect. His reason for saying that is because he maintains that a President DeSantis would be a puppet of the Neocons in foreign policy matters. Again, I have no independent knowledge regarding DeSantis’ FP views or predilections, and that’s not why I mention Hinkle.

Toward the end of this long conversation Hinkle expresses fear about the UK trying to foment more targeting of other countries--potentially including China, ...

At 1:49:30 Alexander Mercouris responds to those concerns. What I found interesting is Mercouris’ forthright statements about the Russia Hoax and the involvement of the UK government—a theme that, in days past, we spent a lot of time on. There’s also a Bill Haydon quality to his characterization of the UK government:

AM: It's not a misplaced fear [re the UK government]. I'm afraid our government is crazy enough to do these things. I mean, completely counter productive for us to try, but it's quite possible that we could do it. The British have played a massive spoiler role in international relations over the last decade. They've been up to their necks in things in Syria. They've been up to their necks in things in Ukraine. They were heavily involved in Russiagate--not that anybody wants to talk about that, but they clearly were. I wouldn't put it past them to try something else as well. It's a kind of frenetic need to do something to convince yourself in some way that you're still important, that you still matter. All it does is create disorganization and chaos in the international system. One of the greatest problems in both Britain and the United States is that we've never had a proper reckoning for Russiagate. All of those myths are still circulating, still essentially unchallenged, and in Britain they still treat it almost as gospel--by all the people who promoted it.

Food for thought.

We turn next to a Q&A segment. This raises issues that, to my mind, will come up again in the segment on the nuclear hysteria that’s being propagated by the Neocon Junta running American foreign policy:

Q: Knocking out NS1 and NS2--how much of a game changer was that? Does NATO now enter into direct confrontation in Ukraine?

AM [edited]: I personally do think it was the United States that did it. This is direct kinetic action against Russian infrastructure. It does make the United State a party, and I think this is a major move. But there's another big game changer for another reason. It seems to me that, just as happened when the United States went after the Russian Central Bank's reserves, now something has been done which means that, from this moment on, any pipeline anywhere in the world, any LNG anywhere in the world, is a potential target. So that's a huge game changer, if you think about it. Nothing will ever be quite the same again.

What Mercouris is saying is that we’ve already seen repercussions from the American seizure of Russian reserves—countries like China that used to be major purchasers of US debt are having second thoughts about that. By the same token, this kinetic action—the sabotage of pipelines—could lead to real world consequences as well—kinetic consequences.

Regarding the continuing crash of the UK pound, I’ll just summarize where this could be heading, but Mercouris makes it clear that this is also blowback from the sanctions war against Russia:

Re the UK financial crash, when Truss took over it was said that she had about 6 weeks to get things sorted out. Now it looks like she may only have hours, if the pound continues to crash.

Finally, from a segment on the US’ ramped up rhetoric on nukes, the Neocons in charge pushing a narrative that Russia is getting ready to use nukes. The implication is that we may have to beat Russia to the punch—a nuclear first strike! See what you think. I don’t include the conclusion of this, but Mercouris states that he believes the Pentagon will, when push comes to shove, blow the whistle and refuse to launch. What follows is a summary that tries to present a free flowing discussion in a more organized fashion:

Putin's speech, nuclear conflict rhetoric ramps up

AM: We've learned from the WaPo that the US has for weeks been sending a cascade of warnings to Moscow threatening "grave consequences" if the Russians do what the Russians have always said they have no plans to do--use nukes. That has to be concerning to the Russians--to be getting these warnings when they've never actually made any such threat.

People in Moscow must be wondering whether these "warnings" aren't really warnings, they're coded threats. The threat would be that, if Russia goes beyond some red line in Ukraine--a red line that the US has never defined or made clear--then the United States is prepared to counter that by using nuclear weapons. This may be why Putin gave the warning in his speech, and these further statements by Blinken and Sullivan are intended to reinforce those US threats. The statements seem to be intended to paint the situation as if the nuclear threats are coming from the Russians, but the reality is exactly the opposite.

AC: Yeah, this reminds me a lot of Iraq WMDs. The US kept insisting again Saddam's denials that he had weapons of mass destruction, and then one day--the US invades. Blinken and Sullivan are desperately trying to build a narrative. This is the most dangerous administration ever.

AM: Making repeated 'warnings' to Moscow about some threat that they know doesn't exist, is reckless in an unprecedented way. No other US administration has ever been so reckless. Clearly the Russians are concerned, which is why Putin gave his warning. A warning--not a threat. Putin made it clear they would only respond, not engage in a first use. But the US threats seem to be a hint that the US could do a first strike. Building a narrative to justify the most drastic conceivable action. In the UK, the FT presented Putin's warning as a threat to use nukes--a clear and astonishing misrepresentation. Some narrative is being orchestrated.

Thinking this over, obviously I agree that what the Neocon Junta is doing is wildly reckless. However, I wonder whether this may, in fact, stem from different motives than what The Duran fears. I wonder whether this reckless hyping of a, rationally, non-existent threat is a sign of weakness, of desperation. In other words, this narrative that Russia is threatening to use nukes is actually intended to sow fear in the West and to hold the collective West together against Russia. That would also be the possible intent behind the pipeline sabotage. Clearly the West’s unity is fraying—the concerted attack on Meloni, whose crime, like Trump’s, was winning an election against the wishes of the ruling elite, is a clear indication of the underlying lack of unity. The French attack on Meloni was astonishing, and Meloni’s response underscored the fundamental differences among EU nations. That disunity could, in the end, lead to the anti-Russian coalition falling apart. Drastic, even reckless, measures may, from the standpoint of the Neocon Junta, be called for. Thus the nuclear hysteria.

I’m not dogmatic about this. However, it seems that the reckless nature of these actions and of the associated rhetoric does call for some explanation.