YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Alex Krainer: "This is World War 3 Scenario" - Europe Is ON THE BRINK of ALL-OUT WAR

Alex Krainer: "This is World War 3 Scenario" - Europe Is ON THE BRINK of ALL-OUT WAR — Transcript

by World Affairs In Context · 8,224 words · 1,275 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00There are those people who are primarily
0:03um close to uh Wall Street uh banking
0:07cartel to their largest client
0:10corporations
0:11who are definitely struggling to retain
0:14hegemony around the world to be to
0:16continue being a colonial power and uh
0:20since since 28th February
0:24uh it seems to me that it's the neoc
0:26colonialist faction which has now
0:29prevailed. failed and secured the clutch
0:31of the actual policy. Did the IMF insist
0:35on the DOMAS? Because okay, the IMF is a
0:38let's say a cutout of global banking
0:41cartel. So this is these are these are
0:43largely private interests that
0:45masquerade under behind uh an
0:48international aid organizations like
0:51let's call it that. uh basically because
0:54Donbas was about 80 80% of the Ukraine's
0:58GDP. So Ukraine without the DMBBAS was
1:02worth much less than Ukraine with
1:04Dombas. But you know uh the the selfish
1:08people of Dombas didn't want to share
1:10those resources with the with the
1:12western bankers. So it had to be taken
1:14by force.
1:18>> Welcome to World Affairs and Context.
1:20I'm Lyanna Petrovo and today I'm very
1:22excited for the conversation we're about
1:24to have with Alex Craner. Alex is the
1:26founder of Craner Analytics and ISIS and
1:28trend following. I will link both in the
1:30description below. As a commodities
1:32expert, Alex has worked as a market
1:34analyst, researcher, and hedge fund
1:36manager. He is a wealth of very
1:39interesting information and extreme
1:42extreme details as well on these topics.
1:44Alex runs a popular Substack which I
1:46read on a regular basis and would highly
1:49highly recommend too. Alex, thank you so
1:51much for joining. It's great to see you
1:53again.
1:54>> Thank you for the invite, Lena. Always
1:56nice to join you and my warm greetings
1:58from Croatia to your viewers and
2:00listeners.
2:01>> Well, thank you so much. I'm excited
2:03that you're taking the time to join us
2:04during your travels and I certainly
2:06appreciate it. Alex, you recently wrote
2:09a wonderful Substack article and as soon
2:12as I read it, I thought I need to
2:13discuss it with you because I know the
2:15audience will be really really
2:16interested. Um, so your recent Substack
2:18article begins with a stark warning that
2:22we're much actually closer to a direct
2:24NATORussia confrontation than most
2:26people realize. And you argue that long
2:29uh range strikes into Russian territory
2:32aren't simply military operations but
2:35calculated provocations
2:38which of course they are because they
2:39fail to change the course of the war on
2:42the battlefield and they certainly
2:44inflict temporary economic damage but
2:48they provoke a stronger military
2:50retaliation from Russia. So why do you
2:53believe that these attacks were timed to
2:57coincide with the anniversary of
2:59Operation Barbar Roa? And do you think
3:01that symbolism plays a larger role in
3:04modern geopolitical signaling than many
3:07analysts and commentators acknowledge?
3:13>> Uh yes, great question, Lena. I think
3:15that absolutely uh I believe that this
3:17is the case uh because as you mentioned
3:21uh these strikes into Russia do not have
3:24any strategic rationale. They couldn't
3:29uh change uh the course of war. They
3:32couldn't reverse Ukraine's defeat on the
3:34battlefield. But what they do do is they
3:36terrorize the Russian population. Uh and
3:40I think the calculation is to um exert
3:44pressure on Russian leadership
3:47uh to retaliate
3:49that is to strike at the European
3:52countries that are supporting Ukraine in
3:55these uh long range attacks and uh by
4:00this I mean countries that provide the
4:02technologies, the targeting, the uh the
4:07personnel support that and and and
4:12satellite communications that enable
4:14Ukraine to strike deep into Russia. And
4:17so that could that could be any number
4:20of European countries, but probably uh
4:23primarily uh Germany and the United
4:25Kingdom and then maybe you know Estonia
4:28and Poland and Romania,
4:31a variety of places. And I think that
4:34the reason why they want to expand this
4:36war largely has to do with the domestic
4:39political circumstances that they have
4:42at home because um particularly in
4:46Germany uh we have the rise of the IFD
4:49party which if elections were held today
4:53uh they would certainly be the party uh
4:55forming the next government and they
4:57have said explicitly uh we want to
5:00cultivate positive constructive
5:02relationship ship uh with Russia. Uh uh
5:05and then in the United Kingdom,
5:07[clears throat]
5:09I think that there's a there there's a
5:10there's a real risk of a civil war or a
5:13revolution breaking out in the near
5:15future. And so that, you know, would be
5:19a development that the ruling
5:21establishment could have no control
5:23over.
5:24And
5:27through history repeatedly you see that
5:31when social revolt reaches the boiling
5:35point then the uh ruling establishment
5:40yells barbarians at the gate.
5:42>> Mhm.
5:43>> Because they want to divert people's
5:44anger to the external enemy. They want
5:48to send as many military-aged men to the
5:51battlefront and they want to make sure
5:55that as few as possible ever return.
5:58Basically, they want to call the male
6:01military age population because that is
6:04the the the greatest source of risk for
6:08their position of power. So we've seen
6:12many times
6:14uh through wars in history
6:17um that
6:20waring parties would would sustain
6:23absolutely unreasonable levels of
6:25casualties. And then you know with age
6:28with time uh these stories are told and
6:31retold and they give you always the
6:33impression that this is due to
6:36incompetence.
6:38you know that these generals just you
6:40know they say the generals always fight
6:43the previous war
6:45>> and so they don't understand the new
6:46technology. So, you know, like in World
6:48War I,
6:50um, they they still went with with wave
6:53upon wave of infantry crossing the the
6:57no man's land and, you know, kind of
6:59like they were going to have a bayonet
7:01banet fights,
7:03>> but now there's machine guns and the
7:06generals just didn't take that into
7:08account. So, they ended up slaughtering
7:10millions of men needlessly.
7:13Um, but this is not true. uh concretely
7:18in in World War I there was a British
7:21general his name was Sir Alexander H no
7:24Sir Douglas Hey
7:26and Sir Douglas Hey uh uh is is was
7:31responsible for about 2 million maybe
7:34more of deaths of British infantrymen.
7:39And we cannot talk about incompetence
7:42because sir Douglas Hey went to the
7:45military academy and he did a course
7:48specifically on uh the new technology
7:51that were the machine guns. So he knew
7:53perfectly well what machine guns were.
7:56And then he and Winston Churchill uh
8:00commanded battles in Africa in which the
8:03British troops used machine guns and
8:06they slaughtered an enormous amount of
8:08uh you know upid Africans
8:11and said that they they knew perfectly
8:12well what they were doing. And Sir
8:15Douglas Hey, wherever he went on the
8:17battlefield, hundreds of thousands of
8:20British uh troops have been slaughtered
8:23and and he was doing it relentlessly. It
8:25wasn't like one, two, three hors and
8:28then oh well this is not working. Maybe
8:30we shouldn't be doing this. No, he kept
8:31doing it again and again and again and
8:33again. And of course he ended up honored
8:37by the British establishment. He was uh
8:40awarded all kinds of um
8:43titles and and and a lot of money and
8:46properties and everything. And he lived
8:49happily ever after into his old age
8:51promoting his books and traveling
8:53everywhere. And so this was this was
8:56clearly done on purpose and I suspect
8:58that very very often this is being done
9:00on purpose. So the you know the the war
9:03that they are trying to provoke against
9:06Russia now is probably largely
9:11um motivated by this same uh existential
9:14anxiety that they that they they feel
9:17that something really bad is coming
9:18their way. you know, particularly in
9:20England after the release of these gang
9:22rape reports, the the the the
9:25investigative report by sir by by Rupert
9:29Law. uh because this has really changed
9:33the the nature of the problem in England
9:36because so far the ruling establishment
9:38has been uh relentlessly shoving this
9:41problem into the memory hole and anybody
9:44who brought it up were was labeled as a
9:46racist, as a bigot, as an Islamophobe
9:49and the people in the media kept
9:52insisting that oh most of the rapes in
9:55England are being uh perpetrated by
9:58white men, not by the Muslims, not by
10:00these these immigrants.
10:03And they were they were almost
10:06successful at making this whole thing go
10:09away because many many people in England
10:12uh up until maybe a year ago if you
10:16mentioned the the grooming gangs would
10:18say, "Oh, that's some kind of a
10:20conspiracy theory. It's an urban legend.
10:22It's a it's way exaggerated." But now we
10:25know that it wasn't exaggerated. that at
10:27least 250,000 girls in England were
10:30raped uh in in the most horrific ways,
10:35gang raped, uh traffked,
10:39uh pimped out to other people. uh that
10:42this has been going on since at least
10:451955
10:47and that the whole entire British
10:50establishment aided and emedded this
10:53process and these gangs and that it
10:55started from the policemen patrolling
10:59the streets all the way to the prime
11:01minister and the royal family. And when
11:04the report came out,
11:06neither the government nor the media
11:11nor the royal family took any positions.
11:13They they I mean imagine the greatest
11:17crime ever perpetrated against the
11:19British people has been discovered,
11:21documented, presented in a investigative
11:25report fully credible.
11:27>> Mhm.
11:27>> And nobody has a word to say about this.
11:30And so I think it's dawning on the
11:32British people that their ruling
11:34establishment actually is their enemy.
11:38And so this would be the moment that um
11:41you know the the the the American
11:44professor of history um David Betts he's
11:48been he's been going around and he was
11:50saying Britain is explosively configured
11:53for a breakout of a civil war and now
11:57the the British people have this horror
12:01to digest.
12:03I think it's going to take some time,
12:05but I think that the anger is brewing.
12:08>> So now
12:10it would be so wonderful to
12:14divert that anger towards an external
12:16enemy,
12:18>> Russia. And so, uh, funnily enough, the
12:22day before the, uh, Rupert Low's report
12:25on grooming gangs was published,
12:28the British special forces
12:31boarded a Russian tanker in the English
12:34Channel, sailing through international
12:36water, as they're perfectly entitled to
12:38do, and then confiscated the vessel,
12:41dragged it into British waters, and then
12:44pretended that the the Russians were
12:47breaking maritime law and they and they
12:50uh captured the vessel and it was it was
12:53a clear provocation
12:55uh aimed at Russians. And then the next
12:58day there was a there was like a private
13:00yacht like a speedboat that was charging
13:02for a for a Russian uh warship.
13:06>> Mhm.
13:06>> Which then, you know, after warning
13:08shots was diverted. But you know there
13:11was it seems that extremely reckless
13:15actions are being taken
13:18uh as though they are desperate for the
13:22Russians to respond
13:24in a way that could present the cases
13:26ballet to the ruling establishment that
13:28they can say aha you see the Russians
13:30are coming after us and we must all
13:32unite now and defend our homeland and
13:35blah blah blah you know how that goes.
13:37And now you have a completely different
13:39situation. And then in the media you
13:41could see, you know, you would you would
13:43have media collectively start loudly
13:46banging the war drums and we are under
13:48threat. We are under attack. There's
13:50going to be invasion. We have to defend
13:51the country. Uh all the patriotic men
13:54have to volunteer for military service
13:57and and then you have that, you know,
13:59barbarians at the gates. Let's call the
14:01male population and then we'll be fine.
14:04we're going to have the country full of
14:07uh vulnerable women and children and
14:09elderly and they're going to need our
14:10protection and yeah, you know, we win
14:13again. And so I think that I think that
14:16the Russian leadership
14:19understands these dynamics perfectly
14:21well and so they are not giving them
14:23this this wonderful gift of retaliating
14:27against against these provocations. One
14:30of your central arguments is that
14:31Russian President Vladimir Putin has
14:33exercised remarkable restraint despite
14:37repeated provocations because the long
14:40range strikes on Russia at the end of
14:42June. Um I I forget the exact dates at
14:44this time but this was towards the end
14:46of June. those strikes were actually um
14:51you know meant to be a provocation were
14:53meant to as you said to uh effectively
14:58create a stronger response which Russia
15:00can certainly do but it chooses not to.
15:05And so on on the one hand we see people
15:08like yourself and and I agree with you
15:11that Russia has exercised remarkable
15:13restraint so far. Um but then western
15:16think tanks argue that restraint
15:19actually reflects Russia's military
15:21limitations rather than Vladimir Putin's
15:24strategic patience. They say well Russia
15:26is is collapsing economically. Russian
15:28military has what is it 20 minutes life
15:31expectancy. Um I think there was a
15:33report um at the end of June life
15:35expectancy on the battlefield.
15:37absolutely absurd things that come out
15:40of these think tanks and and also that
15:43are voiced by experts. So how would you
15:46respond to their arguments? How would
15:48you how what would be your response to
15:50the argument that it's actually
15:52limitations and and and weakness that
15:55drive Russian policy and not restrain.
16:00I, you know, I tend to assume that
16:02people are not quite so stupid and I
16:07think that they know perfectly well that
16:09this is not true.
16:11But you know, if if Russia has the
16:15overwhelming advantage over Ukraine, if
16:18Ukraine is being defeated, if Russia is
16:21winning, then you're not going to talk
16:24very many people into
16:27uh taking up where Ukraine left off.
16:30You're not going to get very many um
16:34mercenaries to sign up to go and fight.
16:37So, you have to create this impression
16:39that now is the moment where we can turn
16:42this around. We can defeat Russia. So,
16:44come on everybody. 2,000 bucks a month.
16:47Uh, you get to be the hero. Go sign up,
16:50become a volunteer, a mercenary, and uh
16:54you're going to have have a, you know, a
16:57great experience of defeating an enemy,
17:00being on the winning side, and so forth.
17:02And there's also another another aspect
17:04to it, you know, much much uglier and s
17:06more cynical, but um you know, many
17:10countries in the west uh bought a great
17:13deal of Ukrainian bonds [snorts] and
17:17those bonds are not going to be very
17:19worth very much if Ukraine loses the
17:22war. and so uh you know by talking up uh
17:26Ukraine's prospects you're also trying
17:29to boost the price of uh their bonds
17:32because I think the current bond bond
17:34holders would probably very much like to
17:37get rid of those bonds because they're
17:39they're going to be worth zero and so I
17:42think this is also a motivation why they
17:45continue in spite of all evidence
17:49uh in front of their eyes they continue
17:52to
17:54desperately
17:55connect very unlikely dots and
17:57assumptions and daydreaming and wishful
17:59thinking into, oh, you know, Ukraine
18:03turned this around and now they're on
18:05the winning side and they're going to be
18:06at the gates of Moscow any day now.
18:09So, I I can't believe that they're that
18:13stupid. So, I have to assume that they
18:14know that they're lying.
18:17uh and and you know there are good
18:19reasons why they would be lying but you
18:22know we have to also uh take these lies
18:26uh with a critical mind and we have to
18:29understand that they're lying for a
18:30reason and you know the reason is that
18:32you know they would like maybe they
18:35would like for me to sacrifice my sons
18:37send them to war against Russia and they
18:39would like other parents across the
18:41world to do the same and they would like
18:43us all to give up our money our pensions
18:45our everything to pay for this war
18:48because there it's just about done. It's
18:51almost over. Uh Russia is finished. So,
18:55uh let's all go fight that war. And I I
18:57I think that's a fantasy.
19:00>> Absolutely. At what point do you think
19:02Russia's political leadership could
19:04conclude that restraint is no longer
19:07sustainable? Because, you know, we're
19:09talking about military response, but
19:11military response is of course driven by
19:13a political decision. So, we're going to
19:15need a political decision in the Kremlin
19:17to say, okay, since our restraint is
19:20viewed and perceived as weakness, since
19:22our red lines are being constantly
19:24crossed by the West, we are no longer um
19:29regarding ourselves to be, you know, to
19:31be uh in this position that we need to
19:33restrain oursel consistently. Do you
19:35think we've reached that point or is it
19:37still sort of ahead?
19:41No, I think we're past that point, Lena.
19:43But I think, you know, there's there's
19:45two aspects to this. Uh, one is the
19:47military uh military response, which
19:52would be warranted. You know, Russia
19:53would be justified in taking a very very
19:56tough uh stance militarily and to
19:59respond to all these provocations. But I
20:02think that the Russian leadership is
20:03very wise in that they understand that
20:06by responding to the provocations
20:09that they would actually give a lease of
20:11life to uh the degenerate European
20:15leadership who can only stay in power
20:18for much longer if they could somehow
20:20orchestrate a war against Russia. So
20:24military response would be um
20:27a retaliation would be militarily
20:30justified but strategically it would
20:32complicate things to to the to the point
20:36where you could no longer predict an
20:37outcome because right now you know you
20:39can predict that all these ruling
20:41parties like like um SEU and in in
20:45Germany, Chancellor Meritz, Emanuel
20:48Macron uh the the Labor Party in the UK
20:52They're all on a on a on a sharp
20:54decline. They're deeply deeply unpopular
20:56with their pe with their with their
20:58populations.
20:59Now if you I if you pushed yourself
21:04into their desired role of external
21:07enemy and you gave credence to their
21:12narrative that you are the external
21:14enemy, you would give them a lease of
21:16life and then
21:20I think almost inevitably we would get
21:22the World War II scenario uh which would
21:25be similar to World War I and World War
21:27II on the European an continent. It
21:30would be again United Europe against
21:32Russia. And then, you know, the war
21:35drums would get so overwhelmingly loud
21:38that you could no longer
21:41you could no longer present a dissent
21:44dissenting view because now they would
21:46say like, "Aha, you are a you are a
21:50Putin puppet. Uh you are not
21:52sufficiently patriotic. Are you a
21:54traitor?" And you know that that then
21:56creates this like mass formation
21:58psychosis as as Matias Desmond uh
22:03conveys which would make it impossible
22:06uh for disscent to really play an
22:09important role and it would make it easy
22:12for the ruling establishment to deal
22:14with any opposition in a very cruel very
22:17very efficient way. And then you create,
22:21you know, a totalitarian mindset that is
22:23only driven towards war. And, you know,
22:26ordinary people would have difficulty
22:28resisting this.
22:30So, I think that the Russians do do not
22:33want this to suddenly coales. They don't
22:37want the European people to rally around
22:39the flag and, you know, close ranks with
22:42their deeply unpopular leaders. They
22:45want the they want the whole thing to
22:48dissipate.
22:49>> And I think that they will persevere in
22:51this. And I think that the tough
22:54military response will continue to to be
22:57uh aimed
22:59um primarily or maybe exclusively at
23:02Ukraine. And we have seen that the
23:05rhetoric in Russia has changed. You
23:06know, up until now they've been talking
23:08about the Donbas. Well, now they're
23:11talking about Novarosia.
23:13>> Mhm. And what does that mean exactly?
23:16But I think that it means probably the
23:19Keronoblast
23:22Petro blast
23:24uh Odessa. It probably uh includes Kiev.
23:30So it could be everything east of Neper.
23:36And uh I think that that's coming now.
23:39And I think that there's very close to
23:42nothing that the Europeans can do about
23:44it other than continue putting annoying
23:47scratches on Russia with these drone
23:50strikes that, you know, cause damage
23:54um a little bit of casualties as well.
23:57But you know, Russians are not afraid of
24:00that.
24:01>> Russians don't freak out because a few
24:03people died. Russia has sustained
24:0860 million casualties in World War II.
24:12They understand an existential fight.
24:15They won't uh abandon their leadership
24:18because somebody in their town got
24:21killed by a Ukrainian drone. It will
24:24only stiffen their resolve.
24:27So I I'm afraid that these outcomes are
24:29uh irreversible
24:31and uh from from a strictly
24:35historical point of view,
24:39I think that everybody in the west
24:40should breathe easy about this because
24:42this is ultimately the defeat of the
24:44epstein class [snorts] which has been
24:47equally
24:49equally demonic on the foreign front uh
24:54fighting these wars against Russia,
24:55against the Middle East and so forth for
24:57forth as they have been towards their
25:00own populations.
25:02So, you know, uh the sooner they end up
25:05in the dust bin of history, the better.
25:08Looking at the news and reading the news
25:10this morning, I came across a uh report
25:13about a Ukrainian drone attacking a
25:17densely populated market area. And if
25:20anyone has been to Ukraine or to Russia
25:22or to Eastern Europe and many Middle
25:25Eastern countries, they know what an
25:27outdoor market looks like. It's just
25:29kind of elbowto elbow people. Like it's
25:31just a crowd of people, their uh
25:33vendors, their little shops. So it's
25:35very very populated. And so Ukraine
25:37attacked this um outdoor market on a
25:40Friday morning in the city of Takmach.
25:43And you know what? Takmach happens to be
25:46actually not in, you know, what you
25:47would consider Russia. It's actually in
25:49Zaporosia. It's it's that Ukrainian
25:52territory that Zalinski claims
25:56Ukraine must return. So then the
25:58question is why you know if if you feel
26:01that you're fighting you're sending
26:04thousands of Ukrainian men to fight in
26:06this war to defend this territory while
26:09you're attacking the civilian population
26:11on this territory. Then of course we
26:12have there should be many many questions
26:14about the true intentions and whose
26:16interests are are being defended and uh
26:19promoted by uh Zalinsk's regime. And so
26:23that kind of goes to, you know, u to
26:26show that what you just said is it plays
26:29out on a daily basis in Ukraine when we
26:32see the landscape regime actually um you
26:35know carrying out carrying water um you
26:38know for western actors while
26:41deliberately and systematically um
26:43hurting and abusing the population of
26:46Ukraine who it claims to defend.
26:50>> Yes. Uh there's something very strange
26:53going on in Ukraine. I I I'm not sure
26:56what it is, but it seems to me that uh
26:59Zalinsk's government and whoever are his
27:02handlers. And I I'm pretty sure that we
27:06know that his handlers are in the city
27:09of London, that it's the MI6 and the
27:11British foreign establishment.
27:14Um and and this is not, you know, this
27:16is this is not just uh
27:20a guess out of the blue. Uh when when
27:22Zalinski became president, he went to
27:26London and he spent two hours in a
27:29meeting with Sir Richard Moore who was
27:31the head of the MI6 at that time, which
27:34was extremely bizarre because he became
27:36a president of a country. So he would be
27:38meeting with the prime minister of that
27:40country as his equivalent or and or with
27:44the king not with the head of the uh uh
27:49Britain's foreign intelligence agency
27:51but that happened [clears throat] and we
27:52know that they are they have been very
27:55close in touch and closely coordinated
27:57this war and uh you know one of the one
28:01of the big big projects that the the
28:03British foreign establishment and their
28:06intelligence agencies have been
28:07supporting ing is the Zionist project.
28:10And there have been now many reports
28:12with with video with with you know
28:17very credible footage of uh of them
28:20creating
28:22um
28:23new uh Jewish only
28:28villages and regions inside of Ukraine
28:32that are walled off. Well, you know,
28:36they have they're fenced off where
28:38ordinary Ukrainians are not allowed to
28:40go
28:41>> and they have Jewishonly police force
28:44protecting those areas.
28:46And so that's extremely bizarre. And I,
28:50you know, I would I would be curious to
28:52know if this isn't part of of that, you
28:55know, that they are maybe they decided
28:57to clear out Tokmak
29:01>> Mhm. [clears throat] of Ukrainian people
29:03in order to create new, you know, um,
29:08new ghettos.
29:10>> Yeah, it could be. Um, in your article,
29:13one of the things that stood out to me
29:15is your quote of Mark Twain's warning
29:18that wars begin with lies. And before
29:21going and discussing um sort of the the
29:24financial aspect of wars and bankers
29:27wars, um, I'd like to quickly focus on
29:30this. So on in your article you write
29:32and I will just quote for our viewers.
29:35You write the loud little handful in our
29:37midst will be shouting for war until
29:40they manage to generate the mass
29:42formation site causes that would make
29:44the war not only possible but probably
29:47inevitable and Europe would fully share
29:50Ukraine's tragic fate. So you describe
29:53what you call a psychological phase
29:54transition when societies believe that
29:56war is impossible until all of a sudden
30:00it becomes inevitable. So are we
30:02witnessing this psychological transition
30:05across Europe already? And and what
30:07shapes and forms is it taking at this
30:10time?
30:11>> Uh no no we are not in that and we're
30:14not anywhere near that. You know, I have
30:16I have lived through that face
30:18transition and it was it was a bit of a
30:21culture shock because when the war uh
30:25broke up broke out in former Yugoslavia
30:28in 1991, I was 21 years old and I
30:32remember that literally days before the
30:34war broke out, I mean maybe a day or two
30:38or three before the war broke out, the
30:42the talk on the street was it's
30:44unthinkable. It's impossible. Who would
30:47possibly want to fight a war? Um, you
30:50know, so the constituent peoples of
30:53former Yugoslavia, the Slovenians,
30:55Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Montenegrans,
30:59um, Macedonians,
31:01um, we we we share our cultures overlap
31:06a great deal. You know, her Croats and
31:10Serbs speak the same language. You know,
31:13Serbian and Croatian are about as
31:15different as English in England and
31:17English in the United States, right? We
31:19understand each other perfectly. Uh so
31:22we have very similar roots. Maybe we
31:24have the same roots. Uh
31:27we were intertwined economically,
31:28culturally,
31:30um even even as families, you know, my
31:34my mother is Serbian, my father is
31:35Croatian, and this was per perfectly
31:37normal. Most people didn't know who was
31:40Serbian, who was Croatian. you know, it
31:43was just normal people. And so to think
31:46that these people who are who consider
31:49themselves part of the same national
31:51body basically
31:54uh would now turn against each other and
31:57go to war was was just it it seemed
31:59surreal. And so nobody believed it. And
32:02then you know when when the missiles
32:06start started flying when uh there were
32:10casualties when the news cycle started
32:13showing us the pictures and telling us
32:16there have been so many killed here and
32:18so many killed there and women and
32:20children and so on that face transition
32:23took place almost immediately. It was
32:26almost from one day to the next. And so
32:30before the war, you could have a nuance
32:33discussion about all kinds of things.
32:35And you could say, well, you know, uh,
32:38the Serbs, they have a point about this.
32:40And the Serbs could say, well, you know,
32:41the Croats, they have, you know, they
32:43have a legitimate concern about that.
32:48And, uh,
32:50life life seemed ordinary. And then from
32:53one day to the next, it all flipped.
32:57And now you know
33:00patriotism became the the the top uh
33:06value in society. Readiness to fight and
33:09die, readiness to inflict violence
33:12uh became
33:14uh how do you call it? Well, I I guess
33:17fashionable.
33:19>> Um having a nuance discussion became
33:21very suspect. You know, are you now are
33:23you now not patriotic? Do you not love
33:25your country? Are you are you
33:28sympathizer of the other side? Are you
33:30an enemy sympathizer?
33:33Uh so the the voices of disscent went
33:36silent
33:37and so you you had the polarization to
33:41black and white happen almost instantly
33:44and that you know that is an
33:46unmistakable effect. So if that were if
33:50that were the case in Europe, we would
33:52know. But it's not. You know, we we can
33:55still have nuance discussions. I can I
33:57can say things I I I think and nobody's
34:01going to come bang on my door and and
34:03drag me away in the middle of the night.
34:06But that could happen again. You know,
34:09if Russia decided to retaliate and drop
34:11a drop a missile in Germany or in in in
34:15the UK or in France, Poland somewhere,
34:18then that effect could uh could happen
34:21and then we're in a totally war game.
34:23And and at that point, I I genuinely do
34:26believe that the war becomes very
34:28probable, if not inevitable.
34:31Alex, I think your personal experience
34:33during the breakup of Yugoslavia is one
34:36of the most powerful aspects of this
34:38conversation. What parallels
34:41might one draw um between
34:45the war in Yugoslavia and also the war
34:47in Ukraine, which you know is almost 30
34:50years later.
34:54In some ways it's part of the same
34:58conflict
35:00because you know as as many people like
35:02George Soros and Claus Shrob and others
35:04like to remind us this is a conflict
35:06between systems
35:08uh between systems of governance and I
35:11think that Yugoslavia was uh you know
35:13Yugoslavia being uh in the Balkans
35:18uh made up of
35:21different constituent people but
35:24primarily you know Croats who are
35:26Catholic, Serbs who are Orthodox and
35:30Muslims who are Muslim right uh this is
35:33a very fertile ground for divide and
35:35rule. This is a very um
35:39easy place to provoke
35:43uh conflict and instigate wars. And we
35:47know that uh the British foreign foreign
35:50policy establishment
35:52uh have been trying to rig uh
35:56particularly Bosnia which is like in in
35:58the in the center of former Yugoslavia
36:00and it is constituted by Croat Serbs and
36:05Bosnjaks in the same in the same entity
36:08uh that they've been already kind of
36:10laying the groundwork for uh for uh
36:13instigating this war. And the reason is
36:16because well also let's remember that
36:19World War I was triggered in Sarvo the
36:23capital of Bosnian Herzgoina because
36:25that's when um a Serbian nationalist
36:29Gabriel Princip who was you know they
36:31were maneuvered by
36:35ultimately by the British foreign
36:36establishment but you know they worked
36:38through Serbian secret service kind of
36:41deep state uh to assassinate the
36:44Austrian and ars to France Ferdinand and
36:47then you know World War I breaks out.
36:51So uh this is a good uh fertile ground
36:54for triggering another world war
36:57particularly because um if a conflict
37:00between Serbs, Croats and Muslims
37:03erupted in Bosnia and Herzikovina
37:06almost [clears throat] inevitably Serbia
37:07would be drawn in and then almost
37:10inevitably Croatia would be drawn in.
37:14And if Croatia gets drawn in, Croatia is
37:17a NATO member country.
37:19>> So then that could be the, you know, um,
37:24a pretext to activate article 5 of of
37:26the NATO treaty and then you'd have a
37:29united potentially a united NATO
37:32response against Serbia, you know, to go
37:35and pacify Bosnia and Herziggoina. Now,
37:38if if if Serbia and the Serbs in Bosnia
37:41were confronted with NATO, Russia
37:44couldn't stay out. So, this was the
37:47scenario the scenario that they're
37:49trying to create is a way to draw Russia
37:52into a second front of this conflict.
37:56So, the Balkans might become the second
37:58front of the Western uh war against
38:02Russia. And um the there's a there's a
38:06there's a very prominent British think
38:09tank called Russi
38:11uh which stands for Royal United
38:14Services Institute
38:18uh who who even a few years ago
38:21published I think about two years ago
38:23published a paper saying that Bosnian
38:26Herzgoina would inevitably be the second
38:29front of West's war against Russia. So
38:32they were planning this and um these
38:36plans uh have all been disrupted with by
38:39the election of Donald Trump
38:42and I I've spoken with with official of
38:45the Serbian entity in Bosnia with the
38:48government member members of the of the
38:49of their government who told me that
38:52since Donald Trump had been elected that
38:54the the situation has calmed completely.
38:57It it's they said it's like on a
38:58different planet and the and the British
39:01are are very very annoyed about this but
39:03they will not give up you know they
39:05maybe they will wait out Trump they will
39:07never give up so that that danger is
39:10still there it's very much present but
39:13the you know the the the part of all
39:16this that I like to stress is that the
39:19war is actually for for our minds
39:22because you have I think that the whole
39:25European continent the whole let's let's
39:28call it the United West
39:30is
39:32um kind of balancing on a on the edge of
39:37internal conflict versus external
39:39conflict. So
39:43if people perceive the real enemy to be
39:46their own ruling establishments,
39:48they might turn against the ruling
39:50establishment. They might uh uh they
39:53might cause social uprisings uh
39:55revolutions, civil wars, who knows?
39:59And so there's this
40:04battle for the mind of the ordinary
40:05European person. So that instead of
40:08perceiving their own ruling
40:10establishment as the enemy, they want to
40:13turn their attention towards Russia as
40:15the external enemy. So the internal
40:18conflicts might be completely sapped if
40:22you can turn public anger towards the
40:24foreign enemy. And so I think that this
40:27is now uh actually kind of on a on a on
40:31a balancing point which way it's going
40:33to turn over. And so the you know the
40:36the ruling establishments and the
40:38corporate media, they're all trying to
40:41provoke Russia and tell us like look,
40:44Russia is the enemy. we have to go to
40:46war against Russia for sure. Uh whereas
40:50you know independent thinkers,
40:54social media platforms, the blogosphere,
40:57the the the podcast, they're all focused
41:00on the internal enemy. So it's it's
41:03literally a battle for the mind of the
41:05people. And I think it's highly
41:09uncertain, but that's a good thing
41:12because there was a time when we
41:13literally depended on newspapers and
41:16radio and televisions to tell us what's
41:19going on in the world. And then they
41:21would tell us, "Oh, the evil Germans are
41:24uh bayonating babies uh in Belgium and
41:30they're raping women and and chopping
41:32them up." And you know, like all these
41:33things that were completely untrue, but
41:37people had no no way to verify it and
41:39they assumed that the newspapers were
41:41telling them the truth. So you could
41:43create this psychosis to say like,
41:44"Okay, we we have to go to war. We have
41:46to confront this evil uh from Germany."
41:49And then you got the whole World War II
41:51with with its 20 million casualties.
41:54Uh today the the the social equation has
41:58changed radically because we can have
42:00these conversations and people can see
42:03them and hear them and consider
42:04different sources of information and so
42:06they're not so sure. So if they tell him
42:08Vladimir Putin he's evil, he's the new
42:10Hitler, people think like
42:13doesn't quite seem that way, you know,
42:16uh
42:17maybe he's authoritarian, maybe he's
42:20aggressive, maybe he's really terrible
42:22to his people, maybe the war in Ukraine
42:25is unjustified,
42:27but I don't see him invading Europe.
42:30Besides, where did he say that he wants
42:32to do any such thing? You know, he
42:34didn't. And you can see many of his
42:36speeches and many of his statements in
42:39first person
42:41>> and [clears throat] you listen and it's
42:42like well the the man actually sounds
42:44very reasonable and very rational
42:47and look he's not responding to
42:49provocation. He's very restrained.
42:52So
42:54the you know the inclination to look at
42:56Russia as the as the barbarians at the
42:59gate that we have to unite against is
43:02not happening.
43:04So in that sense I'm saying uncertainty
43:07is a good thing because maybe before the
43:09internet before the social media there
43:11wouldn't be such uncertainty. The you
43:13know the the war drums would just be
43:15growing louder and louder and louder.
43:17Descent would be overwhelmed and
43:19swallowed up and um we'd probably end up
43:22in World War II for sure.
43:25Um, I've noticed that one of the key
43:27themes in your work is uh you drawing uh
43:30a connection between the IMF,
43:33international finance and the decision
43:35to launch military operations. Um, Alex,
43:38talk to us about how the first u I guess
43:41civil war in the Donbos in 2014 and then
43:45the broader war in Ukraine are indeed
43:47bankers wars.
43:51>> Uh, okay. Yeah. So, uh, I've been I've
43:55been working on a book about, uh,
43:58Ukraine, about, you know, from
44:01a bit in a historical context, but
44:03particularly the coup in February of
44:062014,
44:08and then the ATO, the anti-terrorist
44:10operations, and then, you know, the
44:14militarization and nuttification of
44:16Ukraine in preparation for war against
44:18Russia and, Uh
44:23so there was a coup in February of 2020
44:26uh 2014
44:28and uh when the new government came into
44:31power uh you know the new huna they were
44:35quite content to be ruling in in uh in
44:39Kiev consolidating their power but the
44:44the people in the south and in the east
44:47of Ukraine uh mostly Russian [snorts]
44:50Russian speaking people, they rebelled
44:52because they they they
44:55the president uh Victor Yak Yanukovich
44:59who was overthrown uh during the coup,
45:03he was overwhelmingly supported by uh
45:06the south and the east of Ukraine,
45:08particularly Dombas, right? Uh he he got
45:11something like 90% of the vote in the in
45:14the last elections between before 2014.
45:17So they didn't accept that he was just
45:20overthrown by force and then a
45:22completely new government handpicked by
45:25uh you know
45:27west by by western um uh officials was
45:32suddenly ruling over them. So they said
45:34no we don't recognize this we will not
45:35accept it. And so uh Ukraine was
45:38starting to lose control over the south
45:41and the east uh and you know the donas
45:44and so um
45:47the the new government needed a lot of
45:49money. I mean even Yanukovich needed a
45:52lot of money. So they were constantly in
45:54these negotiations with the IMF and the
45:57IMF was always nickel and dimming. Then
45:59they were like, "Okay, well, we can give
46:00you maybe uh $2 billion, but there's all
46:04these and then they would like we know
46:06from from Nikolai Azarov, who was the
46:09prime minister under
46:10>> that the the that the conditions that
46:13they were imposing on Ukraine to to
46:16obtain IMF loans were extremely harsh to
46:20the point where they simply couldn't
46:23they simply couldn't take those loans
46:25because they could not uh satisfy their
46:28conditions.
46:29And uh at the same time, you know,
46:31Russia was being much more generous.
46:34Just before the coup, Vladimir Putin
46:36offered $15 billion loan with virtually
46:40no strings attached.
46:42And uh anyway, after the coup, suddenly
46:46the IMF becomes much more generous, much
46:49more freegiving. But the condition was
46:52you have to consolidate control over the
46:55Dombas and the South.
46:58So, um, the Honta wasn't quite
47:03they they were not quite ready for war
47:06and the, uh, Ukrainian armed forces were
47:10not ready for war, particularly not
47:12against their own people. So they would
47:14send military units when the when the
47:16ATO started, which was in April of 2020
47:192014,
47:21and then the soldiers wouldn't obey
47:23their orders because if they told them
47:25that you have to shoot at your own
47:26people, they would they just wouldn't.
47:30And so, uh, the IMF basically told the
47:33new government, uh, look, uh, either you
47:37crack down on these, uh, rebels and take
47:42control of the Donbas by force or we
47:45don't give you any loans. And so that's
47:48how that's the reason why uh, the new
47:51government, the Huta in Kiev, launched
47:54the ATO, the anti-terror operations. And
47:57um let's say that the that the the
48:00actual military action which which
48:04turned into a civil war was largely
48:07directed by western officials because
48:10suddenly
48:11in in the in the in the run-up to the
48:15anti-terror operation uh you had all
48:17these all these western officials who
48:19kept coming and going like uh Carl Built
48:22made seven trips to Kiev. uh John
48:25Brandon practically set up an a CIA
48:27office in Kiev and he was there all the
48:29time. In fact, he was the one who was uh
48:32who gave the green light for for the
48:34start of the anti-terror operation. Um
48:37John McCain was going there. Um Joe
48:41Biden was going there on a regular
48:43basis. Victoria Nuland. Yeah. So it was
48:48and and Yeah. And so now why why did the
48:51IMF insist on the DOMA? because okay the
48:54IMF is a let's say a cutout of a global
48:58banking cartel. So this is these are
49:00these are largely private interests that
49:03masquerade under behind uh an
49:06international aid organizations let's
49:09call it that uh basically because DOMAS
49:12was
49:14I think about 80 80% of the Ukraine's
49:17GDP with most of the most of Ukraine's
49:22uh coal uh most of Ukraine's um natural
49:26gas reserves and oil reserves
49:29um most of the steel production of
49:31Ukraine was in the Dombas. So they were
49:33they were literally about 80% of
49:35Ukraine's GDP which means also the the
49:38tax receipts and so forth. So Ukraine
49:41without the DMBAS was worth much less
49:43than Ukraine with Donbas. But you know
49:47uh the
49:49the selfish people of Dombas didn't want
49:51to share those resources with the with
49:53the western bankers. So it had to be
49:55taken by force and then you know we
49:58always have to keep in mind why these
50:00resources are so important because if
50:02you take control of those resources uh
50:04they become your collateral you know you
50:06can issue all kinds of loans against
50:08those resources and then when you issue
50:10those issue those loans those loans
50:12become assets on your balance sheet. So,
50:15if you're a banker, if you're one of the
50:17bankers behind the IMF, then you think,
50:20my gosh, you know, if we took control of
50:22all those coal reserves and g natural
50:24gas reserves and those steel plants and
50:26everything,
50:28you know, our balance sheets could grow
50:30by probably hundreds of billions of
50:32dollars. So, you know, that's what you
50:35want. If the Russians keep control of
50:36it, then it's zero. So uh that's why uh
50:41once they installed the the the honta
50:45first under under y areniatenuk and then
50:48after uh under poroshenko
50:51they they had them go to war against the
50:56Russian speaking people of the south and
50:58the east of Ukraine to crack down on
51:01their rebellion to force the new
51:03government on them and to take control
51:05of it by force. Absolutely
51:11tragic and um
51:12>> absolutely tragic. Yes,
51:14>> absolutely tragic. and and I appreciate
51:16you um I know it's a very complex
51:19subject uh and there's so many moving
51:21pieces and so many interests involved
51:23but I really do appreciate you walking
51:25us through the the key points that are
51:28very crucial to understanding not only
51:30what happened in 2014 but what has been
51:33going on in Ukraine this entire time and
51:35and why it's in this tragic and and
51:39devastating position that it is right
51:40now. Um, Alex, maybe we can close with a
51:44question u with a broader sort of um
51:47geopolitical question um concerning the
51:50United States and its position at this
51:54time toward the war in Russia. There are
51:56many conflicting narratives going
51:58around. US-Russian negotiations
52:01practically proved to be useless and and
52:04and of course Zilinski's regime is
52:06unwilling to compromise to preserve the
52:09lives of its of of the population and to
52:12really preserve the territory that it
52:14can still preserve. But from
52:17Washington's perspective,
52:19what is the strategic objective today?
52:21Is it containing Russia? Is it just
52:24weakening Russia, inflicting as much
52:27damage as possible? or is it something
52:29broader than that?
52:34>> That's a good question, Lena. I'm not
52:36100% sure because, you know, I was one
52:38of those people who was very hopeful
52:40that uh the second Trump administration
52:44would lead to a very radical course
52:48correction in in US foreign policy. Uh
52:53but it it seems that this wasn't
52:56sincere.
52:58And if because so what uh officials from
53:04Trump administration and Trump himself
53:06they were saying like okay post World
53:08War II global order is over. It's
53:10obsolete. It's it's it's a loser. Uh we
53:13have to embrace multipolar integrations.
53:16We have to become partners with people
53:17like the Russians and the Chinese and so
53:19forth. We have to deal with other
53:20countries in a respectful manner and so
53:22forth. And so uh I I I kind of believe
53:26that because there was there was some
53:30there were some credible policy moves in
53:32that direction and particularly when the
53:35US delegation came to Davos you know the
53:38the the globalist central and they uh
53:41they told them look it's over
53:43globalization is finished you lost let's
53:45let's build a different kind of world
53:46and then there was a trade
53:48representative Jameson Greer who made a
53:50whole presentation about the American
53:53system of political economy, mentioning
53:56people like Alexander Hamilton and
53:58Abraham Lincoln and Henry Kerry by name.
54:02And I thought, okay, well, they clearly
54:04put a lot of thought into this, so they
54:06must mean it. And Trump himself on a few
54:09occasions said when when he was asking
54:12for people to vote for him, he was
54:14saying, "Join me in the fight against
54:17the global financier class." Practically
54:19in those exact words. I thought he
54:22wouldn't be saying that if he didn't
54:23mean it, you know. But, you know, the
54:26the the whole this whole
54:30illusion
54:31fell apart uh on 28th February when he
54:34attacked Iran.
54:36>> Mhm.
54:36>> And the attack on Iran signals something
54:39else. Not an embrace of multipolar uh
54:42integrations,
54:43but a re-mbbrace of American hegemony.
54:48And so if that is the case, that means
54:52that their um
54:55their um outreach towards Russia may
55:00have been an insincere calculation
55:04uh maybe as an attempt to
55:08draw Russia away from its partnership
55:10with China, you know, to to pull Russia
55:14back into the western orbit.
55:17um
55:18and isolate China in this way and also
55:22uh to maybe
55:26persuade Russia not to interfere not to
55:29not to back Iran, you know, in the in
55:31the in in the upcoming struggle against
55:33Iran. They wanted to uh to kind of gain
55:37the goodwill of the Russians to say
55:39like, "Okay, uh it'll be between you and
55:42Iranians. We have nothing to do with
55:43that, so we will not support Iran." Mhm.
55:46>> Um, so I maybe maybe this is what was
55:49really going on. We might never know for
55:51sure, but
55:54it all definitely signals
55:57a maybe a bit more sly
56:00uh attempt to reassert hegemony. And you
56:06know, the Western Empire's hegemony has
56:09principally always meant hegemony over
56:12the Eurasian landmass.
56:15And so it seems to me that okay, United
56:19States is not a monolith. So there's
56:20there's people who want these things.
56:23There are people who want other things,
56:24you know, return to American um
56:27republican tradition,
56:29re-industrialization of United States,
56:32repair of uh the country's
56:34infrastructure, uh creation of good
56:37jobs, well-paying jobs and so forth. uh
56:41raising the interest uh the the
56:42standards of living for the American
56:44people. But there are those people who
56:46are primarily
56:48um close to uh Wall Street uh banking
56:52cartel to their largest client
56:55corporations
56:56who are definitely struggling to retain
56:59hegemony around the world to be to
57:01continue being a colonial power. And uh
57:05since since 28th February
57:09uh it seems to me that is the neoc
57:11colonialist faction which has now
57:14prevailed and secured the clutch of the
57:18actual policy
57:19which I think is going to ultimately
57:22prove unsuccessful.
57:24It's probably going to prove um
57:27self-defeating and damaging to the
57:29United States. But apparently that's
57:32what they're going with now, full force.
57:34>> Thank you so much for such a fascinating
57:36conversation. Really appreciate your
57:37insights and it's always great to get
57:39your thoughts and expertise and
57:41especially to discuss your excellent
57:43writing. We'll link your substack for
57:46our viewers to check it out and follow.
57:48Alex, thank you so much for joining.
57:51>> Thank you, Lena. All the best.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Alex Krainer: "This is World War 3 Scenario" - Europe Is ON THE BRINK of ALL-OUT WAR by World Affairs In Context, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,224 words across 1,275 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.