Exploring British-Russian Relations: Insights from Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos

Okay, we are live with Alexander Mercuris in London and we are joined today first time on the Duran. Very

happy to have with us Dr. Marcus Papadoplos uh Dr. Papadopoulos. Marcus, Marcus, how

are you doing today? Welcome to the Duran. It is a pleasure to have you with us on this uh live stream. And uh before

we get started, tell us about your your book and I also have a link to your ex account as well in the description box

down below where people can follow you. Well, first of all, I'd like to say how delighted I am to be joining both of you

today and how very much I'm looking forward to our discussion. Regarding my two books, the first one, Arise Rosia,

the return of Russia to world politics, was published in January of 2021. And essentially it is an appraisal of

contemporary Russian foreign policy. Though I do provide history to the Russian Empire or a brief history to the

Russian Empire to the Soviet Union making the argument that the Soviet Union did not collapse. Rather, the

Soviet Union was dissolved and dissolved by three treacherous Soviet politicians. Boris Yeltzen of the Russian Soviet

Federative Socialist uh Republic. Um and of course Kravchuk in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and Shushkavic

in the Bellarussian Soviet Socialist Republic. Uh secondly, my uh more recent book um White Hall in Stalin's Russia,

British Assessments of the Red Army, 1934 to 1945 was published in November of 2023.

And this book focuses on two points. Firstly, how British assessments of the prowess of the Soviet armed forces from

1934 to 1945 played a major role in British strategic planning in the aforementioned period and also how

ingrained Russophobia in Whiteall, principally amongst the military officers and intelligence officers,

resulted in not just underestimating Soviet military potential, but also it played a role, and I emphasize a role,

not the role, a role in undermining the Anglosviet treaty of May of 1942 and the Grand Alliance. So essentially I

argue that one of the main reasons as to why the grand alliance fell apart after the end of the second world war was on

account of russophobia in whiteall. And I should also say that it was myself who introduced the word russophobia

um to audiences in the west at the beginning of 2014 following the western orchestrated coup against the then

president of Ukraine Victor Yanukovic and I'm very happy now to see so many people um who are aware of russophobia

also in white hall in Stalin Russia I provide a very long history of russophobia in Britain from the 1500s

all the way up to 1945. Okay. Well, we'll be talking about some of these topics, no doubt, today because

certainly we will discuss Britain too. And I have a link to uh to those books in the description box down below and I

will add them as a pinned comment as well to Dr. Papadopolo's Amazon page uh when the live stream is over. So

definitely uh check out the uh the works from Dr. Papadopro. So uh before we get started, a quick hello to everyone that

is watching us on Odyssey, on Rockfin, on locals, the duran.locals.com, also on Rumble, and everybody on

YouTube. And a big shout out to our moderators on YouTube as well. Zariel and Peter, good to have you with us

moderating the YouTube chat. So, uh, Alexander Marcus, let's talk about what is happening in Russia. Indeed. Let us

let us do so. Now, I was in Russia about two weeks ago, though only for a very short time in St. Petersburg to be

precise, and I was meeting with I was attending a conference, a lawyers conference, not military people at all.

Can I just say they were all civilians. Uh many of them had had contacts with the West. Some of them had been involved

in law firms that had had Russian law firms that had had close contacts with the West. Some of them had worked in

Western law firms. Some of them had contacts with the Council of Europe, the organization

that um heads uh the that of which the European Court of Human Rights is a part. So you could argue a community of

Russian civilian people who have had the strongest possible interactions with the West. And as I've said in to various

people, if you wanted to find liberal views uh or pro-western views, you would perhaps have expected to find them

within this community. I didn't. Of course, I wasn't able to speak to everybody at that forum, but I found

nothing of that sort at all. What I found instead, and this takes us back to the things that Dr. Papadopoulos has

just been talking about, is a very strong sense of continuity between the conflict in Ukraine today and earlier

conflicts which uh Russia has been involved in. First and foremost obviously the second world war. Thirdly

uh secondly obviously conflicts that have existed between the west and Russia and especially between the west Russia

and Britain which is of course talked about theopoulos and mine adopted country. So I would like to disc so you

know no better person to discuss all of these things than with uh Marcus and Marcus let's first of all begin. I mean,

do you agree with me that the Russians do see continuities between the current conflict in Ukraine and the previous

conflicts of the Second World War and other periods in their history? Certainly, my impression was that they

seem to think that this was just another case of the West ganging up against them.

Well, I should first of all say that Anglo-Russian relations has long intrigued me, intrigued me, indeed

fascinated me. From the very time that diplomatic relations were established between Britain and Russia in the 1500s

to the present day, we see distinct um patterns. This very distinct patterns not just in the last 80 years and the

last hundreds of hundred of years 100 years but over many centuries. So essentially Britain and Russia whilst

they have been on the same side as each other for example in the first world war and in the second world war they have

never trusted each other indeed they have never liked each other and of course I am talking about the British

establishment and the Russian Soviet modern-day Russ uh Russian establishment so what we see happening today regarding

relations between London and Moscow is anything but unprecedented. Let me cite an example. The Crimean War

which ran from 1853 to 1856 for the first year of that war when Britain and Russia were fighting each

other directly not by proxy directly there were diplomatic relations between London and Moscow. That is something

most people are not aware of. If we fast forward to the present day. Yes, there is a very compelling argument to be made

that how Britain sees Russia indeed how Russia sees Britain is no different to how both sides saw each other during the

first world war and the second world war. Their mindsets are very different and many of their values are very

different. So no one should be surprised at what we are seeing today. If we go back to the Crimean war, the language

which was being used in the House of Commons about the Russian Empire at that time is very is very is not so different

to the language which is being used today by British officials regarding Russia visa v Ukraine. So clearly there

is a very distinct pattern at play and people need to understand that during the second world war it was a business

relationship. It was a business partnership and as my book White Hawin Stalin's Russia demonstrates by using

primary source evidence i.e. British government files. Both sides behind the scenes were at each other's throats. Not

so much British diplomats, but the military officers and the intelligence officers. The language, for example,

that military observers were using about the Russians when they were fighting together against Nazi Germany is quite

remarkable. But when you consider the reality that both sides over centuries have despised each other, it is no

surprise whatsoever. Is that why uh is that consistent with the kind of commentary that you see

today in so much of the British media describing the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine? I mean, it

is consistently denigrating and um I mean, it's it's awful. And I

mean I've seen some commentators for example one in the Daily Telegraph who I'm not going to name by the way um he

refers regularly to the Russian army as the Russian horde words language which would not be

acceptable used about any other army um in any other place. It wouldn't be used for example to describe any army in the

Middle East. This is uh this is something which reflects what has happened to Britain in

especially in the last 20 years. I am of English, German and Greek ancestry and I'm very proud of my English ancestry.

However, Britain in my opinion no longer exists. There is nothing remotely British about this island today and that

is another story. So what I am driving at is this. British media today

lacks journalists who have even the most fundamental knowledge and awareness

about Russian history, about Russian culture and about the Russian mindset. If you go to the archives during the

during the years of 1941 to 1945 and if you read the articles in the columns published for example in the times you

will see the difference. Not that I'm saying that journalists in Britain at that time were truly independent because

they weren't. But their written English was beautiful. their knowledge of Russia was vastly superior to the knowledge and

I use the word knowledge um in a very loose way of today's journalists in Britain. Suffice to say mainstream

journalists in Britain today and the columnists in Britain today are not true journalists. They're not true columnists

and they are anything but experts on Russia. They are simply propagandists. They are simply useful idiots and it is

dreadful to read what they are writing about the war in Ukraine. They are projecting Russia which is a military

and nuclear superpower as a backward primitive force. what they are not telling their readers, if we assume they

have that knowledge in the first place, that Russia, if need be, can call up 23 million soldiers, that Russia has all in

all um in service and in storage over 26,000 tanks. The Russian military industrial

complex ever since 1947 has been tasked with the responsibility of sustaining the Russian armed forces

in a war with America. So the Russians in Ukraine can lose a very large amount of hardware, let's say in a month.

Russian armaments factories, which are the size of towns in Britain, for example, can replenish the losses on the

front line in Ukraine in a very short period of time. My estimation is that the Russian high command is using

between 12 and 15% of the overall capacity of the Russian armed forces for war in Ukraine which is a very small

percentage. And yet look what the Russian armed forces have uh achieved so far. Over 20% of the lands which

comprise Ukraine have been captured. Vast losses have been inflicted on the Ukrainian armed forces in terms of

soldiers and hardware and also the Russian military-industrial complex and the Russian armed forces as a whole have

drained the stockpiles of major NATO countries including America. Indeed, only recently Trump acknowledged that in

certain departments, the American military is now lacking weapons because of the amount of American weapons which

were sent to the Ukrainian government and which have either been destroyed or captured by the Russians.

Indeed, and we've had a strategic defense review in Britain which describes the condition of our armed

forces and says exactly the same thing. It talks about in particular the condition of the army. It talks about

our shortage of tanks, the fact that we have no self-propelled howitzers left, the fact that we have severe ammunition

shortages. Um, it there are problems at every conceivable level, certainly of our ground forces. And it's quite

explicit that this is connected to the fact that we have been sending army our weapons in vast quantities to Ukraine.

But if I can just go back to that commentator who, as I said, used that particular word um to describe the

Russian military today. What I think I should mention about him is that like a lot of the military

commentators, the Russian related commentators in the Telegraph where he writes, he is a former British army

officer. And he seems to me to have exactly the same kind of outlook and perspective on Russia that you spoke

about British army officers and intelligence officers of the 1940s during the Second World War having about

Russia then. It rustophobia is a historic phenomenon in Whiteall and at Westminster

and no doubt whatsoever and it's being demonstrated uh today that russophobia is alive and

well in Britain. But I should point out that behind the scenes there are no doubt observers, officials

in Whiteall who have a very different opinion to the um British policy towards Russia. My book, what Stalin White

Hall's Russia demonstrated, highlighted a group of diplomats in the Northern Department at the time, the Northern

Department focused on Eastern Europe, which included the Soviet Union, who wanted a uh relate who wanted an

alliance between Britain and the Soviet Union from the mid1 1930s onwards to try and deter Nazi Germany from

expansionism. And I believe that in 30 or so years when the archives are opened up, we will see, assuming of course all

three of us are still alive and uh kicking, we will see these files demonstrate that there were conflicting

arguments in the foreign office regarding the policy towards Russia. So what we see on television, what we read

in the newspapers, what we hear on the radio is one thing, but there is a lot going on behind the scenes. It is the

same reason as to why I say there will not be a war between America and Russia and there will not be a war between

Britain and Russia because what we see happening on the surface is very different to what we see happening

behind the scenes. So if we take Britain and Russia, despite the immense animosity being expressed by both sides

publicly, they're still trading with each other. Britain is still purchasing Russian natural resources. And as I

said, the first year of the Crimean War, both sides had diplomatic relations with each other. And we should also be

thankful for this. There are people in Britain and in Russia from the political sector, from the military sector, from

the intelligence sector, people whose names you will never know, uh people who you will never see on television. And

their counterparts in Russia, both sides talk to each other every single day of the week. They are tasked with ensuring

that war does not break out between themselves. So whatever our criticisms are of for example British foreign

policy towards Russia, we should remember that there are people in Britain and in America who are heroes

who have been talking to each other especially since the end of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. And they these

channels of communication are fascinating. They talk to each other in various ways and they meet in various

places. So yes, things are very dangerous and there is always the potential for an accidental war between

the west and Russia. But aside from an accidental war, there will not be a war between both sides because a war between

both sides uh a conventional war between both sides would rapidly escalate into a nuclear war. That is why those channels

of communication exist between America and Russia. And that is why those channels of communication exist between

Britain and Russia. And once again, I am not talking about people in the House of Commons. I'm not talking about

columnists in the Telegraph or in the Times or their counterparts in Russia. No, these people you will not know.

Um, we do have a certain trai. I mean you said that we are uh we've been hostile and have disliked the Russians

in Britain since the 15th century and I think overall that is certainly true but there has always been a tradition

also in Britain of taking great interest and even liking for Russian things. I mean many people don't know the fact but

the first illusion to Russia was name made by none other than Shakespeare and it was a positive one. um he he refers

to Russia in one of his plays, The Winter's Tale, and he's heroine in that play is actually Russian. Again, it's a

fact which hardly anybody realizes. And as I said, she is a very very sympathetic person. And we've had other

periods of time in British history where we've had um intellectuals in particular taking an interest in Russia. there was

the so-called Russian phase just before and during the first world war when there was a lot big enough interest in

Russian literature for example so there is that tradition but it never seems to have any effect on policy it doesn't

seem to work through to the politicians and why is that it certainly is the case that uh from

the 1500s onwards when rel diplomatic relations were established between Britain and Russia um amongst some

officials and in particular amongst uh members of the British public there was a interest in Russian culture and for

example during the great war during the first world war one British diplomat um wrote in a minute a file which I came

across at the national archives in Q uh he lamented how he wished the uh interest that how there would be more

cultural interest in Britain uh visa v Russia because he said if there was more cultural awareness and interest of

Russia in Britain this would help political relations between the two countries and he was absolutely correct.

The problem is is quite straightforward. um Britain and Russia be it the British Empire, the Russian Empire, uh British

Empire, then the Soviet Union, uh modernday Britain and modernday Russian Federation are rivals. So even when

there was interest in Russian culture in Britain, that was always surpassed by the fact that both countries were bitter

rivals for each other, especially from 1870 onwards when the Russian Empire expanded

um all the way through Central Asia to the border with British India. It was really from that period onwards from

1870 onwards when the Russian Empire was on the border with British uh India when Russophobia took on a whole new

dimension in Britain. So whilst it is sad that two European countries, two Christian countries bitterly dislike

each other, we have to acknowledge that both are rivals with one another. And it should also be known that whilst there

is clear animosity, historic animosity in Britain towards Russia, there is also historic animosity in Russia towards

Britain. I am again talking at a political level. I'm not talking about the average person in Britain and the

average person in Russia. But that it is it's simply an irrefutable fact that Britain and Russia have always been

rivals with each other. Indeed, they have sometimes been enemies and they always will be. The most important thing

for me is that the channels of communication which exist behind the scenes between Britain and Russia remain

intact. If once the war in Ukraine ends, and it will end sooner rather than later, which I have said from day one

will result in Russia either capturing all or most of Ukraine. At some point after that, tension between London and

Moscow will start to decline. And I sincerely hope that relations can somewhat improve because they did

improve after the Crimean War. and they did improve at certain stages during the cold war. But the reality is that

Britain and Russia have never liked each other and they never will like one another. I have to say when I was in

Russia and when I have been to Russia before, my my major impression there is not so much of dislike of Britain as

complete bafflement. I mean they just don't understand why we have this attitude towards them. I mean I can

accept that you know during the time of the second world war and before when Britain was a great power it was taken

very seriously in Russia and was seen as a major adversary and rival and I think I'm right in saying that Stalin himself

for example was always deeply suspicious of the British even though he did develop a relationship with Churchill

but today the Russians do not think of us as a great power in that sense and they do ask and had this question put to

me many times. Why exactly there therefore have you got this big issue with us? It's not as if we're really

coming for you. I mean, this isn't about you at all, but why do you constantly pick battles with us? And I've heard

this from many people at many different levels of Russian society for you know people that you meet in cafes and other

places right up to uh people who are much closer if you like to the political system.

Stalin had a um pathological distrust and uh dislike of the British ruling elites. Not the British people, the

British ruling elite. Stalin's premise when dealing with the British, even during the Second World War was when the

British say one thing, think the other. Because if they say black, they actually mean white. Now turning to the present

day, on the face of it, Britain does not come across as having a tremendous amount of influence and power in the

world. But the reality and it's a reality that the Russians behind the scenes know is that Britain has an

enormous amount of influence and power in the world. So I have noticed in recent years that Kremlin officials are

referring to the Anglo-Saxon world to the Anglo-Saxon powers. Now they don't mean that in a derogatory ways because

as I said earlier I am part of English ancestry and I'm very proud to be uh part Anglo-Saxon. But what the Russians

are driving at, and I have mentioned this for nearly 20 years now on television and in my books, that when we

talk about the Anglo-Saxon world, we are talking about one world. We are talking about Britain, America, s um uh Canada,

Australia and New Zealand because the political ruling elites in America in Canada in Australia and New Zealand are

overwhelmingly of um Anglo-Saxon

heritage or Angloeltic heritage. So for example, ScotsIrish heritage and of course 80% of the

Australian population and a similar percentage of the New Zealand population is of Anglo-Saxon or Angloeltic

ancestry. So the Anglo-Saxon world which I believe Britain and America are at the heart of for example the city of

Westminster has immense power and influence in the world. So yes, some Russians will say, well, look at the

size of the British armed forces. Yes, they are right. But I would argue that there is a very sinister, very

malevolent transition going on in Britain and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world and the rest of the Western world

at present. But that is another subject. That's another subject for another time. But the the reality is that the heart of

the global banking system, the heart of the global financial system is in Britain. It is in London. It is in the

city of Westminster. So why whilst, as I said, on the face of it, Britain doesn't appear to have much

power, the British ruling elite most certainly do. And I just want to make it clear, I'm not talking about the likes

of Star or Johnson or Sunnak. These are puppets. These are useful idiots. I'm talking about the heart of the British

ruling elite. And the heart of the British ruling elite is the monarchy followed by the aristocracy followed by

the banking elites, the financial elites, the military chiefs and the intelligence chiefs. So when I say on

television the British establishment, the British ruling elite, I'm not talking about the useful idiots such as

Starmmer or David Lami. I mean Star and Lambie's knowledge of international affairs is almost exclusively, let me

repeat that is exclusively confined to Wikipedia. They just do what they're told. The person running the foreign

office is not David Lambie. Indeed, it wasn't run by his predecessors. It is the permanent under secretary of the

foreign office. And the permanent under secretaries are drawn from the heart of the British ruling elite such as the

aristocracy. So Britain and the whole of the Anglo-Saxon world has immense power. But

there are very serious challenges now to the ruling power in the Anglo-Saxon world because of course we have Trump in

the White House. And I'm not going to unsay one word of criticism I have made about Trump over the years. But I am

glad he won the election because he is anti-woke. He is anti-mass immigration. He defends

the spiritual and cultural values of the western nations be it Americans be it Greeks be it Britons etc. He is talking

to the Iranian government. He is talking to the Russian government. Something is better than nothing. The problem facing

Trump and his administration is that they are not fully in control of America. The deep state remains

entrenched in power. So the war against the deep state in America will will go on for many many years. So Trump and his

administration needs to establish a foundation upon which their successors can continue the war against the deep

state in the hope that one day America can be cleansed. I mean why does it never get discussed

in Britain to any uh real extent that in fact far from um having Russia as an enemy today it would make far better

sense for us to actually have Russia as a friend. I mean the one me person I know who is quite prominent in British

politics who does talk about this sometimes is Dominick Cummings by the way though obviously he talks about this

less but specifically I mean we as you rightly say are a country that is based on finance and services and that sort of

thing. They are huge in natural resources in industry. He talked about the scale of the industrial system that

exists there and surely we are complimentary economies. I whatever we were in the 19th century we are very

different today. So would it not make much better sense for us rather than looking all the time to pitch uh

quarrels with them to actually try and find ways forward together with them in a way that would actually work to our

benefit. I just give one example. When the Russian companies were doing big IPAs in London, which they were, that

actually was very very useful and good for the British uh stock market. Ever since that stopped, it's been sagging.

It's been going downhill. And uh you can find that right across the entire financial uh services industry that the

loss of the business with Russia has been a significant blow. The British ruling elite or the British

establishment or indeed the British deep state does not wish to share power in the world with Russia. Firstly, there is

the historic uh mistrust, suspicion and loathing of Russia at the heart of the British

establishment. That is not going to change. Secondly, and this is now a new or a relatively new development, as I

said moments ago, Britain and the rest of the Western world is being attacked. The cultural and spiritual values of the

ancient western nations is under siege. There are malevolent forces in the western world which are seeking to erode

our cultural and spiritual values. So the British establishment also looks at Russia not just as a historic adversary

but as someone as a country who defends religion, who defends culture, who defends traditional family values and of

course woke ideology which is a one of the weapons of the western ruling elites or the globalists.

They wish to spread this foul ideology to the whole world. The only country that can truly stand in the way of that

and in and can actually roll it back is Russia because Russia is a superpower. So therein lies a reason as to why the

British establishment do not wish to take advantage of as you rightly said Alex the rich economic potential which

exists between the two sides. It's because for the British establishment they do not wish to feed the Russian

economy with more money because Russia stands in its way. But as I said earlier, both sides are still trading

with each other. And this is quite remarkable. They still have diplomatic relations with each other and yet

they're fighting a proxy war with each other. They're still trading a war with each other. But as I have, you know,

previously said and I can only reiterate, the first year of the Crimean War, Britain and Russia, they're

fighting against each other. British soldiers and Russian soldiers are fighting and killing each other in the

Crimea. And both countries have embassies in each other's capitals. It's politics is a strange business and in my

opinion it is the most peculiar of all businesses. What happens when the war ends because I

completely agree with you by the way it can only end in one way and I think that's now becoming widely accepted.

there's still few people who deny it, but it's that the trends are not just obvious, but they're becoming difficult

to deny. And that is that, you know, we're going to have a Russian victory and Russia is going to emerge as the

victor in a conflict which um we were very unwise in my opinion to allow ourselves to ever get drawn into. What

are we going to do then? The Russians are going to be the great power in Europe once more, the great military

power in Europe. Do we continue with the policy of hostility? What can we do? We're getting worried

about the Americans leaving. Um the whole strategic defense review that I was talking about was talking about

this. I mean, it's implicit in every sentence and every paragraph that there's the concern that the United

States cannot maintain the commitment that it did. Do we continue in our hostility to a country far more powerful

than our own or do we at least try to do what you said those diplomats of the past and hopefully the present uh were

doing, which is trying to find a way forward. When the Soviet Union in 1940

incorporated the Baltic States into the USSR, the British government never recognized

the Baltic States as being part of the Soviet Union. Then in 1944, when the Red Army recaptured the Baltic States, the

British government never recognized the Baltic States as part of the Soviet Union. And from 1944 to the dissolusion

of the Soviet Union in 1991, the British government along with the American government, I should add, never

recognized the Baltic state as part of the Soviet Union. But there was still during the aforementioned periods, there

was still diplomatic relations between Britain and Russia. There was still trade between Britain and Russia. There

was still cultural exchanges between Britain, Russia, or the Soviet Union to be more precise.

That is what I believe will happen when the war in Ukraine ends. And I believe that at the very most the Russian army

will advance to and capture the blasts of Jitamir and Venitza which if you're looking at a map of Ukraine are to the

west of Kiev. thereafter I'm not so sure the Russian army will advance into those regions because that region or that

region largely is historically known as uh eastern Galissia. So when we talk about today Ukrainian nationalists we

really are talking about Eastern Galissians because there's no such thing as a Ukrainian race. We are talking

about Eastern Galissians. So once the war ends, yes, of course, there will be a great deal of hostile rhetoric

emanating from London at an official level and from other capitals in the Western world. But what are they going

to do? They're not going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine for the reasons I mentioned earlier. There would be a

nuclear war. The British establishment is very skillful in adapting adapting to new circumstances. Indeed, the English

British ruling elites have been in power for nearly 1,000 years since 1066. There's a reason for that. And after uh

most of Ukraine is captured, perhaps even all of Ukraine, but I think most of Ukraine is captured, the reality will be

that Russia that the lands of the Russian Federation have enlarged and that will be it because the British do

not seek the British establishment do not seek to continue this uh hostile rhetoric indefinitely.

At some point it will start to die off. And again there have been many times in the past over centuries when the hostile

rhetoric e emanating out of London was enormous and it is enormous today. But hundreds of years ago it started to die

off and that will happen after the war in Ukraine ends. And I have no doubt at some point in say 50 years time it will

increase again and then it will die off. I can only reiterate my submission. Britain and Russia have never liked each

other and never will like each other. The most important thing is that diplomatic relations um are preserved

between two both countries that they continue to talk to each other either at an official level or at a more secretive

level. That is all I care about. The the fact that they're not going to be the best of friends or the best of allies,

it doesn't disappoint me. It doesn't frustrate me. That's reality. That's real politique. But all I want is for

them to keep on talking and especially those channels of communication which have existed ever since the end of the

Cuban missile crisis. Indeed, if you want to get an example just of of the past of how things change

in Britain, just listen to news reels about Russia from the 1940s, British ones, and then compare them. For

example, the British news reel um made during the time of Alex Kosigin, that was the Soviet premier at the time. his

visit to London in 1967 went to all impressions. You might think that Britain and Russia at that time

were the best of friends. Of course, they weren't, but but that that was certainly the impression that um one

that was conveyed. And of course, he met the queen and he had tea with her and he was taken around and he was he met

people in all kinds of factories and everything looked very very friendly except of course that it didn't last for

very long. Dr. Marcus was taken to meet the queen. Yes, absolutely. Bik was taken to meet the queen. Absolutely. So,

uh um Marcus Dr. Marcus Babadopoulos, thank you very much. Uh he was by the way because Kigan was an actual

Bolshevik. He joined I think in the 1920s. So he was a very very old guy. But anyway, Dr. Marcus Bakabas, thank

you for answering my question so fully. Uh, as you said, British Russian relations are a fascinating, very, very

complicated subject and a very important one. Thank you for answering my questions. If you could stay there for

just a short time, I'm sure that Alex has some questions to put to you. Uh, yes, we do. We have quite a quite a lot

of questions for Dr. Papadopoulos. Let's start with Mark Huitt, who says, "Dr. Papadopoulos, was the 1991 coup attempt

in Russia orchestrated to bring Yeltson to power? If we're talking about the failed KGB

coup in August of 1991 against Gorbachof, well, no. The KGB and the upper echelons of the Soviet military

saw the writing on the wall. They saw that with Gorbachof in power and with Gorbachoff not taking decisive action

against Yeltzen that would result in the death of the Soviet Union. The Soviet uh military and the KGB had already lost

control of Eastern Europe. Therefore, they did not want to see the Soviet Union die. So by the KGB attempting to

overthrow Gulp was a way of removing a hopelessly um inept weak leader from power which

would have meant that Yeltzen would have fallen. In March of 1991, Gorbachov held a referendum in the Soviet Union. And

with the exception of the Baltic states, Armenia, Georgia, and Muldova, all of the other Soviet republics voted in this

referendum. And the Soviet people were asked, "Do you wish to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?"

76% of the Soviet people voted, "Yes, we wish to preserve the Soviet Union." Thus, Gorbachof had a mandate. He should

have taken action against Yelin. He should have declared martial law. But because he was a weak, useless leader,

he didn't do it. So, the KGB took things into their own hands. in August of 1991, but it was an ill-thoughtout

attempted coup and it was rushed and it ended in spectacular failure and it meant that Gorbachof would remain as

president but the power was with Yeltzen and from that moment onwards it was obvious that Yeltzen would use his power

along with uh Kftchuk in the Ukrainian SSR and Shushkovic in the Bellarussian SSR to kill the Soviet Union.

[Music] Matthew asks, "Is a large European conflict in the future likely?"

No, I do not believe that because of the existence of nuclear weapons, whilst the whilst nuclear weapons are, let's be

clear, evil, they do keep the peace. And I would rather see a world which has nuclear weapons as opposed to a world in

particular Europe which is fighting against each other. There have been so many civil wars in Europe that we do not

wish to see another one. So with the existence of nuclear weapons, there will not be a war between Russia and Britain

or Russia and France or Russia and Germany. Regardless of what Russian officials and British officials and

German officials, etc. say in public behind the scenes, they are saying something very different to each other.

Raphael says, "Peter the Great moved and lived in England for a moment." Yes, indeed. Um, we should also remember

that Europe's royal families are ultimately one royal family. So, one of the reasons why for the first year of

the Crimean War, diplomatic relations uh was still in existence between the British Empire and the Russian Empire is

because the British royal family and the Russian royal family are the same were the same family. So both sides wanted to

try and sort out between themselves quickly this little dispute which is how they saw it. But because of the amount

of jingoism in Britain at that time the amount of russophobia for example in beer halls in London um uh russophobic

songs were being sung by men and women in those beer halls. um it meant that both that Britain would have to take

steps to end the diplomatic relationship with Russia and also vice versa because there was a lot of anti-British

sentiments at that time in the Russian Empire. So we should always bear that in mind if we're talking about Peter the

Great, if we're talking about Katherine the Great, if we're talking about Nicholas II, they were all related one

way or another to the British royal family. Solaris asks, "Is rousophobia because of

orthodoxy?" Uh, no. It is because of two reasons. Firstly, the perception in Britain that

Russia, be it Tsarist, be it communist, be it modernday Russia, is comprised of savages,

is a land of barbarians. And that is built upon two notions. Firstly, that Slavs, which is what

Russians are overwhelmingly, that Slavs are not just inherently disorganized and inefficient, but they are inherently

brutal. They are inherently barbaric. The other notion is the sense of Anglosaxon

superiority. Now again, there's nothing wrong with being Anglo-Saxon, but the heart of the British establishment

believes that because they are Anglo-Saxon, though we can make another argument to counter that, but anyway,

officially they are Anglo-Saxon, it means that the Russians, for example, are simply pygmies. And indeed in the

files I used in Whiteall in Stalin's Russia, numerous British officials in the 18th century, the 19th century, 20th

century referred to Russians as pygmies in com in in comparison to Anglosaxons. Indeed, British officials even remarked

that the the look of the Russian alphabet, the sound of uh Russian letters is barbaric. They even remarked

um during lunches at the Soviet embassy during the Second World War that Russian officials couldn't eat bread properly

and they said it's because they're primitive people. So again, it's because of this perception that Russia is uh a

historic adversary and because of this perception that Russians are uncoufed barbaric and thirdly because of this

sense of Anglo-Saxon of Anglo-Saxon superiority and therefore the Russians are simply peasants in comparison to

Anglo-Saxon superiority. Ela says, "Lavough yesterday uh about the involvement of agencies. Quote, I

wanted to say the Anglo-Saxons, but now I'll have to do without the Saxons, just without the support of the British."

Well, it is it again, this is this is another subject matter. Is the heart of the British ruling elite truly truly

Anglo-Saxon? I think their bloodlines are somewhat different. But whilst I understand why Russian officials and

other officials of the world talk about the Anglo-Saxon ruler elite or the Anglo uh Saxon um establishment, I would

rather use British establishment because I think it has certain um advantages. But nonetheless, yes, Lavough has

referred to the Anglo-Saxon powers to the Anglo uh Saxon world. But then look in Britain today, you know, mainstream

media is I can't say claiming because if you claim it means you have evidence. So mainstream media in Britain is saying

that there's no such thing as an Anglo-Saxon race. And to argue otherwise is quote racist. So these are remarkable

times we are seeing in Britain as well as very dangerous times. Ralph Steiner asks, "Was World War I

caused by Britain losing economically?" There were numerous factors behind uh the outbreak of uh of the Great War. One

of them, of course, was the rivalry between the European powers. Um another was this the emergence of the German

empire uh from 1871 onwards on the back of the FrancoRussian war was not tolerated by the French, the British or

the Russians. uh they did not wish to see a new empire emerge because they were very suspicious of the Germans and

fearful because they knew that the Germans were a very strong people and a very organized a very disciplined a very

efficient people. So when the Kaiser spoke about Kaiser Wilhelm uh spoke about having Germany having a place in

the sun uh the British, the French and the Russians were immediately alarmed and they wanted to clamp down on that

which resisted which resulted in the Germans becoming very angry and as a result antagonistic and they decided

well if Britain can have an empire, if Russia can have an empire, France can have an empire, why shouldn't Germany

have an empire? And then you have the arms race, the naval arms race, the dreadnots for example, between Britain

and Germany. Then you have the different treaties being signed between the various European powers. It was

inevitable that there would be um a war, a major major war between themselves. And what we saw happen in Savvo in 1914

was simply the spark. If the heir to the throne um of the Austrohungarian Empire um hadn't been assassinated, there had

would have been another event in Europe which would have proved to be the spark of the great war.

Uh Iranian kiddo says orthodoxy in Russia started by Kievan Roose ruler Vladimir's conversion in 988.

He was baptized on the same day he was married to Byzantine Princess Anna Porfiroeniti in Heronus, now

Sevastapole, a Byzantine territory indeed. And that is why the first Russian state in history was Kievan

Russ. Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities. That is not Russian propaganda. That is not being a Putin apologist.

These are historical, irrefutable facts. I have said before on television that for nearly 20 years now,

if you go to the National Archives in Q in London and up until the end of the 19th century, so before the up the end

of the 19th century, you will not find a British diplomat or a British military official talking about the existence of

a Ukrainian people or a Ukrainian race. Why is that? because there was no s there is no such thing. The national

Ukrainian national identity came about as a result of the East Galysians and also the Austrians. The Austrians

obviously bitter rivals of the Russian Empire helped to devise the concept of a Ukrainian national identity as a way of

trying to undermine the Russian Empire from within. But again, you will not find a British official in the 17th

century, in the 18th century, and most of the 19th, all of the 19th century referring to Kiev as a Ukrainian city,

as um as the capital of um a Ukrainian nation. No. So that is why Kiev is the first Russian city in history and Kiev

is the mother of all Russian cities. If someone wants to argue against that, I say to them, go to the National Archives

in Q and find me a document from say the 18th century. Prove me wrong. And if you prove me wrong, I'll eat my hat and I

will acknowledge I'm wrong. But you won't because for some 25 years, I've been researching at the National

Archives and you will not find anything. Indeed, only recently, a few weeks ago, I was at the National Archives and I

found a document uh by a senior British diplomat. This is after the war when he said that we the British government do

not acknowledge the um existence of a Ukrainian people. He said for us uh a Ukrainian people are mostly Russians or

Poles. Sanangeva says, "We will preserve you, Russian speech, keep you alive, great

Russian word. We will pass you to our sons and heirs free and clean and they in turn to theirs and so forever." This

is the last stanza of courage by Anna Akmatova. Russian soul likely never understood by the West.

And sadly as a whole, I don't think the Russian soul, the Russian mindset will be

understood. Though there have been people in Britain over centuries who really have understood the Russian

mindset, who have understood the Russian soul. For example, in the 1930s, the head of the Northern uh S. Lawrence

Collier, who was pushing for an alliance between Britain and the Soviet Union, he understood the Russian mindset. He

understood the Russian soul. He had no love for bulcheism, for communism, but that's irrelevant. His argument was we

should get on with each other regardless of our political differences. And he also understood the Russian soul and the

Russian mindset because he did not arrive um at the foreign office with baggage, namely this perception that

Russians are barbarians, that Russian culture is inferior, etc., etc. So sadly as a whole we will not see this

understanding of the Russian soul or the Russian mindset. But I assure you even today there are people in Whiteall who

do understand Russia and who do wish to see good relations between Britain and Russia. And when the files, the archives

are opened up in 20 or 30 years time, sometimes they are delayed, 30 years, we will see those British diplomats who are

saying very different things behind the scenes. From Tom. Hey guys, family and other

commitments aside, would you rather live in the UK or Russia? I just went to Russia for the first time to see my

father-in-law and seems better than in almost every aspect. Britain is my country. I am of part

Anglo-Saxon uh heritage. I love my country. I love I love my people. I love my cultural um and spiritual values. I

was baptized as a baby in the Church of England. I was later baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church. Uh both mean a

lot to me, but I'm very aware that these are very very dangerous and sinister times in Britain. But I'm not going to

walk away from my country, from the land um of my forefathers. I will never do that. I will never submit. I will never

change uh my stance. I believe that the British national identity that the British people must be preserved.

Britain is my home and there will never be another home for me. Alexander answer I love yourself. I I I have very

very very similar feelings. I mean, I wasn't born in Britain. I was born in Greece and I obviously have uh um a very

very powerful connection to Greece and I can imagine myself one day possibly returning to Greece to retire and end my

life there with my family. But I cannot imagine any situation where I would want to live in any other country than Greece

or Britain. I mean these are my homes. These are my homelands. uh Greece is my fatherland if you like

uh Britain is my motherland whatever but I I can't imagine living living anywhere else I have just been to Russia I

discussed in various programs my impression of St. Petersburg, the fact that it is an absolutely first world

city, somebody like, you know, the kind of work we do, the contrast between

internet connectivity there and internet connectivity in London is shocking. If we knew about it in London, I mean, you

know, are you things that take about an hour to upload here, take about 90 seconds to upload there just to say. So,

just goes to, you know, going to the point that uh Marcus was saying that, you know, they're not savages or

inferior to us in any sense. But the point I I I mean, at the end of the day, I remain I remained Greek, British,

these are my homes and I don't want to go anywhere else. Rubia Pel says, "Thanks guys. The guest

is very knowledgeable and I like and like Alexander. He makes a lot of common sense about the craziness of the British

establishment against Russia. Thank you for that, Rubel. And we'll do a couple of more for Dr. Papadopoulos.

Uh, one second from Flying Boore. If Britain thinks so bad of Russia, why do Russian liberals

love them so much? Well, of course, when we say the word liberal today, we don't mean a classical

liberal. I am not a classical liberal, though I acknowledge there are many admirable um elements in classical

liberalism. But of course in modernday Russia, Russian liberals who I, as I said, they are not true liberals, they

wish to see Russia returned to how it was during the 1990s under the uh during the tenure of Boris Yelten. So many of

these Russian liberals care nothing for the cultural and spiritual values of the Russian people. They are more focused on

materialism. They are more focused on money making and they don't care about Russian history. They don't care about

the Russian national identity. Indeed, you can apply that to so-called liberals in Britain or you can actually apply

that to so-called liberals in Britain and so-called liberals in America and in Canada and Britain and France and Italy.

So, we should always be very mindful when we use the word liberal, we should say so-called liberals or if we're

writing the word liberal, we should put it in inverted commas. Florina says, "Russia was also barbarian

when the British establishment married the second son of Queen Victoria, Tsar Alexander II's daughter." Yes, that is a

very very good observation. And what we see, we see two levels at play during let's say the period of the British

Empire and the Russian Empire. We see the profound uh relationship between the British royal family and the Russian

royal family which as I said essentially was one royal family. Then at the next level, at the political level involving

prime ministers and other politicians, we see this distinct hostility uh being um advocated from Whiteall and

at Westminster towards Russia. As I said, the relationship uh between Britain and Russia ever since the 1500s

is is absolutely fascinating and on occasions it's difficult to comprehend but if you if you if you understand that

at that time in Europe it was run by one family the European royal families the situation starts to become a little uh a

little more clear. But yes, what your guest just noted, yes, it's um on the face of it, it is quite ironic. Why did

they marry into a family which are barbarians, but most of the Russian royal family were not Russian? They were

of course German. For example, Katherine the Great was German. And after during her tenure, she is the one who

introduced agricultural policies which made Russia um uh excellent in the agricultural sector. Well, how did she

do that? She invited Germans from the German states. There was no Germany at the time, from the German states to

settle in Russia, in particular along the river Vulga, not so far from Vulgor today. And those farmers taught Russian

farmers an immense amount of knowledge. So um that's something we need to remember that the British royal family

and the Russian royal family one family and many of the members of the Russian royal family were not ethnic Russian.

And I'm not anti- uh Tsarist Russia. There were incredible achievements during the period of the Zars, but most

of them were not ethnic Russians, especially uh during the period of the Romanovs.

We'll do a couple of more. Uh Marcus, is that all right? Absolutely. More questions. Awesome. From Raphael, what I

know is China will be the one fighting England. They want payback for the opium war. Mao never forgave England for that.

In my opinion, there will not be a war between China and Britain and there will not be a war between China and America.

Again, what is seen on the surface in relations between China and Britain is very different to what's happening

behind the scenes. The Chinese economic miracle is largely built upon China's uh trading

uh trade and investment relationship with America and also with Britain. Therefore, it is not in the interests of

the Chinese or the British for there to be for there for there to be a severance in that economic relationship between

the two because both countries would suffer enormously and especially that applies to the relationship the trade

and investment relationship between America and China. But of course in China the Chinese government is playing

to an audience like the British is like the British government is playing to an audience. But note how despite all these

you know um hostile antagonistic words which have been expressed between the Americans and the Chinese and the

British and the Chinese. No steps have been taken to alter the economic relationship between those countries

because they know very well that that would be economic suicide. So there will not be a war between China and Britain

and there will not be a war between China and America. If we look just in the last few years, the economic

relationship between London and Beijing has increased. Not that I'm saying the British

establishment and the Americans aren't suspicious of the growing power of China. Of course they are. Of course

they see China as a rival. But again, politics is a very peculiar business. On the one hand, you can be bitter rivals

with another country. Indeed, you can fight a proxy war against that country. And on the other hand, you can trade

with that country and you can talk with that country. We see that happening between Britain and Russia and we see

that happening between China and uh and uh Britain although there's no proxy war being fought between the two at this

time. So again I I recommend to people to be very cautious about what is said in public even by Putin even by Lavough.

If Putin really really wanted um to take decisive action against Britain, why doesn't he end the diplomatic

relationship between the two? Because he understands politics, high level politics and high level international

relations. The average person struggles to understand politics and international relations. The average person cannot

comprehend at all high level politics and high level international relations. Putin does of course the heart of the

British establishment does of course so that is why on the one hand Putin makes very hostile remarks about the British

establishment or the Anglo-Saxon world but at the same time he's quite content to have diplomatic relations with this

hostile Britain and he's quite content for trade to continue between Russia and this hostile country that's high level

politics that's high level international relation Indeed, that is real politique.

Hitchum asks, I am interested in the dynamic of the EU countries within the EU when it is clear Russia has become

the undisputed victor. Can the EU survive that blow? Will it break up into a smaller European Union? Well, as we

know, the European Union is not Europe, and Europe is most certainly not the European Union. The European Union is

one of the weapons of what I call the western ruling elites or the globalists or the western deep states to control

Europe to change Europe politically um socially and culturally. So the same people who are still in control in

America, the same people who rule Britain, the same people who rule most of uh of Europe, these people are the

same people. They are globalists. They are the western ruling elite. And it is only inevitable that they will amongst

other reasons regard Russia as the enemy. And they know very well that Russia is not an enemy to Europe. Russia

is an enemy to them, to their power, to their power base, to their depraved ideology, if we can call it an

ideology, to their depraved mindset. So, the European Union is in an enormous amount of trouble. I'm delighted to see

patriotic and nationalist parties and movements springing up all across Europe because the pe the ancient nations of

Europe they went to sleep in a manner of speaking. They did not protect their cultural and spiritual values. Now we

see what is happening. Now we see the consequences of not defending your national identities, not defending your

people. So uh people are waken up all across Europe including in Britain. That is a direct threat to the European Union

and ultimately it's a direct threat to the Western ruling elites. The European Union is not a distinct entity. It is

not acting on its own accord like NATO is not acting on its own accord. NATO and the European Union are major weapons

of the Western ruling elites. the secretary general of NATO. He's a mouthpiece of the western ruling elites.

He's a puppet, a useful idiot. He has a script which is prepared for him by senior people at the heart of the

western ruling elite and he reads it out. So there's no no attachment, no significance should be paid to any

secretary general um of NATO because they're just voice boxes. Sorry, mouth pieces. Mouth pieces. Uh

Dr. Quest uh from locals. The British will not only continue their venomous rhetoric while Russia is in Ukraine.

They will fund the eastern Galatian Banderites to attack R to attack Russia as they have done since World War II.

Cruchef was unable after nearly 10 years of fighting to fully neutralize the Banderites and look what happened and

where we are today. The Banderites with their large large population of Ukrainians and Russia are quite capable

of continuing terrorism with Ukraine and Russia. from due abscond from very a very pertinent observation. um from 1944

to 1945, in spite of the Grand Alliance, in spite of the Anglo Soviet treaty of May of

1942, even though the war with Nazi Germany is still ongoing, the British establishment

and the Americans were uh helping uh nationalist uh forces in the Baltic states and nationalist forces in the

western most part of Ukraine, eastern Galacia. That is remarkable. That is something in White Hall in Stalin's

Russia, my second book I make note of. And British diplomats were absolutely horrified upon learning that. And they

said that the British military will bring about the end of the Grand Alliance. They will bring about the end

of the Anglo-Siet treaty. And they could bring about a war after the war with Nazi Germany is over. they could bring

about a war between Britain um and Russia. So if we talk about the present day, if Russia goes into if the Russian

army advances into eastern Galacia, then undoubtedly the assistance to the east the eastern Galissians will continue.

But will the Russian army advance there? One of the mistakes that Stalin made in taking um in 1939 uh regions such as Lev

was this. On the one hand, yes, it added depth to Soviet defenses. Yes. But on the other hand, Stalin brought a

population into the Soviet Union which wasn't just vehemently anti-Bolleshevik, it was vehemently anti-Russian,

Tsaristrussian or Bolevik Russian. And that was a problem. um throughout the duration of the Soviet uh union from the

end of the second world war to the end. So does the Kremlin want the populations of Livov, Ivano, Franisk, Turnipole,

Rivney and Volin back in the Soviet Union? I suspect not. I suspect the Russian army will advance to and capture

Venitzia and Jitimir and will call it a day. And that would ensure that the uh southern uh frontier of Russia would be

firmly secure. Russia would be in complete and utter control of the Black Sea. But I could be wrong. Maybe the

Russian army will advance into places like uh Livov. But if they do, then there will be resistance amongst the

East Galysian uh fighters there. And of course they will be receiving assistance. But here's the irony. They

will be receiving assistance via Poland. And the Poles and the Eastern Galissians loathe one of one another. Let us not

forget during the Second World War. Eastern Galissian forces fighters massacred over 80,000 ethnic Poles in

Volin. Poles know that. But of course, the Polish ruling elite is beholden to the western ruling elite. So Poland

isn't so independent and sovereign as Polish political nationalist for forces like um like to say. So um there have

the there is the irony. If the Russian army enters Livov, then um East Galysian forces whose ancestors massacred over

80,000 ethnic Poles um in Volin during the Second World War will be receiving arms from Poland. Again, politics is the

most peculiar of businesses. And on that note, Dr. Marcus Papadopolos, thank you so much for

joining us on the Duran. I have Dr. Dr. Papadoplos's links as well as his his ex account link as well as his book links

in the description box down below and I will add them as a pinned comment when the live stream is over. Thank you Dr.

Papadopus. Thank you very much. Thank you. Absolute pleasure. I thoroughly enjoyed

it. Thank you so much. Take care. Thank you. All right. Wow. Very cool. Great guest.

Absolutely. Alex, Alexander, uh, you want to answer the rest of the questions? I think so. All right, let's

go. Uh, Daniel says, "Can Greece make a deal with Turkey to force them out of Cyprus? Do Greeks consider Thrace and

Istanbul part of Greece?" Well, uh, uh, I think that in terms of Istanbul and Thrace and Adrianople and

all of that, I think I think frankly no one in Greece seriously believes anymore that we're going to return there. I

mean, the last attempt to do so in 1922 ended in complete disaster. My grandfather was there when it happened.