There's a hour-long interview/discussion session with Alexander Mercouris, Alex Christoforou, and Garland Nixon that came out a few hours ago.

It's not really anything any of us haven't heard before. If you have an hour free and you're doing stuff around your home then it might be worth a listen.

To summarize, their stance is that Russia and China have very deep co-operation that the "experts" in the West don't really comprehend. They believe that Russia and China's stance is that they have time and that the West does not, and so their main focus is not falling for desperate bait that is thrown at them, and reaching next year, the year after, and so on, as they will get stronger and the West is getting weaker. They will respond to desperate situations if needed but are playing for time because they know they have it. Garland Nixon is particularly impressed with Putin's response to the Kharkiv counteroffensive, because it illustrates that he knows that to be a good leader, sometimes you need to have your people begging for you to do something drastic and only then do you do it - you don't jump the gun, you have patience.

They believe that once winter hits, the decline in Europe will be so shocking that there will be at least some changes in government in Europe, but that these changes will ultimately be more of the same (e.g. trading Conservative Party with Blue Symbol for Conservative Party with Red Symbol or vice versa) and when things fail to improve through electoralism in their Shining Democracies On The Hill, and the disillusionment which that causes can't just be coped away because they literally cannot afford to both heat themselves and eat food, and then the genuinely dangerous situation will begin.

They go over history and note that while empires are traditionally seen as being in decline for extended periods (e.g. Rome), this hollowing out is often difficult to comprehend at the time and may not be outwardly visible, and once a real crisis hits, the actual collapse of the empire is not gradual, it's rapid.

This part is a little weird - there are parts that I kinda agree with but I mostly disagree with it, it's not a particularly materialist way of looking at it - they talk about how people across what is imagined as the political spectrum are converging on a similar set of viewpoints - such as on the Ukraine War. I think we've all seen this, where the outright fascists and nationalists and "less sophisticated" conservatives like the MAGA people are coming to a few of the same ideas and conclusions that the left is coming to, such as on Russia. But they talk about this through the lens of a narrative-based politics versus a fact-based politics, and that the chuds that aren't in power, the group I just mentioned, are seeking facts rather than the narrative that the neocons and the neolibs are seeking. And here, Garland Nixon makes an analogy that the current... state of affairs, to put it broadly, is like a three-headed hydra with neoconservativism, neoliberalism, and wokeism. Any time I hear the word "wokeism" or "woke" unironically used then I immediately think "Oh, nevermind, this person is a dipshit who has no idea what the fuck they're even talking about", which is why this is the weakest section.

They talk about how the West thinks that the financial magic and GDP pumping that they do every day is actually real, and so have completely lost sight of the actual material basis of economies; natural gas, food, energy, etc. They point out that even if Europe survives the winter - and "survive" means something different to every individual person so "everybody isn't dead" could be counted as victory and owning Putler - historically, famines happen in spring. Winter will be bad, Spring might be where shit really starts collapsing.