reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Ashton Rifenski opens Going Underground from the UAE, referencing Antonio Gramsci and the idea of hegemony, and frames the day as one where the UN Security Council discusses maritime security in the context of what he describes as calls by Donald Trump that have “destroyed” that security, highlighting the Strait of Hormuz as half Iranian and half Omani owned and the broader global impact on prices for fuel, medicine, and food. He notes a visit by a “vassal state king” to Trump and contrasts it with the anticipated visit of Trump to the country with the largest economy by PPP powered by Iranian and Russian energy, suggesting that when Trump meets Xi Jinping, the U.S. life expectancy gap with Shanghai will be evident. Victor Gao, vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, joins from Beijing. Rifenski asks about a Financial Times headline claiming Tehran deployed a Chinese satellite to target U.S. bases in the Middle East and about U.S. claims that foreign entities, principally based in China, are engaged in deliberate industrial-scale campaigns, questioning whether China is supplying weapons to Iran. Gao responds by challenging the Financial Times’ premise, asserting that the UK paper is “owned by Japanese interests” and that China provides commercial satellite services openly available for international cooperation. He contends that China can engage in “commercial normal satellite services with any country,” including Iran, and says targeting versus weapons are distinct issues. He reiterates China’s position that it does not supply weapons to any country at war, and notes that China calls for an immediate end to the war and supports the UN Charter and international law, mentioning that the UN Secretary-General described the war as an aggression by the United States and Israel against Iran. Rifenski presses Gao on why China wouldn’t supply arms to Iran despite Iran’s energy ties with China. Gao emphasizes Iran’s capability to defend its sovereignty and notes no specific requests have been made by Iran for Chinese military aid, asserting China’s opposition to any allegation of arming Iran. He adds that Iran has demonstrated drones, missiles, and long-range capabilities, and states that China supports ending the war rather than escalating it. The discussion then shifts to whether China should have hosted negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. Gao notes Trump’s recent acknowledgment of China’s role in nudging Iran and the U.S. toward talks, highlighting Beijing’s diplomatic outreach via Wang Yi to over 20 foreign ministers to de-escalate. He mentions Pakistan as an intermediary and argues that China has sought a positive role, possibly facilitating or supplementing Pakistan’s efforts, while acknowledging uncertainty over Israel’s willingness to support a peace deal. Gao insists China’s commitment is to end the war and achieve peace. Rifenski and Gao discuss the broader implications of U.S.-China relations, the perception that the war is a test of U.S. strength, and the notion that China views a war with the United States as unwinnable for the U.S. He asserts that China aims to avoid headlined confrontations and prefers behind-the-scenes diplomacy, contrasting China’s approach with Western narratives. Gao argues that the global economy would suffer from U.S. aggression and asserts that the so-called Pax Americana is ending, accelerated by Trump’s policies. He notes China’s decreasing holdings of U.S. Treasuries and suggests the yuan’s growing role in international trade, predicting yuan settlement could rise from about 2.5-3% to 25-30% in the long term as more oil trades settle in renminbi. The interview closes with Gao offering advice to GCC countries, stressing that China’s involvement has historically led to peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, while U.S. and Israeli involvement has led to hostility. He urges Middle Eastern actors to engage with China as a defender of free trade and peace, and to consider cooperation with China after the war to foster long-term regional stability.

Russia and Saudi Arabia are shifting away from the dominance of the US dollar in international payments, opting to use the Chinese yuan instead. The US dollar's control over the global monetary system has been a result of oil being traded in dollars since 1971. However, with the rise of the digital age and the switch from industrial to technical dominance, other countries are looking to reduce their reliance on the dollar. The Federal Reserve's ability to create money digitally and the US's high debt-to-income ratio are causing concern among other nations. The push for central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and the implementation of social credit systems are further signs of increasing control and surveillance by governments.

Glenn: Welcome back with professor Richard Wolff to discuss economic fury, the economic weaponization of the US campaign against Iran. How do you assess this effort, given the mix of oil sanctions, open markets for oil, and port blockades? Wolff: I’ll be blunt: I don’t know how to answer cleanly because the statements keep flipping on/off and have become “herky jerky.” The steps are inconsistent, sometimes increasing supply of oil and pushing down prices, other times constraining it. It’s not clear which way any given move will go, and the sequence is hard to parse. He notes that Gulf states are pressing for dollar swaps—foreign central banks can access dollars via swaps rather than buying them on markets. These swaps have shifted from weekly to daily, signaling worry about dollar access. The Gulf states—UAE and others—allege they depend on dollar-denominated oil revenues to service debts incurred through investments abroad. If dollars tighten due to strait closures and sanctions, they may be forced to sell assets in the US, including Treasury securities, which would lower bond prices and raise interest rates, potentially triggering a US recession. They could also sell holdings in the American stock market, affecting prices. Wolff emphasizes this as a surface manifestation of a broader global liquidity and debt dilemma tied to the Persian Gulf and the dollar’s role in the world economy. Glenn: So essentially the petrodollar is being unraveled because if Gulf states price and sell oil in dollars, but if they’re not exporting and not receiving dollars, they can’t pay debts or roll them over. They might sell treasuries or assets to cover shortfalls. How far can the US hold this position? Wolff: I don’t have a crystal ball, but I think the likely scenario is a political and economic squeeze. Trump has lost parts of his base—issues like the Epstein file and the economy’s inflation and job market. He relies on a narrative of victory; his base may be shrinking, while the wealthier 10% who own stock might be more supportive as the stock market stays buoyant. If the Gulf states must exchange dollars for debt relief or to cover losses, the government may have to grant more dollar swaps to prevent a spike in interest rates and a stock sell-off. Steven Bannon has warned that war could cost Trump the election, so the administration may shore up swaps to protect markets. Wolff suggests this is a desperate regime trying to exit a bad position with minimal damage. Glenn: You describe a broader pattern: the petrodollar’s decline, and the US dollar’s dwindling centrality in global reserves. How does this fit into the larger arc of American empire and capitalism? Wolff: It fits as part of the decline of the American empire and the corresponding decline of American capitalism. BRICS, China’s rise, and the shift away from dollar-dominated trade illuminate a trend toward reduced dollar dominance. Sanctions in Ukraine exposed the limits of that model, and there’s growing acceptance of payments outside the dollar for oil. The United States remains influential, but the dollar’s dominance is waning, and there’s no clear strategy to reverse that trend. Manufacturing has moved to other countries, notably China, which maintains low inflation and large-scale production. The world is moving toward multipolar arrangements, and the dollar’s preeminence is no longer assured. Glenn: Given this trajectory, is there any viable way to salvage the petrodollar, or is it beyond rescue? Wolff: I don’t predict the future with certainty, but I view the larger context as a decline in American hegemony and an erosion of dollar dominance. The war in Iran, like the war in Ukraine, demonstrates the limits of sanctions and the unintended consequences of aggressive confrontation. The dollar’s global reserve role is shrinking, and other powers are willing to transact outside it. He emphasizes this as a systemic shift, not a temporary setback. Glenn: Any final thoughts on how history and memory shape current policy? Wolff: History often gets reframed to fit current aims. There’s a tendency to present “victories” regardless of outcome, especially in wartime rhetoric. The dialogue in Europe and the US reflects a mix of nostalgia for past dominance and struggle to adapt to a changing global order. The conversation ends with questions about how Europe and the US should reorient foreign policy toward a multipolar world, where old assumptions no longer hold.

Over the past few days, the conversation covered rising U.S. gas prices, with average prices surpassing $4 per gallon on Tuesday, the highest in nearly four years. The discussion then shifted to geopolitical tensions around Iran, Israel, and the United States. It was noted that Donald Trump is reportedly seeking an off ramp from the war against Iran, but every time there are negotiations toward ceasefires or frameworks for talks, Israel allegedly bombs to scuttle those plans. Joe Kent was cited as saying that there is significant frustration inside the Trump administration because Israeli actions derail negotiations. Further comments stated that whenever Trump attempts to move toward negotiation, Israelis “come in and they kill negotiators,” “kill members of the government,” and “bomb the infrastructure” to show that the U.S. is not negotiating in good faith, with the implication that U.S. verbal assurances are hollow while Israel acts unrestrained. It was suggested that only when the U.S. actually restrains Israel’s support will their behavior change, despite reports of high-level admonitions from the Vice President or others. Trump published a note on Truth Social addressed to Europe and the UK, criticizing their inability to obtain jet fuel due to the Strait of Hormuz and urging the United Kingdom to buy oil from the United States, build up courage, and take control of Hormuz, implying the U.S. would no longer assist them. The program then brought in economist Professor Richard Werner to analyze global economic directions amid oil and gas price concerns, food stocks, fertilizer, helium, and related supply chains. Werner, based in Europe, emphasized Europe’s dependence on energy, fertilizer, and other raw materials from abroad, noting that Europe has thrived on an international trade model that moved up value-added production. He described the current situation as a policy-induced crisis or potential catastrophe, with energy supply already restricted by past policy choices (e.g., cutting ties with Russia for energy, decommissioning nuclear and coal plants). He warned of a possible major shock to the economy, comparing the risk to the 2020 experience of policy-induced throttling. The discussion touched on financial vulnerability, including concerns about how embargos or disruptions could affect food supply chains and economic stability. Werner described the situation as intentional policy shifts and indicated a broader realignment of the global order, with institutions like BRICS, the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and the New Development Bank fostering greater influence for China and other non-U.S. actors. He asserted that there is a push for a new international order that gives more power to alternative players, criticizing U.S. dominance in the IMF and World Bank. Werner argued that the “petrodollar system” established after the 1970s allowed continued U.S. economic supremacy, and suggested the world is witnessing a shift away from the dollar’s dominance toward alternative systems, potentially including digital currencies. He claimed Western countries are moving toward digital control measures, including strict currency surveillance and restrictions, while BRICS countries show more interest in gold as a store of value. He also described increasing censorship and sanctions in the EU regarding dissenting opinions, tying this to the rollout of digital currencies and the potential for controllable spending if governments “switch off” money. The exchange concluded with gratitude for Werner’s analysis and a hope for cooler heads to prevail to minimize impact, while acknowledging the likelihood of a new world order.

Chas Freeman and the host Glenn discuss how sea power has shaped global politics and why the current era may be signaling a shift toward land power and new kinds of strategic leverage. - Historical context of maritime dominance: Freeman traces a long arc from British naval hegemony after the Seven Years’ War to American preeminence after World War II, noting that naval power helped sustain a rules-based order and open sea lanes. He argues that dominance of the seas is no longer guaranteed, highlighting evolving ranges of weapons and the emergence of land-based controls that can threaten naval movements. - The evolving limits of naval power: He notes that artillery ranges kept territorial seas limited to about three miles in the eighteenth century, but advances in missiles and shore-based defenses have eroded that traditional maritime advantage. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’s 12-mile territorial limit is described as a political compromise rather than a fixed physical law. Modern missiles with ranges of up to 2,000 kilometers enable coastal forces to threaten carriers far from home waters, while shore installations can enforce blockades from land, as seen with Yemen’s Houthis in Bab El Mandeb and Iran in Hormuz. - The Strait of Hormuz as a strategic focal point: Freeman describes the current blockade as a sea-change that challenges the historic assumption that ships can freely operate in open waters. Aircraft carriers must stay well back from Iranian batteries, and surface ships at risk from Iran’s cruise missiles and drones. He emphasizes that control of Hormuz now rests more on land-based capabilities than on naval forces, making open-sea dominance increasingly untenable. - Implications for the traditional order: The discussion suggests that Anglo-American naval dominance, which helped sustain a liberal international order, is becoming less viable. Freedom of navigation operations and the appearant stability they created are no longer sufficient or sustainable in the new environment, where land-power and non-military instruments (energy, finance, and partnerships) matter more. - Energy, finance, and the petrodollar: The energy-trade dimension is central. Freeman and Glenn consider how the Strait of Hormuz underpins the petrodollar system, and discuss recent currency-swaps and dollar-reliance questions. They propose that if Gulf states shift toward the yuan or other currencies, U.S. financial hegemony could be challenged, catalyzing broader strategic realignments. China’s willingness to tolerate sanctions resistance and issue directives to its banks suggests a pushback against U.S. financial dominance. - China, Iran, and strategic realignments: Freeman notes China’s rise as a major sea power but argues China will not inherit Western maritime hegemony. He highlights China’s land-based connectivity initiatives (rail, roads, free-trade zones) that have maritime dimensions but are primarily land-centric, including Iran’s overland oil transport to China. He underscores a broader multipolar shift and the potential for Chinese and Iranian strategies to erode the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions. - Negotiations and potential outcomes: The conversation concludes that there is no viable military path to open Hormuz or a negotiated settlement in sight. Freeman describes the situation as a high-stakes stalemate with no clear diplomatic avenue. He suggests that the war could subside into a lower-intensity conflict reminiscent of Israel-Iran dynamics in the region, with ongoing tensions and episodic explosions rather than a decisive end. - NATO, Europe, and Israel: The hosts discuss the potential decline or reform of NATO, the pivot of U.S. strategy away from Europe toward Asia and the Western Hemisphere, and how these shifts could affect European security. Freeman questions the future viability of Israel given shifting U.S. stance and waning Western consensus, noting domestic and international criticisms of Israeli actions and leadership. He observes growing Western skepticism toward Netanyahu’s approach, and the broader political costs for Israel on the world stage. - Final reflections: Both speakers anticipate profound, systemic changes in international relations—multipolarity, weakened sea-power advantages, a possible redefined European security architecture, and a reevaluation of essential alliances. They caution against overreliance on any single power’s hegemonic framework and emphasize gradual, incremental reforms over abrupt, destabilizing shocks.

In this discussion, Zhang Shuay Shin and Speaker 1 analyze the evolving U.S.-Iran confrontation through the lens of global power dynamics, the petrodollar, and the shifting balance among major powers. - The war is framed as primarily about preserving the petrodollar. Speaker 1 argues the United States, burdened by enormous debt, seeks to maintain the dollar’s dominance by controlling energy trade through naval power and strategic choke points. The belief is that the U.S. can weaponize the dollar against rivals, as seen when it froze Russian assets and then moved to stabilize oil markets. BRICS and others are moving toward alternatives, including a gold corridor, challenging the petrodollar’s centrality. The aim is to keep Europe and East Asia dependent on U.S. energy, reinforcing American hegemony, even as historical hubris risks a global backlash turning growing powers against Washington. - The sequence of escalation over six weeks is outlined: after the American attack on Tehran and the Iranian move to close the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. eased sanctions on Russian and Iranian oil to maintain global stability, according to Treasury statements. Escalations targeted civilian infrastructure and strategic chokepoints, with discussions of striking GCC energy infrastructure and desalination plants. A U.S. threat to “bomb Iran back to the stone age” was countered by Iran proposing a ten-point framework—encompassing uranium enrichment rights, lifting sanctions, and security guarantees for Iran and its proxies. The Americans reportedly suggested the framework was workable, but negotiations in Islamabad stalled when U.S. officials did not engage seriously. - The broader objective is posited as not simply a tactical war but a strategic move to ensure U.S. imperial supremacy by shaping energy flows. Speaker 1 speculates Trump’s motive centers on keeping the petrodollar intact, potentially forcing China and other partners to buy energy with dollars. Iran’s willingness to negotiate in Islamabad is linked to pressure from China amid China’s economic strains, particularly as energy needs and Belt and Road investments create vulnerabilities for China if Middle East energy becomes unreliable. - The proposed naval blockade is discussed as difficult to implement directly against Iran due to ballistic missiles; instead, the plan may aim to choke off alternative routes like the Strait of Malacca, leveraging trusted regional partners and allies. Iran could respond via the Red Sea (Bab al-Mandab) or other leverage, including the Houthis, challenging Western control of energy corridors. The overarching aim would be to force a global energy reorientation toward North America, though it risks long-term hostility toward the United States. - The roles of great powers are analyzed: the U.S. strategy is described as exploiting Middle East disruption to preserve the petrodollar, with short-term gains but long-term risks of a broader alliance against U.S. hegemony. Europe and Asia are pressured to adapt, with China’s energy needs especially salient as sanctions tighten Middle East supply. Russia is identified as the principal challenger to U.S. maritime hegemony, while China remains economically entangled, facing strategic incentives to cooperate with the United States if required by economic pressures. - The dialogue considers NATO and Europe, arguing that the real contest is between globalists and nationalists in the United States, with Trump viewed as an agent of empire who may threaten the existing globalist framework. The speakers discuss whether this competition will redefine alliances, the future of NATO, and the possibility that a more Eurasian-led order could emerge if Western powers fail to maintain their maritime advantages. - Finally, Russia’s role is emphasized: Moscow is seen as the key counterweight capable of challenging American maritime dominance, with the war in Iran serving, in part, to counter Russian actions in Ukraine and to incentivize alignment with Russia, China, and Iran against U.S. leadership over the next two decades.

We did not ban the use of the dollar. The US decided to limit our dollar payments, which is absurd and harms their own economy and global power. Currently, we pay 34% in rubles and a similar amount in yuan, compared to the previous 3% in yuan. This decision can only be attributed to arrogance. They probably thought everything would collapse, but nothing did.

Speaker 0: The United States just lost a war it didn't even know it was fighting. While Washington celebrates military victories and economic growth numbers, the real battlefield has shifted to the global payment system. This week, something unprecedented happened in the shadows of international finance. Brazil quietly activated the Brixbridge system. For the first time in eighty years, major economies completed cross-border transactions without touching a single US bank. The American media is not reporting this story, but I can tell you, as someone who spent decades inside the system, this is not just another trade deal. This is the financial equivalent of splitting the atom, and the explosion is coming. The United States has enjoyed what we call monetary imperialism for nearly a century. Every time you buy oil, coffee, or electronics anywhere in the world, those transactions flow through New York banks. Washington collects a tax on every trade, every investment, every breath of the global economy, but that monopoly just ended, and most people don't even realize it happened. My name is Paulo Nogueira Batista junior. I served as executive director at the International Monetary Fund. I sat across the table from finance ministers of collapsing nations. I know how empires fall. They don't collapse from outside invasions. They collapse when their money stops working. And the American money is about to stop working. And the explanation of what happened this week in Brazil: President Lula signed an executive order that sounds boring to most people, but this order just declared independence from The US financial system. Brazil can now trade directly with Russia, China, India, and South Africa using our own central bank digital currencies. No dollars. No swift system. No permission from Washington. Think about what our country has achieved. Every international bank transfer in the world flows through this Belgian company controlled by the US Treasury until now. Till the BRICS Bridge is not just an alternative to SWIFT. It is a declaration of war against monetary colonialism, and it's working. In November 2024, Russia and China settled $20,000,000,000 in bilateral trade using this new system. In December, India and Brazil completed energy transactions worth $15,000,000,000. By January 2025, South Africa joined the network. The numbers are still small compared to the global economy, but remember, every revolution starts with small numbers. The Internet started with a few university computers.

Larry Johnson and Glenn discuss the shifting dynamics of the US dollar, the international financial system, and the rise of competing powers. - Johnson recalls the 1965 term exorbitant privilege describing the US dollar’s reserve-currency advantages. In 1971, the US closed the gold window, ending fixed gold value for the dollar; the dollar later became backed by “our promise,” enabling the petrodollar system as oil purchases were conducted in dollars. The dollar’s dominance rested on predictability, a stable legal system, and non-abusive use of the dollar as an economic tool rather than a political weapon. - Trump-era sanctions expanded broadly, impacting friends and adversaries alike, and BRICS nations began moving away from the dollar. Russia’s disconnection from SWIFT after its 2022 actions is noted as a turning point that encouraged the BRICS’ development of alternative financial infrastructure, including China’s cross-border interbank payment system (CIPS). This shift accelerates the decline of the dollar’s dominance. - Nations like Russia and China (and India, Brazil) are unloading US Treasuries and increasing gold and silver holdings. This is tied to concerns about the dollar’s reliability and the reduced faith in paper promises. The BRICS countries reportedly plan a currency tied to gold, with components of their reserves backing individual BRICS currencies, signaling a structural move away from the dollar. - The paper-gold issue is central: for every ounce of real gold, there is a range of 20-to-1 to 100-to-1 in paper gold. This disparity can undermine trust in the paper promise and create a run on physical gold. The price gap between New York (lower) and Shanghai (higher) for gold demonstrates a market dislocation and growing demand for physical metal. - Glenn emphasizes that a unipolar dollar system allows the US to run large deficits via inflation, which acts as a hidden tax on global dollar holders. Weaponizing the dollar through sanctions challenges trust and accelerates decoupling, prompting other nations to seek alternatives to reduce exposure. - Johnson argues that the US is confronting a historic realignment: the Bretton Woods order is dissolving, the dollar’s international dominance is waning, and sanctions and coercive policies are provoking pushback. He highlights Japan as a major remaining dollar treasuries holder that is now offloading, further increasing dollar supply and depressing its value. - The geopolitical implications are significant. Johnson warns that potential US actions against Iran—given their strategic position and the Gulf oil supply—could trigger a severe global disruption, including a price surge in oil. He notes that such actions would complicate global stability and magnify inflationary pressures. - The discussion also covers NATO’s cohesion, Western attempts to shape global alignments, and how rapidly shifting leverage could undermine existing alliances. Johnson suggests that Russia’s strategic gains in the war in Ukraine, combined with Western missteps, may prompt a rapid reevaluation of settlements and borders, while also noting that Russia’s position has hardened. - On Venezuela, Johnson argues that the stated pretexts (drug trafficking, oil control) were questionable and points to economic motives, including revenue opportunities for political allies like Paul Singer, and to Greenland’s strategic interests as possible motivators for US actions. - Looking ahead, Johnson predicts hyperinflation for the United States as the dollar loses value globally, while gold and silver retain value. He asserts that the ruble and yuan may hold value better, and that a mass shift toward de-dollarization is likely to continue, potentially culminating in a new multipolar financial order. - Both speakers agree that trust and predictability are crucial; the current trajectory—threats, sanctions, and unilateral actions—undermines trust and accelerates the move toward alternative currencies and stronger physical-commodity holdings. The overall tone is that a pivotal, watershed moment is unfolding in the global monetary system.

Ironically, it’s happening organically outside of BRICS anyway. For example, Enbridge and Brazil trade with China 48% in non-dollar terms. Russia–China trade is 95% in rubles and renminbi. Russia also trades with India similarly. BRICS is not driving this alone; these are individual developments. BRICS, a bit more than a decade ago, was the first to implement a framework agreement between them to move toward using national currencies more. It was still a time of less turbulence in the international scene, and the move was not for each country at once but addressed different pockets of activity. China, at that point, not only advanced this BRICS framework agreement but also struck agreements with 22 countries outside BRICS to use the renminbi. Russia did not abandon the dollar; it started using its own currency and other currencies as well. The aim was not to be against the dollar but to avoid being ordered by others about what they should or should not do. This shift occurred before Trump, though Trump contributed to the trend as well; the speaker notes they cannot simply blame Biden. The era of dollar and SWIFT being used as a weapon began to become explicit. The claim is that the dollar was promoted as a public good available to everyone no matter what happened, and then that expectation was broken. Russia has faced the most sanctions, over 20,000 in total, and the speaker suggests there may be more to come. There is large pressure from the US on each country. The UAE is mentioned as being cautious about moving too far, but each BRICS member now understands that this could be turned against them as well. That awareness is driving the direction toward greater use of national currencies and non-dollar transactions.

China’s president Xi Jinping has explicitly called for the renminbi (yuan) to attain global reserve currency status, stating that China must build a powerful currency that can be widely used in international trade, investment, and foreign exchange markets and that can be held by central banks as a reserve asset. This is a clear, definitive statement of intent that signals Beijing’s aim for the yuan to play a central role in the global monetary system and to reduce reliance on the US dollar. Beijing surfaced this message with intentional timing. The remarks, originally delivered in 2024 to senior Communist Party and financial officials, were only recently made public. Xi’s reserve currency ambitions and plans were published in Qiushi, the party’s most authoritative policy journal. The timing matters because the remarks appear as the US dollar faces pressure, global monetary uncertainty rises, and central banks worldwide reassess their exposure to the dollar. Trade tensions, the growth of sanctions, and rising political risk have contributed to this reevaluation, and China has moved from quietly expanding yuan usage for trade to explicitly naming its ultimate goal. Xi outlined the institutional foundations he believes are required to support reserve status: a powerful central bank with effective monetary control, globally competitive financial institutions, and international financial centers such as Shanghai and Shenzhen capable of attracting global capital and influencing global pricing. As for where things stand today, IMF data shows the yuan still has a long way to go. It currently makes up less than 2% of global foreign exchange reserves. The dollar still dominates with well over 57%, though it has declined from about 71% in 2000, and the euro is roughly 20%. China still has capital controls, and the currency is not fully convertible. Why would central banks want another fiat currency in their reserves? The attraction of the dollar and the euro lies in the backing of the United States and the institutional credibility behind them. The yuan’s appeal, according to the discussion, is that it is becoming a fiat currency with implicit gold backing. China’s officially reported gold holdings have risen to roughly 2,300 tons, per the World Gold Council, with steady year-after-year purchases, including at least fourteen consecutive months of net purchases through 2025. However, many analysts believe China holds more, with estimates based on trade flows, import data, and disclosure gaps suggesting true holdings closer to 3,005 tons, and some higher-end estimates proposing up to 10,000 tons or more. This gold accumulation serves as a hard asset anchor in an era where trust in fiat currencies is perceived to be weakening. China may be gearing up to offer an alternative linked to gold. It may not be ready to displace the dollar tomorrow, but it is clearly moving toward challenging King Dollar’s throne.

Speaker 0: China appears to be the only country pushing back against Trump’s tariff stance, with other countries—including neighboring ones and India—reaching deals with Trump. India, which initially showed resilience, moved toward China after the Shanghai summit and the tariffs. Recently, India and the US signed a deal to gradually reduce Russia oil exports to 50% of imports. This suggests China is the sole major power resisting the US in this round of measures. The discussion then shifts to a broader pattern: the US has overplayed its hand in its dollar dominance and control of the financial system via SWIFT. In the wake of sanctions on Russia after the Ukraine conflict—freezing assets and limiting access to SWIFT—many nations have begun moving away from the US dollar toward gold. The speaker sees China’s current move as accelerating other countries’ push toward self-reliance, particularly in rare earths. The US is investing in its own rare earth industry, while Europe seeks alternatives. There is mention of a US deal with Ukraine involving rare earths, and speculation that Greenland’s abundant rare earth reserves could be relevant to what Trump sought with Greenland. The long-term downside or repercussions for China from this move are noted. Speaker 1: The discussion distinguishes between the financial sanctions used after the Ukraine war and the current situation. While sanctions are not perfect substitutes for dollar assets like crypto or gold, they remain available, so US leverage is not as strong as China’s leverage in rare earths. The speaker agrees that in the long term, China’s move will push other countries to build processing capacity for rare earths. Although rare earths are not truly rare, the processing and concentration are. Countries will be motivated to develop processing facilities. Japan is innovating substitutes for rare earths, which may take time and will not provide immediate relief for the US.

BRICS will continue to expand and may announce a new currency or trading system to counteract the American-led system. BRICS doesn't have to replace the dollar, it just has to threaten it, as finance is based on confidence. Putin will maintain a close relationship with China; he needs China to remain neutral so Russia can pressure the American empire. Over the next few years, the Ukraine war will continue without expanding. Iran will take the initiative against the United States. North Korea will become more belligerent, forcing America to focus on East Asia. The relationship between Putin and Xi Jinping will strengthen.

Speaker 0 argues that Venezuela may not want to ally with this Western form of economic exchange, noting they have tried to join BRICS twice but were vetoed by neighboring Brazil. They describe Venezuela as one of the few countries not controlled by private equity oligarchs and central banksters, and say Venezuela pushed back on a monetary exchange that relies on high-interest promissory notes back to Rothschild Boulevard, like Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, and Muammar Gaddafi. They claim Maduro has effectively been kidnapped, and that Trump said, “kidnapped is fine.” The question is how such events can be real and presented as beneficial to Americans, asserting that economically, there is no benefit to the average citizen or to national security, and that it puts the United States in more imminent, grave danger as the U.S. “agitates around the world,” including in relation to Israel’s enemies. Speaker 1 adds that there will be a political and economic reset, suggesting that silver and gold are at record highs and that gold and silver have tripled historically in short periods, leading to a system reset of sorts. They say Venezuela’s attempts to join the system were to be part of a new framework that Russia, China, Iran and BRICS were trying to create, which would go against the dollar as the global reserve currency and directly affect the U.S. economy. They ask whether this should change. Speaker 0 elaborates that the issue is about flipping countries into the same central banker–controlled monetary exchange system. Speaker 1 notes that Trump, from day one, warned that if you mess with the U.S. dollar or trade outside of the dollar, the U.S. will punish you via sanctions or strikes, and that this is what has been happening. They discuss the possibility that if the system resets and a combination of gold, silver, and possibly crypto or other minerals backs a new dollar or digital currency emerges, the entire game could reset and eliminate these types of issues. In such a scenario, countries might have a looser ability to choose or replace the type of system their country is under.

- The discussion opens with trying to map a post-war world, considering both a quick end to the war and a prolonged one, with a focus on US–China relations, US allies, Iran, and the broader region. A participant notes a broader battle between a China–Russia–Iran alignment and the Western alliance, including financial systems. - A major regional shift is already underway: by 2000, the top banks were dominated by Japanese and European players; by 2025, China dominates the top four banks. The speaker argues that power is moving from Western banks to China, and that countries with US-dollar-denominated debt are converting debt into renminbi because it’s cheaper. - In the last week, Russia and China signaled to Iran a push to revisit the Gulf security architecture. Putin spoke to Iraq about Gulf security; Wang Yi did the same. The implied shift is toward a Gulf security framework less dependent on US protection. - The current Gulf security model is described as US bases guaranteeing protection from Iran, coupled with a demand that recipient states buy US Treasuries and military equipment. The speakers argue this model left Gulf states vulnerable and exposed as US defense systems failed to prevent Iranian attacks in the recent episode. - Saudi Arabia and Qatar (and to a lesser extent the UAE) are discussed as potentially moving away from the United States toward Russia and China. A Pakistani ISI general reportedly said Saudi and Qatari leaders are breaking from the US; one NBC report cited Trump canceling Project Freedom due to Saudi resistance to air operations from Prince Saud Air Base. The implication is a Persian Gulf broadly shifting into the Russian–Chinese sphere, potentially altering Gulf financial flows away from the US dollar toward gold and the yuan. - An opposing view, aired by another economist, suggests the US will strengthen its deterrence in the Gulf, with UAE as an indicator. The counterpoint argues that the Gulf countries previously supported Iran’s adversaries, including indirect funding for attacks on Iran, implying US deterrence remains necessary. - The conversation emphasizes the gulf’s deterrence history: Iran has largely avoided offensive military action in the Gulf against the region, while Gulf states have relied on US protection. The lack of a robust Chinese or Russian security guarantee in the region is highlighted as a real risk to Gulf security calculations. - There is a debate about whether US military power remains credible. One participant argues the US has not won a major war since World War II, with recent actions described as limited or draw outcomes; another contends that US protection remains essential despite past failures, given Iran’s capabilities and history. - Military-strategy discussions cover the feasibility of a ground invasion vs. airstrike-only approaches. The speakers outline logistical challenges (water, supply lines, mountainous terrain) and the scale of forces needed (potentially large, multi-month training and buildup) to degrade Iran’s missile and drone capabilities. Arguments are made that holding the Strait of Hormuz would be difficult if Iran can still launch missiles and drones from interior positions. - The strategic importance of Gulf exports is quantified: Gulf oil about 32% of world supply; LNG around 20% (centered on Qatar and the Gulf), urea and sulfur for agriculture and industry (urea ~36%; sulfur for refining and semiconductors), and helium from Qatar at about 33%. Keeping the Gulf open is framed as essential to global energy, inflation, and agriculture. - A possible pathway to open the Hormuz is proposed: Iran could offer broad access to global markets except for countries allied with Israel or those that attacked Iran; Iran would leverage this to restart global flows, particularly to Asia. The idea is that a near-term crisis could force a negotiated settlement with Iran. - The timeline mentions a forthcoming peace negotiation in Beijing next week, with skepticism about it proceeding smoothly. If negotiations occur, Trump would not likely receive a warm reception due to recent sanctions and US actions against China; China has signaled resolve against US sanctions, instructing its companies not to acquiesce to pressure. - Overall, the dialogue frames the war as a potential catalyst for a broader realignment: power shifting toward China and Russia, a Gulf region hedging its security through new alliances, and the global economy recalibrating around yuan- and gold-based financial flows, with the Strait of Hormuz remaining a central strategic chokepoint.

Jeffrey Sachs argues that "economic statecraft" is a euphemism for coercion, describing it as "war by economic means" used largely by the United States to crush other economies rather than to promote development or cooperation. He notes that treasury officials have framed it proudly as a tool to bring about regime change, citing Scott Besent’s Davos remarks about crushing the Iranian economy to foment change. Sachs emphasizes that this machinery is "warfare" aimed at destruction, not at improving well-being or enriching the United States, and it has real human costs—driving impoverishment, health crises, and rising mortality. To understand this tool, Sachs situates it within American imperial practice, which he says relies on indirect rule through puppet regimes rather than outright territorial conquest. He traces the lineage to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the phasing of interventions in Latin America under the Monroe Doctrine’s Roosevelt Corollary, and the 1954 Guatemalan coup against Jacobo Arbenz. He cites Lindsey O’Rourke’s Covert Regime Change, which counted 64 covert regime-change operations by the United States between 1947 and 1989. Economic statecraft, in his view, can function as a regime-change instrument by weakening an economy enough to destabilize a government, facilitating CIA-led or CIA-backed interventions, sometimes wrapped as color revolutions. In the Venezuela case, Sachs traces the shift from a failed 2002 coup attempt to economic coercion as the primary mechanism of pressure. He explains how Venezuela’s oil wealth, once seen as the world’s largest reserves, interacted with U.S. corporate and political power—ExxonMobil and Chevron among them—and how that dynamic fed efforts to topple the Chávez/Maduro governments. He describes the sequence starting with 2014 color-revolution attempts, the role of U.S. funding and media operations via organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, and the crackdown that followed protests. Sanctions escalated under Obama with the designation of Venezuela as a national security emergency and intensified under Trump, including confiscating foreign-exchange reserves, freezing accounts, and declaring PDVSA under sanction. This culminated in Severe economic collapse: oil production fell about 75% from 2016 to 2020, currency and import capacities deteriorated, and per-capita output dropped by about two-thirds, which Sachs characterizes as "worse than a war." He also points to Trump’s unorthodox actions, such as naming Juan Guaidó as president in IMF context, signaling a unilateral reshaping of legitimacy. For Iran, Sachs describes decades of comprehensive sanctions and Trump’s renewed push to crush the economy using OFAC and extraterritorial sanctions. He cites Scott Besant’s interview claiming that by December, the currency had plummeted and dollar shortages followed, framing this as a deliberate regime-change strategy. He notes that mainstream media largely omitted the causal narrative—U.S. role in provoking protests—despite Besant’s public account. Looking ahead, Sachs discusses the multi-polarity challenge. He suggests that the dollar's dominance is waning as alternative settlement systems emerge, such as non-dollar currencies and parallel institutions, notably driven by China and BRICS members. He envisions a shift toward non-dollar settlements—potentially 25% of global transactions within ten years—enabled by digital settlements and new infrastructure that reduces the reach of U.S. extraterritorial sanctions. However, achieving this requires new, dollar-independent institutions, since existing banks remain reluctant to abandon dollar-based business due to sanctions risk. He concludes by noting that the United States’ heavy-handed currency policy may not be sustainable in the long run, as sanctions reach could lessen once non-dollar settlement networks gain traction. The host closes, recognizing this as a pivotal moment where U.S. coercion could either deter rivals or precipitate broader self-harm, and thanks Sachs for his insights.

Mario: Let's start with Venezuela. Do you think this is a strategy by Trump? Larry: I saw something similar back in 1988. The CIA was involved with trying to provoke Manuel Noriega into taking some sort of action. They could say, oh, well, we gotta go respond to this to set the stage for our military invasion, which I believe that in 2018, Donald Trump signed a finding authorizing a covert action by the CIA to get rid of Maduro. That attempt failed. And now the objective, get control of the oil. That's the number one priority. And I think it's being done with an eye looking forward, recognizing the potential risk. If conflict is renewed with Iran, prospect of the shutdown of Persian Gulf— Mario: Ukraine defeated Russia. Larry: Yeah. That was the plan. Russia's military is now around 1,500,000. Mario: Let’s talk Venezuela. What’s your initial reaction? When John Kuriaki suggested the best indicator is naval movements, and the buildup off Venezuela is significant. I’ve heard they have 14, twelve warships, including the Gerald Ford. Do you think they are bluffing? Is this Trump strategy? Larry: It could be a bluff. I saw something similar in 1988. I was in the CIA’s Central America branch. They tried to provoke Noriega into action to justify invasion, which happened in December 1988. What’s different now is the base infrastructure. In Panama, Quarry Heights was full; Southern Command was there. Southern Command has moved to Miami. The weaponization of the idea of a “supported vs. supporting” commander is reversed here: Southern Command would be subordinate to Special Operations Command. SOCOM cannot fight a conventional war; they’re light infantry, raids, hostage rescue. So the question is: what will the ships actually do? Shells into Venezuela won’t defeat Venezuela. Ground forces would require mass, and Venezuela is three times the size of Vietnam with rugged terrain that favors ambushes. If US troops ashore, you’d stack body bags far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Mario: Do Venezuelans have the will to fight Maduro? Larry: Yes. It will rally insurgents from Brazil and Colombia. If we decapitate Maduro, there are loyalists with weapons; an insurgency could follow, and the US would be hard-pressed to pacify it. The State Department’s INL/INSCR reports on narcotics note Venezuela as a transit point for marijuana and some cocaine, with fentanyl less central than claimed by Trump. The 2018 emphasis on Trendy Aragua looked CIA-driven. Trump reportedly signed a covert action finding in 2018 to remove Maduro, leading to the Guaidó fiasco; that covert action included some public diplomacy via USAID. The objective now, as you asked, is oil control and curtailing Russia, China, and Iran’s influence, with an eye toward BRICS. Mario: Could there be a decapitation strike on Maduro, and would someone like Maria take over? Larry: A decapitation strike could spark insurgency; the US would not be able to pacify it. The broader agenda seems to include a strategy to seize oil and reduce regional influence by Russia and China. Venezuela’s role as a transit point and possible BRICS alignment complicates any straightforward regime-change scenario. Mario: Moving to general foreign policy under Trump. The national security strategy (NSS) for 2025 signals a shift, but you question how binding NSS papers are. What did you make of it, and how does it relate to Ukraine? You’ve noted Trump isn’t serious about peace in Ukraine on some occasions. Larry: The NSS is a set of guidelines, not a blueprint. Europe is being asked to step up, the US distancing itself from Europe, and the strategic relationship with Europe is damaged by the perception of long-term reliability and sanctions. The document highlights China as an economic rival rather than an enemy; it criticizes Europe’s defense spending and censorship, and it frames Russia as less of a direct threat than before, though the reality is nuanced. The US-EU relationship is strained, and the US wants Europe to shoulder more of the burden in Ukraine while maintaining strategic pressure. Mario: What about Ukraine? Zelensky’s negotiation posture, security guarantees, and the Moscow terms? Larry: Putin spoke on 06/14/2024 with five Russian demands: Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk are permanently part of Russia; Ukraine must withdraw its forces from those republics; there must be an election in Ukraine with a legitimately elected president (the Russians argue Zelensky is illegitimate for not holding elections); they suggest a successor to Zelensky and elections within 90 days. Freezing lines in Donbas is not accepted by Russia; the Russians claim further territory may be annexed with referenda. If peace talks fail, Russia is likely to push to occupy Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv, and Odessa, potentially Kyiv. Western support is insufficient to alter that trajectory, given Russia’s large artillery and drone production. The US and Europe cannot match Russia’s drone and shell output; even if they supply Tomahawks, escalation risks, including nuclear considerations, grow. Russia’s economy and war capacity remain robust, and the BRICS poles are strengthening as Western leverage wanes. Mario: What about sanctions strategy and Russia’s oil revenues? Larry: Oil remains a significant but not decisive portion of Russia’s GDP. The West’s sanctions are not enough to force collapse; Russia has endured the 1990s and remains resilient. BRICS cooperation and the shift to the Global South are changing the global order, with Russia and China deepening ties and reducing Western influence. The war in Ukraine has not produced a decisive Western victory, and the global south is moving away from Western-led sanctions, reshaping geopolitical alignments. Mario, it’s been a pleasure.

The speaker argues that using the dollar as a tool of foreign policy is one of the biggest strategic mistakes by the US political leadership, stating that the dollar is the cornerstone of US power and that printing more dollars leads to their wide dispersion worldwide. Inflation in the United States is described as minimal, about 3% to 3.4%, and the speaker asserts that the US will not stop printing. The debt of $33 trillion is said to indicate emission, and the dollar is described as the main weapon used by the United States to preserve its power globally. Once the political leadership decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political struggle, the speaker claims a blow was dealt to American power. The speaker avoids strong language but calls the strategy a stupid thing to do and a grave mistake, pointing to world events as evidence. The speaker notes that US allies are downsizing their dollar reserves, and asserts that these actions cause everyone to seek ways to protect themselves. They claim that US restrictive measures—such as placing restrictions on transactions and freezing assets—cause great concern and send a signal to the world. A historical point is made: until 2022, about 80% of Russian foreign trade transactions were conducted in US dollars and euros, with US dollars accounting for approximately 50% of Russia’s transactions with third countries; currently, the share is down to 13%. The speaker emphasizes that Russia did not ban the use of the US dollar; it was a decision by the United States to restrict transactions in US dollars. The speaker contends that the policy is foolish from the standpoint of US interests and taxpayers because it damages the US economy and undermines US power, and notes that transactions in Yuan accounted for about 3%. Today, 34% of transactions are in rubles, and a little over 34% in yuan. The speaker asks why the United States did this, offering “self conceit” as the guess, claiming the US probably thought it would lead to full collapse, but nothing collapsed. Additionally, the speaker states that other countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in yuan. The question is posed to the United States about whether anyone realizes what is happening and what they are doing, as the speaker suggests that the US is cutting itself off. Finally, the speaker asserts that all experts say this, and that anyone intelligent in the United States should understand what the dollar means for the US, but claims the US is “killing it with your own hand.”

Mario and Jeff discuss what the current geopolitical and monetary environment means for gold, the US dollar, and the broader system that underpins global finance. - Gold and asset roles - Gold is a portfolio asset that does not compete with the dollar; it competes with the stock market and tends to rise when people are concerned about risky assets. It is a “safe haven store value” rather than a monetary instrument aimed at replacing the dollar. - Historically, gold did not reliably hedge inflation in 2021–2022 when the economy seemed to be recovering; in downturns, gold becomes more attractive as a store of value. Recent moves up in gold price over the last two months are viewed as pricing in multiple factors, including potential economic downturn and questionable macro conditions. - The dollar and de-dollarization - The eurodollar system is a vast, largely ledger-based network of US-dollar balances held offshore, allowing near-instantaneous movement of funds. It is not simply “the euro,” and it predates and outlived any single country’s policy. Replacing it would be like recreating the Internet from scratch. - De-dollarization discussions are driven more by political narratives than monetary mechanics. Central banks selling dollar assets during shortages is a liquidity management response, not a repudiation of the dollar. - The dollar’s dominance remains intact because there is no ready substitute meeting all its functions. Replacing the dollar would require replacing the entire set of dollar functions across global settlement, payments, and liquidity provisioning. - Bank reserves, reserves composition, and the size of the eurodollar market - The share of US dollars in foreign reserves has declined, but this is not seen as a meaningful signal about the system’s functionality or dominance; the real issue is the level of settlement and liquidity, which remains heavily dollar-based. - The eurodollar market is enormous and largely offshore, with little public reporting. It is described as a “black hole” that drives movements in the system and is extremely hard to measure precisely. - Current dynamics: debt, safety, and liquidity - The debt ceiling and growing US debt are acknowledged as concerns, but the view presented is that debt dynamics do not destabilize the Treasury market as long as demand for safety and liquidity remains high. In a depression-like environment, US Treasuries are still viewed as the safest and most liquid form of debt, which sustains their price and keeps yields relatively contained. - Gold is safe but not highly liquid as collateral; Treasuries provide liquidity. Central banks use gold to diversify reserves and stabilize currencies (e.g., yuan), but Treasuries remain central to collateral needs in a broad financial system. - China, the US, and global growth - China’s economy faces deflationary pressures, with ten consecutive quarters of deflation in the Chinese GDP deflator, raising questions about domestic demand. Attempts to stimulate have had limited success; overproduction and rebalancing efforts aim to reduce supply to match demand, potentially increasing unemployment and lowering investment. - The US faces a weakening labor market; recent job shedding and rising delinquencies in consumer and corporate credit markets heighten uncertainty about the credit system. This underpins gold’s appeal as a store of value. - China remains heavily dependent on the US consumer; despite decoupling rhetoric, demand for Chinese goods and the global supply chain ties keep the US-China relationship central to global dynamics. The prospect of a Chinese-led fourth industrial revolution (AI, quantum computing) is viewed skeptically as unlikely to overcome structural inefficiencies of a centralized planning model. - Gold, Bitcoin, and alternative systems - Bitcoin is described as a Nasdaq-stock-like store of value tied to tech equities; it is not seen as a robust currency or a wide-scale payment system based on liquidity. It could, in theory, be a superior version of gold someday, but today it behaves like other speculative assets. - The conversation weighs the potential for a shift away from the eurodollar toward private digital currencies or a mix of public-private digital currencies. The idea that a completely decentralized system could replace the eurodollar is acknowledged as a long-term possibility, but currently, stablecoins are evolving toward stand-alone viability rather than a wholesale replacement. - The broader arc and forecast - The trade war is seen as a redistribution of productive capacity rather than a definitive win for either side; macroeconomic outcomes in the 2020s are shaped by monetary conditions and the eurodollar system’s functioning more than by policy interventions alone. - The speakers foresee a future with multipolarity and a gradually evolving monetary regime, possibly moving from the eurodollar toward a suite of digital currencies—some private, some public—while gold remains a key store of value in times of systemic risk. - Argentina, Russia, and Europe - Argentina’s crisis is framed as an outcome of eurodollar malfunctioning; IMF interventions offer only temporary stabilization in the face of ongoing liquidity and deflationary pressures. - Russia remains integrated with global finance through channels like the eurodollar system, even after sanctions; the resilience of energy sectors and external support from partners like China helps it endure. - Europe is acknowledged as facing a difficult, depressing outlook, reinforcing the broader narrative of a challenging global macro environment. Overall, gold is framed as a prudent hedge within a complex, interconnected, and evolving eurodollar system, with no imminent replacement of the dollar in sight, while the path toward a multi-currency or digital-currency future remains uncertain and gradual.

Donald Trump’s second term is accelerating the US dollar’s downfall and could reshape the global monetary system in a manner reminiscent of Nixon’s 1971 move ending the Bretton Woods era, according to Guangzhou, chief economist at Bank of China’s investment arm. Trump’s aggressive tariffs rolled out in April are rattling global trade and finance to their core, with Guangzhou drawing a chilling parallel to the Nixon shock. The dollar’s grip on global reserves has fallen to a thirty-year low of 56.32% in Q2, down 1.47 percentage points. Nations are ditching US assets in droves, with net purchases plunging 94.4% to a mere $510,000,000, based on US Treasury data. Guangzhou notes that Trump’s war on the Fed’s independence is eroding confidence in US policy, making this meltdown dwarf the chaos of the 1970s. For China, this scenario presents prime timing to influence the currency landscape. Guangzhou urges Beijing to turbocharge the yuan’s global rise by expanding financial clout. The proposed path includes swinging open financial gates, syncing with international norms, unleashing innovative yuan tools, and supercharging Shanghai and Hong Kong as powerhouse hubs. As the dollar fades, the yuan could rise, potentially ushering in a multipolar currency showdown. If you’re craving razor-sharp geopolitical breakdowns like this, subscribe to New Rules Geopolitics to stay on top of global trends.

Professor Zhang argues that geopolitics is a game where players maximize their self-interest, with predictions built on game theory rather than ideology. For 2026, the central event is Trump’s state visit to China in April, and the US–China relationship is identified as the key uncertain variable, while Russia–Ukraine is considered settled and Europe–NATO–Russia largely forecastable. Zhang outlines the grand strategy behind current tensions: Trump supposedly aims to force a grand bargain with China by leveraging the destabilization of the Middle East and Western Hemisphere to push China into continuing to buy US dollars. He contends that since Nixon’s 1971 decision to float the dollar, the US has relied on two pillars—the petrodollar system and opening China to American technology and markets. As the US then ran deficits and engaged in Middle East wars, China sought to internationalize the yuan and reduce dependence on the dollar via instruments like the Shanghai gold exchange. This, in his view, destabilizes the dollar, prompting Trump to push China to maintain dollar demand by destabilizing oil supply routes and minerals for China’s EV, AI, and other sectors. By invading Venezuela and potentially destabilizing Iran, Trump allegedly aims to force China to rely more on Western Hemisphere oil, silver, gold, lithium, copper, etc., and thus buy more US Treasuries to support the dollar. The discussion then shifts to possible bifurcations: if the United States truly wants China to use the dollar, it would create trust and a predictable, rules-based order; yet current actions—such as cutting China off from semiconductors or “crushing its tech industry”—could push China away, making it more independent and less dependent on the dollar. The Venezuelan case is cited as evidence that the aim is to obstruct China rather than claim oil directly; it would rather block rival powers than simply seize resources. The two powers are described as codependent: China imports about three-quarters of its oil, with roughly 50% from the Middle East and 20% from Russia; China would face a long and costly transition to replace Russian oil entirely, including pipelines. China also has tools to push back, such as triggering instability in silver markets (where China dominates) or other commodities used for manufacturing, a dynamic described as mutually assured economic destruction if either side overplays. When asked how the US could simultaneously pursue trust and coercion, Zhang asserts it cannot have both; the US is described as a global hegemon that should treat China as an equal, but instead presses to subordinate China. This creates a “ladder over an abyss” metaphor: both sides must climb together, or both fall; overt coercion could push China toward a different strategic alignment, possibly toward Russia or a diversified energy portfolio. Zhang emphasizes the role of hubris and racism in US policy, rather than pure ideology, and says the US dollar’s strength is also its vulnerability. Looking at US domestic dynamics, Zhang predicts a potential US economic crisis could magnify political instability. He identifies three US fragilities: (1) AI-driven GDP components that may not generate enduring profits, as data centers consume vast resources and job loss looms; (2) over-financialization, including a speculative silver market and leverage in commodities; and (3) cryptocurrency de-coupled from real utility, with quantum easing allowing continued money printing. He argues these weaknesses could precipitate a fiscal crisis and civil conflict if not contained, potentially catalyzing a broader crisis of state legitimacy. In Europe, Zhang foresees militarization and a misguided pro-war stance despite domestic discontent, predicting irrational policies and a possible collapse of NATO’s existing framework. He forecasts intensified Europe–Russia tensions, including a possible endgame around Odessa, with NATO likely to be overwhelmed militarily, leading to civil unrest and a “slow death” for European cohesion over five to ten years. He contends Europe’s strategic autonomy is eroding under multiculturalist policies and internal polarization, undermining willingness to fight. Regarding the United States’ global posture, Zhang argues Washington is moving toward transactional empire-building—exploiting its vassals when advantageous and abandoning them when not—while projecting power from the Western Hemisphere as a core strategy. He argues that this approach will erode Europe’s relevance and provoke global backlash. Finally, Zhang returns to Iran: Trump’s push for regime change there is linked to leveraging support from Israel and influential backers, such as Adelson and Elon Musk, with the likely aim of a ground invasion. Yet the plausibility of a successful invasion is questionable, given Iran’s size and power, and Trump’s emphasis on optics over sustained policy. The main unknown is China’s response; factions within China differ on dependence on Russia versus diversified oil sources, and the April meeting will shape whether a grand bargain reduces conflict or merely preserves the empire’s decline. To conclude, the April China meeting is pivotal, with four scheduled meetings in 2026; a China–US deal could stabilize some tensions, but the underlying imperial collapse is expected to persist, fueling wars and confrontations worldwide regardless of occasional bargains.

Marco Rubio traveled to Germany for the Munich Security Conference and delivered what the program calls the most important American speech in the last thirty years, calling on Europe to join Trump's new world order or face the consequences. He told NATO allies that playtime is over and that a new world order is being written by the United States; Europe is asked to join, or face being left behind. Rubio framed NATO as a transaction between countries and said it is only worth defending if you are worth defending, accusing European leaders of managing Europe’s decline and warning that if Europe continues on a liberal, destructive path, the United States will be done with them. He criticized a liberal globalist agenda of a borderless world and mass immigration, and argued for reform of the existing international order rather than dismantling it. Rubio asserted that the old rules of the world are dead and that the West must adapt to a new era of geopolitics. He indicated that these are conversations he has been having with allies and other world leaders behind closed doors, and that these talks are accelerating. The speech conveyed a clear ultimatum: the US wants Europe with us, but is prepared to rebuild the global order alone if necessary. Rubio stated that the US would prefer to act with Europe, but would do so independently if Europe does not align. The discussion then ties these geopolitics to currency and economics. The US dollar’s role as the reserve currency and its strength are central to the old world order. The Trump administration is signaling that the strong dollar religion is over, with the dollar weakened in Trump’s second term to make US exports cheaper. Reuters is cited as reporting that China’s treasury holdings have dropped to their lowest level since 2008 as banks are urged to curb exposure to US treasuries, suggesting China is stepping back from funding America and that the burden may shift to US funding via domestic sources. The narrative contrasts this with China’s push for a stronger yuan and global reserve status, including potential expansion of currency use in trade, while Europe sits in the middle, invited to join the US-led shift or be sidelined. There is mention of a possible April Beijing trip by Trump to meet Xi Jinping. The segment also notes internal GOP dynamics, describing Rubio as a neocon favorite and predicting a contest between Rubio’s hawkish approach and JD Vance, who reportedly does not want broad war expansions. The speaker frames Rubio’s speech as a signal flare indicating a real-time reorganization of the West, with the dollar at the blast radius. The sponsor segment follows, tying the topics to critical minerals and a program named Project Vault, a $12 billion strategic reserve for precious minerals to protect the private sector from supply shocks. At a Critical Minerals Ministerial, JD Vance and Marco Rubio delivered a message to China about preventing market flooding from killing domestic projects. The sponsor promotes North American Niobium, a company exploring for niobium and two rare earths (neodymium and praseodymium), describing niobium as critical for aerospace and defense applications, with no domestic US production and 90% global supply controlled by Brazil. The company’s base includes Quebec, Canada, and it highlights leadership from Joseph Carrabas of Rio Tinto and Cliffs Natural Resources fame, and Carrie Lynn Findlay, a former Canadian cabinet minister. The ticker symbol NIOMF is provided, with notes that shares are tradable on major US brokerages, and a reminder for due diligence.

Professor Wang Wen discusses China’s de Americanization as a strategic response to shifts in global power and U.S. policy, not as an outright anti-American project. He outlines six fields of de Americanization that have evolved over seven to eight years: de Americanization of trade, de Americanization of finance, de Americanization of security, demarization of IT knowledge, demarization of high-tech, and demarization of education. He argues the strategy was not China’s initiative but was forced by the United States. Key motivations and timeline - Since China’s reform and opening, China sought a friendly relationship with the U.S., inviting American investment, expanding trade, and learning from American management and financial markets. By 2002–2016, about 20% of China’s trade depended on the United States. The U.S. containment policy, including the Trump administration’s trade war, Huawei actions, and sanctions on Chinese firms, prompted China to respond with countermeasures and adjustments. - A 2022 New York Times piece, cited by Wang, notes that Chinese people have awakened about U.S. hypocrisy and the dangers of relying on the United States. He even states that Trump’s actions educated Chinese perspectives on necessary countermeasures to defend core interests, framing de Americanization as a protective response rather than hostility. Global and economic consequences - Diversification of trade: since the 2013 Belt and Road Initiative, China has deepened cooperation with the Global South. Trade with Russia, Central Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia has grown faster than with the United States. Five years ago, China–Russia trade was just over $100 billion; now it’s around $250 billion and could exceed $300 billion in five years. China–Latin America trade has surpassed $500 billion and may overtake the China–U.S. trade in the next five years. The U.S.–China trade volume is around $500 billion this year. - The result is a more balanced and secure global trade structure, with the U.S. remaining important but declining in China’s overall trade landscape. China views its “international price revolution” as raising the quality and affordability of goods for the Global South, such as EVs and solar energy products, enabling developing countries to access better products at similar prices. - The U.S. trade war is seen as less successful from China’s perspective because America’s share of China’s trade has fallen from about 20% to roughly 9%. Financial and monetary dimensions - In finance, China has faced over 2,000 U.S. sanctions on Chinese firms in the past seven years, which has spurred dedollarization and efforts to reform international payment systems. Wang argues that dollar hegemony harms the global system and predicts dedollarization and RMB internationalization will expand, with the dollar’s dominance continuing to wane by 2035 as more countries reduce dependence on U.S. currency. Technological rivalry - China’s rise as a technology power is framed as a normal, market-based competition. The U.S. should not weaponize financial or policy instruments to curb China’s development, nor should it fear fair competition. He notes that many foundational technologies (papermaking, the compass, gunpowder) originated in China, and today China builds on existing technologies, including AI and high-speed rail, while denying accusations of coercive theft. - The future of tech competition could benefit humanity if managed rationally, with multiple centers of innovation rather than a single hegemon. The U.S. concern about losing its lead is framed as a driver of misallocations and “malinvestments” in AI funding. Education and culture - Education is a key battleground in de Americanization. China aims to shift from dependence on U.S.-dominated knowledge systems to a normal, China-centered educational ecosystem with autonomous textbooks and disciplinary systems. Many Chinese students studied abroad, especially in the U.S., but a growing number now stay home or return after training. Wang highlights that more than 30% of Silicon Valley AI scientists hold undergraduate degrees from China, illustrating the reverse brain drain benefiting China. - The aim is not decoupling but a normal relationship with the U.S.—one in which China maintains its own knowledge system while continuing constructive cooperation where appropriate. Concluding metaphor - Wang uses the “normal neighbors” metaphor: the U.S. and China should avoid military conflict and embrace a functional, non-dependence-oriented, neighborly relationship rather than an unbalanced marriage, recognizing that diversification and multipolarity can strengthen global resilience. He also warns against color revolutions and NGO-driven civil-society manipulation, advocating for a Japan-like, balanced approach to democracy and civil society that respects national contexts.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, joins the program to discuss the dramatic developments in the war against Iran. The conversation centers on the strike on Karg Island, the strategic choke point for Iran’s oil exports, and the broader implications of escalating U.S. actions. - Karg Island and the oil threat: The host notes that Karg Island handles 90% of Iran’s oil exports and asks why Trump isn’t targeting this area. Johnson argues the attack on Karg Island makes little strategic sense and points out that Iran has five oil terminals; destroying one would not end Iran’s potential revenue. He emphasizes that the U.S. bombed the runway of the major airport on the island, which he says remains irrelevant to Iran’s overall capacity to generate revenue. He notes the runway damage would not support U.S. objectives for invading the island, given runway length constraints (6,000 feet measured vs. need for 3,500–3,700 feet for certain aircraft) and the limited air force in Iran. Johnson asserts that Iran has indicated it would retaliate against oil terminals and Gulf neighbors if oil resources or energy infrastructure are attacked. - Economic and strategic consequences of closing the Strait of Hormuz: Johnson states that the action effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off 20% of the world’s oil supply, 25% of global LNG, and 35% of the world’s urea for fertilizer. He explains fertilizer’s criticality to global agriculture and notes that rising gas and diesel prices in the United States would impact consumer costs, given many Americans live paycheck to paycheck. He suggests the price hikes contribute to inflationary pressure and could trigger a global recession, especially since Persian Gulf countries are pivotal energy suppliers. He also points out that the U.S. cannot easily reopen Hormuz without unacceptable losses and that Iran has prepared for contingencies for thirty years, with robust defenses including tunnels and coastal fortifications. - Military feasibility and strategy: The discussion covers the impracticality of a U.S. ground invasion of Iran, given the size of Iran’s army and the modern battlefield’s drone and missile threats. Johnson notes the U.S. Army and Marine numbers, the logistical challenges of sustaining an amphibious or airborne assault, and the vulnerability of American ships and troops to drones and missiles. He highlights that a mass deployment would be highly costly and dangerous, with historical evidence showing air power alone cannot win wars. The hosts discuss limited U.S. options and the possible futility of attempts to seize or occupy Iran’s territory. - Internal U.S. decision-making and DC dynamics: The program mentions a split inside Washington between anti-war voices and those pressing toward Tehran, with leaks suggesting that top officials warned Trump about major obstacles and potential losses. Johnson cites a leak from the National Intelligence Council indicating regime change in Tehran is unlikely, even with significant U.S. effort. He asserts the Pentagon’s credibility has been questioned after disputed reports (e.g., the KC-135 shootdown) and notes that Trump’s advisors who counsel restraint are being sidelined. - Iranian retaliation and targets: The discussion covers Iran’s targeting of air defenses and critical infrastructure, including radars at embassies and bases in the region, and the destruction of five Saudi air refueling tankers, which Trump later dismissed as fake news. Johnson says Iran aims to degrade Israel economically and militarily, while carefully avoiding mass civilian casualties in some instances. He observes Iran’s restraint in striking desalination plants, which would have caused a humanitarian catastrophe, suggesting a deliberate choice to keep certain targets within bounds. - Global realignments and the role of Russia, China, and India: The conversation touches on broader geopolitical shifts. Johnson argues that Russia and China are offering alternatives to the dollar-dominated order, strengthening ties with Gulf states and BRICS members. He suggests Gulf allies may be considering decoupling from U.S. security guarantees, seeking to diversify away from the petrodollar system. The discussion includes India’s position, noting Modi’s visit to Israel and India’s balancing act amid U.S. pressure and Iran relations; Iran’s ultimatum to allow passage for flag vessels and its diplomacy toward India is highlighted as a measured approach, even as India’s stance has attracted scrutiny. - Israel, casualties, and the broader landscape: The speakers discuss Israeli casualties and infrastructure under sustained Iranian strikes, noting limited information from within Israel due to media constraints and possible censorship. Johnson presents a game-theory view: if Israel threatens a nuclear option, Iran might be compelled to develop a nuclear capability as a deterrent, altering calculations for both Israel and the United States. - Terrorism narrative and historical context: The speakers challenge the U.S. portrayal of Iran as the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, arguing that ISIS and the Taliban have caused far more deaths in recent years, and that Iran’s responses to threats have historically prioritized restraint. They emphasize Iran’s chemical weapons restraint during the Iran-Iraq war, contrasting it with U.S. and Iraqi actions in the 1980s. - Final reflections: The discussion emphasizes the cascade effects of the conflict, including potential impacts on Taiwan’s energy and semiconductor production, multiplied by China’s leverage, and Russia’s increasing global influence. Johnson warns that the war’s end will likely be achieved through shifting alignments and economic realignments rather than a conventional battlefield victory, with the goal of U.S. withdrawal from the region as part of any settlement. The conversation closes with mutual thanks and a reaffirmation of ongoing analysis of these evolving dynamics.