reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy and its global impact. - Unpredictability as a negotiation asset: Speaker 0 notes that Trump’s rhetoric is out of the norm and concerning, citing statements about Greenland, Iran, Venezuela, and Gaza. Speaker 1 counters that Trump starts with a very tough position and then moderates it as a negotiation tactic, arguing that unpredictability has value but erodes credibility because “what he says this week will not be what he might do next week or the week after.” - Gaza, Venezuela, and Iran as case studies: Gaza is described as having no peace, only ongoing uncertainty. In Venezuela, Speaker 0 sees a new regime leader working with the old regime, making regime change unlikely; Speaker 1 cautions that Rodriguez would have to dismantle the army and paramilitaries to improve Venezuela, implying changes may be blocked by corruption and drug trafficking networks. In Iran, despite expectations of a strike, Trump did not strike, which Speaker 1 attributes to calculated restraint and the need to avoid provoking Iranian retaliation; Speaker 0 asks why, and Speaker 1 emphasizes the complexity and the risk of escalation. - Domestic and diplomatic capacity under Trump: Speaker 1 argues the administration relies on nontraditional figures (e.g., Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff) rather than professional diplomats, contributing to a lack of sustained policy execution. He notes the Pentagon, State Department, and National Security Council have been stripped of expertise, with many positions unfilled. He describes diplomacy as being conducted by envoy, with trusted associates who lack deep diplomatic experience. - Global power shifts and alliances: Speaker 1 says unpredictability can undermine US credibility; however, there is a real shift as the US appears to retreat from international engagement. He asserts that Russia and China have lost clients due to various internal and regional dynamics, while the US withdrawal from international organizations has allowed China to gain influence, including within the UN. He predicts that the US could become weaker in the long run relative to its previous position, even if economically stronger domestically. - Regional dynamics and potential alliances: The conversation touches on the theoretical possibility of an Islamic or Middle Eastern NATO-like alliance, led by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with potential Turkish involvement. Speaker 1 argues that such an alliance would not resemble NATO but that regional powers are likely to form bilateral and regional arrangements to counterbalance major powers like the US, Russia, and China. In the Middle East, Israel is cast as an influential actor shaping regional alignments, with Gulf states wary of Iranian retaliation and crisis spillover. - The Iran crisis and military posture: Speaker 1 explains why Gulf states and Israel did not want an immediate strike on Iran due to the risk of massive retaliation and limited US regional presence at the time. He notes the Abraham Lincoln and George H.W. Bush carrier groups' movements suggest potential future force projection, but states that any strike would likely be small if undertaken given current hardware positioning. He suggests the crisis will continue, with Iran’s internal repression and external deterrence shaping the dynamics. He also points to the 2000 missiles and the IRGC’s scale as factors in regional calculations. - Reflection on impact and timing: The discussion notes the potential for longer-term consequences in US credibility and global influence once Trumpism passes, with the possibility of the US reemerging weaker on the world stage despite possible internal economic strength. Speaker 0 closes with appreciation for the discussion; Speaker 1 agrees.

In this conversation, Brian Berletic discusses the current collision between the United States’ global strategy and a rising multipolar world, arguing that U.S. policy is driven by corporate-financier interests and a desire to preserve unipolar primacy, regardless of the costs to others. - Structural dynamics and multipolar resistance - The host notes a shift from optimism about Trump’s “America First” rhetoric toward an assessment that U.S. strategy aims to restore hegemony and broad, repeated wars, even as a multipolar world emerges. - Berletic agrees that the crisis is structural: the U.S. system is driven by large corporate-financier interests prioritizing expansion of profit and power. He cites Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy papers, particularly The Path to Persia, as documenting a long-running plan to manage Iran via a sequence of options designed to be used in synergy to topple Iran, with Syria serving as a staging ground for broader conflict. - He argues the policy framework has guided decisions across administrations, turning policy papers into bills and war plans, with corporate media selling these as American interests. This, he says, leaves little room for genuine opposition because political power is financed by corporate interests. - Iran, Syria, and the Middle East as a springboard to a global confrontation - Berletic traces the current Iran crisis to the 2009 Brookings paper’s emphasis on air corridors and using Israel to provoke a war, placing blame on Israel as a proxy mechanism while the U.S. cleanses the region of access points for striking Iran directly. - He asserts the Arab Spring (2011) was designed to encircle Iran and move toward Moscow and Beijing, with Iran as the final target. The U.S. and its allies allegedly used policy papers to push tactical steps—weakening Russia via Ukraine, exploiting Syria, and leveraging Iran as a fulcrum for broader restraint against Eurasian powers. - The aim, he argues, is to prevent a rising China by destabilizing Iran and, simultaneously, strangling energy exports that feed China’s growth. He claims the United States has imposed a global maritime oil blockade on China through coordinated strikes and pressure on oil-rich states, while China pursues energy independence via Belt and Road, coal-to-liquids, and growing imports from Russia. - The role of diplomacy, escalation, and Netanyahu’s proxy - On diplomacy, Berletic says the U.S. has no genuine interest in peace; diplomacy is used to pretext war, creating appearances of reasonable engagement while advancing the continuity of a warlike agenda. He references the Witch Path to Persia as describing diplomacy as a pretext for regime change. - He emphasizes that Russia and China are not credibly negotiating with the U.S., viewing Western diplomacy as theater designed to degrade multipolar powers. Iran, he adds, may be buying time but also reacting to U.S. pressure, while Arab states and Israel are portrayed as proxies with limited autonomy. - The discussion also covers how Israel serves as a disposable proxy to advance U.S. goals, including potential use of nuclear weapons, with Trump allegedly signaling a post-facto defense of Israel in any such scenario. - The Iran conflict, its dynamics, and potential trajectory - The war in Iran is described as a phased aggression, beginning with the consulate attack and escalating into economic and missile-strike campaigns. Berletic notes Iran’s resilient command-and-control and ongoing missile launches, suggesting the U.S. and its allies are attempting to bankrupt Iran while degrading its military capabilities. - He highlights the strain on U.S. munitions inventories, particularly anti-missile interceptors and long-range weapons, due to simultaneous operations in Ukraine, the Middle East, and potential confrontations with China. He warns that the war’s logistics are being stretched to the breaking point, risking a broader blowback. - The discussion points to potential escalation vectors: shutting Hormuz, targeting civilian infrastructure, and possibly using proxies (including within the Gulf states and Yemen) to choke off energy flows. Berletic cautions that the U.S. could resort to more drastic steps, including leveraging Israel for off-world actions, while maintaining that multipolar actors (Russia, China, Iran) would resist. - Capabilities, resources, and the potential duration - The host notes China’s energy-mobility strategies and the Western dependency on rare earth minerals (e.g., gallium) mostly produced in China, emphasizing how U.S. war aims rely on leveraging allies and global supply chains that are not easily sustained. - Berletic argues the U.S. does not plan for permanent victory but for control, and that multipolar powers are growing faster than the United States can destroy them. He suggests an inflection point will come when multipolarism outruns U.S. capacity, though the outcome remains precarious due to nuclear risk and global economic shocks. - Outlook and final reflections - The interlocutors reiterate that the war is part of a broader structural battle between unipolar U.S. dominance and a rising multipolar order anchored by Eurasian powers. They stress the need to awaken broader publics to the reality of multipolarism and to pursue a more balanced world order, warning that the current trajectory risks global economic harm and dangerous escalation.

Glenn and Professor Zhang discuss the trajectory of global conflict and the transformation of the world order. Zhang presents several lines of evidence and reasoning for a destabilizing, multi-polar era that could culminate in a broader conflict akin to World War III, with 2026 identified as a period of potential flare-ups. Evidence and triggers pointing toward greater conflict: - The American National Security Strategy recently published argues that “the order has dissipated. It’s gone,” and that America must protect its own national self-interest, primarily in the Western Hemisphere, through a “mineral doctrine” and a Trump corollary to enforce it. China’s and Russia’s encroachment in South America, notably via China’s investments, is cited as a trigger for U.S. assertiveness, including the Caribbean concentration of naval assets and actions affecting Venezuela’s oil. - The Russia-Ukraine war is described as effectively over, with morale in Ukraine collapsed and large-scale desertions; Europe contemplates using seized Russian assets to fund Ukraine and avoid a peace that could allow Russia to consolidate gains. Europe’s intended loans to Ukraine and the fear that Russia could challenge European supremacy are highlighted. - In the Middle East, the Israel–Iran dynamic is seen as increasingly unstable, with predictions of Israel attacking Hezbollah and Lebanon within weeks, and ongoing friction around the Hamas peace deal. Iran is portrayed as a pivot in a broader Eurasian alliance that could threaten Western interests if Iran’s lines of trade and energy routes are integrated with Russia and China. - The overall global contest is framed as a struggle over the new world order: the shift from a liberal, rules-based order to multipolar competition where the U.S. seeks to maintain dominance through deterrence, sanctions, and allied proxies. Historical patterns and structural analysis: - Zhang invokes historical analogies, noting the rise and fall pattern of empires, the McKinder Heartland Thesis, and the dynamics of Britain’s naval supremacy that aimed to keep Eurasia fragmented to prevent a continental power from unifying the region. He argues that today China’s rise, paired with U.S. efforts to sustain dominance, pushes toward a similar pendulum where a Eurasian continental system could emerge if Russia, China, Iran, and possibly India align economically and politically. - The BRICS alliance and Iran as a pivot are emphasized: America’s debt-dominated reserve currency system pushes BRICS and Iran closer together, forming a potential continental trade network that could bypass Western-dominated channels. America’s strategy, in this view, is to “economically strangle China,” deny China access to South American minerals, and use allies to counter Beijing while promoting divide-and-rule tactics in Asia. - The discussion suggests that a war could be expanded by a domino effect: a Venezuela operation could draw Cuba, Nicaragua, Brazil, and other regional players into conflict; a wider confrontation could involve the Hormuz Strait, Odessa, and European troop commitments, creating a global escalation. Domestic dimension and leadership implications: - Zhang cites Arthur Spengler’s decline indicators for Western societies: over-urbanization, declining birthrates, extreme inequality, proxy warfare, and cultural decadence, coupled with immigration and fear-based policies that suppress open discourse (examples include social-media surveillance and visa requirements tied to political speech). - He asserts that Western leadership has become addicted to projection and proxy wars, shedding the liberal pretenses that once underpinned its strategy, and that a collapse of confidence and cohesion could accompany, or even drive, a broader conflict. Conclusion and prognosis: - The conversation converges on a bleak frame: the end of U.S. hegemony and a transition to a multipolar order with rising powers, where the possibility of a large-scale war remains real and not easily contained. Zhang argues that the current trajectory does not easily revert to a peaceful status quo and that the 2020s could be a period of sustained tensions and escalations, potentially lasting a decade or more. He acknowledges that he hopes to be proven wrong and would personally prefer a peaceful resolution, but maintains that the next period may be defined by a significant, multipolar contest in which proxies and great-power competition are central.

Jeffrey Sachs argues that we are witnessing the limits of Western power, including the limits of U.S. power, and that this is part of a long-term trend toward the waning dominance of the Western world as Asia rises. He frames the broader arc as follows: - After World War II, Europe lost its colonies and the United States emerged to replace European empires, competing with the Soviet Union as the two major imperial powers. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States appeared to be the sole superpower, leading to an era some called the unipolar moment. Sachs contends this moment was largely an illusion economically: for about a century and a half leading up to 1950, the West dominated, but the long-term trend was the narrowing of the gap between the West and Asia. - From the end of World War II onward, Asia began a sustained process of catching up in literacy, education, infrastructure, and industrialization. While Western economic and military dominance remained evident, Asia’s rise gradually altered the balance of power. By the 1990s and into the 2000s, Asia’s relative power had grown substantially, with China emerging as a major economic and technological force. - The “unipolar moment” faded as reality: Asia has been rising since the mid-20th century, and the post-1991 euphoria in the United States about unipolarity was economically questionable. Sachs notes that even at the height of U.S. power, the U.S. could not defeat Vietnam or sustain European empires, and that China’s rise began well before 2010, becoming evident in manufacturing and heavy industry led by China. - He highlights the Ukraine war as another demonstration of the limits of American expansion and NATO’s enlargement, arguing that the war marks the end of NATO enlargement and challenges the notion that the U.S. could redraw power on Eurasia at will. He recalls Zbigniew Brzezinski’s idea of U.S. dominance over Eurasia and argues that Putin’s stance showed that such dominance would not be realized. - Sachs emphasizes that technology and economic growth diffuse over time, making monopolies unsustainable. He cites historical examples: Britain’s early industrial edge, Germany and the United States catching up, and even the limited lasting power of nuclear monopoly due to espionage and scientific advances. He argues that “choke points” are a recurring meme that eventually fail to prevent rising challengers. - He discusses realist theories: offensive realism (John Mearsheimer) arguing that great powers cannot find stable balance and constantly seek advantage, versus defensive realism (and Kissinger’s Concert of Europe-inspired view) suggesting some stability through negotiation and norms. He notes that U.S. strategists often view China and Russia as destabilizing and dangerous, though he himself advocates cooperative accommodation with China, avoiding confrontations over red lines and arms sales to Taiwan. - Sachs connects these ideas to ideology, noting that dominant powers often rationalize dominance through imperialist or civilizing ideologies. He references Robert Kagan’s liberal imperialism concept and traces it back to European imperial thought, suggesting that Western mentalities persist even as formal empires fade. He argues that imperial mindsets continue in Britain and the United States, with imperial ideologies shaping how power is exercised and justified. In sum, Sachs frames the current era as a gradual but undeniable shift away from Western, particularly American, dominance toward a more multipolar order led by Asia, with the Ukraine war and Iran as illustrating events showing the limits of unipolarity and the enduring, complex dynamics of great-power competition.

The speaker discusses the threat posed by China to the United States, highlighting how China has infiltrated various sectors of American society. They mention the outsourcing of manufacturing to China, the dominance of Chinese nationals in American universities, and the potential for conflict with China. The speaker suggests that the American establishment has enabled China's rise and warns of the dangers of Chinese infiltration and subversion. They also mention China's control over its own population and its efforts to export its surveillance and control systems to the rest of the world. The speaker concludes by discussing the role of the UN and NGOs in facilitating illegal immigration and the alleged presence of Chinese sleeper cells in America.

Larry Johnson and the host discuss the current trajectory of U.S. policy under Donald Trump and its implications for international law, NATO, and the global balance of power, with frequent emphasis on Greenland as a flashpoint. - They suggest Trump is making a case for peace through overwhelming strength and unpredictability, implying that international law is seen by him as a restraint US power. Johnson argues that Trump’s stance includes threats and pressure aimed at annexing Greenland, and he questions whether this represents a genuine peace strategy or a coercive strategy that disregards international norms. - Johnson catalogs a sequence of Trump-era actions and rhetoric: Donald Trump “launched the coup against the Iranian government,” was involved in discussions with Zelensky, helped Ukraine, and then “kidnapped Nicolas Maduro,” followed by an escalation that included the suggestion of a military attack on Iran. He says Trump has “declared openly” that he does not recognize or respect international law, describing it as “useless. It’s whatever he thinks is right and what needs to be done.” - The conversation notes that Trump’s position has been reflected by close aides and allies, including Steven Miller, Marco Rubio, and Scott Bessette. Johnson claims this broad endorsement signals a shift in how major powers might view the U.S. and its approach to international law, with Putin, Xi, Macron, and others watching closely. - They argue this marks a breakdown of the international system: “a complete breakdown of the international system,” with NATO potentially coming apart as the U.S. claims a threat to Greenland from China or Russia and insists that NATO is unnecessary to protect it. The debate frames Europe as being in a toxic relationship with the United States, dependent on U.S. security guarantees, while the U.S. acts with unilateralism. - The European response is discussed in detail. The host describes European leaders as having “ Stockholm syndrome” and being overly dependent on Washington. The letter to Norway’s prime minister by Trump is cited as an astonishing admission that peace is subordinate to U.S. self-interest. The question is raised whether NATO is dying as a result. - They compare the evolution of international law to historical developments: Magna Carta is invoked as a symbol of limiting rulers, and Westphalia is discussed as a starting point for the balance-of-power system. The hosts consider whether modern international law is viable in a multipolar world, where power is distributed and no single hegemon can enforce norms as unilaterally as in the past. - They discuss the economic dimension of the shift away from U.S. hegemony. The U.S. dollar’s status as the global reserve currency is challenged as BRICS-plus and other nations move toward alternative payment systems, gold, and silver reserves. Johnson notes that the lifting of sanctions on Russia and the broader shift away from dollar-dominated finance are undermining U.S. financial hegemony. He highlights that Russia and China are increasing gold and silver holdings, with a particular emphasis on silver moving to new highs, suggesting a widening gap in global finance. - The Trump administration’s tariff strategy is discussed as another instrument that could provoke a financial crisis: Johnson cites reports of European threats to retaliate with massive tariffs against the U.S. and references the potential for a broader financial shock as gold and silver prices rise and as countries reduce their purchases of U.S. Treasuries. - The discussion examines Greenland specifically: the claim that the U.S. wants Greenland for access to rare earth minerals, Arctic access, and strategic bases. Johnson disputes the rare-earth rationale, pointing out U.S. processing limits and comparing Arctic capabilities—Russia has multiple nuclear-powered icebreakers. He characterizes Trump’s Greenland gambit as a personal vanity project that could set off broader strategic consequences. - They touch on the role of European defense commitments, with German and other European responses to defend Greenland described as inconsequential or symbolic, and a suggestion that Europe might respond more seriously by hedging against U.S. influence, though current incentives make a real break difficult. - A broader warning emerges: the possibility of a new world order emerging from multipolarity, with the United States weakened economically and politically. They foresee a period of adjustment in which European countries may reorient toward Russia or China, while the United States pursues a more fragmented and confrontational stance. - The conversation ends with mutual concerns about the trajectory toward potential geopolitical conflict and a call to watch the evolving relationship between the major powers, the role of international law, and the coming economic shifts as the global system transitions from unipolar to multipolar.

A young Chinese influencer on TikTok who speaks English posted a minute-and-a-half clip directed at Americans. The clip argues that “they rub you blind, and you thank them for it,” calling it a tragedy and a scam, and says Americans “don’t need a tariff” but “need a revolution.” It claims Americans’ garment and auto industries shipped jobs to China “not for diplomacy, not for peace,” but to exploit cheap labor. It says this hollowed out the middle class, crashed the working class, and pressured people to be proud while their future was sold “for profit.” It contrasts China’s outcomes with the United States: it states China made money but used it to build roads, lift millions out of poverty, fund healthcare, and raise living standards, adding that “we reinvest in our people,” including the influencer’s own family benefiting. It then asserts that Americans’ “oligarchs” bought yachts, private jets, mansions with golf course driveways, manipulated markets, dodged taxes, and poured billions into endless wars. The clip contrasts this with Americans facing “stagnant wages, crippling healthcare costs, cheap dopamine, debt,” and “flaked away public money in China while they pick your pocket.” The clip concludes that for forty years both China and the United States benefited from trade and manufacturing, but only one side used that wealth to build. It states, “This isn’t China’s fault. This is yours. You let this happen,” blaming Americans for accepting lies and then letting those responsible blame China for the resulting problems. It calls for Americans to “wake up” and “take your country back,” repeating that a revolution is needed. In the discussion afterward, the host notes a correction: “we haven’t spent billions on useless wars, we’ve spent trillions on useless wars.” Professor Mearsheimer responds that if the influencer were a student in his class giving that statement, he would “basically agree,” saying the influencer is correct. He adds that the message is in large part something Trump made as a candidate before the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections, and that it helped get him elected in two of those three cases. He concludes that many people in the country feel exactly the way the Chinese gentleman feels about what has happened.

America and China represent almost half of world GDP, but America is the market that matters. China has an aging population, a difficult case for foreign investment, murky IP rules, and a difficult economic forecast if they shrink. The speaker believes the Biden administration, in partnership with Janet Yellen, pushed America to the brink of financial collapse through debt creation and short-term obligations. The speaker claims that Donald Trump was right about China's entry into the WTO and the fragility of the United States exposed by COVID. The four critical areas that need focus are AI, energy, batteries/rare earths, and pharmaceuticals. The speaker suggests the "establishment" is unable to acknowledge Trump's correct stance and course correct. The speaker asserts that global elites benefited from a 20-year regime of optimizing for profit and low volatility, and are now trying to scaremonger the White House into economic policy. The speaker believes the media is trying to portray the president as having "blinked," but the stock market is only back to where it was in May 2024, not a crash. The speaker concludes that the Trump administration is different because they want to understand what's happening on the ground, even when there are disagreements.

Professor John Mersheimer discusses US-China relations, disagreeing with Jeffrey Sachs' view that China's Confucian ideology makes it a different kind of actor. Mersheimer argues that great powers, including China, act according to realist logic, seeking to maximize power for survival in an anarchic international system. He believes China will inevitably try to dominate East Asia, mirroring the US's regional hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Mersheimer predicted the US would contain China, similar to its containment of other powers. He sees the US and Russia as natural allies against China, but the Ukraine war has pushed Russia towards China. Trump's efforts to improve US-Russia relations are unlikely to succeed due to mistrust. Mersheimer views the US involvement in Ukraine as irrational, hindering the pivot to contain China and benefiting China strategically. He argues that the US should focus on containing potential regional hegemons like China, not Russia, which isn't a threat to dominate Europe. Mersheimer believes the US policy of engagement with China in the 1990s fueled China's economic and military rise, leading to the current security competition. He hopes this competition won't result in war, drawing parallels to the US-Soviet Cold War. Economic interdependence, while fostering prosperity, is secondary to survival and the balance of power.

The speaker advocates for raising tariffs on Chinese goods to 400% to force China to adhere to trade rules, alleging they haven't followed WTO rules since 2020 and consistently steal American IP. They claim China uses US financial markets unfairly, with Chinese companies not abiding by GAAP while listing on NASDAQ. The speaker says they are willing to accept market volatility to resolve the trade imbalance, which they believe harms American businesses through IP theft and unfair competition. They emphasize the distinction between the Chinese government and its people, criticizing the government's cheating and disregard for rules. The speaker believes the US has leverage due to being the largest consumer market and having a significant GDP. They argue that China needs the US, and this is the time to pressure them into compliance, even if it causes short-term economic disruption.

The speaker discusses the emergence of a multipolar world after 500 years of Western domination. The United States and its allies built a model of globalization to maintain their dominance, but other countries have used the same principles to challenge the West's power. This has led to the rise of new centers of economic growth and political influence. In response, the West has sacrificed the principles of globalization to suppress dissent and maintain hegemony. The speaker highlights the negative consequences of Western interventions and emphasizes the need to recognize and respect the objective course of history towards a multipolar world.

George (Speaker 0) discusses an earlier conversation with Professor Glenn Deason asserting that the “ultimate aim” of Western trouble is China, and argues that China’s growing economic strength—described with examples like large-scale commerce in Shanghai—makes Western leaders treat China as an existential threat. He asks Sean Ryan where he stands on the possibility of a coming war with China, referencing developments in the Philippines, Japan, and Australia. Sean Ryan (Speaker 1) says China does not have to be an enemy of the Western world, but argues Western leaders have turned that relationship into a self-fulfilling prophecy. He says the Americans and Western Europeans have framed China as an existential threat over the last 10 years, increasing the risk that tension escalates beyond trade and tech conflicts into a hot war, “maybe in the South China Sea” involving the Philippines. He says he is “not particularly worried about Taiwan.” Ryan responds to remarks attributed to Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, claiming Rutte portrays China as the biggest threat to NATO and as Russia’s “puppet master,” forcing Russia to bomb NATO countries. Ryan calls that “preposterous talk,” adding that China is trying to improve economic relations with Germany, Italy, the UK, and other parts of Europe. He claims China accounts for about 30% of the world’s manufacturing and wants to export Chinese-made products into Europe, with companies such as Huawei and Xiaomi opening factories in Europe. He argues there may be “no pulling back” if Washington and Europe do not take a more pragmatic stance. George highlights a paradox involving leaders who, despite seeking strategic partnerships with China, also treat China as a threat, citing Keir Starmer’s experience in Shanghai and prior airport grilling by police. Ryan agrees and says Europe and India should get closer to China. He argues the United States poses a greater existential threat to Europe, pointing to Trump’s actions and rhetoric including Greenland. Ryan claims Germany’s biggest market is China and cites BASF investing about $7 billion in China, along with Mercedes, BMW, and Volkswagen selling most in China. He argues business leaders see politicians’ criticism of China as irrational because China drives major global GDP growth, estimating that China’s 2026 GDP growth alone is larger than Thailand and Vietnam combined. Ryan then addresses Australia, saying it depends on Chinese trade yet participates in an anti-China political posture. He claims China is Australia’s largest trade partner, buying iron ore, and that Chinese students are going to Australia; he notes that Chinese student numbers in the U.S. dropped about 20% in 2024 and suggests Australia benefits. He contrasts this with Australian politicians pushing alignment with the Quad, NATO, and the Western “curtain” to contain China. He says relations improved under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong compared with Scott Morrison, whom he describes as denigrating Chinese values. He argues ideological bigotry toward China exists in Australia and Europe, attributing it to discomfort with a powerful non-“predominantly white” nation rising. George notes that Japan is not improving and argues Japanese policy is shaped by the U.S., citing the U.S. dropping atomic bombs and referencing post–World War II tribunal accounts of atrocities committed by Japanese imperial and colonial forces in Asia. Ryan replies by claiming Japan is remilitarizing faster than China, with Japan set to double military spending over five years and China over ten. He also claims Germany made amends after WWII while Japan has not made proper apologies and rewrites history in school books. He describes an example involving a former classmate sent by the Japanese military to Harvard who allegedly said enslaved women were paid and “weren’t raped,” and says the individual later gained senior military authority overseeing China-Japan relations. George shifts to the Philippines as a “third front,” describing his earlier struggle against the Marcos dictatorship, and says Marcos is back, Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base are open, and the Philippines is being prepared for war. Ryan says he is “very scared” about the Philippines under Bongbong Marcos, describing deteriorating relations with China after being warm under President Duarte. Ryan claims Bongbong reopened Clark base, pushed the U.S. to invest more in Philippine military installations, and takes a stringent line against China. He argues China views Taiwan as cousins or brothers and wants peaceful reunification, but expects China to respond strongly to the Philippines, including “huge economic sanctions,” such as not buying Filipino fruit and potentially banning Chinese tour groups, referencing similar actions against Japan. He also says he worries about an accident between a Chinese fishing vessel and the Philippine Coast Guard that could ignite escalating conflict. Ryan frames China’s stance as unlikely to involve action against Taiwan and less likely against Japan due to Japan’s military and economic strength, but more likely to make “an example” of the Philippines to create pressure in the South China Sea. He concludes by saying Bongbong is a “tool of the United States” intended to create a proxy war that “bog[s] China down” like Russia was bogged down in Ukraine. George asks for a scorecard for the 105-year anniversary of the CPC. Ryan says the CPC has “got a nine and a half.” He argues China is better for low- and middle-income people, saying the government takes care of these groups, and he credits Xi Jinping with reining in capitalist excesses like those associated with Jack Ma and Alibaba, with wealth transferred toward education and healthcare improvements. He compares access to healthcare and specialist appointments, contrasting China’s quicker access with what he describes as delays in the United States. He ends with personal comments about safety in China, and George signs off with thanks to Sean Ryan and mentions The Split.

The speaker opens by saying that insinuations that Chinese people celebrate “killing lines” against the United States are misguided and that those who say so do not understand how Chinese people truly feel about confronting the United States. They insist that most Chinese people are not happy about this; rather, Chinese education teaches that the poor must have dignity and survive, and that even though the United States is an enemy, it is not treated the same as Japan, which is described as an enemy to be despised. The United States is characterized as one of the few enemies China historically respected, and even the strongest. The “United States of America” is described as a country whose soldiers—especially American soldiers—are capable of fighting to the end, unwilling to turn and run, and able to cross oceans and build empires on foreign soil. American soldiers are celebrated for their grit and capacity to work hard, to bleed and sweat, and to be industrious; Americans are praised as intelligent, civilized, and family-oriented, with a distinct political system. The speaker concedes admiration for American innovation (computers, Internet, Apple, AI, etc.) and for American achievements that have shaped modern technology and industry, while acknowledging a critical view of the American political system, yet still respecting the will of the American people to choose their governance. The speaker then shifts to a nuanced view: the United States is both an enemy and a teacher, a former ally, a rival, and a former opponent in Korea and other contexts. They recount a long history of mutual actions—alliances and conflicts, blocking and opening, trade and sanctions, praise and insult—between the two nations. Across China’s history of unity and division, from 2000 years ago to the present, the United States has been the strongest and most formidable opponent China faced, yet also a partner at times. The current assessment is that the United States has changed: White-headed eagles no longer fight with the same vigor, American corruption and inertia have grown, and economic and moral foundations are weakening. The speaker notes that the United States no longer bleeds or toils as before; responsibility for national security and labor has shifted to criminals and elites, and ordinary Americans are no longer willing to stand up for their homeland. They describe the national collapse in terms of governance, mismanagement, and a failure to maintain national pride, with the capital misperceived and a “killing line” used to exploit patriotic sentiment, especially against those who love their country. Against this backdrop, the speaker asserts that the American people must awaken and that China has not forgotten its past. They argue that the only way for the United States to become great again is for Americans to act courageously and for China to pursue its own revolutionary transformation: not a simple change of leadership or social media campaigns, but a true revolution that overturns the old world order and establishes a new one. The speaker envisions a strengthened, prosperous China through this revolution, while asserting that both peoples can achieve happiness—“美 利 坚 民 族” (a prosperous American nation) and a strong Chinese nation. They express faith that the American people can likewise secure their own future and that China will remain observant, waiting for the day when the American nation awakens.

The speaker emphasizes the rise of China as a positive development and dismisses the idea of slowing down Chinese growth. They criticize Donald Trump's approach, accusing him of hysteria and xenophobia towards China. The speaker also mentions Joe Biden's stance, suggesting that he believes China always wins. The transcript ends with a mention of a trade agreement and a disclaimer about the content of the advertising.

The speaker updates viewers on developments between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping and says the talks are “getting very interesting.” The speaker contrasts Trump’s approach toward different countries: they say Trump “bullies” European leaders and that those opponents are “weak,” but that this pattern does not apply with Russia or Iran. The speaker claims that when Trump goes to China, he will not be able to negotiate in the way he usually does, citing the situation involving Iran. The speaker reports that China is taking a harder stance. China is described as saying that future sanctions will not matter—“we’re not gonna pay attention”—and that China will continue tariffs with the United States, including a 77% tariff on American beef and a 22% tariff on soybeans. The speaker adds that these tariffs have upset American farmers. The speaker says China’s position is that it will consider lowering tariffs if the United States comes to China “and you ask nicely,” and describes this as a reversal. The speaker then introduces the “Thucydides trap,” attributing it to a Greek warrior turned philosopher and describing it as a theory about US–China relations: when one power grows much larger, it can overtake another, making war between them difficult to avoid. The speaker says Xi raised this concept in his opening remarks, expressing hope the United States and China can “transcend the Thucydides trap” and “forge a new model” for relations, with the idea that both countries being large does not automatically require them to clash. The speaker highlights Xi’s warning about Taiwan. They say Xi called the “Taiwan question” the most important issue in China–US relations and stated that if it is handled properly, the bilateral relationship will enjoy overall stability. The speaker reports that Xi then warned that mishandling it would lead to clashes and even conflicts, putting the entire relationship in jeopardy—framing it as a direct warning to Trump that interference over Taiwan could become “really serious.”

John Mearsheimer and Glenn (Speaker 0) discuss the current state of the international system, its shifts since World War II, and the implications for U.S. foreign policy, Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. - Structural changes since the Cold War: Mearsheimer argues fundamental changes are underway in the international system due to two forces: evolving structural dynamics and the rise and actions of Donald Trump. The Cold War produced a bipolar order with the United States shaping a Western security architecture (NATO, European Community) designed to wage the Cold War. After 1989–1991, the Western order expanded globally during the unipolar moment, with NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and globalization (including China joining the WTO). From 2017, the world has entered a multipolar era with three great powers, and East Asia becomes the United States’ most important region outside the Western Hemisphere, overtaking Europe and the Persian Gulf. - East Asia as a priority: The U.S. pivot to East Asia (explicitly discussed by Clinton and then pursued under Trump) reorients strategic priorities away from Europe in a multipolar world where China is a peer competitor. This shift redefines where the U.S. focuses its resources and attention. - Trump as a destabilizing factor: Trump’s presidency is described as sui generis—a one-man wrecking ball that amplified unilateralism and contempt for international law, institutions, and allies. After initial containment of China in his first term, Trump’s policies intensified a unilateral approach. The Iran war decision (February 28) is presented as a catastrophic misstep that worsened U.S. positions globally and risked destabilizing the region further. - Three major strands of American policy causing trouble: NATO expansion, the global war on terror, and the Iran war. NATO expanded eastward in the 1990s and 2000s, culminating in Ukraine’s entry in 2022, aggravating Russia and complicating U.S.–Russia relations and European security. The global war on terror led to Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts and other interventions (Libya), generating domestic fatigue and a populist backlash that helped propel Trump. The February 28 Iran invasion created a broader, more consequential set of regional and global ramifications, with China, Russia, and Europe pressuring limits on U.S. actions. - The Iran war: Mearsheimer stresses that Iran presents a more dangerous theater than Iraq because the stakes are higher globally, with potential for a worldwide depression and cascading economic impacts, particularly in Asia. He outlines three options for ending or de-escalating the Iran conflict: (1) maintain the status quo with ongoing blockades; (2) blockade plus bombing, which risks catastrophic economic damage and Iranian retaliation; (3) cut a deal with Iran, which would be politically difficult in Washington given Israeli influence and the desire to avoid conceding that Iran “wins.” He asserts that the blockade alone won’t force surrender, bombing would escalate risk and deplete U.S. military capacity, and the only viable path is a negotiated settlement, though domestic and allied opposition makes this hard. - Israel–Iran–U.S. dynamics: The relationship between the United States and Israel creates a “tag team” dynamic, with Israel viewing Iran as an existential threat. If Iran preserves its nuclear enrichment capability, it could push Israel toward considering nuclear options, which raises the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Trump’s rhetoric has even hinted at extreme objectives against Iran, complicating efforts to reach a deal. Mearsheimer emphasizes the influential role of the Israeli lobby in U.S. policy and notes the broader risk of nuclear escalation in the region. - Ukraine and nuclear deterrence: The Ukraine war has surprised many by showing Ukraine’s ability to threaten Russian strategic forces with Western support, which underscores Karaganov’s point about Europeans underestimating the nuclear dimension of security and deterrence. Mearsheimer highlights that the current era features a complex web of regional and great-power interdependencies—Russia, China, Iran, and European security architectures are all interlinked, affecting and being affected by one another. - Conclusion and outlook: The discussion emphasizes that managing security competition, rather than relying solely on military solutions, is essential. The speakers warn that the contemporary shift toward multipolarity and the interwoven regional dynamics heighten the risk of escalation and miscalculation, making prudent diplomacy and restraint crucial to avoiding a broader catastrophe. They acknowledge the difficulty of achieving lasting peace in the Middle East given domestic political constraints and the powerful influence of regional actors, but stress the necessity of recognizing the geopolitical realities of a world in which power is distributed more unevenly than in the Cold War.

Richard Wolff and Glenn discuss the future of the West, NATO, Europe, and the international economic system. - The central dynamic, according to Wolff, is the rise of China and the West’s unpreparedness. He argues that the West, after a long era of Cold War dominance, is encountering a China that grows two to three times faster than the United States, with no sign of slowing. China’s ascent has transformed global power relations and exposed that prior strategies to stop or slow China have failed. - The United States, having defeated various historical rivals, pursued a unipolar, neoliberal globalization project after the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of that era left the U.S. with a sense of “manifest destiny” to shape the world order. But now time is on China’s side, and the short-term fix for the U.S. is to extract value from its allies rather than invest in long-run geopolitics. Wolff contends the U.S. is engaging in a transactional, extractive approach toward Europe and other partners, pressuring them to concede significant economic and strategic concessions. - Europe is seen by Wolff as increasingly subordinated to U.S. interests, with its leadership willing to accept terrible trade terms and militarization demands to maintain alignment with Washington. He cites the possibility of Europe accepting LNG imports and investments to the U.S. economy at the expense of its own social welfare, suggesting that Europe’s social protections could be jeopardized by this “divorce settlement” with the United States. - Russia’s role is reinterpreted: while U.S. and European actors have pursued expanding NATO and a Western-led security architecture, Russia’s move toward Greater Eurasia and its pivot to the East, particularly under Putin, complicates Western plans. Wolff argues that the West’s emphasis on demonizing Russia as the unifying threat ignores the broader strategic competition with China and risks pushing Europe toward greater autonomy or alignment with Russia and China. - The rise of BRICS and China’s Belt and Road Initiative are framed as major competitive challenges to Western economic primacy. The West’s failure to integrate and adapt to these shifts is seen as a strategic misstep, especially given Russia’s earlier openness to a pan-European security framework that was rejected in favor of a U.S.-led order. - Within the United States, there is a debate about the proper response to these shifts. One faction desires aggressive actions, including potential wars (e.g., Iran) to deter adversaries, while another emphasizes the dangers of escalation in a nuclear age. Wolff notes that Vietnam and Afghanistan illustrate the limits of muscular interventions, and he points to domestic economic discontent—rising inequality, labor unrest, and a growing desire for systemic change—as factors that could press the United States to rethink its approach to global leadership. - Economically, Wolff challenges the dichotomy of public versus private dominance. He highlights China’s pragmatic hybrid model—roughly 50/50 private and state enterprise, with openness to foreign participation yet strong state direction. He argues that the fixation on choosing between private-market and public-control models is misguided and that outcomes matter more than orthodox ideological labels. - Looking ahead, Wolff is optimistic that Western economies could reframe development by learning from China’s approach, embracing a more integrated strategy that blends public and private efforts, and reducing ideological rigidity. He suggests Europe could reposition itself by deepening ties with China and leveraging its own market size to negotiate from a position of strength, potentially even joining or aligning with BRICS in some form. - For Europe, a potential path to resilience would involve shifting away from a mindset of subordination to the United States, pursuing energy diversification (including engaging with Russia for cheaper energy), and forming broader partnerships with China to balance relations with the United States and Russia. This would require political renewal in Europe and a willingness to depart from a “World War II–reboot” mentality toward a more pragmatic, multipolar strategy. - In closing, Wolff stresses that the West’s current trajectory is not inevitable. He envisions a Europe capable of redefining its alliances, reconsidering economic models, and seeking a more autonomous, multipolar future that reduces dependency on U.S. leadership. He ends with a provocative suggestion: Europe might consider a realignment toward Russia and China as a way to reshape global power balances, rather than defaulting to a perpetual U.S.-led order.

The White House officials were part of the foreign policy establishment that contributed to China becoming a strong competitor. Back in the early 2000s, when some of us suggested that the US should take action to slow down China's rise, we were ignored and considered to be remarkably dismissible.

George Bibi and Vlad discuss the United States’ evolving grand strategy in a multipolar world and the key choices facing Washington, Europe, Russia, and China. - The shift from the post–Cold War hegemonic peace is framed as undeniable: a new international distribution of power requires the U.S. to adjust its approach, since balancing all great powers is impractical and potentially unfavorable. - The U.S. previously pursued a hegemonic peace with ambitions beyond capabilities, aiming to transform other countries toward liberal governance and internal reengineering. This was described as beyond America’s reach and not essential to global order or U.S. security, leading to strategic insolvency: objectives outpaced capabilities. - The Trump-era National Security Strategy signals a reorientation: U.S. priorities must begin with the United States itself—its security, prosperity, and ability to preserve republican governance. Foreign policy should flow from that, implying consolidation or retrenchment and a focus on near-term priorities. - Geography becomes central: what happens in the U.S. Western Hemisphere is most important, followed by China, then Europe, and then other regions. The United States is returning to a traditional view that immediate neighborhood concerns matter most, in a world that is now more polycentric. - In a multipolar order, there must be a balance of power and reasonable bargains with other great powers to protect U.S. interests without provoking direct conflict. Managing the transition will be messy and require careful calibration of goals and capabilities. - Europe’s adjustment is seen as lagging. Absent Trump’s forcing mechanism, Europe would maintain reliance on U.S. security while pursuing deeper integration and outward values. The U.S. cannot afford to be Europe’s security benefactor in a multipolar order and needs partners who amplify rather than diminish U.S. power. - Europe is criticized as a liability in diplomacy and defense due to insufficient military investment and weak capability to engage with Russia. European self-doubt and fear of Russia hinder compromising where necessary. Strengthening Europe’s political health and military capabilities is viewed as essential for effective diplomacy and counterbalancing China and Russia. - The Ukraine conflict is tied to broader strategic paradigms: Europe’s framing of the war around World War II and unconditional surrender undermines possible compromises. A compromise that protects Ukraine’s vital interests while acknowledging Russia’s security concerns could prevent disaster and benefit Europe’s future security and prosperity. - U.S.–Europe tensions extend beyond Ukraine to governance ideals, trade, internet freedom, and speech regulation. These issues require ongoing dialogue to manage differences while maintaining credible alliances. - The potential for U.S.–Russia normalization is discussed: the Cold War-style ideological confrontation is largely over, with strategic incentives to prevent Russia and China from forming a closer alliance. Normalizing relations would give Russia more autonomy and reduce dependence on China, though distrust remains deep and domestic U.S. institutions would need to buy in. - China’s role is addressed within a framework of competition, deterrence, and diplomacy. The United States aims to reduce vulnerability to Chinese pressure in strategic minerals, supply chains, and space/sea lines, while engaging China to establish mutually acceptable rules and prevent spirals into direct confrontation. - A “grand bargain” or durable order is proposed: a mix of competition, diplomacy, and restraint that avoids domination or coercion, seeking an equilibrium that both the United States and China can live with.

One speaker considers the possibility that China, India, or Pakistan might escort a ship through the Strait of Hormuz and worries about a potential direct confrontation between the United States and those countries. He notes there is no expected confrontation between Pakistan and India, highlighting an open line of communication, a good relationship, and that one of them is a mediator in negotiations. China, however, is described as a different case, with increasing parallels to what was seen between the United States and Russia in the early Cold War era. The other speaker expresses hope that the Chinese will not decide to confront the Americans over the Strait. He bluntly states that the Chinese are not friends with the United States anymore; while they have long-term economic partnership and linked economies, the current administration has been placing tariffs on China and threatening more tariffs. News reports are cited indicating that China will provide the HQ-9 air defense system, which is described as far superior to the Russian S-300, to Iran. He emphasizes these are defensive weapons, not offensive capabilities, and notes that the administration is likely to be distressed by this development. Despite the administration’s stance, the speaker asserts that providing defensive weapons to another country is something done routinely and acknowledges that this move could enhance Iran’s defensive posture. He mentions the possibility that the Chinese supply could even enable Iran to detect F-35 aircraft, though he notes uncertainty about this point. The situation is characterized as a game changer and described as a behind-the-scenes nuance that the average American might not fully understand, as well as perhaps the administration not fully grasping it. The speaker reiterates that the Chinese plan is to provide these defensive weapons to Iran, describing it as a soon-to-occur development.

Glenn: Welcome back. We are joined today by Professor John Mersheimer to understand what is happening in the world with this new great power rivalry and how the outcome of the Ukraine war will impact this new Cold War. Have we entered a new Cold War? Who are the players, competing interests, and the rules? Mersheimer: I think we have entered a new Cold War. We're in a multipolar system, and the United States, China, and Russia are the three great powers. The United States is certainly in a cold war with China. China is powerful and threatens to dominate East Asia, and the United States will almost certainly go to great lengths to prevent that from happening, which axiomatically creates an intense security competition in China. An intense security competition is a cold war, and the name of the game is to make sure that security competition does not turn into a hot war. We are in a cold war with the Chinese, or the Chinese are in a cold war with us. The hot war is avoided. Regarding Russia, since we moved into multipolarity, the Russians and the Chinese have been close allies against the United States. This is largely a result of the Ukraine war, which has pushed the Russians into the arms of the Chinese and caused closer Sino-Russian cooperation. The United States, through the Biden administration, was involved in a cold war with both Russia and China. Trump tried to change that, seeking good relations with Russia to form a Russia-plus-US alliance against China, but he has been unable to make that happen. The result is that the United States is basically still in a cold war with both Russia and China. The war in Ukraine has made me worry greatly that the Cold War in Europe could turn into a hot war, even as the U.S.-China relationship remains cooler so far. Glenn: European leaders hoped the United States and Europe would unite in this new Cold War, with liberal hegemony fading and a return to unity against Russia. But Ukraine has instead divided Europe. How do you explain this? Is it the US not seeing Russia as the same threat as Europeans, or a concern about pushing Russia toward China, or Europe’s costs of the partnership? Is this uniquely a Trump-era approach? Mersheimer: From an American point of view, good relations with Russia make sense. China is the peer competitor, and the United States wants to pivot to East Asia to prevent China’s dominance. Russia is the weakest of the three great powers and not a major threat to Europe. The Americans believe Europe can deal with Russia, freeing them to focus on China. Europe, by contrast, is threatened by Russia’s proximity and thus prioritizes Russia. NATO expansion into Ukraine is seen by many Europeans as a disaster, poisoning Russia–Europe relations, making Europe deeply committed to using Ukraine to weaken Russia. The transatlantic alliance becomes strained, especially with Trump raising the possibility of leaving NATO. Europeans fear losing the American pacifier that keeps centrifugal forces in check, which would complicate European coordination with Russia. Glenn: If the United States signals a departure, won’t Europe face greater challenges in managing Russia? And is Russia truly an empire-building threat, or is this a post-2014 narrative that intensified after February 2022? Mersheimer: Bringing Ukraine into NATO was destined to cause trouble. The crisis began in 2014, and the 2022 war is ongoing. The Ukrainians and Europeans want a security guarantee for Ukraine, essentially NATO membership, while Russia demands territory and rejects a security guarantee that would enshrine NATO’s presence near its borders. The Europeans see NATO expansion as threatening, while the Americans view Russia as the weaker power and the need to pivot to China. The controversy over responsibility for this disaster arises from competing interpretations of NATO expansion and Russian aggression. Glenn: Do you see Russia changing course soon? There has been escalation—Odessa blockades, port attacks, and targeting infrastructure. Could this signal a new stage of the war? Mersheimer: The Russians believe Ukraine is on the ropes and expect to win on the battlefield in 2026, possibly expanding fronts in Kharkiv and Sumy. They may consider increasing conventional force and possibly using nuclear weapons if the war drags on. They view the conflict as existential and fear losing, which could push them toward drastic measures to end the war. The Russians could escalate if they think they cannot win conventionally. Glenn: What are the non-nuclear options to win quickly? Could the Russians deliver a decisive conventional victory? Mersheimer: It’s a war of attrition. If Ukraine’s army is weakened, Russia could surround large Ukrainian formations, disrupt logistics, and open larger fronts. They may build up forces in the rear, potentially for a breakthrough or to deter Western escalation. The battlefield outcome may determine the next steps, including whether nuclear options are considered. Glenn: How will Ukraine end? Is it a military defeat, economic collapse, or political fragmentation? Mersheimer: Ukraine is likely to be defeated on the battlefield. Its economy is in desperate shape, and losing Odessa or more territory would worsen it. Politically, Ukraine will face internal divisions once the war ends. Europe will face a broken Russia–Ukraine relationship, with some European states viewing the conflict differently. Ukraine’s demographic decline compounds its bleak outlook, and the country may become a problematic rump state. The war should have been settled earlier; the negotiators in Istanbul in 2022 could have sought a different path. Zelensky’s choice to align with Western powers and walk away from Istanbul negotiations deepened Ukraine’s predicament. Glenn: Any final reflections? Mersheimer: The war’s outcome will reshape Western unity and European security. Historians may view this as a major mistake in weakening the West. The blame for the disaster will likely be attributed in the West to Russia’s imperialism, but the expansion of NATO is also central. Europe’s economic and political landscape will be altered, and Ukraine’s future will be deeply challenging.

Brian Berletic discusses connections between the US “economic war against China” and wars/proxy conflicts involving Russia and Iran, arguing that the US seeks primacy rather than balance of power and uses diplomacy to build pretexts for additional war and to shape geopolitics. He says US policymakers do not expect China to pressure Iran or to pressure Russia, because China has reasons to avoid helping isolate itself, and he frames US actions as deliberate attempts to keep adversaries from becoming independent centers of power. He argues the US aims to weaken Russia, Iran, and China by creating wedges and subordination through client regimes and proxies. He claims Europe, Israel, Persian Gulf states, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines are treated as extensions of US foreign policy rather than independent balancing powers. He also contrasts what he describes as US strategic framing—portraying America as reasonable while treating opponents as “evil”—with the claimed reality of proxy war, including in Europe and Iran. When asked about the goal of restoring primacy, Berletic says the US tries to pursue multiple forms of dominance—military, financial, trade-route control, and technological dominance—while acknowledging it is becoming less realistic as China surpasses the US plus its proxies. He says US strategy, as he describes it, shifts to wrecking multiple theaters and trade systems rather than direct head-to-head conflict, including efforts to disrupt energy exports and contested waterways. He cites US-created crises in the Middle East and describes US pressure on Indonesia near the Strait of Malacca, attempts to gain military access to that chokepoint, and blockading tactics affecting Russian energy exports and other routes. He claims the US has reorganized the Marine Corps into an anti-shipping force “specifically” for interdicting shipping, with preparation starting before the Trump administration. He argues that these actions aim to increase leverage over Asian states through energy dependence on US LNG exports, and to coerce regional countries away from balancing China. He compares this to how he says the US subordinated Europe via energy dependence, including by disrupting Russia–Europe energy flows over years. Addressing the US strategy’s “double blockade” concept and chokepoints, Berletic argues it is not about shutting everything down instantly. He claims the US does not need to seize every ship; he says ships often turn back and/or are disabled or seized, and he points to examples of US warplanes disabling ships. He argues this creates deterrence and manages economic damage rather than causing total collapse at once, with the goal of controlled destabilization and increased dependency that can be used to disrupt what China is doing in the region. On the Russia–China dynamic, he says Russia is a large energy producer and shares a direct border with China, leaving fewer “middle countries” through which disruption can be mediated compared with routes like Russia–Europe gas via Ukraine. He argues that because Russia and China together can attract other states into a broader gravitational pull, the US strategy carries risks but fits a longstanding pattern of maritime corridor control and chokepoint strategies. Berletic expands on what he describes as long-running pressure against Belt and Road corridors: he claims US-backed militants attack Belt and Road infrastructure in Myanmar and that the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor is attacked by US-backed terrorists. He also describes attacks in Afghanistan against the Afghan government and Chinese investments, framing this as a long-term “global dirty war” against China and its partners. When discussing Iran and Russia, he says Iran and Russia could strike deals with the US but are instead aiming to prevent a return to the prior status quo of sanctions/perpetual threats and NATO’s incremental expansion. He frames their posture as insisting adversaries must be included in the security architecture. He then compares the current era to a “new great game,” arguing it extends beyond Eurasia and now involves technology and rapid integration of advanced capabilities into deterrence for states such as Iran. He characterizes US behavior as either dividing adversaries or weakening them to prevent coordination. He says the US does not want friends among Iran or Russia because it wants them to be subordinated or weakened; otherwise, he claims they would work together with China. Finally, regarding Taiwan, he says the US “keeps” the one-China policy rhetorically but undermines it in practice through laws, troop presence, and military cooperation with Taiwan alongside regional partners, framing US support as preventing any meaningful back-off. He says US diplomacy functions as cover, including in relation to Russia/Ukraine and Iran, and describes US strategy as a multi-domain approach that already functions as economic and proxy war against China while escalating across Russia, Iran, the Middle East, and Asia-Pacific military integration. He concludes by warning that US policy will likely continue escalating and that China’s ability to build faster than the US can disrupt and destroy is central to whether open conflict can be deterred.

The speaker warns of an economic collapse three to four times worse than COVID, driven by a roughly 20% reduction in global energy supply. He notes that under modern modeling, energy is the prerequisite that enables labor, capital, and technology; without energy, GDP falls far more than traditional neoclassical models predict. Key points: - COVID-era lockdowns caused GDP destruction; the coming shock will be three to four times worse, with COVID-style contractions appearing mild in comparison. - A 1% drop in global GDP historically pushes about 40–50 million people worldwide into extreme poverty. A 10% global GDP decline could thrust about 500 million people into extreme poverty (unable to eat, dress, shelter, or pay for basic needs). - The Strait of Hormuz has been effectively shut, reducing oil flow; this is part of a broader energy squeeze impacting global economies. The existing buffer of energy and spare parts will evaporate in a matter of months, worsening supply chains and transportation. - The result will be a global energy shock causing a significant GDP hit (the speaker estimates at least 10% in GDP, possibly 12–14% or more). This is framed as “triple COVID” with numbers centered around a 10%+GDP reduction. - The current U.S. energy advantage is described as temporary; allied economies (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia) will suffer, and Europe faces energy lockdowns as the U.S. allegedly influenced energy geopolitics (including Nord Stream incidents) and the dollar’s role in global energy trade is challenged as BRICS nations move toward other currencies (e.g., yuan). - The collapse is framed as global and systemic: once energy supplies tighten, there will be a cascade of shortages—tires, lubricants, food, housing—and a widening wealth gap between a small entrenched elite and impoverished masses, with the middle class largely disappearing. - Social and political consequences are predicted: increased desperation could lead to uprisings and revolutions in some countries; domestic political upheaval in the U.S. is expected, including talk of impeachment dynamics and shifts in power. - The analysis criticizes neoclassical economics (Cobb-Douglas production function) for treating energy as interchangeable with other inputs; the speaker argues that without energy, you cannot operate the rest of the economy, regardless of labor or capital. - Historical comparisons: the Great Depression saw a 30% GDP contraction; the 2008 Great Financial Crisis caused about 1–2% global GDP reduction; COVID caused about 3% globally. The coming energy shock is argued to exceed these, with an estimated minimum of a 10% GDP reduction. - The audience is urged to prepare by decentralizing, becoming more self-reliant, and developing resilience: own gold and silver, consider privacy-focused crypto, grow food, pay off debts, keep stored diesel, and acquire practical skills to survive long-term systemic breakdowns. - The speaker emphasizes the need to trade with diverse global partners (including China, Russia, Iran) rather than engage in coercive or militaristic policies, arguing that the current path will impoverish the U.S. and hollow out its infrastructure. - A recurring theme is that the American quality of manufacturing and supply chains has declined; examples are given of quality-control failures in U.S. industry (e.g., a John Deere machine with a poorly tightened bolt, poor auto manufacturing standards) and the claim that the U.S. cannot match China’s manufacturing automation and scale in weapons production. The argument is made that the U.S. would struggle to produce effective weapons at scale and that China’s capabilities (drones, hypersonics, robotics) are far ahead. - The discussion ties economic collapse to broader geopolitical shifts, warning that sanctions and aggressive postures will backfire, leading to currency collapse and widespread hardship unless a pivot to peaceful, global trade and internal resilience is adopted. - The message concludes with a practical call to action: take steps to weather the coming period by building self-reliance, acquiring knowledge, and preparing for a prolonged period of economic and societal stress. Throughout, the speakers frame these developments as imminent and systemic, affecting not only economics but also social stability, infrastructure, and daily life. They stress preparedness, self-reliance, and strategic global engagement as the path to mitigating the coming challenges. The content also includes promotional segments about Infowars-related branding and merchandise, which are not part of the core factual points about the economic analysis.