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.

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.

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.

The speaker argues the current trade system has failed, leading to a wealth transfer from the U.S. overseas via trade deficits due to other countries' industrial policies. To rectify this, tariffs are needed to offset the fundamental unfairness and enforce global trade balance, penalizing countries with persistent surpluses. While adjustments to supply chains and temporary price increases may occur, systemic inflation is unlikely. Increased U.S. production will offset inflationary pressures. The speaker dismisses models predicting inflation from tariffs, citing past experiences and China's deflation despite trade barriers. The speaker believes the President's program of tax cuts, spending cuts, deregulation, more energy and tariffs will be anti-inflationary. The speaker views China as an existential threat, citing its military expansion, espionage, and global ambitions. The speaker advocates for strategic decoupling, balanced trade, independent technology development with allies, and regulated investments to protect American interests.

- The conversation opens with concerns about AGI, ASI, and a potential future in which AI dominates more aspects of life. They describe a trend of sleepwalking into a new reality where AI could be in charge of everything, with mundane jobs disappearing within three years and more intelligent jobs following in the next seven years. Sam Altman’s role is discussed as a symbol of a system rather than a single person, with the idea that people might worry briefly and then move on. - The speakers critique Sam Altman, arguing that Altman represents a brand created by a system rather than an individual, and they examine the California tech ecosystem as a place where hype and money flow through ideation and promises. They contrast OpenAI’s stated mission to “protect the world from artificial intelligence” and “make AI work for humanity” with what they see as self-interested actions focused on users and competition. - They reflect on social media and the algorithmic feed. They discuss YouTube Shorts as addictive and how they use multiple YouTube accounts to train the algorithm by genre (AI, classic cars, etc.) and by avoiding unwanted content. They note becoming more aware of how the algorithm can influence personal life, relationships, and business, and they express unease about echo chambers and political division that may be amplified by AI. - The dialogue emphasizes that technology is a force with no inherent polity; its impact depends on the intent of the provider and the will of the user. They discuss how social media content is shaped to serve shareholders and founders, the dynamics of attention and profitability, and the risk that the content consumer becomes sleepwalking. They compare dating apps’ incentives to keep people dating indefinitely with the broader incentive structures of social media. - The speakers present damning statistics about resource allocation: trillions spent on the military, with a claim that reallocating 4% of that to end world hunger could achieve that goal, and 10-12% could provide universal healthcare or end extreme poverty. They argue that a system driven by greed and short-term profit undermines the potential benefits of AI. - They discuss OpenAI and the broader AI landscape, noting OpenAI’s open-source LLMs were not widely adopted, and arguing many promises are outcomes of advertising and market competition rather than genuine humanity-forward outcomes. They contrast DeepMind’s work (Alpha Genome, Alpha Fold, Alpha Tensor) and Google’s broader mission to real science with OpenAI’s focus on user growth and market position. - The conversation turns to geopolitics and economics, with a focus on the U.S. vs. China in the AI race. They argue China will likely win the AI race due to a different, more expansive, infrastructure-driven approach, including large-scale AI infrastructure for supply chains and a strategy of “death by a thousand cuts” in trade and technology dominance. They discuss other players like Europe, Korea, Japan, and the UAE, noting Europe’s regulatory approach and China’s ability to democratize access to powerful AI (e.g., DeepSea-like models) more broadly. - They explore the implications of AI for military power and warfare. They describe the AI arms race in language models, autonomous weapons, and chip manufacturing, noting that advances enable cheaper, more capable weapons and the potential for a global shift in power. They contrast the cost dynamics of high-tech weapons with cheaper, more accessible AI-enabled drones and warfare tools. - The speakers discuss the concept of democratization of intelligence: a world where individuals and small teams can build significant AI capabilities, potentially disrupting incumbents. They stress the importance of energy and scale in AI competitions, and warn that a post-capitalist or new economic order may emerge as AI displaces labor. They discuss universal basic income (UBI) as a potential social response, along with the risk that those who control credit and money creation—through fractional reserve banking and central banking—could shape a new concentrated power structure. - They propose a forward-looking framework: regulate AI use rather than AI design, address fake deepfakes and workforce displacement, and promote ethical AI development. They emphasize teaching ethics to AI and building ethical AIs, using human values like compassion, respect, and truth-seeking as guiding principles. They discuss the idea of “raising Superman” as a metaphor for aligning AI with well-raised, ethical ends. - The speakers reflect on human nature, arguing that while individuals are capable of great kindness, the system (media, propaganda, endless division) distracts and polarizes society. They argue that to prepare for the next decade, humanity should verify information, reduce gullibility, and leverage AI for truth-seeking while fostering humane behavior. They see a paradox: AI can both threaten and enhance humanity, and the outcome depends on collective choices, governance, and ethical leadership. - In closing, they acknowledge their shared hope for a future of abundant, sustainable progress—Peter Diamandis’ vision of abundance—with a warning that current systemic incentives could cause a painful transition. They express a desire to continue the discussion, pursue ethical AI development, and encourage proactive engagement with governments and communities to steer AI’s evolution toward greater good.

Speaker 0 argues that the United States has underestimated China's power across infrastructure, technology, and strategic planning. He notes the quality of Chinese infrastructure, citing high-speed trains that connect Beijing to Shanghai in four and a half hours over about 1,000 kilometers, comparing that favorably to Amtrak in the United States. Infrastructure strength is identified as a core strength, followed by China’s scientific and technological capacity, which he calls “the coin of the realm in our decade, in the next few decades.” He asks which society will turn out more scientists and engineers, presenting data to illustrate China’s lead: 34% of first-year Chinese university students study engineering or a STEM field, compared with 5.6% in the United States, noting China’s larger population. He references Harvard, where he teaches, observing that at graduation, chemistry, biology, and physics majors are largely Asian Americans, or more specifically Asians or citizens of Asian ethnicity, indicating a STEM-dominated profile among graduates. The speaker then points to the Trump administration’s gathering of tech titans at the White House, noting that a tremendous number of those tech leaders are Indian Americans and Chinese Americans, implying China’s tech influence extends into American leadership and industry. Addressing national security, he contends that the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) and China's overall power have been underestimated. He argues that the Communist Party of China (CPC) is strategic and unencumbered by free press constraints, allowing it to make long-term bets over decades (ten, twenty, thirty years) without the friction of media opposition. A specific strategic pattern is highlighted: for thirty-five consecutive years, the Chinese foreign minister’s first trip of the year has been to Africa in January to signal Africa as a priority. He contrasts this with U.S. presidents: President Trump did not visit Africa in his first term, while President Biden visited Angola for two or three days toward the end of his term. The speaker uses these examples to illustrate China’s consistent, long-term, strategic focus on Africa and broader global influence. Overall, he concludes that China’s technology, military, and economic power are stronger than commonly perceived, and that the United States must recognize this and adjust accordingly, as he asserts that underestimation is no longer viable.

The United States believes China will attack Taiwan because America is always looking to start new wars to justify defense spending. America needs to find new enemies, and it believes that the greatest threat to American empire right now is China, even though there's no evidence of this. Currently, China sends America cheap goods, and the U.S. gives China U.S. dollars. The Communist Party is storing the wealth of the Chinese people in American banks, which benefits America, Wall Street, and the Chinese Communist Party. If China takes over Taiwan, America doesn't lose much. The semiconductor industry in Taiwan could be moved elsewhere. However, America has hubris and must save face.

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.

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.

Shlomo Kramer argues that AI will revolutionize cyber warfare, affecting critical infrastructure, the fabric of society, and politics, and will undermine democracies by giving an unfair advantage to authoritarian governments. He notes that this is already happening and highlights growing polarization in countries that protect First Amendment rights. He contends it may become necessary to limit the First Amendment to protect it, and calls for government control of social platforms, including stacking-ranked authenticity for everyone who expresses themselves online and shaping discourse based on that ranking. He asserts that the government should take control of platforms, educate people against lies, and develop cyber defense programs that are as sophisticated as cyber attacks; currently, government defense is lacking and enterprises are left to fend for themselves. Speaker 2 adds that cyber threats are moving faster than political systems can respond. He emphasizes the need to use technology to stabilize political systems and implement adjustments that may be necessary. He points out that in practice it’s already difficult to discern real from fake on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, and once truth-seeking ability is eliminated, society becomes polarized and internally fighting. There is an urgent need for government action, while enterprises are increasingly buying cybersecurity solutions to deliver more efficiently, since they cannot bear the full burden alone. Kramer notes that this drives the next generation of security companies—such as Wiz, CrowdStrike, and Cato Networks—built on network platforms that can deliver extended security needs to enterprises at affordable costs. He clarifies these tools are for enterprises, not governments, but insists that governments should start building programs and that the same tools can be used by governments as well. Speaker 2 mentions that China is a leading AI user, already employing AI to control the population, and that the U.S. and other democracies are in a race with China. He warns that China’s approach—having a single narrative to protect internal stability—versus the U.S. approach of multiple narratives creates an unfair long-term advantage for China that could jeopardize national stability, and asserts that changes must be made.

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.

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.

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.