reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Россия поддерживает инициативу Председателя Си Цзиньпина и заинтересована приступить к конкретному обсуждению предложений наших китайских друзей. И думается, что именно ШОС могла бы взять на себя лидирующую роль в формировании в мире более справедливой и равноправной системы глобального управления, основанной на примате международного права и ключевых положениях Устава ООН, быть подлинно сбалансированной и учитывать интересы широкого круга стран, гарантируя возможности для их устойчивого развития и безопасности. Russia supports the initiative of Chairman Xi Jinping and is interested in beginning concrete discussions of the proposals expressed by our Chinese friends. It is thought that the SCO could take a leading role in forming a more just and equal system of global governance, based on the primacy of international law and the key provisions of the UN Charter, truly balanced and taking into account the interests of a broad circle of countries, and guaranteeing opportunities for their sustainable development and security.

Nikolay Petro and Gwen were discussing the Munich Security Conference and the broader shift in global order. The core theme is the destruction or breakdown of the post–Cold War order as the world moves toward multipolarity, with the United States and Europe following diverging paths. - The transition to multipolarity is described as chaos and a vacuum of strategic thinking. From a European perspective, this is an unwanted transition into something unfamiliar, while the US debates a more pragmatic approach that may bypass traditional institutions to position itself favorably. The multipolar world would be more democratic, with more voices in actual discussion of each nation’s needs and contributions, in contrast to the hegemonic, rules-based order. - The concept of multipolarity presumes multiple poles of interest. Nations at the top of the old order feel uncomfortable; they had a lead dog (the United States) and knew where they were going. Now the lead dog may be wandering, and the rest are lost. There’s a push to engage voices from the global South, or the global majority, though the term “global South” is viewed as imprecise. - At Munich, Kaia Kallas and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (Mertz) urged order to avoid chaos. Kallas favored restoring or preserving the structures of the past, arguing the European Union should reconnect with the US and dominate collectively as the political West. Mertz used aggressive language, saying Germany’s army must be the most powerful in Europe and that the war in Ukraine will end only when Russia is exhausted economically and militarily; he argued Europe imposed unheard-of losses on Russia. - In response, the US role in Munich was anticipated to feature Marco Rubio as the delegation head, signaling a security-focused agenda rather than deep internal European discourse. The discussion suggested the US may push a strategy of returning to or reshaping a hegemonic order, pressuring Europe to align with American priorities, and highlighting that the old order is over. - There is a perception of internal German political dynamics: the rise of the anti-establishment party (IFD) could challenge the current SPD/CSU coalition, potentially altering the German stance on Russia and Europe’s strategy toward Moscow. The possibility exists that internal German shifts could counter aggressive German policy toward Russia. - In Europe, there is a tension between those who want to sacrifice more national autonomy to please the US and those who advocate diversifying ties to avoid total dependence on Washington. In practice, EU policy has often mirrored US priorities, thereby delaying a truly autonomous European strategy. - The EU’s foreign policy structure remains weak due to political diversity among member states, the need for cooperation with national governments, and resistance to surrendering power to Brussels. There is no cohesive grand strategy within the EU, making it hard to present a unified vision in a multipolar world. The EU’s reliance on crisis-driven centralization contrasts with those internal contradictions. - Ukraine’s war exposed tensions in Europe’s cohesion. Initially, there was a rallying effect and unified front against Russia, aided by US support, aiming for a rapid Russian defeat. Now the EU’s rhetoric shifts toward seeking a ceasefire and preserving what remains of Ukraine, labeling victory in terms of saving Ukraine rather than expelling Russia. EU funding for Ukraine—about €90 billion over two years—may be insufficient, with Ukraine claiming higher needs. - The discussion suggested that European leadership’s view of Russia and Putin is unstable: some European circles believe Russia could collapse economically, while others see Russia’s leadership as capable of countermeasures. Reports of France reestablishing high-level political contacts with Russia were noted as part of this flux. - The conversation contrasted backward-looking US/EU visions with a forward-looking multipolar vision promoted by BRICS, especially Russia, which could be more promising due to its forward outlook. The EU, dominated by internal divisions, struggles to articulate an autonomous multipolar path, while the United States appears intent on reviving its dominant position and reshaping the international order, sometimes in ways that delay the shift to multipolarity. - Overall, the speakers highlighted a shared but backward-looking orientation between the EU and the US, versus a forward-looking, multipolar alternative; they also underscored the strategic vacuum, internal European divisions, and the continuing tug-of-war between attempting to restore past structures and embracing a new global arrangement.

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.

Ashwin Rutansi hosts Going Underground from Dubai, discussing the World Government Summit in the UAE, which brought together 6,000 attendees, 35 heads of state, ministers, and leaders from civil society, academia, and business. The conversation centers on BRICS, its role on the world stage, and tensions in the region amid US naval activity in the Gulf. Victoria Panova, head of BRICS Expert Council (Russia), vice director of HSE University, and Sherpa of the G20 advisory group for Russia, shares her impressions and analysis. Panova’s first impression of the summit is the remarkable diversity and high level of organization, with attendees from various paths of life and countries, creating a vibrant environment for dialogue. She notes the forum’s focus on AI and technological challenges, even as regional security concerns linger behind the scenes due to US carrier presence and broader tensions in the region. She observes dual-use nature of AI and weapons and questions why security issues are not more openly addressed, pointing to the UN Security Council’s blockages and the existence of a “peace council” that is not fully formed. Discussing BRICS members and expansion, Panova explains that UAE and Iran are among the newer members and emphasizes BRICS’ need to demonstrate capacity during “count times.” She outlines the original six invited countries and the current mix of members, partners, and invited states, noting Argentina’s initial interest and its later hesitation. The question of why Saudi Arabia is not a full member while UAE and Iran are is explained in terms of historical invitations, internal Brazilian debates, and consensus-based BRICS governance, which requires broad agreement rather than unilateral action. Panova highlights the New Development Bank (NDB) as BRICS’ key financial instrument, distinguished by its lack of Western member states and absence of political conditionalities, although she acknowledges its current smaller scale and ongoing need for growth. Dilma Rousseff is noted as head of the NDB, with Putin’s influence cited in ensuring continuity of leadership. The discussion touches on Venezuela’s BRICS status, Maduro’s kidnapping incident, and the Brazilian veto influenced by internal Brazilian opinions and Mato Grosso considerations, with the BRICS civil council issuing a declaration in support of Maduro, though BRICS itself remains constrained by consensus requirements. On global order and currency systems, Panova argues that BRICS aims to reduce dependence on the dollar, noting that non-dollar trade is already significant (e.g., Brazil-China trade where 48% is non-dollar, Russia-India trade using rubles and renminbi). She emphasizes that while the dirham in Dubai is pegged to the dollar, BRICS members seek to diversify payment systems and currencies, including potential BRICS digital currency discussions at the sherpa level, with the first sherpa meeting in February to set detailed priorities. The dialogue also considers Donald Trump’s impact on BRICS. Panova suggests Trump’s stance against BRICS aligns with de-dollarization efforts and the pursuit of independent payment systems, although she acknowledges that Trump has used sanctions as bargaining leverage and that BRICS seeks to strengthen collective action rather than rely on any single country. The interview closes with expectations for India-hosted sherpas and the lead-up to the BRICS leaders’ summit, underscoring BRICS’ evolving role as a potential counterweight to Western-dominated institutions. Overall, the discussion emphasizes BRICS’ pursuit of financial autonomy, diversified currencies, and enhanced global influence through structured diplomacy, expansion, and alternative development financing, set against ongoing regional security complexities and Western geopolitical pressures.

Ashwin Ratanji introduces New Order’s new season, arguing that the war in West Asia has moved beyond regional containment and is reshaping energy flows, alliances, and “neutrality.” Ratanji cites US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking to a Senate hearing in Washington, saying the Trump administration wants to end the license allowing countries such as India to continue buying Russian oil. He links this to Prime Minister Modi’s planned visit to Moscow for the annual India-Russia summit later this year, and to Modi’s trip to the G7 in Evian, France, in under two weeks—potentially his first face-to-face with Trump since February 2025—where Russian oil, tariffs, and the Strait of Hormuz are expected to be discussed. Ratanji then interviews Professor Charles Kupchan, former US National Security Council director for European affairs under Clinton and Obama, and author of The End of the American Era and Bringing Order to Anarchy: Governing the World to Come. Kupchan frames the current moment using Gramsci’s “Prison Notebooks,” saying “the old is dying and the new cannot be born,” and describes the liberal international system anchored by the United States and democratic allies as having peaked in the 1990s and now ending without a clear replacement order. He characterizes Trump as “the demolition man” rather than an architect of what comes next, calling the period a historical hiatus between twentieth-century order and a twenty-first-century one. On whether the US is prepared for its empire to go the way of the British empire, Kupchan says the United States shows “schizophrenia”: a foreign policy establishment committed to American hegemony and dollar/military anchoring, alongside a MAGA approach emphasizing being “done being the Atlas of the world,” returning to a Monroe Doctrine focus, and pushing allies to carry more burdens. He argues Trump has shifted from an America-first posture into a pattern similar to predecessors by launching or escalating conflicts in the Middle East without achieving goals, contributing to unpredictability. Kupchan also says domestic political fracture has replaced an earlier bipartisan centrist coalition, leaving the US oscillating between incompatible visions of its role. Discussing Ukraine and Iran, Kupchan argues there is “no clear strategic vision” guiding Trump, describing him as acting “on instinct,” with shifting justifications. He says on China there has been a shift from early-term confrontational tariff-driven policy and escalated confrontation during Biden’s presidency, to a more cooperative posture in a recent trip to Beijing where Trump sought to lower the temperature and pursue trade deals with Xi Jinping, while noting the outcome depends on reciprocal Chinese moves. Kupchan addresses domestic political backlash: he says civil society, courts, Congress, and Republicans have increasingly pushed back, especially regarding executive authority and constraints around the Iran war. He describes a possible peak in Trump’s presidency, with uncertainty about midterms and 2028, and adds that Democrats lack ideological unity between moving to the center or the left, expecting voters to “throw the bums out” because no party answers key affordability and economic questions. He links this to the impact of technological change, automation, and hollowing out of the political center. In a sanctions segment, Kupchan argues sanctions will remain a “go-to” tool because they are politically easy for the US but says sanctions repeatedly fail to achieve stated goals in an interdependent world. He describes how Russia redirected supply chains after Ukraine-related sanctions, and says Iran has not been toppled or deterred despite long-standing US/EU sanctions and blockade measures. He connects the declining effectiveness of sanctions to de-dollarization trends, including Chinese payment system development and BRICS efforts for internal payment mechanisms, which he says reduce US leverage over dollar-denominated transactions. On global governance and the US role, Kupchan says the US “damaged its brand” but believes it is not permanent, tying recovery to rebuilding the American middle class through employment and education for the digital era. He argues China and Russia want multipolarity and an end to American hegemony but “don’t really know what” multipolarity means in terms of governing proposals. He calls for sustained cross-bloc dialogue rather than fly-in, fly-out summits, pointing to G20-like structures and emphasizing that ongoing dialogue between China, Russia, India, Europe, the US, and global-south countries is lacking. Regarding whether the US is too poor or too isolated to participate in a new order, Kupchan says the US remains dominant in GDP and maintains unmatched military capacity and global bases, while noting China faces demographic and economic problems and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have consequences “for generations,” though the US also has problems. He says the US is likely to remain among the most influential for decades. Zara Khan then fields audience questions. One asks about Trump and the midterms; Kupchan says he “never makes predictions” but indicates Trump may lose. Another asks whether Israel is sovereign or an extension of US foreign policy; Khan frames it as a “full duplex” relationship. The session ends with a question to viewers: whether “secondary sanctions” turn “middle powers into frontline actors” in great power rivalry, inviting responses on X at neworder_underscore_tv.

Speaker portrays a world at a crossroads, with irreversible changes and a new multipolar order led by the global majority against neocolonial control. He brands the West as 'an empire of lies' and accuses it of failing to fulfill commitments, citing NATO expansion toward Russia’s borders and 'assurances' broken. He highlights joint US–NATO nuclear scenarios, space and information dominance, and alliance networks AUKUS and the Quad, warning that 'the Monroe doctrine into a global one' is underway. The speech urges reform of global governance, noting that 'the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states' must guide a fair UN and expanded Security Council representation, end unilateral coercive measures, and decolonization. It cites climate finance promises of 2009 ($100,000,000,000 annually) versus '$170,000,000,000' spent on Kyiv; calls for dialogue on Palestine–Israel, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Kosovo.

The discussion centers on India’s position in 2025 amid a shifting international order and U.S. efforts to recalibrate a multipolar world. - The year 2025 is characterized as eventful for India, with the country under pressure to choose a path in a world where power is more distributed. The conversation opens with a framing of the U.S. adjusting to multipolarity, the return of Trump, and various global tensions, noting that India’s role has received relatively less attention. - Speaker 1 reflects that 2025 was not a good year for India. At the start of the year, India expected to remain a fulcrum of U.S. policy to contain China and to shuttle between powers, maintaining a growing trade relationship with China while navigating U.S. pressures. The Trump presidency disrupted this balance. India perceived U.S. interference in its domestic politics, including alleged U.S. fingerprints in color revolutions in Bangladesh and Nepal, and a perception that U.S. entities like the National Endowment for Democracy were involved. The 50% trade tariff on India by the U.S. shocked New Delhi, and Trump’s public and private statements criticizing India complicated the relationship. - The discussion notes India’s sensitivity to becoming overly dependent on the U.S. for strategic protection against China, given Modi’s emphasis on Indian sovereignty and self-reliance. Modi’s perceived humility toward Trump, followed by a cooling of the relationship after Trump’s tariff threats, created a crisis of confidence in the U.S.-India alignment. Modi’s personal interactions with Trump—such as a cordial birthday exchange followed by threats of 100% tariffs on India—were seen as signaling mixed signals from Washington. - India’s options in 2025 include: (1) retrenchment and continuing to seek a balancing act between the U.S., China, and Russia; (2) charting an independent course by strengthening ties within BRICS and the Global South; or (3) aligning more with the U.S. with the hope of future U.S. policy shifts. The economic reality complicates choices: while India’s exports did reasonably well despite tariffs and some FDI, opening Indian dairy and agriculture to the U.S. market would threaten farmers’ livelihoods, potentially destabilizing an electorate sensitive to domestic issues. - There is a broader point about Washington’s approach: demand loyalty from regions and countries while using tariffs and pressure to shape alignment, and Trump’s approach is described as a fear-and-intimidation strategy toward the Global South. - On the China-India axis, the speakers discuss how China’s rise and India’s size create a power disparity that makes simple dominance difficult for either side. India’s strategy involves leveraging BRICS and other forums (including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, SCO) to expand multipolar governance and reduce dependence on a single power center. The interlocutors emphasize that BRICS operates by consensus and is not a vetoed UN-style body; thus, it offers a platform where major powers can cooperate without a single dominant voice. - The potential paths for India include growing within BRICS and the Global South, seeking mutual economic advantages, and developing a strategy that reduces vulnerability to U.S. coercion. One line of thought suggests using digital tools to help Indian small and medium-sized enterprises access global markets, and building coalitions using shared developmental and financial needs to negotiate better terms in global trade, similar to how an OPEC-like approach could coordinate commodity pricing for the Global South. - The conversation also touches on border and regional issues: a historical context where Russia resolved border tensions with China via settlements that altered the balance of power; the suggestion that India and China could adopt joint administrative arrangements for disputed border zones to reduce conflict risk and foster cooperation, though this requires careful handling to avoid loss of face for either side. - The role of China is described as patient and multipolar-friendly, seeking to buy more from India and to cultivate mutual trade, while recognizing India’s internal challenges, such as power reliability and structural issues like caste and crony capitalism, which affect India’s ability to produce and export higher-value goods. - The broader takeaway is a vision of a more integrated multipolar Eurasia, where India’s leadership within BRICS/SC0 and its ability to create innovative economic arrangements—such as “resource bourses” or shared supply chains—could alter the balance of power and reduce dependency on U.S. policy dynamics. There is an emphasis on avoiding a new Cold War by fostering dialogue and joint governance mechanisms that include China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, and other Global South actors. - The speakers close with a cautious optimism: 2026 could be better if nations learn to push back against coercive power, redefine security around development and governance rather than force, and pursue multipolar institutions that preserve autonomy while enabling peaceful competition. The expectation is that seeds of hope exist within these analyses, even as the present year has been challenging.

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.

US leaders, according to the discussion, have pushed Russia and China closer by trying to prevent a stronger alliance outside the Western Hemisphere. President Vladimir Putin met with President Xi Jinping, and the two signed a record number of agreements covering energy, finance, AI, transportation, manufacturing, and military coordination. Key developments highlighted include new pipeline infrastructure permanently directing Russian energy toward China and growing efforts to bypass the US dollar in global trade. The discussion links these moves to Western pressures such as high energy prices, deindustrialization, debt, stagnant growth, and economic fallout from years of proxy wars and sanctions policy, framing the Russia-China trade corridor as on track to become a strategically important global route. The speakers contrast the Putin-Xi agreements with President Trump’s recent trip to China, describing one set of deals as historic and growth-based and the other as diplomatic and transactional. They portray Trump-era US-China deals as tariff pauses, trade concessions, agricultural purchases, and efforts to stabilize and correct issues created, while portraying Putin-Xi agreements as going beyond commerce—building long-term energy infrastructure and alternative financial systems outside the US dollar, effectively aiming at a parallel economic order rather than managing trade tensions. Former State Department diplomat Jim Jatris says US foreign policy has driven the two powers into a historic alliance, and he argues that the real question is whether Russia and China still see themselves as invested in the dollar-denominated system as it stands. He points to the joint statement’s “hoping” for a future multipolar order with the US stepping down from ambitions for global unipolar power, adding that they may not yet know whether the US can be persuaded to do so. When asked about the nature of the Russia-China partnership and whether the US could do something similar, Jatris responds that US diplomacy often arrives with minimal substance, while he claims Americans are not offering the kind of comprehensive, sustained partnership described. On the US dollar, Jatris says the agreements involve multipolar cooperation and end-around arrangements to settle transactions in yuan and ruble outside the US petrodollar system, describing this as potentially the “final nail in a coffin” for the dollar and noting that earlier predictions of replacement currencies have not yet come to pass. He argues both Russia and China also have corrupt interests and that short-term deals could benefit individuals rather than national interests. Asked about Iran, Jatris calls it the “big question,” arguing that Russia, China, and Iran are loath to admit that the United States is not “agreement capable,” citing a hypothetical example involving sanctions relief and control of the Straits of Hormuz. He says Russia and China may instead view the situation as an opportunity to weaken the US “empire,” offering an off ramp for Trump that could result in a “Minsk type deception.” On military cooperation, Jatris says China is interested in technical knowledge gained by Russia in Ukraine, describing joint training missions as Russians training Chinese on lessons from drone warfare and related experience. He frames Russia as the stronger military power with a larger nuclear arsenal and notes direct experience in a paradigm-changing war only Russia and Ukraine have. Regarding Europe and the prospect of a western war against Russia, Jatris argues Europe is the main problem, asserting Washington is trying to offload burdens to Europeans. He describes low willingness among Europeans to fight, ties it to constraints including cheap Russian energy’s role in industry, and argues Europeans are making noise but are not positioned to fight materially, spiritually, morally. He suggests Russia may be overestimating that European problem and makes the case that Russia should finish the Ukraine war sooner rather than later. On Putin’s political prospects and Russian appetite for continued conflict, Jatris says he sees not an inability to win but a deliberate decision shaped by classic statecraft: forcing the enemy to agree to terms. He cites Putin’s June 2024 terms—four oblasts, Crimea agreements including no NATO neutrality, denazification, and demilitarization—and argues that even if the West agreed, those terms would not be honorably enforceable without Russian control of Kyiv. He also contends that Russian questioning of treaty guarantees and the possibility of denazification/demilitarization lacks a workable answer. The conversation also includes claims of frustration in Russia over the war being prolonged, references to large numbers of dead including non-Ukrainians serving as mercenaries, and the view that money continues to flow into the conflict.

Ashwin Rifansi discusses New Order’s focus on how India and its allies sit at the center of a shifting global order, noting that the West Asia conflict involving Trump, Netanyahu, Iran, and Lebanon has repeatedly broken ceasefires and that Pakistan publicly thanked Trump for de-escalation efforts before its consulate in Peshawar was shut down as the US deemed the location too dangerous. New Delhi is about to host the BRICS foreign ministers meeting, with Iran likely sending its deputy foreign minister. India’s chair aims to balance Gulf energy ties with a broader multi-aligned strategy, positioning it as the broker able to keep competing sides in the same room. The last BRICS meeting failed to reach consensus; this time the stakes are higher, divisions sharper, and billions hinge on deli decisions. The question posed is whether this emergent order can hold together or reconcile internal contradictions. Professor Richard Wolff, a prominent economist, joins to discuss who pays for the Trump–Netanyahu war. Wolff identifies the cost as ultimately borne by a combination of American taxpayers and the global community that finances the war through borrowing. He says the government relies more on borrowed money than on taxes, noting that an explicit tax burden on American families would be politically unsustainable, while the bill is effectively deferred to future generations. He points out that parts of the global South are lending to the US to finance the war, citing that Japan is the largest creditor to the United States, with China as the second-largest, while the US remains the world’s largest debtor. Wolff explains that the crisis of supply lines stems from long-standing corporate decisions since the 1970s to relocate manufacturing abroad for profitability, particularly to China. He argues politicians—including Trump—present the narrative as if foreigners (China, India, Brazil) forced these changes, thereby portraying the US as a victim rather than the perpetrator. This framing disguises the revenue gains American capital reaped from overseas production, which in turn produced long supply lines as goods must travel back to markets. The discussion emphasizes the strategic political use of this narrative to manage domestic anger at lost jobs and wages. The conversation then turns to potential futures for supply chains and localized production. Wolff suggests that global factors push toward localization and diversification of production within the United States and BRICS countries, with the Hormuz Strait being a model for potential disruptions elsewhere (e.g., the Malacca Strait). He predicts a major, long-term reorganization of where production happens and how the global economy is organized, arguing the conflict could catalyze a renaissance of regionalized or localized production, even if not immediately after the current war. On the political economy side, Wolff notes that Trump’s political support is shrinking outside the extreme right and the business elite who benefit from his tax policies and fossil-fuel ties. He warns that if the Iran confrontation undermines Trump’s ability to assert U.S. power, oligarchic support could wane, threatening his presidency. Wolff also forecasts that the defense budget under discussion—proposed to rise from about $900 billion to $1.5 trillion—would far outpace any social program cuts, intensifying pressure on workers who are already relying on food stamps and other supports. The discussion touches on the global South’s response to a declining U.S. empire, including potential non-dollar settlements and the challenges of unwinding dollar-denominated debt. Wolff notes the dollar is weaker but remains central; the process toward a multi-currency system is gradual. He observes that global South students are increasingly looking elsewhere for education and investment, signaling a broader trend away from the United States as a safe or dominant hub for capital. The program closes with questions about the Quad and ASEAN’s roles, and whether India should stay in the Quad. Wolff’s perspective frames a dynamic, multi-polar trajectory as BRICS and other blocs potentially gain influence in the face of U.S. decline. The show teases a future discussion with Khan about how viewers can engage with these questions.

In this discussion, the guests analyze the implications of a United States military attack on Venezuela and its broader impact on Latin America, Asia, and the evolving world order. The Chilean ambassador to BRICS describes the event as a historic milestone: it is “the first time we have seen a US military attack on the South American mainland,” differing from past interventions in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. He notes that at a Saturday press conference, President Trump warned Colombia and Mexico that they might be next, and Secretary of State Rubio warned Cuba to watch out. This is presented as potentially the beginning of a larger shift, not an isolated incident like the 1989 invasion of Panama. The ambassador points to Trump’s 2025 national security doctrine, which places the Western Hemisphere at the center of US strategy, marking a significant departure from Bush’s focus on the Middle East and Obama’s pivot to Asia. He argues the motive is not humanitarian or stabilizing Latin America, but subjugation, resource extraction, and domination of governments in the region, a stance he characterizes as an attempt to reassert empire in the Western Hemisphere. On the macro level, the discussion addresses Latin America’s changing economic architecture, including a shift from the United States as the primary trading partner to China as a dominant partner for many countries. The US response, including the Venezuelan action, is framed as a mercantilist impulse to secure resources and influence, rather than a pro-democracy or pro-human rights initiative. The conversation emphasizes that the region’s instability is intertwined with oil, minerals, and strategic resources, and that the US move may be more about controlling these assets than about leaders’ legitimacy. The speakers then examine regional dynamics within Latin America. The region is fragmented, with SELAC (the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) weak and unable to unify a response. Some governments—Argentina, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Costa Rica—have openly sided with the US, while others are more cautious about Maduro’s leadership. The ambassador reiterates that Maduro’s regime was unpopular domestically due to authoritarianism and incompetence, yet the US action targets Venezuela’s oil and sovereignty more than Maduro’s personal legitimacy. He suggests that anti-American sentiment could grow across the region, regardless of specific governments. A key theme is the emergence of BRICS as a counterweight to US hegemony. The ambassador notes that Trump has attacked BRICS members—South Africa, Brazil, and India—through trade measures and visa policies, highlighting BRICS’ rise with the New Development Bank and expanding membership (including Indonesia). He argues that BRICS represents a shift toward a multipolar world where the Global South seeks to diversify dependencies and leverage different centers of power. He differentiates BRICS from the Global South, describing BRICS as a forum aligned with Global South demands, while acknowledging that neither China nor Russia are part of the traditional Global South, though China and India are influential within BRICS. The conversation argues for active nonalignment as a guiding principle for the Global South in a multipolar order. The ambassador cites examples like Brazil under Lula who resisted US pressure, and contrasts European concessions in trade deals (e.g., the EU-US golf-course agreement) with the need for greater strategic autonomy. He asserts that Europe’s capitulation has weakened its economic and political independence, while Latin America must avoid overreliance on the US and diversify with China and other partners. He argues that the long-term consequences of US military actions could be counterproductive, weakening US standing and strengthening China’s position by eroding a sense of predictable community in the Americas. In closing, the ambassador emphasizes that the Maduro-led Venezuela episode underscores the rise of Asia, the relative decline and fragmentation of the West, and the importance of multipolarity for smaller and medium-sized states. He reiterates the value of active nonalignment as a compass for Latin America, Africa, and Asia in navigating a turbulent, power-shifting world. He and the host note that the discussion will extend to the ambassador’s work on active nonalignment and BRICS, with a link to his writings provided.

The speaker highlights India (almost 1,500,000,000 people) and China as powerful economies with their own domestic political mechanisms and laws. When someone says they will punish you, you must consider how the leadership of these large countries, "which had difficult periods in their history too, that had to do with colonialism, with attacks on their sovereignty during prolonged periods of time," would respond. If one of them shows weakness, "his political career will be over," which shapes their behavior. "Just the colonial era is now over." They must realize they "cannot use this tone in speaking with their partners." But ultimately, "things will be sorted out. Everything will take its place, and we will see a normal political dialogue again."

Ashton Rutansi introduces New Order’s first season finale, arguing that India and its allies sit at the center of a wider transformation in world history as conflicts and geopolitical pressure spread beyond West Asia. Rutansi describes the BRICS foreign ministers meeting in Delhi under India’s 2026 chairmanship, with senior officials from the UAE, China, Russia, and Iran in attendance. He also links India’s diplomacy—Prime Minister Modi touring the UAE and Europe—with the need to balance energy security, trade stability, Western partnerships, and global South leadership. Rutansi frames the situation as sensitive due to Iran’s demands for stronger BRICS political backing against US and Israeli violations of the UN Charter, amid Saudi Arabia and the UAE attempting to avoid direct confrontation. Rutansi interviews international relations scholar Professor Richard Sakwa. Asked whether a unipolar order is ending in real time, Sakwa says the unipolar model has been on its way out and is giving way to unilateralism in the United States, producing what he calls the “twilight” of the Atlantic/Political West. He argues that multipolarity is only a symptom and that the alternative model aligns with UN norms, international law, and the post-1945 international system, which he says the Political West challenged while it still held power. On global war, Sakwa says the Russo-Ukrainian war has become a Russo-European war and Europe is experiencing “war fever,” comparing the language to the atmosphere before World War I. He says commentators argue the West is in the thick of it, but that “we’re only in the foothills,” and that the global South has more balanced talk. Rutansi highlights European resistance to diplomacy and questions the impact of weapons and sanctions. Sakwa says the EU is adopting its twentieth sanctions package and working on a twenty-first, noting they are running out of “things to sanction” but “digging and digging their heels in.” He adds that US sanctions under Trump after an Alaska meeting in August 2025 affected Russian oil exports and deeply impacted India, while sanctions dependence persists. Sakwa responds that many countries, including China, can withstand tariffs and sanctions; he contrasts China’s scale with India’s vulnerability given reliance on imported oil, including from the Gulf. He notes Russia’s survival under heavy sanctions while taking a “very heavy toll.” On whether India exemplifies successful multipolar power, Sakwa is skeptical of the term multipolarity and argues the UN Charter system and postwar decolonization have matured into a “multiplex world,” where many states—including middle powers such as Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, the Philippines, Indonesia, and others—refuse being “bossed around” by a traditional hegemon. He emphasizes that international organizations and corporations also function as quasi-state actors, and he argues Western arrogance about being hegemonic has not matured. Rutansi raises criticism that the UN has struggled to act during a Gaza genocide and discusses an alleged UN leadership role of Annalena Baerbock. Sakwa calls the UN’s crisis its most desperate stage since 1945, argues that the solution is to double down to support the UN rather than dismiss it, and says India should be an essential permanent member. He also suggests resetting elements of the UN system by adding Brazil, India, and other countries—especially Africa—as permanent Security Council members. Later, Sakwa discusses NATO and US participation, saying the United States has historically retained autonomy and that Trump has left dozens of international organizations, including UN agencies such as the World Health Organization. Sakwa says the US “go[es] it alone,” meeting China as equals and that US-India relations have faced the most difficult period in decades amid sanctions and threats. Rutansi asks about whether human rights “weaponization” will continue, including references to freedom of expression in Western Europe and Sakwa’s detention at Heathrow on June 13, 2025. Sakwa says he was detained under the 2019 Counterterrorism Act and that refusing to answer or saying “no comment” could be taken as indicating guilt, allowing arrest. He describes questioning as a “fishing expedition,” says his views are open to debate, and says the case later went quiet. Sakwa argues that Western Europe exhibits groupthink, permanent war, militarism, remilitarization, and “profound Russophobia,” and he says global South countries increasingly treat US and European actions with contempt. He also argues secondary sanctions are irresponsible and illegal, and that attempts to defend international law by undermining it create double standards. The show then shifts to viewer questions via Zara Khan (Azarakan). One asks how to stop the US and Israel from mass killings; Khan and Rutansi respond by identifying complicit states and supply chain links, including countries Rutansi lists as providing Israeli weaponry, warplane components, and related support. Another asks what alternative security architectures India should prioritize in the Indian Ocean if it exits the Quad; Rutansi says India could expand cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, strengthen a Russia-India-China format (RIC) as a possible “new quad,” and consider strengthening the North South transit corridor involving India, Russia, and Iran. Rutansi closes by asking viewers: how India and the global South should deal with Western Europe’s war fever against Russia.

The speaker argues that Russia, China, and India are the major powers, with a potential union under SCO or BRICS posing a US disaster, a result of failed US policy. He claims only three powers matter—Russia, China, and the United States—and suggests a two-against-one dynamic, with the US aligning with Russia to isolate China. Citing Nixon’s 1971 pivot to China, he asserts this approach helped isolate the Soviet Union. He urges engaging with Russia rather than treating it as a pariah, noting the war in Ukraine blocks a pivot. At the Alaska summit, Trump reportedly listened to Putin unfiltered, and Putin seeks a comprehensive peace treaty with security guarantees, though misunderstandings over those guarantees (and Article 5) persist. The plan would involve Russia, China, perhaps Turkey, with minimal Western boots, and sidelining Zelensky to seal a quick deal.

Live pictures show a massive parade underway in Beijing as Xi Jinping shows off his country's arsenal and military might to the world, with more than two dozen foreign leaders in attendance from Russia, North Korea, and Iran. In a speech, Xi warned that the world needs to choose, 'between peace and war.' They are commemorating the eightieth anniversary of the surrender of Japan. Xi 'has just done a review of the troops in his presidential limousine' and is 'walking up a red carpet towards the Tiananmen Gate' with Putin to his right and Kim Jong Un to his left. The SCO gathering followed diplomacy; 'The North Korean leader was not in that. He's not a member of that group, but Vladimir Putin was there,' and the message targeted 'the US' with 'bullying' and a 'cold war mentality,' as leaders urged a multipolar world order.

India will decide its own relationships with other countries, including Russia, China, and the United States. India's relationship with China is growing stronger. India is not required to halt its relationship with China because of Donald Trump or close ties with the U.S. government. The world is multipolar, not bipolar, and it is not "America first and everybody else last."

Ashwin Rutansi hosts New Order, exploring how India and the global South navigate new alignments catalyzed by West Asia’s war. Tehran’s rejection of direct peace talks with Washington sits beside regional powers—from Beijing to Islamabad—pushing for negotiated outcomes that safeguard security. The Gulf anchors India’s energy security and now becomes the pivot of a new order as the U.S. loses control over key sea lanes, including the Strait of Hormuz. Global energy prices rise, compelling New Delhi to reassess sourcing and diplomacy as India tries to navigate between major powers to protect economic and security interests. Jeffrey Sachs, adviser to UN secretaries-general and Padma Bhushan recipient, joins from New York City. He emphasizes that if Iran is bombed into the stone age and energy in West Asia ignites, the entire world would suffer. He describes a global energy system where disruptions affect fertilizer, food production, industrial petrochemicals, and the broader supply chain. He warns that a war of the length Trump talks about could lead to catastrophic energy supply collapse in weeks, affecting not just Hormuz, but production across Middle East fields, pipelines, ports, and refineries. He argues Trump misunderstands the link between U.S. energy resources and Hormuz, noting a broader energy vulnerability. The discussion shifts to why India might resist intervening in a Iran-Israel crisis. Sachs critiques U.S. foreign policy as pursuing perpetual hegemony and describes Trump’s behavior as part of a broader pattern. He characterizes the American president as lacking a “foot on the brake” for war machine expansion, contrasting it with past attempts to restrain aggression. He describes Trump as displaying a “dark triad”—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—with possible frontotemporal dementia factors, and he attributes alarming rhetoric from Netanyahu to a similar mindset in Israel’s leadership. He contends this policy approach is dangerous and urges restraint. On why Modi, Delhi, and BRICS should avoid entanglement with Israel and push for a negotiated settlement, Sachs argues India should not align with Israel, which he says has committed genocide in Gaza and launched a “war of whim” against Iran. He stresses that India, as BRICS president, should advocate a multipolar world rooted in international law and the UN Charter, collaborating with Russia, China, and other BRICS partners to counter American delusions of a unipolar order. He asserts that BRICS can serve as a stabilizing force for the world and that India can be a peacemaker given its long-standing ties with Persia. He calls for India, China, and Russia to cooperate and to recognize the 1914 Simla line as an historical footnote, not a barrier to current cooperation; BRICS, he says, can build practical institutions like the New Development Bank to support a multipolar framework. The program shifts to audience questions with Zara Khan. She asks if BRICS could create a new clearinghouse for world commerce. Sachs remains optimistic about BRICS, noting that sanctions-heavy Russia still conducts substantial trade and that Gulf Hormuz deals illustrate transactions independent of the U.S. petrodollar and SWIFT. Another question concerns how Iran could bypass sanctions via BRICS and overcome SWIFT, with Sachs noting SWIFT’s days may be numbered and suggesting BRICS-enabled trade could proceed without Western financial systems. Shaila from Johannesburg asks why BRICS leaders still entertain a two-state solution; the host invites reconsideration of that stance in light of genocide accusations and calls for a broader, more principled approach. The show ends with a prompt for viewers: How can Modi, Putin, or Xi pressure Trump to end the war in Iran? The program invites continued discussion on Sunday, tracking shifting global power and India’s central role in the new order.

Pepe Escobar and Glenn discuss the Iran situation amid escalating US-Israeli pressure and Iran’s response. Key points: - Iran as “the holy grail” in US policy: Iran has long been seen as the ultimate target within a broader project that includes Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran, with the goal of reshaping West Asia and advancing a Greater Israel concept. The project dates back to at least the nineties, with frameworks like the Project for the New American Century and Clean Break cited as influencing DC thinking. - War planning and messaging: The war was described as planned for decades, with Iran identified as the likely target when other measures failed. The Trump administration reportedly pressed forward, and the “barbarian baboon in the White House” metaphor is used to underscore perceived Zionist influence and financial beneficiaries around the war. - Domestic US-financial dynamics: The war’s perceived profitability for insiders is highlighted, naming Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Steve Lutnick, and others as profiting from related moves. The discussion emphasizes that financial markets (bond yields, gold, oil) influence US decisions, with high bond yields constraining US action. - Iranian strategic posture: Iran’s leaders reportedly signaled that there are no conversations with the US at the moment, and that a deal is impossible given the lists of demands from both sides. The Iranians have shifted from defense to offense, with missiles and drones increasingly employed. - Iranian deterrence and capabilities: The talk notes Iran’s use of missiles such as the Khorramshahr 4 and Fateh-2, with added emphasis on underground missile cities in the Sistan Baluchistan region and near the Afghan border. Iran’s deterrence is described as decentralized and mosaic, enabling precise targeting and escalation control. The Iranian approach includes limiting attacks to dual-use civilian infrastructure in Israel while avoiding civilianTargeted attacks in Iran, and threatening Dimona if Natanz is bombed. - Israeli and Iranian targeting: Iran has begun to attack civilian dual-use infrastructure in Israel and is targeting Haifa refineries and military installations near Ben Gurion Airport, while Israel continues to strike near Natanz and other Iranian sites. The balance of escalation is framed as a deterrence dynamic, with both sides escalating in different ways. - International alignment and support: Russia and China are described as backing Iran diplomatically and with intelligence support, including satellite intel and the movement of Iranian Shahids between Russia and Iran. The three BRICS actors—Russia, China, and Iran—are cited as central to a multipolar Eurasian integration project, with BRICS described as currently comatose or nonfunctional due to internal divisions and external pressures (e.g., UAE and India’s actions). - BRICS and SCO status: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization released a weak statement; BRICS is portrayed as having internal problems, with India’s actions, especially in relation to Iran, criticized as betrayals from many countries. Russia and China are positioned as active backers of Iran, while BRICS’s future is uncertain. - Iran’s regional strategy and neighbors: The discussion covers Azerbaijan, Turkey, and India’s roles. Azerbaijan could be drawn into potential conflicts, with Iran warning that involvement could bring severe consequences. Turkey is described as hedging and pursuing its own strategy; Erdogan’s stance is viewed as unreliable. India’s involvement is criticized for inviting Iran to participate in naval exercises and later backing away from condemning US actions against Iran, while still seeking to preserve a Middle East corridor aligned with energy and transport routes. - Long-term outlook: Iran is portrayed as fighting for the global South with Russia and China, challenging Western-dominated orders. The potential for a postwar settlement remains remote, given the Iranians’ demands (no more US bases in West Asia, reparations, no sanctions). Mediation is considered unlikely unless Russia intervenes as a mediator. The conversation concludes with the view that Iran’s resistance, continuity through leadership like the IRGC, and soft-power appeal have changed global perceptions, while the broader Eurasian integration project remains dependent on Iran, Russia, and China. - Closing note: The participants reflect on the costs and uncertainty of the conflict, noting that ending the crisis will require navigating deep geopolitical fault lines, including Azerbaijan and the broader energy architecture of Eurasia.

China is positioning itself to replace the US as the world hegemon by hosting a summit attended by 130 countries, including Vladimir Putin. The summit celebrated the 10th anniversary of China's belt and road initiative, which has invested $1 trillion in infrastructure in 70 countries. This serves to make China's exports cheaper and buy countries out of the US orbit. China offers a menu of infrastructure projects, such as ports, trains, power plants, and telecom networks, in exchange for influence. Chinese companies also gain control over the infrastructure they build. China is selling US treasuries and cracking down on US firms in China, suggesting it sees conflict with the US as likely and potentially beneficial.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues that the current moment represents dramatic and dangerous upheaval, with the war against Iran in its second week and a “regime change operation” not going as planned. He says there is tremendous confusion about war aims and the ground situation, describing Washington as “fogged” and characterizing Donald Trump’s public messaging as “ravings” from a “madman.” He contends that escalation control is illusory and that the world is sliding toward a broader and more dangerous conflict. Sachs asserts that the war is not limited to Iran: Iran has claimed to strike U.S. bases in several countries while denying attacks on Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. He suggests the U.S. and Israel are pulling in proxies, including Kurdish fighters, and that Russia may be supplying Iran with intelligence while the U.S. supplies Ukraine. He contends that after decapitation strikes on Iran, Moscow faces pressure to deter NATO attacks, while Europe contemplates increasing nuclear weapons. He views the conflict as part of a wider global struggle, with fighting across the world and potential linkages to energy markets, indicating that an energy crisis is likely to be severe and poorly priced in by markets. He argues that if China and Russia support Iran, it underscores a broader strategic dynamic, given China’s oil interests and the U.S.’s efforts to cut off oil supplies to China from Venezuela, Russia, and Iran. On international law, Sachs reiterates his argument that the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran is also an attack on the United Nations. He asserts that the U.S. under Trump “despises the UN” and seeks to kill it “through a thousand cuts and through a devastating blow,” pointing to the U.S. withdrawal from UN agencies and rejection of key treaties. He emphasizes that Europe is complicit, with European leaders and ambassadors at the UN Security Council focusing critiques on Iran rather than on the U.S.-Israel strike. He invokes Article 2(4) of the UN Charter as the essence of the UN’s purpose to stop the use of force, contrasting this with the belief that the U.S. “rules the world” and uses violence to impose demands, including the call for “unconditional surrender” in Iran. Sachs describes the U.S. foreign policy machinery as dominated by the CIA and a network of “off the books militaries” that pursue regime change and hegemony. He recalls historical episodes: the 1953 coup in Iran, the Kennedy and Eisenhower era, and the long-standing pattern of U.S. interference in other countries’ leadership. He asserts that performance of checks and balances is deteriorating, with democracy weakening under threat and dissent punished, both in the U.S. and in Europe. He likens Trump’s rhetoric to a hyperbolic assertion that he would determine Iran’s next leader, calling this symptomatic of a broader U.S. imperial project. In discussing European responses, Sachs criticizes Germany for showing subservience to the U.S. stance, with European leaders at times prioritizing confrontation with Iran over engagement with Russia or seeking peace. He laments the decline of European strategic autonomy and the EU as a whole, noting the Danish ambassador’s focus on Iran while ignoring U.S.-Israeli actions. He argues that Europe’s leadership has failed to act in the spirit of postwar peace, contrasting current leadership with figures like de Gaulle, Mitterrand, Kohl, or Schroeder. Toward multipolarity, Sachs traces the idea back to Roosevelt’s vision for a United Nations-centered postwar order and contrasts it with the post-1990s U.S. unilateralism. He argues that the United States, Britain, Russia, and China would need to cooperate to avert catastrophe, and that the current trajectory—led by an obsession with global dominance—risks war, economic crisis, and widespread destabilization. He suggests that China and Russia are the most likely to push back against U.S. hegemony, with India possibly playing a role, though its alignment remains ambivalent. Sachs closes by noting that a move toward peaceful multipolar cooperation would require different leadership and a rejection of the Leviathan-style dominance mindset.

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

The current situation marks the end of the post cold war order. The reasons behind this will be analyzed for years to come. It is now widely acknowledged that some fundamental beliefs that guided us during this era are no longer valid. Beijing and Moscow are collaborating to promote autocracy worldwide through their partnership. As this rivalry intensifies, many countries are adopting cautious strategies.