TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

If Russia and China form a military alliance and the US enters World War 3, there is a high likelihood that the United States could cease to exist. The foreign policy establishment that led us to Iraq and Afghanistan has failed to protect our borders and cyber defenses. A super EMP attack from a country like Iran could take out our electric grid, causing millions of Americans to become impoverished. Russia and China have advanced space-based offensive capabilities, while the US lacks both offensive and defensive capabilities. Russia is accumulating nuclear weapons at a faster pace than the US. Going to war would be a huge risk, especially when our own homeland is vulnerable and our industrial capacity is lacking. Both parties in the US support a pro-war agenda, increasing the risk of World War 3. The American people are not being informed about the potential consequences of such a war.

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.

- The speaker asserts that the United States is not just containing China but is attempting a rollback of Chinese economic growth, arguing that military power is largely a function of economic power. - They claim, “The United States… is a ruthless great power,” and that Americans are tough despite liberal rhetoric used to cover up ruthless behavior. - The speaker recounts a late-1980s/early-1990s warning to China: if China continues to grow economically, there will be a fierce security competition, and China would be shocked by how ruthless the United States is. - They state that China did not believe the warning at the time because the United States was treating China very well. - The speaker explains the underlying mechanism: “the structure’s gonna change, and when we go from unipolarity to multipolarity, and you’re a peer competitor, we’re gonna think about you very differently than we think about you now.” - They claim that this structural shift is exactly what is happening, with China moving toward being a peer competitor and the United States now treating China differently as a result.

Apparently, the strategy is to weaken Russia, which is essentially a state of war. The aim is to remove Putin, replace his administration, and potentially divide Russia. This stems from the neoconservative movement, which has always been anti-Soviet and anti-Russian, pushing for a strong, challenging America. However, America can't challenge Russia, especially since the U.S. military isn't ready for war. The U.S. is using the Ukrainian military as cannon fodder, fighting over pride and fear of a Russian/Chinese economic takeover. America shouldn't go to war for trade, even if it means becoming number two or three economically. The world is multipolar, but the U.S. hasn't accepted this. People don't realize how destructive even a limited war would be. The situation is much more dangerous than people realize because America is too prideful and arrogant and will be nasty when it doesn't get its way in Ukraine.

The US is no longer the dominant economic and technological power, though it remains the most powerful military country. The US has become a problem, especially since 2017, blocking multilateral initiatives and withdrawing from agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the JCPOA. The US is engaged in a trade war on China due to China's rising technological capabilities. US grand strategy is based on primacy, which is no longer viable. The US is attacking digital taxation, cutting corporate taxes, and dismantling the WTO. The US Treasury threatened to confiscate Iraq's foreign exchange reserves when Iraq requested US military forces to leave. The world cannot stop because of the US; multilateralism must continue. There is no global crisis about multilateralism, but there is fear of the US. The US is acting as a bully, but the world should not back down. US unilateralism has been in vogue for about twenty years, but it has worsened recently with overt hostility and lawlessness.

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 United States is in a situation we weren't in four years ago. Previously, Russia, North Korea, and Iran were somewhat separate issues. Now, these nations are effectively combined through economic or military treaties. For example, North Koreans are fighting in Ukraine. This suggests that if a conflict erupts in South Korea, we could see Russians fighting alongside North Koreans against South Korea. It's crucial to understand the potential scale of this threat, and it's something we need to address urgently.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson and Glenn discuss the trajectory of U.S. policy under Trump and the broader implications for the international order. Wilkerson argues that the postwar world order, built after World War II, is unraveling intentionally, driven by what he calls a disastrous blend of decision making and strategic aims. He faults Steve Miller’s comments on bases in Greenland and contends that the United States already had, historically, bases in Greenland and that current rhetoric reflects a Hobbesian view of a world governed by force rather than law. He attributes the drift to “the brains of some truly stupid people,” and notes that the guide for decision making is Trump’s morality, which Wilkerson asserts is deficient, shaping both domestic and international actions. On domestic policy and its international spillovers, Wilkerson cites the Minnesota situation as an example of how Trump’s approach translates into draconian, forceful actions at home. He contends that the “morality” guiding decisions in both spheres leads to a reckless use of force and an undermining of the rule of law. He emphasizes that the law disappears in the international sphere and domestic governance declines when empire comes home, suggesting that the United States is acting in ways that weaken rather than strengthen the rule of law globally. Turning to foreign policy, Wilkerson argues that America’s military posture is misposed and maldeployed. He questions why the United States maintains a large presence in the Caribbean and Gulf regions at a time when potential adversaries like China and Russia require attention elsewhere. He contends that the United States has a depleted carrier fleet and is not fulfilling presence missions or developing coherent war plans, raising concerns about the feasibility of any significant action against Iran. The discussion notes that an attack on Iran could be logistically problematic given the current force distribution, and Wilkerson fears the United States risks humiliation and strategic setback if it pursues major military action without a credible, well-deployed plan. The conversation shifts to the broader effects of U.S. strategy on global alignments. Wilkerson argues that Europe’s leaders have changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War, predicting that NATO may eventually fade as Europe develops its own security identity, a concept Powell explored historically. He cites Powell’s vision of a European security identity (ESI) separate from NATO, consisting of a modest European brigade that could grow into a fuller defense structure, potentially reducing Europe’s reliance on NATO and even integrating Russia gradually. He suggests Clinton’s era disrupted these ideas, with Serbia bombing and a shift toward a more aggressive line that drew Russia back into the geopolitical frame, complicating efforts to maintain a balanced, law-based security architecture. Powell’s long-term predictions about Europe’s leadership and the likelihood that Europe would be governed by leaders without the experience of warfare are discussed as prescient, though not realized. Wilkerson notes Powell’s belief that the center could not hold as NATO’s purpose evolved and leadership changed, leading to the potential dissolution of the NATO framework and the emergence of a European security identity. The conversation emphasizes that this shift would require a carefully calibrated approach to arms control, law, and alliance structures, rather than casting law aside in favor of a unilateral, morality-based approach to security. Regarding China and the future global order, Wilkerson aligns with Mearsheimer in predicting potential conflict with China, arguing that the combination of the U.S. unilateral approach, strategic competition, and the push toward a lawless, orderless world heightens the risk of a major confrontation. He asserts that China, studying U.S. behavior, would rather avoid a nuclear or conventional war and would seek to avoid destabilizing actions that could provoke a broader conflict. The discussion closes with reflections on U.S. regional influence, the BRICS movement, and the dollar’s reserve status. Wilkerson contends that the BRICS’ move toward dedollarization faced obstacles due to U.S. threats, and he notes China’s official stance against wanting to be the world’s reserve currency, warning that clinging to exclusive dominance harms global stability. He praises an earlier postwar framework grounded in law and international norms and laments its abandonment under current leadership, describing the present era as a disaster for both the United States and the wider world.

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

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.

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.

America would want China's help to avoid fighting too many wars, ensuring China continues buying US dollars to sustain American debt. Also, historically, Russia has been more of a threat to China, so US friendship with China would force Putin to focus on defense. China is now transferring its US dollars into gold, encouraging others to do the same because America's debt is a huge problem. It makes sense for China and the US to be friends because the US is a huge market for Chinese exports and provides technology. China wants to be friends with Russia because it feels threatened by the US, which has military bases surrounding China. China needs oil and food imports to sustain its economy, and if the US launches an embargo, China collapses. China needs new trade routes, and Russia is the best partner for energy and oil access. Chinese policymakers know China's economy and demographics have collapsed, making it vulnerable and dependent on the world.

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."

The discussion centers on the rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape, with a focus on Venezuela, Iran, and the broader US-led strategic environment, as seen through the perspectives of Mario and Pepe Escobar. Venezuela and the Venezuelan crisis - Escobar frames Venezuela as a desperate move tied to the demise of the petrodollar, with a broader matrix of actors maneuvering in the back to profit from a potential annexation and to test regional security strategies. He notes that the United States has stated “this is my backyard, and I own it,” and questions whether Washington is ready to back that stance against the will of the Venezuelan people, including Chavistas and the new government led by Delcy Rodríguez, who he describes as “an old school Chavista” with a strong legal and negotiation background. - He argues that the operation against Maduro lacked a coherent strategy, including planning for reorganizing the Venezuelan oil sector to serve American interests. He cites expert opinion suggesting it would take five years to recondition Venezuela’s energy ecosystem to produce around 3,000,000 barrels per day, requiring about $183 billion in investment, which CEOs would require guarantees for before engaging. - The regime-change objective as pursued by Trump-era policy did not materialize; the core regime persists with figures like Padrino and Cabello still in place. The “mini Netflix special” of the operation did not translate into a durable political outcome, and the regime’s leadership remains, even as some key security figures were demoted or accused in the operation. - Dulce Rodríguez (Delcy), the vice president, is portrayed as a capable negotiator who must persuade the Venezuelan public that the security betrayal by the head of Maduro’s security apparatus was real. Escobar emphasizes that the domestic narrative faces a hard sell because the core regime remains and the security apparatus has not been fully neutralized. - Escobar stresses that sanctions are the most critical barrier to Venezuela’s economic recovery and argues that without sanctions relief, meaningful economic reconstitution is unlikely. He notes that Delcy Rodríguez enjoys broad popular support, and he argues that Latin American sentiment toward U.S. intervention complicates Washington’s position. - He warns Brazil’s Lula, a BRICS member, plays a crucial role; Brazilian foreign policy, influenced by Atlanticists, could veto Venezuela’s BRICS membership, complicating Venezuela’s regional integration. He contends that Maduro’s removal is not assured, and a more open Venezuelan regime under Delcy could potentially collaborate with the West, but sanctions and governance challenges remain central obstacles. Iran, protests, and sanctions - The Iranian protests are framed as economically driven, with inflation and cost-of-living pressures fueling dissent. Iran’s currency and real inflation are cited as severe stressors, and the regime’s subsidy policies are criticized as inadequate. Escobar emphasizes that the protests are hijacked by foreign actors to turn into a regime-change playbook, echoing familiar color-revolution patterns observed in other contexts. - He describes Iran’s resilience under extensive sanctions, highlighting infrastructure deficits and the broader economic stagnation as long-running issues. He stresses that Iranian society contains grassroots debate and a robust intellectual culture, including Shiite theology studies, universities, and a tradition of long-term strategic thinking with sustained cross-border alliances (Russia and China) as part of a broader BRICS alignment. - On foreign involvement, Escobar notes differing perspectives: some Iranians blame foreign meddling, while others point to domestic mismanagement and sanctions as primary drivers of discontent. He emphasizes that Iran’s leadership remains wary of external coercion and seeks to strengthen ties within BRICS and other partners, while being cautious about provoking Western escalation. Russia, China, and the evolving great-power dynamic - Escobar argues that Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran view US actions as part of a broader long-term strategy rather than short-term wins. He describes a sophisticated, long-horizon approach: China pursuing a multi-decade plan with five-year cycles, Russia testing BRICS-centered financial and payment systems to reduce dependence on SWIFT, and Iran leveraging BRICS relationships to counterbalance Western pressure. - He contrasts this with what he calls the “bordello circus” of American political-military maneuvering, suggesting that the US’s episodic threats and unpredictable diplomacy undermine any similar credibility or effectiveness. He emphasizes that Russia and China prioritize acts and long-term power balancing over American-style unpredictability. - The 12-day war and the Orishnik missile attack on Lviv are framed as signaling a more volatile phase in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with Putin signaling that the war could extend beyond the previously imagined timelines if Western escalation continues. The missile strike is presented as a clear warning to NATO and the Polish border region, underscoring heightened geopolitical risk. The broader outlook and conclusions - Escobar remains deeply pessimistic about a swift resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war, citing the potential for a prolonged European conflict that could strain European economies. He views regime stability in Iran as fragile but enduring, while Venezuela’s path remains contingent on sanctions relief, domestic governance, and the strategic posture of Latin American neighbors and BRICS members. - The conversation closes with a reminder of the complexity of modern geopolitics, where sanctions, domestic economics, regional alignments, and long-term strategic planning interact in ways that defy simple “winner-loser” narratives.

The fallout with India will cause repercussions for America. It will push India away from America, strengthening the Eastern bloc of Russia, China, India, and the rest of the world under BRICS. Dedollarization will become a reality.

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.

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.

Pepe and Mario discuss a broad set of geopolitical developments, focusing on Venezuela, Iran, and broader U.S.-led actions, with insights on Russia, China, and other regional players. - Venezuela developments and U.S. involvement - Venezuela is described as a “desperate move related to the demise of the petrodollar,” with multiple overlapping headlines about backers maneuvering for profit and power in Latin America, and about the U.S. declaring “this is my backyard.” Delcy Rodríguez, the daughter of a slain revolutionary killed by the CIA, leads a new government, described as old-school Chavista with strong negotiation skills, who prioritizes Venezuela’s interests over U.S. interests. - The operation is criticized as having no clear strategy or forward planning for reorganizing the Venezuelan oil industry to serve U.S. interests. Estimates from Chinese experts suggest it would take five years to recondition Venezuela’s energy ecosystem for American needs and sixteen years to reach around 3 million barrels per day, requiring approximately $183 billion in investment—investment that U.S. CEOs are reportedly unwilling to provide without total guarantees. - There is debate about the extent of U.S. influence within Maduro’s circle. Some Venezuelan sources note that the head of security for the president, previously aligned with the regime, was demoted (not arrested), and there is discussion of possible U.S. ties with individuals around Maduro’s inner circle, though the regime remains headed by Maduro with key loyalists like the defense minister (Padrino) and the interior minister (Cabello) still in place. - The narrative around regime change is viewed as a two-edged story: the U.S. sought to replace Maduro with a pliant leadership, yet the regime remains and regional power structures (including BRICS dynamics) persist. Delcy Rodríguez is portrayed as capable of negotiating with the U.S., including conversations with Marco Rubio before the coup and ongoing discussions with U.S. actors, while maintaining Venezuela’s sovereignty and memory of the revolution. - The broader regional reaction to U.S. actions in Venezuela has included criticism from neighboring countries like Colombia and Mexico, with a sense in Latin America that the U.S. should not intrude in sovereign affairs. Brazil (a major BRICS member) is highlighted as a key actor whose stance can influence Venezuela’s BRICS prospects; Lula’s position is described as cautious, with Brazil’s foreign ministry reportedly vetoing Venezuela’s BRICS membership despite Lula’s personal views. - The sanctions regime is cited as a principal reason for Venezuela’s economic stagnation, with the suggestion that lifting sanctions would be a prerequisite for meaningful economic recovery. Delcy Rodríguez is characterized as a skilled negotiator who could potentially improve Venezuela’s standing if sanctions are removed. - Public opinion in Venezuela is described as broadly supportive of the regime, with the U.S. action provoking anti-American sentiment across the hemisphere. The discussion notes that a large majority of Venezuelans (over 90%) reportedly view Delcy Rodríguez favorably, and that the perception of U.S. intervention as a violation of sovereignty influences regional attitudes. - Iran: protests, economy, and foreign influence - Iran is facing significant protests that are described as the most severe since 2022, driven largely by economic issues, inflation, and the cost of living under four decades of sanctions. Real inflation is suggested to be 35–40%, with currency and purchasing power severely eroded. - Foreign influence is discussed as a factor hijacking domestic protests in Iran, described as a “color revolution” playbook echoed by past experiences in Hong Kong and other theaters. Iranian authorities reportedly remain skeptical of Western actors, while acknowledging the regime’s vulnerability to sanctions and mismanagement. - Iranians emphasize the long-term, multi-faceted nature of their political system, including the Shiite theology underpinning governance, and the resilience of movements like Hezbollah and Yemeni factions. Iran’s leadership stresses long-term strategic ties with Russia and China, as well as BRICS engagement, with practical cooperation including repair of the Iranian electrical grid in the wake of Israeli attacks during the twelve-day war and port infrastructure developments linked to an international transportation corridor, including Indian and Chinese involvement. - The discussion notes that while sanctions have damaged Iran economically, Iranians maintain a strong domestic intellectual and grassroots culture, including debates in universities and cafes, and are not easily toppled. The regime’s ability to survive is framed in terms of internal legitimacy, external alliances (Russia, China), and the capacity to negotiate under external pressure. - Russia, China, and the U.S. strategic landscape - The conversation contrasts the apparent U.S. “bordello circus” with the more sophisticated military-diplomatic practices of Iran, Russia, and China. Russia emphasizes actions over rhetoric, citing NATO attacks on its nuclear triad and the Novgorod residence attack as evidence of deterrence concerns. China pursues long-term plans (five-year plans through 2035) and aims to elevate trade with a yuan-centric global south, seeking to reduce dollar reliance without emitting a formal de-dollarization policy. - The discussion frames U.S. policy as volatile and unpredictable (the Nixon “madman theory” analog), while Russia, China, and Iran respond with measured, long-term strategies. The potential for a prolonged Ukraine conflict is acknowledged if European leaders pursue extended confrontation, with economic strains anticipated across Europe. - In Venezuela, Iran, and broader geopolitics, the panel emphasizes the complexity of regime stability, the role of sanctions, BRICS dynamics, and the long game of global power shifts that may redefine alliances and economic arrangements over the coming years.

The discussion centers on the Venezuelan operation that resulted in the capture of Maduro and the broader implications for global power dynamics. Larry asserts that many aspects of Maduro’s kidnapping were “odd,” noting that Caracas possessed significant air defense systems, most of which were not activated, and that one security service leader was a full cooperator with the United States, facilitating U.S. entry and avoiding return fire. He describes the operation as not replacing the Maduro government but “hold off Maduro, get US control of the oil, and get China and Russia and Iran out.” The plan, he states, was not regime change; the regime remained in power, but Maduro was removed temporarily to pursue strategic objectives. In recounting the operation, Larry explains that Delta Force operators from Task Force 160 carried out the mission in full moonlight, which he says reduced the usual advantage of nighttime execution. He compares the Caracas action to a pre-planned, staged exercise at Otis Air Force Base decades earlier, suggesting the Caracas operation was similarly staged, with the United States not facing ground fire. He notes conflicting casualty reports—“32 Cubans were killed” versus “80 Venezuelans”—and emphasizes the cooperation with Venezuelan forces, with no replacement of the government. A key point concerns a potential stand-down order. Larry indicates that the anti-air defenses bought from Russia—S-300s and Buk missiles—were not disabled; rather, they were not activated due to a stand-down order. He proposes that an insider within Maduro’s security apparatus cooperated with the U.S., and he names the possibility of a particular senior commander but declines to identify him publicly. He also discusses a theory that interim president Delcy Rodríguez might have been involved in providing intelligence or cooperation, but he regards such claims as a diversion from the real participants. The discussion then turns to the political and strategic objectives behind capturing Maduro. Mario asks about why capture was pursued if regime change was not intended, and Larry responds that the plan was to “get US control of the oil” and to push out rivals like China, Russia, and Iran from influence in Venezuela. They discuss potential future actions if Rodríguez or other internal leaders do not cooperate, including the possibility of escalating through force or covert operations that could provoke U.S. casualties and thus justify greater U.S. troop involvement. They compare this to the Iraq 2003 invasion planning, noting a lack of long-term stabilization plans. The Monroe Doctrine is invoked and contrasted with a Dunno/“Dunrold” framing. Larry argues that the Monroe Doctrine was misinterpreted as a unilateral U.S. claim to the Western Hemisphere, calling current U.S. actions a blend of Polk and Teddy Roosevelt’s doctrine rather than a strict, modern application of Monroe. He asserts that Russia and China are building a new international order with India and Brazil, and that Trump’s rhetoric may accelerate multipolar alignment, particularly with BRICS members like Brazil. They discuss how U.S. actions could push countries toward cooperating with China and Russia, potentially eroding U.S. hegemony. Turning to Iran, the analysts discuss protests and foreign involvement. They contend that Iranian protests are largely manufactured or supported by Western intelligence, including Mossad and the CIA, highlighting sources like the NCIR/Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) as part of Western intelligence influence. They note that Iran has strengthened ties with Russia and China since September, reducing sanctions pressure and improving economic options. They contend that Iran’s leadership—Pozheskin’s regime—has shown signs of adapting to internal pressures, including firing an economic minister, while maintaining a posture of resilience against Western demands. They discuss the twelve-day war with Israel, arguing Iran recovered quickly and maintained a strong stance, with deep hypersonic capabilities and robust air defense. The speakers conclude by debating whether the U.S. could replicate Maduro’s capture in Iran or whether a regime change attempt there is feasible. They contend there are no existing U.S. networks in Iran comparable to those in Venezuela, making a similar operation unlikely. They reflect on U.S. leverage, the role of foreign backing for Iran, and the potential for Iran to leverage its growing ties with Russia and China to resist Western pressure. The conversation ends with mutual appreciation and a New Year closing note.