reSee.it - Related Video Feed

My mother used to say that even in terrible situations, there is always some good that can come out of it if you search for it. We are currently at a crucial point in the world economy, which only happens every few generations. During a recent secure meeting, a top military official mentioned that between 1919 and 1946, around 60 million people died. However, we managed to establish a more peaceful world order since then. Now, things are shifting again, and a new world order is emerging. It is our responsibility to lead and unite the rest of the free world in this endeavor.

Under President Trump, there won't be a World War III, unlike the current situation. If a war does occur, it will be unprecedented due to advanced weaponry.

World War 3 is closer than ever, and we must remove the warmongers and globalists from power. I was the only president in generations who didn't start a war because I rejected the disastrous advice of Washington's military and diplomatic establishment. For decades, figures like Victoria Nuland have pushed for conflict, particularly regarding Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine last year could have been avoided under my leadership. We need to replace the corrupt establishment with those who prioritize American interests. My administration will focus on peace through strength, ensuring respect from other nations. We could resolve the Ukraine conflict quickly with the right leadership. It’s crucial to call for de-escalation and reject nuclear weapons in Ukraine to prevent further escalation. We must empower all parties involved for a mutually beneficial outcome.

We may be sleepwalking into World War 3 due to a series of foolish decisions. It's important for people to reflect on their predictions and consider their track record. In the investing and VC world, track...

We are at an inflection point in the world economy and globally. This occurs every few generations. In a recent secure meeting, a top military official mentioned that between 1900 and 1946, 60 million people died. However, since then, we have established a more stable liberal world order. Now, things are shifting again, and a new world order is emerging. It is crucial for us to take the lead and unite the free world in this endeavor.

Our darkest days are ahead of us, and now is the time for a new world order. We need to clap for this shift and embrace a financial world order. This alternative vision suggests that ordinary people are too small-minded to govern themselves. Progress can only happen when individuals surrender their rights to a powerful sovereign. We are here to develop the great narrative that shapes the future. To do this, we must imagine, design, and execute the future.

Israel was created to bring about the battle of Armageddon in order to end war. The solution proposed is to destroy national sovereignty and establish a global government to ensure peace.

Israel was created to bring about the battle of Armageddon and fulfill prophecy. This war would be so terrible that nuclear weapons would be used, causing people to beg for no more war. The solution presented is to destroy national sovereignty and unite as one humanity under a one-world government. It is crucial for the American people to wake up.

We need to address the need for a fundamental change in our world. This process will take time, but once we have gone through it, the world will be different.

We have the opportunity to create a new world order for ourselves and future generations. It's not a crisis, but a necessary step. This new world order is important and should be pursued. It's a chance for the president of the United States to use this disaster to establish a new world order, a phrase his father used once before. We often talk about the need for a new world order.

In this historic moment, we have made significant progress in ending conflicts and the cold war. We now have the opportunity to create a new world order, where nations are governed by the rule of law instead of chaos. Our success will lead to a credible United Nations that can fulfill the vision of its founders through peacekeeping efforts.

The UN resolution on Ukraine simply states that the war is terrible and must end, aligning with the UN's purpose to bring about world peace. The Security Council passed its first resolution on Ukraine in three years, thanks to President Trump's leadership, focusing on ending the war and bringing both sides together. Shouldn't we be happy that our president is trying to stop wars instead of starting them? To end the war, both sides, especially the Russians, need to negotiate. It's currently at 0% chance of resolution if we don't get them to the table. This war is dangerous and could escalate, so we need to grow up and realize this. President Trump is committed to achieving peace, believing this war wouldn't have happened if he were in office, and we're dedicated to ending it fairly and sustainably.

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.

We can't wait for a nuclear war to bring peace like the Peace of Westphalia. The hyperinflation crisis is already horrific, pushing citizens in Europe and the US to wake up and take responsibility. A petition calls for an international conference with major nations to end the horror and establish true peace through development. The Shiller Institute's efforts towards world peace are crucial. We need to shift towards a new paradigm for the future, where peace benefits everyone, not a zero-sum game. Hyperinflation might be the wake-up call needed for this change. Peace of Westphalia could be a possibility. Translation: The video discusses the urgency of addressing the current hyperinflation crisis to push for world peace through an international conference involving major nations. The Shiller Institute's efforts towards peace are praised, emphasizing the need for a new paradigm where peace benefits all. Hyperinflation could serve as a catalyst for this shift, potentially leading to a Peace of Westphalia-like agreement.

I want to talk about peace, not imposed by force, but real peace that allows nations to thrive and build a better future. Peace for all, not just for Americans. Peace that brings hope and prosperity for everyone. Peace that is essential for a meaningful life.

In this historic moment, we have made great progress in ending conflict and cold war. We now have the opportunity to create a new world order, where the rule of law governs nations instead of the law of the jungle. We are confident that we will succeed in establishing this new world order. With a credible United Nations, we can fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's peacekeeping role.

We established a liberal world order, which hadn't happened in a long time. Although many people died, it was less chaotic than before. Now, things are shifting and a new world order is on the horizon.

The world is caught in a cycle of preventable conflict and tribalism. People isolate themselves, only listening to those who agree with them, and view any disagreement as a personal attack. This irrational behavior leads to wars and destruction, with the powerful benefiting while the victims suffer. We need to step back from this impulse and realize that peace is our natural state. War used to be driven by kings and countries, but now it serves the interests of corporations. We must decouple ourselves from tribes and work towards reconciliation and forgiveness, as shown by the example of Rwanda. We need to examine our own attitudes towards peace and understand that it is possible. Peace is a gradual process that requires the cooperation of many nations. It is not about everyone loving each other, but living together in tolerance and resolving disputes peacefully. Enmity between nations and individuals can change over time.

Larry Johnson and the host discuss the extraordinary and escalating tensions around Iran, the Middle East, and the United States’ role in the region. - The guests reference recent remarks by Donald Trump about Iran, noting Trump’s statement that Iran has until Tuesday to reach a deal or “I am blowing up everything,” with a quoted line describing Tuesday as “power plant day and bridge day all wrapped up in one in Iran,” followed by “open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards or you’ll be living in hell.” They describe this rhetoric as madness and suggest the rhetoric signals a potential for a severe U.S. action. - They contrast Trump’s stated plan with the capabilities and willingness of the U.S. military, arguing there are three distinct elements: what Trump wants to do, what the U.S. military can do, and what the U.S. military is willing to do. They discuss a hypothetical ground operation targeting Iran, including possible actions such as striking Natanz or a nuclear-related site, and potentially hitting a “underground missile factory” at Kesheveh, while acknowledging the risk and uncertainty of such plans. - The conversation details a Friday event in which a U.S. F-15 was shot down, and the implications for the broader operation: A-10 Warthog, F-16s, two Black Hawk helicopters (Pave Hawks), and two C-130s were reportedly lost, with speculation about additional losses. They discuss the Pentagon’s statements about casualties and the possibility that other aircraft losses were connected to a rescue attempt for a downed pilot. They estimate several U.S. airframes lost in the effort to recover one pilot and discuss the high costs and risks of attempting CSAR (combat search and rescue). - The speakers reflect on the status of U.S. combat leadership and the debates surrounding purges of senior officers. One guest emphasizes that the fired leaders (Hodney and Randy George) were not operational decision-makers for Iran and argues the purge appears political rather than war-related, describing it as part of a broader pattern of politicization of the senior ranks. - They discuss the Israeli war effort, noting significant strain from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and questions about Israel’s manpower and reserve mobilization. They mention reports that 300,000 reservists have been activated and talk of an additional 400,000 being considered. The discussion touches on claims that Israel is attacking Iranian negotiating participants and how the U.S. could be drawn into a broader conflict. They critique the Israeli military’s leadership structure, arguing that young officers with limited experience lead a reserve-based force, which they view as contributing to questionable battlefield performance. - The Iranian strategy is analyzed as aiming to break U.S. control in the Persian Gulf and to compel adversaries to negotiate by threatening or constraining energy flows. The guests detail Iran’s actions: targeting oil facilities and ports around Haifa and Tel Aviv, Damona (near the suspected nuclear sites), and claims of missiles hitting a major building in Haifa. They describe widespread civilian disruption in Israel (bomb shelters, subway tents) and emphasize the vulnerability of Israel given its manpower challenges and reliance on U.S. and Western support. - The broader strategic landscape is assessed: Iran’s goal to control the Gulf and oil, with potential consequences for global energy markets, shipping costs, and the international economy. They discuss how Iran’s actions may integrate with China and Russia, including potential shifts in currency use (yuan) for trade and new financial arrangements, such as Deutsche Bank offering Chinese bonds. - They discuss the economic and geopolitical ripple effects beyond the battlefield: rising U.S. fuel prices (gas increasing sharply in parts of the U.S., including Florida), potential airline disruptions, and the broader risk to European energy security as sanctions and alternative energy pathways come under stress. They note that Europe’s energy strategies and alliances may be forced to adapt, potentially shifting energy flows to China or Russia, and the possibility of Europe’s economy suffering from disrupted energy supplies. - Toward the end, the speakers acknowledge the difficulty of stopping escalation and the need for major powers to negotiate new terms for the post-unipolar order. They caution that reconciliations are unlikely in the near term, warning of the potential for a broader conflict if leaders do not find a path away from continued escalation. They close with a somewhat pessimistic view, acknowledging that even if the war ends soon, the economic ramifications will be long-lasting. They joke that, at minimum, they’ll have more material to discuss next week, given Trump’s actions.

Our task is to start peace with truth, just as wars can be started by lies. It is up to all of us to seek out and share the truth.

In this historic moment, we have made progress in ending conflict and cold war. We now have the opportunity to create a new world order, where the rule of law governs nations instead of the law of the jungle. We are confident in our success and believe in the potential of a credible United Nations to fulfill its peacekeeping role and realize the vision of its founders.

We can create a new world order for ourselves and future generations.

Wars in the past 50 years were often caused by media lies spreading government propaganda. Populations must be deceived into supporting wars because they don't willingly choose conflict. A strong media environment can lead to peace.

Alex Kraner and Glenn discuss the evolving Iran crisis, U.S. strategy, and broader implications for Europe and the global order. - The Trump administration’s approach to the Iran confrontation is characterized as reactive and ad hoc. Alex suggests the administration has a “thoroughly thought through strategy of making it up as they go along,” operating in a reactive mode as ground conditions change and new opportunities arise. He asserts the conflict is one the U.S. went into that “created the problems that they're trying to solve now,” leaving the U.S. in a weak position. - On domestic optics and objectives, Trump appears to seek tangible, visible proof of success, needing to “humiliate Iran” or demonstrate a victory, but the complexity of the conflict makes a clean win difficult. Alex questions why the administration would proceed with such a path, given that Trump is due to visit China next week and may want to present stronger leverage at that meeting. - The strategic implications of controlling the Strait of Hormuz are highlighted. If Iran maintains control, it could pressure neighboring countries to decouple from the U.S., reduce American influence, and even threaten U.S. bases and the dollar’s dominance in the region. Conversely, the U.S. cannot easily “go home” without relinquishing strategic positioning, which would undermine Western dominance in the region. - The likely trajectory is escalation. The discussion notes a shift toward renewed or intensified violence, with potential further bombings and Iranian retaliation. There is a view that the U.S. is boxed into choosing between victory and defeat, with no middle ground if sanctions and regional pressure fail to resolve the crisis. - The broader political calculus: the conflict is seen as intersecting with Israel’s regional posture and broader Middle East dynamics. There is concern that Israel’s actions and the broader alliance structure complicate any possible ceasefire, and that the ceasefire may already be off the table due to continued hostilities in Gaza and Lebanon. - The economic and military balance is emphasized: the U.S. military is spread thin across multiple theaters, and analysts note that achievements on paper do not translate into decisive victory in the field against Iran, which is large, populous, and capable of sustained resistance. - There is widespread skepticism about the likelihood of a favorable outcome for U.S. or Western objectives. Alex argues that conventional military instruments are unlikely to compel regime change in Iran, and he contends the U.S. has already “painted itself into a corner” with no credible face-saving exit. - The discussion on Europe and NATO: Glenn and Alex discuss Europe’s response to the Iran conflict and its impact on Ukraine and Russia. They describe a new Joint Expeditionary Force (ten Northern European nations under British command) as a mechanism to confront Russia, signaling a potential shift toward a new European naval alliance aimed at harassing Russia’s northern maritime routes. This raises questions about why European NATO members would cledge their navies to a London-led command in a bloc that could escalate toward war with a nuclear power. - London’s role in shaping Western policy is repeatedly highlighted. The speakers suggest that “all roads always end up leading to London,” pointing to the British establishment’s influence on Middle East policy, Israel, and Europe’s strategic posture. They argue that powerful financial or banking interests (the “cabal” or “banking cartel”) may exert outsized influence over political leaders, including Trump, Netanyahu, and British officials, sustaining a long-standing push for Middle East hegemony. - The multipolar shift: both speakers emphasize that the world is moving away from unipolar American dominance toward a multipolar system with multiple power centers. They suggest that a sustainable peace would require acknowledging this distribution of power and adjusting strategies accordingly, rather than pursuing unilateral or hegemonic approaches. - Final reflection: if the West pursues a multipolar settlement, it could avert the calamity of a broader, potentially nuclear confrontation. However, the speakers warn that the global struggle over power—between unipolar and multipolar orders—may still unfold in blood, fire, and broader geopolitical clashes.

For the first time, policy is global due to instantaneous communication and non-national problems like the environment and nuclear proliferation. A new world order will emerge, either through intellectual and moral insight and design, or forced upon mankind by catastrophes. This challenge makes our period an exciting one to live in.