reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Ashton Rifenski opens Going Underground from the UAE, referencing Antonio Gramsci and the idea of hegemony, and frames the day as one where the UN Security Council discusses maritime security in the context of what he describes as calls by Donald Trump that have “destroyed” that security, highlighting the Strait of Hormuz as half Iranian and half Omani owned and the broader global impact on prices for fuel, medicine, and food. He notes a visit by a “vassal state king” to Trump and contrasts it with the anticipated visit of Trump to the country with the largest economy by PPP powered by Iranian and Russian energy, suggesting that when Trump meets Xi Jinping, the U.S. life expectancy gap with Shanghai will be evident. Victor Gao, vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, joins from Beijing. Rifenski asks about a Financial Times headline claiming Tehran deployed a Chinese satellite to target U.S. bases in the Middle East and about U.S. claims that foreign entities, principally based in China, are engaged in deliberate industrial-scale campaigns, questioning whether China is supplying weapons to Iran. Gao responds by challenging the Financial Times’ premise, asserting that the UK paper is “owned by Japanese interests” and that China provides commercial satellite services openly available for international cooperation. He contends that China can engage in “commercial normal satellite services with any country,” including Iran, and says targeting versus weapons are distinct issues. He reiterates China’s position that it does not supply weapons to any country at war, and notes that China calls for an immediate end to the war and supports the UN Charter and international law, mentioning that the UN Secretary-General described the war as an aggression by the United States and Israel against Iran. Rifenski presses Gao on why China wouldn’t supply arms to Iran despite Iran’s energy ties with China. Gao emphasizes Iran’s capability to defend its sovereignty and notes no specific requests have been made by Iran for Chinese military aid, asserting China’s opposition to any allegation of arming Iran. He adds that Iran has demonstrated drones, missiles, and long-range capabilities, and states that China supports ending the war rather than escalating it. The discussion then shifts to whether China should have hosted negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. Gao notes Trump’s recent acknowledgment of China’s role in nudging Iran and the U.S. toward talks, highlighting Beijing’s diplomatic outreach via Wang Yi to over 20 foreign ministers to de-escalate. He mentions Pakistan as an intermediary and argues that China has sought a positive role, possibly facilitating or supplementing Pakistan’s efforts, while acknowledging uncertainty over Israel’s willingness to support a peace deal. Gao insists China’s commitment is to end the war and achieve peace. Rifenski and Gao discuss the broader implications of U.S.-China relations, the perception that the war is a test of U.S. strength, and the notion that China views a war with the United States as unwinnable for the U.S. He asserts that China aims to avoid headlined confrontations and prefers behind-the-scenes diplomacy, contrasting China’s approach with Western narratives. Gao argues that the global economy would suffer from U.S. aggression and asserts that the so-called Pax Americana is ending, accelerated by Trump’s policies. He notes China’s decreasing holdings of U.S. Treasuries and suggests the yuan’s growing role in international trade, predicting yuan settlement could rise from about 2.5-3% to 25-30% in the long term as more oil trades settle in renminbi. The interview closes with Gao offering advice to GCC countries, stressing that China’s involvement has historically led to peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, while U.S. and Israeli involvement has led to hostility. He urges Middle Eastern actors to engage with China as a defender of free trade and peace, and to consider cooperation with China after the war to foster long-term regional stability.

China and the United States have the potential to collaboratively address global issues. It's crucial for both nations to work together. I had a long-standing friendship with him, and we spent countless hours discussing various topics. He is truly remarkable. Have you had a chance to talk to him in private? The press often disapproves of my casual remarks, but I find him to be an extraordinary individual. Did you discuss the trailer from last week?

To sell to Americans, products must be made in America or face tariffs. China's economic model is uniquely imbalanced, with extremely high export levels relative to GDP and population. China is in a deflationary recession and is trying to export its way out, which the US can't allow. The ideal scenario involves a deal where the US and China rebalance their economies. China would consume more and manufacture less, while the US would consume less and manufacture more. This would level the playing field, although military and economic rivalry would persist. China's business model is considered broken, potentially due to tariffs. Because China has a large deficit with the US, they need US markets to survive. The relationship between President Trump and Chairman Xi provides confidence that details can be worked out and prevent things from going haywire.

The president's strategy drove recent events. He and the speaker discussed it at length on Sunday. The president may have goaded China into a bad position, leading them to be perceived as bad actors. The U.S. is willing to cooperate with allies and trading partners who did not retaliate. The message was simple: don't retaliate, and things will turn out well.

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.

Glenn opened by noting the upcoming Trump-Xi meeting in Beijing and recalling Nixon’s 1972 visit as a historic opening, asking Chas Freeman for an assessment of why Trump is going, what’s on the agenda, and what to expect. Chas Freeman replied that Trump’s trip seems driven more by ego and the desire to feel honored in public pomp, rather than any clear strategic preparation. He contrasted the current visit with Nixon’s, which occurred amid a perceived Soviet expansion threat that made China a “protected state.” Nixon’s approach aimed to bind China to the West against a common threat, leveraging China’s sovereignty to counter Japanese expansion and Soviet influence. Freeman said the current moment lacks evidence of serious preparation or sherpa-style groundwork; there is a hurried, last-minute negotiation underway in South Korea between China’s trade negotiator and U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s administration. He suggested Trump is accompanied by senior American business figures seeking deals—likely Boeing sales, soybean trade, AI topics—and noted the China-U.S. contrast in AI strategies: the U.S. pursues general intelligence with heavy investment, while China applies AI to practical projects with open software. Freeman argued that beyond trade and tech issues, the broader context is muddled, with no obvious shared interests that would compel China to act concretely to help the U.S. in the Gulf or Hormuz, despite China’s interest in free trade and openness. He projected the question of how this meeting might affect West Asia: the war’s outcome signals a post-Iraq-Iran era emerging not favorable to the West, and he anticipated China’s strategic calculus would be to avoid being drawn into U.S. missteps while advancing its own interests in energy corridors and regional stability. Glenn speculated about wanting a grand power compromise (with Putin included) and suggested more is needed on Iran. He referenced Robert Kagan’s “The Jungle Grows Back,” noting that the West’s disregard for international law now clashes with a rising Sino-Russian-Iran axis. Freeman agreed with Kagan’s assessment of the war as a strategic debacle for the U.S., arguing that Iran’s retention of the Strait of Hormuz is likely and that international law is endangered in sea-navigational terms. He described a broader shift: Gulf Arabs may diversify away from the U.S., leaning toward Sino-Russian partnerships, and sea-power norms could be devalued. He emphasized that the conflict reduces the likelihood of a favorable new status quo and could push proliferation in the region; Iran may have or soon develop a nuclear capability, while others might follow. The war’s main strategic consequence, Freeman asserted, is a move toward a Sino-Russian axis and a transformed balance of power in the Middle East, with diversification away from U.S. security guarantees. Glenn added that the Nixon move was strategic, while Trump’s engagement seems tactical, and Freeman underscored the broader transformation in West Asia. They discussed the rule-of-law crisis in the West, the difference between “rule of law” and “rule by law,” and how domestic and international norms influence each other. Freeman argued that China has become a defender of the UN Charter and international law, in contrast to perceived Western unilateralism, and that the “jungle” is reconstituting a new order under Westphalian principles with many middle powers maneuvering. They debated whether China would want Iran to succeed to push the U.S. out of the region, and Freeman reiterated that the Chinese aim aligns with Westphalian sovereignty and peaceful coexistence, not ideological missionary diplomacy. They concluded that the Trump-Xi meeting could yield either a cautious pause or a dangerous misstep, given Trump’s temperament and Xi’s steadiness, and Freeman voiced cautious relief that nothing catastrophic occurs, while Glenn expressed a wish for a constructive outcome that could open space for rethinking Western hegemonic strategies.

President Xi Jinping invites President Trump to deliver opening remarks and welcomes him back to China after nine years, saying the whole world is watching. Xi describes the global environment as accelerating and turbulent, with the world at a crossroads, and frames key questions: whether China and the United States can overcome the “Thucydides trap” and create a new paradigm for major-country relations; whether they can meet global challenges together and provide stability; and whether, for the well-being of their peoples and humanity’s future, they can build a brighter future for bilateral relations. Xi says these questions are vital to history, the world, and the people, and must be answered by leaders of major countries. He notes this year marks the 250th anniversary of American independence and congratulates Trump and the American people. Xi says he believes the two countries have more common interests than differences, and that success in one is an opportunity for the other. He argues that a stable bilateral relationship benefits the world, and emphasizes that both countries gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation. He calls for the two countries to be partners, not rivals, and to help each other succeed and prosper together while finding the right way for major countries to get along in the new era. Xi expresses his look forward to discussions on major issues important to both countries and the world, and to working with Trump to set the course for and steer the “giant ship” of China–U.S. relations so that 2026 becomes a historic landmark year that opens a new chapter. Trump responds by thanking Xi, calling the experience an honor, and saying he was particularly impressed by the children, who he describes as happy and beautiful. He says the military presence “couldn’t be better,” but that the children were “amazing” and represent so much to Xi. Trump says he and Xi have known each other a long time and that it is the longest relationship between leaders of the two countries. He describes their relationship as fantastic, saying they have gotten along, worked through difficulties quickly by calling each other when problems arose, and will have a fantastic future together. He says he has respect for China and for Xi’s leadership. Trump also states that he leads a delegation of leading businessmen, including “the top 30 in the world,” all of whom said yes to be present with him to pay respects to Xi and China and to pursue trade and business, which he says will be totally reciprocal. He says people in the United States are not talking about anything else, calls the summit one of the biggest ever, and concludes that the China–U.S. relationship will be better than ever before.

Richard Wolff and Glenn discuss the implications of the Trump–Xi meeting in Beijing for the US economy, the global economy, and the political economy underlying the encounter. Wolff frames it as part of a broader transition in human history: the decline of American “empire” dominance that has existed since at least World War II, and the rise of China. He argues the US is pulled downward by the end of its dominance and that China has outperformed the West in economic growth over the past thirty to forty years, citing China’s GDP growth about three times the US average (about two to two and a half percent annually for the US). Wolff claims Trump and Xi’s meeting reveals asymmetrical timing. He says one side wants free trade, multilateralism, and open cooperation, while the other side tries to “smash the Chinese down every chance they get,” without success. He also argues China’s approach is distinct: a developmental hybrid combining roughly half of the economy as private capitalist enterprises and the other half as state-owned and state-operated enterprises, all managed by a powerful government supervised by the Communist Party of China. Wolff presents this as “sui generis,” neither the US/Western model nor the Soviet model. He describes a decades-long contest among “private capitalism,” “state capitalism” (including the Soviet system), and China’s hybrid system, saying the Soviet socialism collapsed, leaving Scandinavian/Western European socialism and a Chinese form of socialism. Wolff asserts China “won” at least at this point because China achieved rapid development from extreme poverty to a highly developed standard of living and strong economic dynamism, in spite of receiving little direct external development help compared with other countries. He says China supervised and regulated the process even as private capitalists played an important role in later decades. Wolff then argues the strategic logic of the meeting centers on avoiding war. He says China benefits from time on its side and wants to avoid “rocking the boat,” while the US leadership seeks freedom to resuscitate an imperial order and expects Chinese cooperation. He presents Iran as a “microcosm” of this clash: US aims include removing the Iranian regime, replacing it with a US client, and subdividing Iran, while Wolff says China wants Iran left in place so it can manage the Strait of Hormuz as before and remain aligned with Russia and China. He states China is not driven by oil urgency, citing large Chinese oil reserves, and says the US project fails and has cascading consequences. Wolff extends the argument to propose that the US attempts to revive dominance through energy control (he mentions attacks related to Russia’s energy, Venezuela, Iran, and other oil-related efforts) reflect “empire fantasy.” He argues these actions reveal a broader phenomenon: a decline in US control rather than an ability to impose outcomes. He adds that American public opinion is largely opposed to war, noting that unlike earlier conflicts where patriotic support faded over time with costs and casualties, he says there is already no appetite now, and that domestic economic concerns matter more than grandiose foreign projects. He also references the controversy around a White House “ballroom” as an example of political symbolism amid economic priorities. In response, Glenn asks about how shifting power should change ideological assumptions about development and about what each side wants from the other. Wolff says China’s position is to resolve problems and prevent explosive issues, potentially including disputes such as Taiwan, while the US cannot hear or accept China’s appeal to avoid warfare and instead wants room to restore the empire. He concludes that major issues are at stake even if reported discussion points seem limited, and he expects further efforts by a “declining empire” to preserve its sense of remaining time.

Professor Robert Pape warned on X that within ten days parts of the global economy will start running short of critical goods, based on thirty years studying economic sanctions and blockades. He said this would bring not just higher prices but shortages, and that markets are not ready for this. The Kobelisi letter stated the world is experiencing its biggest energy crisis in history with 600,000,000 barrels of lost oil supply, US gas prices up 47% since December, and inflation approaching 4% in a path similar to the 1970s. The discussion then touched on Iran’s war potentially returning to open conflict. The United States seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship, which Larry Johnson described as piracy and an act of war aimed at clearing the Strait of Hormuz; Tehran called it armed piracy and promised a response. JD Vance was headed to Islamabad for talks, though Iranian officials said they had not agreed to anything. Fox’s Tel Aviv correspondent relayed that Trump told him they would blow up everything in Iran if they didn’t come to the table, saying the deal would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and prevent Iran from possessing highly enriched uranium. Professor Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago and author of Escalation Trap on Substack, joined the program. He referenced his April 12 post predicting shortages within forty-five to sixty days and described three stages: Stage one, the first ~45 days with price increases; Stage two (40–60 days) with shortages emerging; Stage three (day 60–90) with worsening shortages and then contraction, beginning around May 31. He explained that shortages would escalate into reduced production of commodities, fewer airline seats, and broader disruptions across supply chains. Pape detailed the implications for air travel and energy: jet fuel shortages could cause European and global aviation reductions, with Europe’s ~110,000,000 monthly air passengers dropping to potentially 80 million or fewer as fuel becomes scarce; cargo, mail, and just-in-time deliveries would be affected, and overall product availability would contract. He argued that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz and that Iran’s potential shutdown and the U.S. response would complicate efforts to keep that oil flowing. He emphasized that the contraction would begin even as oil access becomes more difficult and other nations (including the U.S.) struggle to secure energy. The conversation then shifted to China. Pape noted that in China, the impact on GDP could be modest (about 1%), but the U.S. could be drawn into a larger conflict that could benefit China. He observed China’s preparation for energy independence: stockpiling oil, relying on solar, nuclear, and coal, and maintaining a robust energy strategy even during tensions with the U.S. He suggested that tariffs and conflicts did not significantly disrupt China’s planning, which could lead to China gaining relative advantage as the U.S. faces a widening energy and economic crisis. There was discussion about the United States’ energy independence. Pape stated he has long advocated energy independence since 2005, but warned that the broader picture involves debt, energy policy, and strategic choices that could threaten American leadership. He stressed the need for a concrete five-year plan to navigate the crisis without harming the economy in the short term and cautioned against escalating war in Iran. In addressing the everyday impact, the speakers considered who would be hardest hit: the poorest, and particularly non-college-educated white working-class voters, who had experienced the largest deterioration in income since 1990. The conversation included proposals to mitigate consumer pain, such as targeted economic measures for working Americans affected by rising gas prices, potentially including tax considerations or subsidies for those whose jobs require fuel, while avoiding broad handouts. Pape reiterated that his Escalation Trap Substack presents a framework based on twenty-one years of modeling the bombing of Iran and indicates that the stages he predicted are unfolding faster than anticipated, with a focus on concrete policy options that could be enacted by May 1. He emphasized that his analysis centers on consequences for ordinary people and urged practical policy steps to address the crisis.

Ashin Ratnayake introduces the show from the UAE amid renewed escalation in the US–Israeli war on Iran and IAEA discussions about radiation leaks in Europe after NATO nations bombed Europe’s biggest nuclear power station. He frames the context as “a hundred days” since Washington and Tel Aviv, backed by Britain, killed Iran’s leader Ayatollah Khamenei and members of his family, and after, in his account, the mass killing of 168 schoolgirls at an elementary school in “Menab” using tomahawk missiles. He adds claims of years of genocide in Gaza and upcoming EU/US/UK armed invasion of Lebanon. He says Iran’s strategic partner China is central to energy passing through the Strait of Hormuz and highlights China’s role in talks at last week’s Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia, held after British-guided Ukrainian drone attacks and NATO nation armed massacres. Ratnayake argues the upcoming “G7” meeting will be dominated by “unpopular vassal state officials” bowing to Trump, and contrasts it with China, which he says hosted Vladimir Putin and will not attend. He brings on Chen Huibiao, described as the former EU Bureau chief and chief Washington correspondent for China Daily, joining from Shanghai. Chen says he has not retired from journalism, continuing a weekly column for China Daily and writing commentary for Chinese overseas media while traveling. Responding to Ratnayake’s framing of the “100 days” and EU/UK involvement, Chen describes global reactions as shocking worldwide and says UN member states have “lost hearts and minds” due to actions he attributes to the US and allies, including Venezuela’s president Maduro being “kidnapped,” Israel’s aggression against Iran, threats to invade Cuba, trade wars, and quitting multilateral institutions and treaties. Chen characterizes the US as the “destructor” of the global order and says Israel is “one of the most hated country in the world.” On “soft power,” Chen recalls Professor Joseph Nye’s ideas and says the decline in US soft power would be different from Nye’s earlier view, citing international polls and declining global standing of the US and its allies. He says Europe and other allies are visiting China while being coerced and manipulated by Washington against China, but adds that leaders are “awakening.” Chen describes China’s approach as refusing to return to Cold War-style confrontation and says it trades across countries regardless of political system or ideology. He gives an example of a Dutch Navy “freedom navigation” in the South China Sea as a provocation China considers tied to its territory, while still not cutting trade. He contrasts this with a claim that Western media portrays China as seeking to invade Western Europe. When Ratnayake asks whether wars on Iran and Venezuela are really part of a war on China, Chen says US and Israel aggression target Iran and Venezuela while China has had relations with Iran and Cuba. He argues China does not believe in a military solution and says political and diplomatic settlement is the way to lasting peace. He says China would not send more arms or armies because it would mean more destruction, jeopardize the Middle East and global economy, and threaten Chinese and Asian economies. Chen further argues that countries hosting US bases become “casualties” of “reckless US aggression,” asserting that GCC leaders would not have wanted bases to be used in strikes. He says China needs resources imported into China but reiterates that China does not accept a military-protection logic for those sources. He emphasizes China’s national rejuvenation goals and says war would derail them by harming economies. On trade and sanctions, Chen says the US underestimates China’s power and notes that China has become more powerful in economy and technology, including renewable EVs. He says China relies on global trade and simultaneously expands the domestic market under “dual circulation.” He also points to rare earths as important to the US military supply chain. Regarding Xi Jinping–Trump relations, Chen says relations have been “positive so far,” citing “constructive relationship of strategic stability,” communication exchanges including a maritime/military consultation in Hawaii, and agreements to establish trade and investment councils. Finally, Chen dismisses the significance of the G7 compared with broader multipolar forums like the G20 and BRICS, arguing that the G7’s performance and double standards—especially regarding Gaza—have exposed hypocrisy and reduced trust, including Germany’s failure to win a UN Security Council seat attributed to its stance on Gaza.

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

Sean Fu, a market analyst focused on China, says China is “done with US Treasuries,” citing that in the last month China “dumped around forty billion or forty-one billion,” and arguing China sees “no point in coupling their economies too tightly with the United States” going forward. He frames recent geopolitical events—including wars not only involving Russia but also Iran—as part of an effort that, in his view, helps contain China’s economy. He points to compromised oil flows from Hormuz to China, noting that China buys a lot of Iranian oil, while arguing it is less exposed because “ninety to ninety-five percent of” power generation is not from oil and gas, and many supply chains China controls itself. Fu also describes the Trump-Xi summit as failing to produce pressure on China, describing an intimidation attempt around Iran and Venezuela that “didn’t happen at all.” He claims the Trump administration did not push the Chinese on anything and accepted Chinese phrasing that they would “look into rare earths,” implying China would keep “their hands on the tap.” He reiterates that China will not “recouple” with the US, including by buying more Treasuries. Turning to the American side, Fu argues that higher US energy prices raise revenues for oil companies, but because oil is a global market, prices also rise for “everyday Americans.” He links rising energy prices to worsening inflation, saying inflation moved from “two point four percent” to “two point eight percent,” and is “around three point eight percent,” and argues that higher gas costs (said to be “between five hundred to maybe a thousand dollars more a year”) will eventually reduce consumption, with Americans cutting discretionary spending. He adds that bond yields are likely to stay high and contends that attempts to sustain an “AI economy” via financing and data-center buildouts are constrained by finite money and high interest rates. He characterizes US conditions as being driven by confusion around market-moving statements about war being “on” or “off,” and says the US cannot isolate itself. Fu then emphasizes the “chip wars,” arguing the strategy of cutting China off from American chips has backfired. He cites Huawei’s claim of a breakthrough and says that by “twenty thirty-one” Huawei chips could compete with Nvidia and TSMC, arguing that pushing China into a corner forces innovation. He describes Chinese workarounds, including creating lower-end versions and “string[ing] a bunch of chips together,” such as using “a thousand Huawei chips” instead of “a hundred Nvidia chips,” and he connects the feasibility of brute-force approaches to China’s lower energy costs, stating energy prices are “a quarter” of the US (and “at least fifty percent cheaper”). He says Nvidia leadership has indicated China is unlikely to import lower-end chips and that China may “leapfrog” the technology instead of inviting Nvidia market entry. Fu also asserts that during Trump’s visit to Beijing, an RTX Nvidia gaming chip was banned that some companies use for AI, and describes “ring fencing” of the market. He adds that Gulf investment behavior may be influenced by the Middle East war and points to Scott Bessent announcements about confiscating Iranian assets, including “around one billion dollars worth of illegal crypto.” Fu says this undermines the assumed anonymity of cryptocurrencies by asserting the US can trace funds on public blockchains, freeze them, and seize them. He argues Gulf states will respond with uncertainty, potentially diversifying into gold, and potentially “adversary economies of the US,” including China, to spread risk away from US assets. Fu links economic and military dynamics, saying the US has used up weapons in Ukraine and diverted systems from Europe and East Asia toward the Gulf, with Israel prioritized there, which he says signals that the US cannot protect everyone. He argues this will push allies toward rearmament financed by borrowing, predicting “money printing” and rising debt, and describing a “dangerous age” where currencies lose more value to fund weapon buildouts. Regarding financial stability, Fu says “true market financial stability is now More or less officially gone,” with low interest rates finished and rates “sticky” and rising. He argues the US is trapped: issuing more bonds raises yields and the national debt, while cutting rates increases inflation and leads to higher rates later. He says the Fed may need to buy bonds to flood the market with liquidity, describing scenarios including AI or semiconductor “bubble” implosions or confidence collapsing if the Iran war drags on. On solutions and China’s path forward, Fu says China and Russia are consolidating closer together and that China is slowly decoupling its financial economy from the US. He cites capital controls on mainland Chinese savings leaving for Hong Kong and then to other Western economies, describing ring-fencing of capital flows and concentrating investments toward allies, BRICS, Belt and Road partners, and more focus within Asia. He also says capital outflows from the Gulf may be shifting toward East Asia. In Europe, Fu says China may reduce its position if the EU ramps up a trade war with China, but he argues China does not want to decouple from the EU entirely because Europe remains an important tech/consumer market. Finally, Fu advises diversification due to widespread bubbles across US stocks, tech, and semiconductors, arguing that oil-market disruptions from Hormuz can worsen energy shortages later (said to show up in July and August), pushing oil prices up and potentially popping bubbles through reduced consumption. He says cash bonds lose value via inflation, while gold remains a long-term purchase, and he recommends holding a mix including gold, international stocks, and exposure to China/RMB. He concludes that the “variables” in ongoing conflicts make predictions difficult.

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

Afshun Rutansi speaks with Professor Zhang Weiwei, director of the China Institute at Fudan University, who has translated for Chinese paramount leaders including Deng Xiaoping. Rutansi frames the discussion around Trump’s visit to China amid the Israel-Iran war context and events including officials meeting in Delhi and a reported Saudi initiative for a West Asian aggression pact with Iran ahead of Putin’s and Xi Jinping’s scheduled meeting in Beijing. Rutansi asks whether Chinese officials understand that Xi Jinping is meeting a U.S. president responsible for attacking one of China’s key energy trading partners. Zhang says many Chinese prefer Trump over Harris for being “slightly more honest,” and contrasts Trump’s “decent respect” for big powers such as Russia and China with perceived hypocrisy from Biden and Harris. He argues that China should manage damage through dialogue given U.S.-China as the two largest economies and military powers. Rutansi raises historical memory, arguing that the U.S. deliberately prevented China from buying grain during Mao’s famine and imposed a naval blockade of food. Zhang responds that, during the Cold War, although no “hot wars” occurred between the U.S. and Soviet Union, China faced the Korean War and the Vietnam War as direct military confrontation with the U.S., and that China remembers the U.S. drawing lessons from those conflicts and that China would fight back if “red lines” were crossed. On claims that Trump is “destroying China while smiling” and attacking China’s energy supplies, Zhang says operations tied to Venezuela and Iran are aimed at controlling oil China needs. He says Venezuela represents less than 3% of China’s total oil imports, so it “will not affect” China’s oil supply, while the Iran situation is “more serious” and is treated as a mistake from which China can benefit due to long-term energy planning pursued for about two decades. Zhang says China’s energy dependency on foreign supply is at maximum 15%, and outlines China’s current energy mix: about 52% from coal described as “processed green coal,” 20% from renewables, and the rest from traditional oil and gas, with roughly 70% of those fuels from foreign sources. He lists diversified oil supply routes including lines from Russia, Central Asia, and Myanmar, and highlights a railway connection between China and Iran as “hugely important for Iran.” Rutansi asks whether this railway was bombed as part of a U.S.-Israeli campaign; Zhang says the U.S. “really dare[s]” not to damage it overall and that on the whole it is still moving. Zhang links U.S. efforts to containment with previous trade and tech wars starting in 2018, saying they “failed completely,” and cites an ASPI report comparing critical high-tech technologies where he claims China beats the U.S. in 57 of 64. He argues China’s position is that the Strait of Hormuz should remain open and places responsibility for the crisis’s consequences on U.S. and Israeli military action, while also saying China has “strategic partner” relations with Iran and Gulf states and hopes for reconciliation between Iran and the Gulf States. In part two, Rutansi asks why China was not hosting or acting as intermediary in negotiations and whether China spoke through Pakistan. Zhang says China prefers “behind the scene, low key” approaches. Rutansi then addresses claims that China could use rare earths as leverage and asks why China exports rare earths to the U.S. Zhang says China has exercised stricter control over rare earth exports to the U.S. since the previous year, stating that for a one-year period there would be no rare earths for military purposes, and that China can exercise this control during negotiations. Rutansi asks whether China will reduce exposure to U.S. treasury markets; Zhang says China-U.S. trade relations are normal overall, but that Trump’s trade war led to a sharp drop, and describes China’s “socialist market economy” as driven by private and public enterprises. He rejects “moralistic perspective” as the main lens, stating that China follows international law and Chinese law, condemns aggression, and applies sanctions through the United Nations if necessary. Rutansi criticizes propaganda narratives and asks about the U.N. General Assembly president Annalina Beerbok calling Xi Jinping a dictator, asking whether that makes things difficult for China and the U.N. Zhang argues the issue lies in EU politics and what he calls low caliber of EU, U.S., and NATO leadership, and says he predicted that without political reform, worse leaders would be elected. On whether working classes in NATO countries will see through propaganda that China is the enemy, Zhang says opinion surveys show China’s impression improving gradually in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and in the West, especially among young people, attributing this in part to widespread use of Chinese hardware and software. He also explains that American and other foreign companies invested in China because of profits, and says the trade war and tech war drove high-tech firms to consolidate business interests in China; he mentions Apple, Tesla, Microsoft, and says Boeing has not been purchased in nine years while Boeing’s CEO is now in China.

Einar Tangin and Glenn discuss the forthcoming Xi Jinping–Donald Trump meeting and the broader strategic landscape shaping U.S.–China competition. - On the Trump–Xi meeting: Tangin expects very little substantive outcome. China’s strategy toward the United States is to keep engagement open rather than push Trump into a corner, despite Trump’s past actions and their consequences. He notes a narrow scope to be discussed in a California meeting, with Trump volunteers unprepared and pushing “the usual maximist stuff.” China is signaling that Taiwan will be a red line. Beyond that, the Chinese may accept limited concessions such as grain, gas, or oil purchases, but no sweeping arrangements. The overall takeaway: continued engagement, but not a game-changing breakthrough. - U.S. energy and global strategy: Tangin argues the United States uses energy as a tool of influence, aiming to control access and shape markets (the petrodollar legacy, strategic chokepoints). The Ukraine war has accelerated Europe’s decoupling from Russia and the U.S. seeks to expand similar dynamics in East Asia. He emphasizes that the energy game is dynamic: oil prices impact inflation, and long-term, demand destruction and a shift to alternatives (electricity, renewables) will reshape markets. He points to new energy tech and scale: batteries and storage (CATL’s battery capacity) enable large-scale decoupling from fossil fuels; China’s plans to deploy up to 50 nuclear plants at a time and to pursue commercially available fusion power could transform the energy landscape. The U.S. may face higher exploration costs and geopolitical risk in sustaining high oil output, while heavy reliance on fossil fuels could erode long-term economic viability. - Global consequences and who bears the pain: In the short term, countries without reserves (notably parts of the Global South, including India) will face fertilizer and diesel shortages during planting seasons, with potential 15–25% yield reductions and elevated inflation. Food security risks loom as energy costs ripple through fertilizer, transport, processing, and farming inputs. The analysis highlights fertilizer nitrogen production’s energy intensity and the cascading nature of energy in food supply chains. The discussion stresses that global south economies will be hit hardest early on, with food and fuel inflation compounding social and political pressure. - The Iran war and maritime strategy: The discussion connects the Persian Gulf crisis to broader blockades and maritime competition. A naval blockade approach risks escalation and confrontation with China, which has extensive trade links through ASEAN and other partners that would be harmed by disruption. Tangin notes that China cannot be easily forced into combat in Europe or the Middle East; any escalation involving tactical nuclear use would be dangerous. He suggests that Europe’s elites may push for confrontation against Russia, but the political climate and energy constraints could destabilize Western allies and push towards alternative alignments, particularly with China. - China’s strategic posture and alternative world order: Tangin emphasizes that China has a model that emphasizes no ideology between states, sovereignty, and mutual non-interference, echoing a Westphalian framework. He describes China’s global governance concept as a peer-to-peer, negotiation-centered approach, where disputes are settled at the table rather than through force. He frames China’s proposition as simple: “No more ideology between countries. Every country should be secure. Security should not depend on the insecurity of another country. Every country has the right to choose its own path of development.” This is presented as a peaceful, governance-based alternative to U.S.-led hegemony. - Europe’s strategic crossroads and the future: Europe faces existential economic strains, competitiveness challenges, and the temptation of isolationist or right-wing governance. The conversation predicts prolonged political volatility if energy prices and inflation persist, with potential swings between different leaderships. China’s strategy, in this vision, is to promote internal diversification and consumption-led growth while engaging with international partners on a governance framework that reduces the incentives for confrontation. - Concluding note: The speakers agree that Europe’s willingness to embrace China’s model, rather than clinging to a confrontational U.S.-led paradigm, could shape a more stable global order. They caution that the old order has ended, and creative destruction is underway, with China advocating a negotiated, governance-based path forward.

Speaker 0 introduces a myth that Trump waging war against Iran would close the Strait in a way that hurts China first, making Trump victorious, and asks for an answer to that perception. Speaker 1 argues that the perception isn't accurate, noting China has been building energy security for over twenty years. They travel to China frequently and see zero signs of energy scarcity; if there were any potential energy squeeze, it would be visible among the people and on social media, but it isn’t. He explains China’s energy composition is stable, and that even if Middle Eastern energy supplies were disrupted, China’s situation remains manageable. He states that China actually produces 30% of the crude oil it consumes domestically, so it does not import all its energy. Speaker 0 adds that people are often surprised by how much solar, wind, and hydropower China has, mentioning a special report noting that the aggregate annual terawatt-hours of output of China’s power grid is more than double the United States, and that this is growing rapidly. Speaker 1 confirms the rapid growth and attributes part of China’s diversification to the influence of Western financial practices, saying, “thanks to the Western banking cartel because they have been suppressing the price of silver to ridiculous low prices.” He claims China imports all the silver to manufacture solar panels, implying that by maintaining low silver prices, Western bankers have inadvertently helped China with energy diversification.

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

Mario (Speaker 0) and the Ukrainian ambassador (Speaker 1) discuss a mix of domestic corruption allegations, high-stakes diplomacy, and battlefield realities shaping Ukraine’s path toward ending the war. - Corruption scandal in Ukraine: The ambassador notes the scandal involved two government members and another former member, not Zelenskyy personally. She says lessons have been learned: war does not justify turning a blind eye to corruption, and the president has instructed the government to maintain full control of the situation and meet commitments and expectations. She emphasizes that the silver lining is the independent National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) digging out the scandal, describing NABU as the positive development in this context. Zelenskyy’s response included calls for retirement of involved officials and a push for court hearings and convictions; he reportedly found it personally complex to accept the retirement of his long-time ally, Andriy Yermak, the head of the president’s office, but acknowledges the need for accountability and signals that further exposures would trigger similar actions. The ambassador stresses that all institutions must follow procedures and that the public pressure around the issue is especially painful as winter approaches. - Putin, NATO, and Ukraine’s diplomatic posture: The conversation turns to recent developments. President Putin’s comment after a meeting with the U.S. delegation—“we’ll take Donbas by force or by surrender”—is viewed as a signaling to the American side about Russia’s stance, with the ambassador noting limited progress from the Ukrainian delegation’s talks (Rostov Mumarov and Vipkov) and anticipating a fuller readout. The ambassador says Macron’s discussions with China and China’s involvement in Moscow at the same time as U.S. delegations signals China’s continuing engagement with both Russia and Western actors; China previously supported Russia’s war with material and financial backing, and the ambassador argues China’s presence in Moscow is natural given the broader geopolitics and the need to monitor unpredictable developments. - China and the broader strategic context: The ambassador explains that while Ukraine receives limited direct messaging from China, Beijing maintains dialogue with Russia, the United States, and European allies; China’s alignment with Russia was highlighted at the start of the large-scale invasion, with Xi Jinping and Putin signaling a “thousand-year partnership.” She notes Russia’s shift in narrative after Putin’s Alaska meeting with the U.S. president and suggests Chinese watchdogs in Moscow are a natural counterpoint to Western diplomacy. - The two major sticking points in negotiations: The ambassador notes that Russia presented a 28-point plan (narrowed to 20 points) focused on Donbas, with broader implications including security guarantees and the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. She argues that it’s not productive to comment on each point in isolation since the Russian side uses a broader narrative that includes education of Ukrainian youth about anti-Western narratives. Ukraine is prepared to discuss a multi-layer solution: ceasefire, security guarantees, deterrence, and post-war political frameworks, while preserving sovereignty. - NATO and security guarantees: The ambassador contends security guarantees could be as strong as a NATO article-five framework, likening allied military actions to past operations conducted with partners. She distinguishes between the mere membership debate and practical security guarantees, asserting that Ukraine’s sovereignty remains paramount and that security guarantees are a meaningful path alongside potential NATO membership. - Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner’s roles: The ambassador describes a layered U.S. approach (Witkoff as special envoy with direct dialogue with Russia, Rubio coordinating with European allies and NATO officials, plus others like Daniel Driscoll and Candy Baker). She says these are not adversarial to diplomacy; rather, they form a structured process that could converge on a formal U.S.-Ukraine negotiation framework with eventual endorsement by the U.S. administration. - Pokrovsk and battlefield dynamics: The ambassador downplays the idea that Pokrovsk’s capture would decisively alter front-line dynamics, noting that the front experiences hundreds of engagements weekly. She acknowledges that Russia’s propaganda around Pokrovsk is designed to signal progress, but argues the reality is a broader battlefield picture with ongoing Ukrainian resilience. - Long-term strategic questions and sanctions: The ambassador reiterates bipartisan U.S. support for sanctions and designating Russia as a sponsor of terrorism, while acknowledging that enforceability is challenging and that Russia seeks time through delaying tactics. She emphasizes that Ukraine cannot rely on speed alone and must continue leveraging strikes on Russia’s energy and military infrastructure, including the so-called “shadow fleet” vessels, while avoiding direct strikes on civilians. - The Yermak corruption episode: The NABU-led investigation exposed the scandal; the president requested retirement for implicated officials and supported legal proceedings. The ambassador clarifies that there is no evidence implicating Zelenskyy himself, stressing the personal responsibility of the president and the need for transparent procedures moving forward, while maintaining that Yermak’s future role is subject to ongoing scrutiny. She notes media rumors (e.g., “golden toilets”) are not substantiated and emphasizes that Yermak has been sanctioned and that the government is pursuing accountability in a manner consistent with legal processes.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson discusses the US summit with China under Donald Trump, arguing that China “owned the summit” through choreography and by ensuring Taiwan was addressed as a first priority in every meeting. He describes Xi Jinping as standing firmly and approaching Trump with gestures and gestures alone, saying Trump “lost” because the real issues were not substantively addressed. Wilkerson links the meeting’s outcomes to economic and strategic signaling: China would resume buying US soybeans and make other gestures, and it might restrict exports of chemicals used in fertilizers; he also raises that farmers are facing fertilizer shortages and could face a disastrous season. On Iran, Wilkerson says the summit amounted to Trump and Xi making points while both were lying, and he focuses on the failure to engage the core issues. He claims the US did not accomplish much beyond expressing interest in opening the Strait of Hormuz, and he connects the Iran situation to broader strategic challenges, including Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, and related military considerations. He also argues that US efforts to pressure Iran were tied to US-China relations but that US statements about not seeking China’s help were performative and aimed at projecting hegemonic power. Wilkerson emphasizes that China’s position on Iran is conditional on issues like lifting the siege, permanent cessation of war, compensation for damages, removal of all illegal sanctions (primary and secondary), and respect for Iran’s sovereignty and rights. He says these points would still not satisfy Benjamin Netanyahu, who he portrays as accepting only a scenario that eliminates the current Iranian leadership and results in instability across the region. Wilkerson notes that the nuclear program was not treated as a key discussion point publicly, implying that any progress would likely require back-channel arrangements rather than open diplomacy. The conversation includes Wilkerson’s view that China is circumspect about an arms race involving nuclear weapons, especially given the lack of treaties and the increase in the number of nuclear-capable states. He also argues that US intelligence and the intelligence community do not believe Trump when Trump says China is not providing arms to Iran, and he describes a domestic escalation in response to alleged leaks, including efforts by Kash Patel to target whistleblowers and journalists. Wilkerson says US diplomats were minimal and that the trip functioned like a business trip, with Donald Trump himself as the lead figure. Speaker 0 questions whether the US overstated what China agreed to about Iran’s nuclear constraints. Wilkerson responds by broadening the analysis to global power shifts and the developing view in the West that recognizes China’s rise. He contrasts China’s framing—sustainability, development, innovation, cooperation—with what he describes as the US stance—sanctions and war, including “maniacally” by Iran. He claims the world sees the US as losing its way and turning toward a technocratic, global project that would use Chinese technology and rare earths, likening it to the kind of system associated with Elon Musk, and he warns of an “insidious” trajectory driven by elite technocrats rather than true diplomacy. He then discusses a wider domestic and geopolitical risk of breakdown, citing limits to removing Trump from office, describing impeachment as having failed historically, and portraying a worsening situation. Wilkerson alleges that mainstream media exposure of information is alarming Trump, and he cites the sending of Kash Patel as an example of escalating hostility toward journalists and whistleblowers. He argues this could leave the country vulnerable to outcomes including JD Vance or Marco Rubio, or even civil conflict. Wilkerson compares current potential US breakdown to the Roman Republic’s fall and Julius Caesar’s assassination, describing how civil wars followed until Octavius emerged and established stability (the Pax Augustus). He says the analogy suggests civil conflict is not impossible under present circumstances, without identifying any specific “Octavius” figure. He argues that sweeping international power changes and domestic polarization can lead societies to think in all-or-nothing terms, paralleling conditions that preceded historical upheavals like the Russian Revolution. The episode concludes with the idea that unsustainable paths will force some pullback or escalation, with Wilkerson expressing hope it does not become catastrophic.

Both sides agree that neither wants a decoupling of trade. The previous high tariffs were the equivalent of an embargo, which neither side desires. The goal is more balanced trade. The U.S. wants China to be more open to U.S. goods. Negotiations may lead to a purchase agreement to balance the bilateral trade deficit. The trade deficit has grown due to neglect over the past four years because the previous administration did not engage on the issue, even though the proposal was put forward by the Chinese. Strategic rebalancing is occurring in areas exposed as supply chain weaknesses during COVID, such as medicines, semiconductors, and steel. The U.S. has identified five or six strategic industries and supply chain vulnerabilities and will continue moving toward U.S. independence and/or reliable supplies from allies in those sectors.

The speaker states that China wants to make a deal with the United States and believes China has to make a deal. China made a mistake when it retaliated. When America is punched, the president punches back harder, which is why 4% tariffs will go into effect on China tonight at midnight. The president believes that Xi and China want to make a deal, but they just don't know how to get that started. If China reaches out to make a deal, the president will be incredibly gracious but will do what's best for the American people. The Chinese want to make a deal, but they just don't know how to do it.