Ibaitik Itsasora
******
Gaza BEFORE Israel showed up
Israel is a criminal state
Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1887980771178070396
******
******
Zionists in 2025… “Palestine never existed”
Zionists in 1899… “We will colonise Palestine”
******
In 1948 Albert Einstein foresaw the Israeli terrorism in Palestine that would eventually bring a catastrophe on the Jewish colonists.
******
@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Can Netanyahu Invade Gaza?
youtube.com
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Can Netanyahu Invade Gaza?
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Can Netanyahu Invade Gaza?
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Can Netanyahu Invade Gaza?
(https://www.youtube.com/live/iw5jAzQjzxY)
Transkripzioa:
0:00
Heat.
0:09
[Music]
0:19
Heat.
0:21
[Music]
0:32
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Npalitano here
0:35
for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday,
0:38
August 11th, 2025. Professor Jeffrey
0:41
Saxs joins us now. Professor Saxs,
0:43
always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank
0:45
you for accommodating my schedule. Uh
0:49
before we get to Prime Minister, Israeli
0:52
Prime Minister Netanyahu and his
0:55
announced plans to invade, occupy, and
0:59
control uh the Gaza Strip. I need uh to
1:03
ask you about the meetings uh between
1:06
President Putin and President Trump in
1:08
Alaska for this Friday. Who has the most
1:11
to lose and who has the most to gain?
1:14
Well, the big gain would be if they
1:17
actually agreed on something to end the
1:20
war in Ukraine, which is perfectly
1:22
possible, but it would take uh some
1:25
measure of coherence from Donald Trump
1:27
that he’s never shown. Trump would need
1:31
to say Ukraine will be neutral. NATO
1:34
will not enlarge Ukraine and we will
1:39
agree with Russia on a basic territorial
1:44
and security arrangement so that Ukraine
1:48
survives as an independent sovereign
1:52
state albeit a neutral state and the war
1:55
ends. This is possible. This is what we
1:59
would like to see. uh the neocons uh all
2:04
over the place in Washington from
2:07
Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal in
2:09
the Senate to Trump’s own team so-called
2:13
General Kellogg and others say no you
2:16
can’t say that uh you can’t say that
2:19
Ukraine will be neutral you must
2:22
persevere in uh the longstanding deep
2:26
state or militaryindustrial
2:28
complex uh aim to surround Russia. So,
2:33
at best a ceasefire, if that is Trump’s
2:37
position, then there won’t be a
2:39
ceasefire. Russia will continue to
2:41
fight. Ukraine will continue to lose.
2:45
And so, it’s possible that at this
2:46
meeting, nothing really happens about
2:49
Ukraine. And they talk about the Arctic
2:52
or they talk about uh some mining
2:54
projects together or they talk about
2:56
other things. they declare a success,
2:59
which is what Trump loves to do, and the
3:03
war goes on. Um, but if the war is to
3:07
end, uh, it would have to end with the
3:11
United States finally admitting the
3:15
truth. Uh it’s the truth that to this
3:18
day uh the US government refuses to
3:22
admit uh and that the uh mass media in
3:26
the United States refused to recognize
3:30
which is that when the US had the upper
3:32
hand over Russia starting in the 1990s,
3:35
its intention was to break Russia, to
3:38
surround it, to break Russia in pieces.
3:42
And uh the Ukraine project was part of
3:46
that. It went bad. Uh it was a an
3:51
attempt to take over Ukraine by the US
3:54
that Russia said no just like we would
3:57
say no if Russia or China were meddling
4:01
in the Western Hemisphere. Well, Russia
4:03
said no in their own neighborhood. No,
4:06
US, you’re not going to have your
4:08
military bases and your missile systems
4:10
and your CIA and everything swarming all
4:13
over Ukraine. And if Trump would
4:16
acknowledge this, the war would come to
4:19
an end. It’s as simple as that. But he’s
4:22
pretty gutless. Uh it means standing up
4:27
to the US military-industrial complex.
4:29
He doesn’t do that. Uh so I’m not very
4:33
optimistic that much is going to happen
4:34
but I would be happy to be proved wrong.
4:37
As we speak
4:39
uh the CIA is uh fermenting
4:43
violence in the state of Georgia, not
4:45
not the US state of Georgia, but the
4:48
country of Georgia against Russia.
4:51
uh the CIA and other American
4:53
intelligence assets
4:56
uh are guiding Russian uh Ukrainian
5:00
use of American artillery and missiles
5:03
to kill uh Russian soldiers
5:06
and General Kellogg is on his way to
5:09
Keev. God only knows to say what to uh
5:13
President Sullinski. It’s almost Oh, and
5:16
General, President Trump declared uh
5:19
last week, I think you and I may have
5:20
mentioned this, that Russia poses a
5:23
material threat to the national security
5:25
of the United States, whereas in
5:27
reality, it’s the other way around.
5:30
Exhibit one, General Donahghue and his
5:34
threat to invade Kimenrad.
5:38
Uh surely President Putin knows all
5:41
this, but he’s still willing to sit down
5:43
and talk with Donald Trump. I wonder if
5:45
President Trump even knows the nature
5:47
and extent uh of the American
5:50
intelligence assets
5:52
uh trying to wear away at Russia and
5:56
trying to continue. This is right up
5:58
Lindsey Graham’s alley to drive
6:01
President Putin from office.
6:03
And I could add one more which is that
6:05
last week uh the presidents of Armenia
6:10
and
6:12
came to the White House. Trump had this
6:16
great celebration of a new so-called
6:19
Trump highway or Trump corridor uh to
6:23
cut through Armenia uh from Azerbaijan
6:27
to to Turkey. Uh this is another CIA
6:32
meddling that has been in the works for
6:36
a long time. the ideas to cut between
6:40
Russia in the north and Iran in the
6:42
south. The reason to mention it is that
6:45
it’s going to be another cause of war
6:48
soon enough. The Iranians have already
6:50
said they’re never going to let that
6:52
happen. It’s a direct security uh
6:55
interference uh on their borders. The
6:58
the point is uh Trump is not in control.
7:02
Maybe not in control of anything much
7:04
other than maybe his truth social
7:06
account. He thinks he’s in control of
7:09
the whole world. He’s not in control of
7:11
much. Uh maybe he’s in control of the DC
7:15
police force right now, which he took
7:17
over this morning. Uh but um when it
7:20
comes to the rest of the world uh we
7:23
have a uh militaryindustrial complex
7:26
which is a war machine and uh Trump has
7:30
not demonstrated any capacity to uh
7:34
bring it under control.
7:37
What cards does Trump have to play in
7:40
Alaska with President Putin?
7:43
It’s it’s not really cards. It’s uh why
7:46
are we spending hundreds of billions of
7:49
dollars and sending uh so far perhaps a
7:54
million or even more Ukrainians to their
7:57
deaths for a game. This is a game.
8:00
Bjinski spelled out the game in 1997.
8:04
Everyone should go read what are the
8:07
rules of this game. uh in foreign
8:09
affairs magazines, big nupjinski wrote
8:12
in an article called a a geost strategy
8:16
for Eurasia that it’s the US aim to
8:20
weaken Russia and that Russia should
8:22
perhaps fall into three pieces into a
8:25
European Russia, a Siberian Russia, and
8:28
a Far East Russia that would be in a
8:30
loose confederation with each other. Uh
8:33
the same year Brjinsky wrote a book
8:35
called the grand chess board where he
8:37
said uh Russia without Ukraine is a
8:40
third rate power. So we should expand
8:44
NATO to Ukraine. Uh and he analyzes in
8:47
the book wrongly but he analyzes in the
8:50
book what would Russia do if the US
8:52
expands NATO eastward? And his
8:55
conclusion is Russia can’t do anything.
8:58
It’s going to have to accept all of
9:00
this. So this has been a game all along.
9:04
A very dangerous, very costly, very
9:07
stupid game that creates crisis that
9:10
makes America less secure, that brings
9:13
us closer to nuclear war. And why? For
9:17
no reason. You think America
9:21
will be less secure if Ukraine is
9:23
neutral rather than a NATO country for
9:26
God’s sake? By the way, would Ukraine be
9:30
uh more safe if it continues to fight to
9:35
be part of NATO, which is impossible,
9:37
rather than declaring that it will be a
9:40
neutral country and therefore not a
9:42
threat to Russia? This is what this is
9:45
about. So, I don’t even think it’s cards
9:47
or concessions. I think it’s a matter of
9:50
common sense. The US and Russia should
9:53
not be at war with each other. And for
9:57
that to happen, the US should stop
10:00
putting its nose into Russia’s wherever
10:05
in its Russia’s immediate borders,
10:09
whether it’s the South Caucuses or
10:12
Georgia
10:14
or specifically on the Black Sea or uh
10:17
or Ukraine, it should stop provoking.
10:22
And if Russia were all around Mexico and
10:25
Cuba and so forth as it once tried in
10:28
1962 and nearly blew up the world in
10:31
trying, we wouldn’t like it one bit.
10:34
Right?
10:34
So, I don’t even see it as cards. I just
10:37
would like to see the president say,
10:39
“The card game’s over. We’re putting the
10:42
cards aside. We’re going to talk like
10:44
grown-ups.” But that’s asking a lot of
10:46
Trump. Well, the president went from
10:50
self-proclaimed America first MAGA,
10:53
which resonated well during the
10:56
campaign, to now being a captive of the
11:00
of the neocons. Are they going to make
11:02
this Aza and Armenia
11:06
NATO countries?
11:08
They’ll try. uh you know once you have a
11:11
highway there once you have a quarter
11:13
named after President Trump well of
11:15
course this becomes a security issue and
11:17
there’s talk about private security
11:19
firms private that the United States is
11:22
going to hire to make this secure and
11:25
this is why the Iranians are already
11:27
saying no way this ain’t going to happen
11:31
but this is another provocation but in a
11:34
neighborhood that is explosive and where
11:37
the CIA has been playing games for
11:40
decades because you go back to the 1940s
11:43
and 1950s.
11:45
The CIA playbook was the South Caucus’
11:49
region. It was if we could inflame the
11:52
Muslim populations against the Soviet
11:54
Union. This could destabilize the Soviet
11:57
Union. So, this is perhaps the most
11:59
ancient playbook against the Soviet
12:02
Union, but it’s being applied in 2025 to
12:05
Russia.
12:05
Tell me about this Trump highway. I mean
12:08
on whose land would it be built? Does it
12:11
connect these two countries?
12:12
Yeah. So the idea is a corridor through
12:15
Armenia and that Armenia
12:19
to Trump’s face said, “Yeah, we seed you
12:21
this land.”
12:24
And then immediately stories came.
12:26
There’s no specifics, but the stories
12:28
came 99-year exclusive lease to the
12:31
United States. And so
12:32
the United States would own this land.
12:35
Yeah,
12:36
that’s what it’s that’s what it’s
12:37
supposed to be.
12:39
Can you imagine?
12:40
Would be like uh the the Russian zoning
12:42
Key West.
12:44
Just what we need is is is a a corridor
12:48
in the South Caucuses. Just what we’ve
12:51
always needed.
12:53
It’s unbelievable. It’s unbelievable
12:56
that we do things we would never ever
13:01
allow to happen to us. I went and I
13:04
dusted off uh uh James Monroe’s message
13:08
to Congress of 1823 which contains the
13:12
paragraphs known as the Monroe Doctrine.
13:15
It’s really interesting. Uh in 1823
13:20
uh John Quincy Adams was Secretary of
13:23
State. So he wrote this section for the
13:26
president, President Monroe. It said uh
13:29
in the wake of the independence
13:32
movements of the Latin American
13:34
countries from the empires in Europe
13:37
that the United States would look a
13:39
scance of Europe intervening in the
13:42
affairs of the Americas. But it actually
13:46
says to uh John Quincy Adams credit it
13:51
says and we will do the same in Europe.
13:55
we will refrain from interfering in
13:59
Europe’s affairs. So the Monroe Doctrine
14:02
has often been quoted as saying to the
14:05
Europeans, don’t meddle
14:08
to the Russians, don’t meddle in the
14:12
Western Hemisphere, but it says
14:14
absolutely clearly the United States
14:16
recognizes this is reciprocal. We will
14:21
not meddle in the internal affairs of
14:23
the European powers. But where are we?
14:27
All over the place meddling uh with the
14:30
NATO bases, military bases, missile
14:33
systems, Trump corridors, you name it.
14:36
CIA operations as the New York Times
14:40
described all over Ukraine on Russia’s
14:43
borders. And then we wonder, why is
14:46
there a war? Why are there tensions? Why
14:48
is there insecurity? Well, duh.
14:51
Stop meddling and then we could be
14:53
secure.
14:54
Professor Saxs, you’re so thorough,
14:57
so thoughtful to have gone back and read
15:01
this and reminded all of us it’s
15:04
bilateral.
15:05
Yeah,
15:06
it’s reciprocal. I have never heard of
15:10
the part that says and we will refrain
15:14
from entering into the affairs of other
15:17
countries.
15:18
Absolutely. It’s it’s right there and
15:20
it’s so interesting. I didn’t know
15:21
actually for sure. I had to go back and
15:23
reread it, but it’s it’s online.
15:26
Everyone can find it. It’s Monroe’s
15:28
message to Congress in 1823.
15:32
And boy, you know, I always thought the
15:34
Monroe doctrine was pretty cheeky. uh
15:37
we’re telling the European powers uh
15:39
don’t come to our neighborhood, but we
15:42
acknowledge that it is a general
15:44
proposition. You don’t bother us in our
15:47
neighborhood, we won’t bother you in
15:49
your neighborhood. Thank you.
15:50
Yes,
15:51
it’s a good principle.
15:53
Let’s um transition over to the latest
15:57
uh in the Middle East.
16:00
Why is Netanyahu
16:02
planning an invasion of Gaza?
16:05
Everybody has to understand
16:08
that the whole purpose of Netanyahu’s
16:12
political career,
16:14
the whole purpose of his political
16:16
movement, the whole purpose of his
16:19
government is complete control over all
16:24
of the Palestinian lands as well as what
16:28
is today Israel. This is not a matter of
16:31
security. This is not a matter of
16:33
negotiation. This is a fundamental
16:37
matter of the ideology of this
16:41
right-wing movement in Israel. The
16:44
party’s called Lud in 1977
16:48
in its founding platform. It says Israel
16:52
will be sovereign from the Jordan River
16:56
to the Mediterranean Sea.
17:00
It doesn’t mince words about it.
17:03
That’s the platform and all that
17:06
Netanyahu has done his whole career is
17:10
to try to implement that. Now from the
17:14
Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea
17:17
means East Jerusalem,
17:20
the West Bank and Gaza.
17:24
Israel occupies all of them. The purpose
17:27
of the Netanyahu government is permanent
17:32
control over all of them. Just one
17:35
little pesky problem. There are 8
17:38
million Palestinians in those
17:41
territories plus in Israel. About the
17:44
same number as Israeli Jews. It’s two
17:49
different
17:51
ethnic groups. And the way to solve
17:54
this, which more than 180 countries of
17:58
the world subscribe to, is two states
18:02
side by side. The way that the radicals,
18:07
extremists
18:10
want to solve this in Israel is by
18:13
killing
18:15
on a mass basis Palestinians,
18:18
expelling on a mass basis Palestinians
18:23
or ruling over them without any
18:28
political or social or civil rights in
18:32
what we call an apartheid. regime. So
18:35
this is not news. If you watch day by
18:39
day, Netanyahu says Hamas, Hamas, Hamas,
18:43
Hamas. But he never says, “So what after
18:48
Hamas?” Well, what after Hamas is
18:54
Israeli control over everything. It’s a
18:58
sickness. It’s a madness. It leads to
19:02
genocide because the whole idea of these
19:06
people is that the Palestinians count
19:09
for nothing. They are an obstacle. They
19:12
are a nuisance. And so in the eyes of
19:15
these people, they’re not even human.
19:17
They’re out to be shot and killed and
19:20
starved. And that’s the view. And it’s
19:24
easy. Yeah, just say Hamas, Hamas,
19:26
Hamas.
19:28
But they don’t say, “Okay, after Hamas
19:30
there’ll be a Palestinian state.” No,
19:33
they say after Hamas there will be us.
19:37
Because that’s been the whole purpose
19:39
for 50 years and arguably for longer.
19:44
It’s not subtle. And the way to
19:47
understand this every day is to ask,
19:50
what are the Israelis actually
19:52
proposing? They’re just proposing
19:56
release the hostages
19:59
and Hamas, Hamas, Hamas to be destroyed.
20:03
But then what? They will never say it to
20:07
you and to me
20:09
except when the moment comes when they
20:12
have to say it because you know they
20:14
they’re starving two million people. So
20:16
now they’re saying we’ll take over.
20:18
Well, not a surprise. This has been the
20:21
plan all along. This is not news. It’s
20:24
just stated. And when it comes to the
20:27
West Bank, well, this is clear. The
20:30
Kasset has said it’s going to be
20:31
annexed.
20:34
I’m
20:34
going to play a clip that I know is
20:36
going to get under your skin, but I need
20:38
you to destroy it. Uh, Prime Minister
20:42
Netanyahu yesterday on his so filled
20:46
with lies, but whatever. I’ll let you
20:48
address it.
20:49
Sure.
20:50
On his plans for Gaza. Chris cut number
20:52
two.
20:53
Many Gazins are fighting back. They’re
20:55
begging us. They’re begging the world.
20:58
Free us. Free us and free Gaza from
21:02
Hamas.
21:04
No nation can accept a genocidal
21:06
terrorist organization, an organization
21:08
committed to its annihilation, a stones
21:11
throw from its citizens. Our goal is not
21:14
to occupy Gaza. Our goal is to free
21:17
Gaza. Free it from kamas terrorists.
21:20
The war can end tomorrow if Gaza or
21:24
rather if Hamas lays downs its arms and
21:26
releases all the remaining hostages.
21:29
Gaza will be demilitarized.
21:31
Israel will have overriding security
21:33
responsibility.
21:35
A security zone will be established on
21:37
Gaza’s border with Israel to prevent
21:39
future terrorist incursions. A civilian
21:42
administration will be established in
21:44
Gaza that will seek to live in peace
21:47
with Israel. That’s our plan for the day
21:49
after kamas. And let me summarize it.
21:52
Five principles for concluding the war.
21:55
One, kamas disarmed. Second, all
21:58
hostages freed. Third, Gaza
22:00
demilitarized. Fourth, Israel has
22:02
overriding security control. And five,
22:06
non-Israeli peaceful civilian
22:07
administration. By that I mean a
22:09
civilian administration that doesn’t
22:11
educate its children for terror, doesn’t
22:14
pay terrorists, and doesn’t launch
22:17
terrorist attacks against Israel. That’s
22:19
what we want to see in Gaza. So it’s
22:21
neither Hamas nor the PA. That’s our
22:24
plan.
22:26
This is the same government which
22:27
yesterday
22:30
murdered five alazer journalists. Well,
22:33
let me just say that if you took that
22:34
list and you eliminated number four,
22:38
it would be close.
22:40
When it says Israel overriding security,
22:43
it means that this remains part of
22:46
Israel. That’s all. Uh if you take that
22:49
out and you have a independent state
22:53
next door and you do the other things,
22:56
uh that’s actually on the table right
22:58
now. uh you get the Arab countries, the
23:02
Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the
23:05
UN uh to demilitarize uh the uh Gaza,
23:09
but not to be under Israel’s security
23:12
control, but to be a secure and
23:16
sovereign state.
23:17
If it were under Israel’s security
23:19
control, it would be an open air
23:21
concentration camp.
23:23
It was. And it is. And And all that
23:26
means is it’s ours. It’s ours from the
23:30
Jordan River to the Mediterranean. It’s
23:32
not hidden. It’s just saying we do not
23:37
accept anything other than our control.
23:42
That’s the whole point. So yeah, he said
23:45
it and most of what he’s saying is
23:49
already the Arab offer. What isn’t the
23:53
Arab offer is to continue to be an open
23:56
air prison camp that can be starved to
24:00
death if the Israelis decide to starve
24:02
it to death, which they’re doing right
24:05
now. The Israelis, this man is
24:11
genocidal and murderous. I know genocide
24:13
has lost its uh even it’s lost its
24:16
meaning in our our time. He’s just a
24:18
he’s a mass murderer and he has to be
24:22
told no. But Trump is not going to tell
24:24
him no. 180 plus countries are telling
24:28
him no. Australia said today that it’s
24:31
going to it’s going to recognize the
24:34
state of Palestine. It’s going to be
24:36
everyone but the United States and
24:39
Israel complicit in genocide together
24:41
with Nau Vanuatu Papa New Guinea and
24:45
Micronia. That’s what we’re aiming for.
24:48
In other words, we’re aiming for
24:50
complete US isolation in the world
24:53
because we choose to stand with the
24:56
genocide air. So, this is their this is
24:59
the Netanyahu government’s latest stunt
25:02
which Senator Bernie Sanders called a
25:05
disgusting lie. This argument that the
25:08
Palestinian people want to be liberated
25:10
from Hamas. They want to be liberated
25:12
from the IDF. They want to be liberated
25:14
from Netanyahu. They want food, by the
25:17
way. They really would like a meal
25:19
today. They’re starving to death. Their
25:21
children are starving to death.
25:22
Netanyahu is starving these children to
25:25
death.
25:27
That’s all. According to Aaron Mate,
25:32
uh the so-called humanitarian
25:36
group run by the CIA and Mossad has
25:40
reduced 400 food locations to four.
25:46
And Netanyahu denies this. This is mass
25:50
murder. And I sat through a UN Security
25:53
Council meeting last week called by
25:57
Israel, no less, where the foreign
26:01
minister made a rant about the world’s
26:05
anti-semitism
26:06
and how everything’s upside down and how
26:09
the world hates the Jews and so forth.
26:12
This has nothing to do with the Jews.
26:14
This has to do with the absolutely
26:17
despicable, disgusting, murderous
26:20
behavior of a government of the
26:23
government of Israel. It’s the opposite
26:26
of Jewish values, by the way. It’s so
26:28
completely grotesque. But this is about
26:32
a government and the whole world is
26:34
against it other than the United States
26:38
because the CIA and Mossad work hand in
26:41
hand and have done so for decades. So
26:44
this is a genocide with US complicity.
26:48
So uh Professor Saxs, I look forward to
26:50
seeing you on Saturday.
26:52
Wonderful. I’m I’m looking forward to
26:54
it.
26:55
So this
26:55
Oh, there we go.
26:56
There we are. This is a live judging
26:59
freedom at the Ron Paul Institute peace
27:03
conference in Washington DC. It it’ll be
27:05
a panel discussion that I will moderate
27:08
involving Professor Saxs, Colonel
27:10
McGovern, Max and Ana Parample. And the
27:15
subject matter is the depravity of
27:18
American foreign policy. A word I got
27:21
from you, Professor.
27:22
We have a lot to talk about. We’ll see
27:24
you on Saturday.
27:26
Thank you for your time, Professor. All
27:28
the best, my dear friend. I’ll see you
27:30
Saturday.
27:31
Soon. Bye. Bye.
27:32
Bye. Tomorrow, uh, we have a nice day
27:35
for you. At 8 in the morning, Prof, uh,
27:37
Ambassador Chaz Freeman. At 11 in the
27:41
morning, Colonel Bill Atory, uh, a new
27:44
guest whom I think you will love, who
27:46
makes the argument that American foreign
27:49
policy is flailing and failing. Aaron
27:54
Mate at two, Karen Qucowski at three.
27:56
Just the Paul Tenno for Judging Freedom.
28:00
Heat. Heat.
28:05
[Music]
28:15
[Music]
oooooo
@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu
It’s Much Worse Than You Can Imagine.. | Prof. Jeffrey Sachs
It’s Much Worse Than You Can Imagine.. | Prof. Jeffrey Sachs
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uML1QkFWzI)
Transkripzioa:
0:00
I hope it signals a US uh approach to peace. I’m not sure. Of course, we’re
0:06
never sure with Trump. Uh the war in Ukraine was caused by the United States
0:13
expansion of NATO. Uh it was caused by US unilateral actions in abandoning the
0:21
nuclear arms control framework with Russia, both the ABM treaty and the intermediate nuclear force treaty. uh it
0:28
was caused by a breakdown of diplomacy between the United States and Russia
0:33
over many years. We don’t know with Trump because he is unpredictable,
0:39
short-term, not very logical and contradictory what
0:45
this really signals. We’ve had no clear indication from US officials about any
0:53
real agreement. But if Trump says at this meeting NATO will stop its
1:01
enlargement, uh the US wants peace and normal relations with Russia, the US is
1:07
ready to lift sanctions against Russia, um this would pave the way for real
1:15
peace because there is no fundamental underlying reason for the USRussia
1:22
conflict other than a uh 30-year effort by the United States to weaken Russia.
1:28
You said uh nothing has been decided yet, but Trump has very clearly hinted at Ukraine seeding territory. Now,
1:35
Zalinski has clearly said he won’t accept any seeding of territory. Uh the
1:40
Europe has of course uh rallied behind him. Do you believe that a deal Trump is
1:45
trying to get from Russia will be accepted by Ukraine and Europe given that neither of them are at the table?
1:52
If uh the US and Russia agree on something, it doesn’t really matter,
1:57
frankly, whether Ukraine and Europe agree on it. Uh everybody’s using the
2:03
United States. It’s the US war machine. NATO is the US. Uh funding is the US. uh
2:11
Zalinski is uh ruling by martial law completely dependent on the US flow of
2:19
funds and flow of arms. So all of this is begging. But if Trump says no, we
2:28
stop, they can say what they want, but either the war will stop or Russia will
2:34
just completely defeat Ukraine. One of the two. And my guess is that the war would stop. So, uh, this is what I would
2:42
do. I have no cause at all. No, I see no
2:48
reason for the United States to give a veto to Zilinski. Who is he? What does he represent? The
2:56
Ukrainian people want peace. This is what the most recent Gallup poll showed.
3:03
He rules by martial law. Okay. Uh, what about the Europeans? Who are they to say
3:10
no to peace? This war has been a war between the United States and Russia.
3:16
And who are these European politicians? Starmer with his 20% approval rating.
3:22
Mertz with his 20% approval rating. Mcronone with his 20% approval rating.
3:27
His own their own publics don’t even support them. Why should they dictate US foreign policy? So frankly, I don’t
3:34
think they can or should dictate US foreign policy. I don’t think Trump
3:40
should aim for or care about what Ukraine and uh Europe say about this. If
3:47
Trump ends the war, it’s in Ukraine’s overwhelming interest. And the Ukrainian
3:52
people want that. No matter what Zalinski says, I don’t think that there’s a security threat to the United
3:59
States other than nuclear war, which is possible. And this is one of the reasons
4:05
why all wars of major powers should be stopped.
4:10
But there is no other threat uh other than the fact that the American people are sick of this. We’re at war all the
4:18
time. Trump came into office promising to end these wars. If he doesn’t end the
4:24
wars, if he’s too weak, too incoherent, too inconsistent, too ignorant, too
4:29
cowardly, what it will do is just further weaken
4:35
uh the American uh faith in their own political
4:41
institutions, which is already very very low, I have to say. So, America is in a
4:47
political crisis. Trump hardly commands the widespread support of the American
4:53
people. They would like him to fulfill a campaign pledge to end this war. Was
4:59
supposed to be in 24 hours. Now it’s the balance of 9 months or 8 months.
5:08
He should get on with it. On the battlefield though, Russia is making big advances of late. Is there is
5:15
that you think that is part of Putin’s strategy going into this Alaska meeting with Trump? Uh who has the upper hand uh
5:22
in this Alaska meeting according to you? Well, I think it’s part of Putin’s and Russia’s strategy to win the war on the
5:28
battlefield. I I think they’re ready to stop the war on the basis of clearly
5:35
laid out terms, not on the basis of a ceasefire that settles nothing. The
5:41
strange thing is that the call for an unconditional ceasefire became the
5:47
rallying call of the war mongers actually in in this perverse way. What
5:53
it means is Mcronone Mertz Star and and
5:58
the US neocons they don’t want to talk about underlying causes of the war. They see that
6:06
Russia’s winning on the battlefield. So they want that uh battle uh field to be
6:12
stabilized at least without addressing the underlying root causes. I don’t
6:18
think Russia has an interest in that or will follow through in in that way. I
6:25
think what the Russians have been saying for years is get to the underlying causes. We
6:31
don’t want NATO on our border. We don’t want American missile systems on our border. uh we uh want uh uh a to be
6:40
secure in our own neighborhood. Uh give us that and then the wars the war stops.
6:46
So that’s I think the difference of view right now. Uh and my guess is that if uh
6:55
the US doesn’t deliver on something more fundamental about the causes of the war,
7:01
Russia will continue its war effort and will continue to win. What in your opinion short of uh removing NATO from
7:09
Russia’s borders uh what in your opinion uh Trump will have to offer Putin to
7:16
stop this war? Because I don’t think from what we’ve heard Putin saying and his and his foreign minister saying they
7:23
are very clear about their war goals. I think that there are
7:28
basically three issues. Uh one is no NATO enlargement. This to my mind is a
7:36
cenaon. It makes sense. I’ve always believed that Russia is right in this. I
7:43
know of course through extensive history
7:48
that the United States promised no eastward enlargement of NATO all the way
7:54
back in 1990 and then cheated on that promise after 1992.
8:01
So this is uh condition number one. Condition number two is about
8:06
territories and there uh Russia has made
8:12
clear claims for about 20% of Ukraine’s territory in four regions or oblasts uh
8:19
plus Crimea. and uh whether and how there’s a basis
8:27
for compromise. Uh that is part of the negotiation. And then the third is the
8:33
security arrangements that would follow uh Ukraine’s neutrality uh a limit of
8:41
militarization uh in Ukraine and along Russia’s borders
8:46
and by Russia. So a uh some kind of security arrangement that would follow.
8:53
These are the three main conditions for ending this war. They’re all within
8:58
reach. There was an agreement that was nearly completed in April 2022. The
9:06
United States stopped that agreement. Uh that was called the Istanbul process. Uh
9:12
Putin has said what we need is the Istanbul plus process. That’s basically
9:17
correct. Uh there are things to negotiate, but it’s not that much room for negotiation. And uh ending the war
9:26
on the basis of no NATO enlargement, Ukrainian neutrality uh and uh some
9:33
territorial changes is perfectly plausible, would be good for Ukraine,
9:38
good for the United States, good for Europe, and should proceed. you know Trump uh very well in terms of how he
9:46
takes his foreign policy and how he’s taking it forward. I’m not asking you to crystal gaze, but if you were to just
9:54
talk about what you think is going to be the outcome of this summit. Trump wants applause at the end of this
10:01
summit and so uh the question is how he judges what’s going to get him applause.
10:09
uh if good news, positive spin is going to get him applause, he’ll aim for
10:16
something along those lines. Remember, it’s also possible that Russia and the United States announce things not
10:23
related to Ukraine uh that are positive at least to get some applause. So they
10:29
could announce joint economic activities for developing minerals or joint
10:36
activities in the Arctic or a return to nuclear arms talks which
10:43
would be a wonderful thing by the way. Um so there are other areas where they
10:48
could make positive announcements. When it comes to Ukraine, what is needed
10:54
right now, as I’ve explained, is clarity on the US side that it’s going to stop
11:00
the conditions that led to this war. But that won’t give Trump easy applause
11:06
because the uh security state in the US
11:11
and in Europe will call him an appeaser, will attack him for being weak. If the
11:18
president is strong enough and understands his job
11:24
and gutsy enough, he would call for peace. But Trump is not a strong, clear, gutsy
11:33
politician. He’s a somebody who just loves appalades. Uh and so I’m not sure
11:41
about the Ukraine part of this story. So let’s move to tariffs. uh the imposition of penalties on India, Brazil
11:47
and perhaps China going forward. We don’t know. But Trump’s strategy, do you think that’s part of Trump’s strategy to
11:53
put pressure on Putin ahead of the Alaska meet? You know, cut off their cut
11:58
off Putin’s oil buyers. Do you think it will work? No, it won’t work. It is part of the
12:05
strategy. It has succeeded in uh making the bricks even more aligned.
12:12
I said so many times in India, don’t trust the United States. Don’t consider
12:18
that India has uh kind of snuck in as America’s new partner against China.
12:26
Don’t allow India to be played that way. I think what the tariffs show is a a
12:34
certain vindication of what I was saying because many people in India told me all
12:39
through the spring. We have an inside track. We’re going to be able to sign a good agreement and so forth. I never
12:46
believed it. I don’t believe the United States is a reliable partner for other
12:52
countries. And I don’t think that India’s vocation is to align with the
12:58
United States against China. Uh this is a mistake. uh in my view I like the
13:04
bricks because they stand for a new world order in which there is
13:10
multipolarity and in which uh great powers the US, Russia, China, India,
13:18
maybe Europe someday uh would have an equal role and that’s what the brick
13:24
stands for and Trump has strengthened the bricks. It’s not not what he expected to do or wanted
13:32
to do but it is what he has accomplished in doing. China uh Brazil, India, even Russia,
13:39
they’ve all stood up to Trump unlike the EU or say Japan over his tariff on salt.
13:44
Uh China largely because of its minerals advantage. Uh do you see a bricks
13:50
alliance forming? So far the BRICS alliance that you just now praised was more an acro acronym than anything else
13:57
because the the foreign policy compulsions of each of these countries were very different. How do you see
14:03
these disparate uh things coming together against a united enemy? Uh in
14:08
this case Trump’s America I believe that the bricks is something more than an acronym. I believe that it
14:16
is major powers in different parts of the world saying we need a new
14:21
multi-olar and multilateral world. Interestingly, at the BRICS summit in
14:28
Brazil this year, the outcome document is basically all gushing in love with
14:36
the United Nations. So, the brick said we need to make the UN system work. I
14:41
like that. I believe in that. Uh it says we don’t want a US-led world. Uh what is
14:48
the US-led world? It’s the US, Canada, Britain, European Union.
14:54
Yeah. Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. That’s the US-led world.
15:01
It’s about 15% of the world population. The bricks by themselves is about 50% of
15:07
the world population. and uh they have the hearts and minds of uh the balance
15:13
of the world. The other 35% uh so 15% in the US camp, 85% saying we
15:23
don’t want a US-led world. Uh we want a multi-olar multilateral.
15:29
I think that’s right. Uh so I see BRICS as basically helping to put that into
15:35
place. Now, the United States has thought, “No, no, no, no, no. We’ll break the bricks. We can threaten Brazil
15:41
in our own hemisphere. We can make demands of Brazil, even demands of throw out a
15:50
court case that has nothing to do with the United States, against a former
15:56
president. But we can scare and entice India into our camp against China
16:05
through the Quad uh and by threats of tariffs and so forth. Uh we can defeat
16:12
Russia. We can beat China in a trade war.
16:17
Okay, I used one word for all of this over the recent years. I called it
16:23
delusional. uh delusional because it’s based on the delusion that
16:29
the United States runs the show worldwide and I think the events in the
16:35
last few days show that the United States does not run the show and uh
16:42
India did not cave in to Trump’s demands. Brazil did not cave in. Lula
16:50
said we do not need an emperor. Yeah. And said that he absolutely rejects
16:56
that. Russia has not caved in. China said, “Ah, you stop your exports of
17:02
semiconductors. Say goodbye to your auto industry. We don’t export the magnets you need.” So
17:10
this is the truth of the world. The world needs to understand the US is 4.1%
17:16
of the world population. It’s maybe 14% of world output. It’s
17:22
maybe 12% of world trade. Get on with
17:27
it. And I want the United States to behave itself and cooperate with other
17:32
countries rather than threatening them every day. I don’t see that happening in Trump’s America really. So we still have another
17:38
three and a half years of uh bluster uh perhaps happening because he doesn’t
17:44
seem to realize that. He thinks uh and well that’s for him it’s
17:49
I think you’re correct. I think you’re absolutely correct on that that that’s why it’s interesting uh
17:54
what’s going to happen at the end of this week. There are glimmers in Trump’s mind of uh real politique that the major
18:02
powers should work uh not not in conflict with each other but then they
18:08
play games nonstop. The latest game by the way even as this uh discussion of uh
18:15
Ukraine is going on is the US is playing games in the South Caucus’ region
18:21
uh claiming a a trade a uh transport
18:27
corridor that they’re calling the Trump highway to be leased by Armenia right uh
18:34
in Russia and Iran’s neighborhood. This is a game. This is another
18:40
geopolitical game that uh it will be unacceptable to the regional powers and
18:47
so the US seems to have this penchant of being annoying to other countries
18:53
and the Trump’s tariffs uh uh entire strategy and about the America first and
18:59
about making America great again doesn’t it defeat that entire purpose isn’t Trump you know by behaving in this
19:05
manner with his allies is he not alienating the world. Of course he is. This is this is the
19:12
America trying in any way squirming trying to hold on to its dominance. But
19:20
with India rising, with the China rising, with Africa rising, you can’t
19:26
hold on to the dominance that way. America’s 4% of the world population. How could it run the world? So this is
19:34
America trying to do what it can’t do. And it tries to do it by bullying one
19:40
country at a time. But if uh the countries that are being bullied say no,
19:46
stop. We learn to live like a civilized nation, it will work.
19:51
Uh you talked about bricks and this is in continuation with that. Trump is clearly fearful of the bricks dd
19:56
dollararization move. The entire you know Putin uh president Putin and president Lula both have hinted at an
20:02
alternate currency in the recent days. What do you think is the way forward? Yeah, I think it’s extremely important
20:09
for the BRICS countries to work out mechanisms for using local currencies
20:15
whether it’s the rupee or the ruble or the renman uh but to use non-doll
20:21
payments because the dollar payment system is used by the US to weaponize uh
20:28
foreign policy. uh it’s the sanctions threat and the way away from that is to
20:35
have means of payments, settlements uh and uh finance that does not go through
20:41
the swift banking system. India it has said has kind of dragged
20:47
its feet on these alternatives. I think this is a mistake. What should be done
20:53
is to move to a multicurrency world where the United States cannot
20:58
unilaterally enforce sanctions through its dominance
21:04
of payments and settlements. He was the Nobel Peace Prize. You know, he he uh do you think that’s going to
21:10
happen because he’s not just him, he and his aids and even the White House, they’ve called it a public forum and
21:17
announced six wars ended uh six conflicts ended. He’s tried to take credit for the IndiaPakistan ending the
21:24
IndiaPakistan war uh all because of that one Nobel which Obama got and he didn’t
21:30
get. Do you think that’s happening to him? I think there’s one thing to keep in mind. The US is
21:37
together with Israel committing a genocide in Palestine. I don’t think you
21:43
should get a Nobel Prize under any conditions while you’re also committing a genocide. So, uh, I I don’t think that
21:52
this should even be remotely considered. Norway continues to surprise me in its
22:00
willingness to bow down to the United States. So, it’s possible because this is a vote of basically the Norwegian
22:07
Parliament, I believe. Uh but um it the the fact of the matter is the US is uh
22:14
disgraceful uh in what it’s doing in Palestine because there’s an active
22:20
genocide underway before our eyes. 2 million people are being starved to death actually. And now that starvation
22:28
has reached such an extreme level and it’s on camera. on Tik Tok every day
22:33
that you have children dying before our eyes of starvation caused by the US and
22:40
Israel. So no, I don’t think you should get a Nobel Peace Prize. There’s obviously there’s a lot of interest around the Trump tariffs, the
22:46
secondary tariffs on oil for purchasing Russian oil. Why do you think Trump has done that? Because India is not even the
22:52
largest purchaser of Russian oil. Why is India getting punished?
22:58
Trump is not a very logical person and not a very strategic person. Uh and so
23:04
he does things impulsively. He thought that India would immediately agree to
23:11
the demands that he made that India would state we will not buy Russian oil
23:16
and so forth. So uh this was a threat. India rightly did not succumb to the
23:24
threat. It was not a well-thoughtout strategy. Very little that Trump does is
23:30
a well-thoughtout strategy. What it has done though is to alert India to
23:36
something that I’ve been saying for a long time which is that India should not
23:41
trust the United States as its main partner. Uh India of course needs its
23:48
independent foreign policy and it should look with some care at statements and
23:57
commitments by the United States. It was thought in India by some that
24:03
India would become the close economic partner that would replace China’s
24:08
trade. I said that was naive. The United States is not going to accept large uh exports
24:17
from India anymore than it did from China. This is not my view of what the
24:23
US should do. It was my prediction of what the US would do. So I warned
24:30
against relying on the goodwill of the US or thinking that India had some
24:35
inside track on a good trade deal. I always thought that was an illusion.
24:41
India also at least some people thought well India should strategically align
24:47
with the United States against China. I said that is absolutely the wrong approach. I am not a fan of the quad.
24:55
I’m not a fan of uh any idea uh that India looks to the US in a security
25:02
arrangement. It doesn’t work. It won’t work. And I think what Trump has done is
25:08
to make clear, very clear, unfortunately clear, the points that I’ve been saying.
25:14
The US is not a reliable partner, especially under Trump. But I would say generally
25:19
but but professor Saxs I want to go back to the oil question because if it’s if it is a question of principle uh you
25:25
know if there is even half a an argument logically speaking that look by
25:30
purchasing Russian oil or Russian uh gas you’re funding Putin’s war machine. Look
25:36
at look at China. China is the largest purchaser of Russian oil in the last two and a half years. China has purchased
25:42
$158 billion of Russian crude. India on the other hand has purchased $119 billion of
25:49
Russian crude. So if it’s about punishing those countries that are enabling Putin’s war machine, why hasn’t
25:56
Trump imposed the same sanctions or the same tariffs on China? Well, he tried to punish China and China
26:03
retaliated immediately and it cut off exports of rare earths uh and rare earth
26:10
magnets and other components vital for US industry and the United States backed
26:17
down. You use the word principle if it’s a matter of principle. You said this is
26:22
not a matter of principle. This is a matter of threats. Uh this is a matter of bluffing. Uh this is a matter of what
26:30
Trump uh decides to do impulsively, what he thinks he can get away with, who he
26:36
thinks he can uh scare into submission. So if you’re looking for consistency,
26:43
you’re certainly looking in the wrong place. It’s not going to come from the US. Why do you think ties have soured? I
26:49
mean, obviously, this is a relationship between India and the United States has been built over successive US administrations from from George W. Bush
26:57
for the last 20 25 years. Uh Trump has basically appended it. I mean this is the lowest point in the relationship
27:04
since perhaps Nixon and Indra Gandhi and that was god knows 50 years ago. Um why
27:09
would Trump completely throw such a relationship under the bus and what is it that India can do to deal with the
27:16
fallout of this? First of all, as as I said, Trump is not
27:21
a strategist. He’s not a logical thinker. He’s not a consistent
27:26
far-sighted thinker. Uh, American foreign policy right now is impulsive.
27:32
It’s short-term. It doesn’t work. Uh, so this is a starting point. Second, Trump
27:40
thinks that he has all the cards or he pretends that he
27:46
has all the cards or he bluffs that he has all the cards visav any other country. So he thinks that the great
27:54
prize of the US market which is not so dominant nor is it so important for
28:00
India. It’s helpful but it’s not so crucial. He thinks that that great prize
28:06
gives him the leverage to make whatever demands he wants, even completely
28:12
outlandish demands, say of Brazil to stop a court case uh that’s underway in
28:18
a fully independent judiciary in Brazil. So don’t look for long-term strategy.
28:28
But if you want to know the underlying uh mood or motivation, the US is
28:35
flailing around because it’s losing its dominance and it’s trying to reestablish
28:42
its dominance. It’s trying to reestablish fear. It wants India to be
28:47
submissive to the US. It wants Russia to be submissive to the US. It wants China
28:53
to be submissive to the US. It wants the bricks to somehow go away. It’s not
29:00
going to happen. The world has changed. The world is multipolar. There are many
29:05
great powers. Uh Russia, India, China, the United States. There’s not the US
29:11
alone. What should India do? India should be careful. uh India should align
29:19
with the bricks on the basic proposition that we are in a multipolar world that
29:26
no single country and that means the United States can boss other countries
29:32
around no single country should rearrange the international trading system on whims or threats uh coming
29:40
from one person remember in the United States we don’t even have a constitutional process underway way for
29:47
these tariffs. This is a oneperson show and he has no legal authority, no
29:53
constitutional authority for this. We don’t know whether our courts will stand up to him but that’s the truth. So India
30:01
is doing the right thing. Prime Minister Modi spoke to President Lula, Prime Minister Modi is meeting with President
30:08
Xi Jinping. Prime Minister Modi is meeting with President Putin. That’s the
30:13
right approach that the bricks say wait a minute we are not going to be bossed
30:20
around by one country. Do you also think professor Saxs that the reason why Trump is is in such a
30:27
spiteful mood if I can use that phrase is because India’s not given him credit for bringing about a ceasefire between
30:33
India and Pakistan when there was this 4-day war that happened back in May and Trump has been going on and on and on
30:38
claiming credit for that ceasefire bringing that war to an end. Uh we saw the ceremony that happened last week in the White House with the leaders of
30:44
Azarbaijan and Armenia and he he’s going around saying he’s stopped about half a dozen conflicts in the last six months.
30:51
You think that’s why he’s being so spiteful? Anything’s possible. But if if that is
30:58
the truth, it just shows you how completely irrational the situation is
31:03
right now. I don’t discount it. It’s it’s possible. I can’t get into that man’s head. But what I can tell you is
31:10
there is no strategy. There’s no trustworthiness. There’s no consistency.
31:15
And there’s no success from all of this flailing around. Uh Trump and Putin are meeting later
31:21
this week in in Alaska. Uh this is the first face toface meeting that they’ll have in the 6 months that Trump has been
31:27
in office. Uh he’s been desperately asking for this meeting. Putin was sort of not really uh interested. Uh what can
31:34
we expect when both leaders beat in Alaska? Do you do you genuinely think that there will be if not a an end to
31:40
the war at least some kind of a temporary ceasefire? I think that there will be an actual
31:47
improvement in the relations between the two countries in some sense. Remember
31:52
these countries have a lot more uh at stake than uh the Ukraine war. uh they
32:00
have uh at stake the diplomatic relations. They have at stake uh the
32:06
rapidly uh collapsing nuclear arms control framework. They have economic
32:14
issues uh the removal of the sanctions uh joint ventures and so forth that
32:21
would be mutually beneficial and uh there is also the war in Ukraine. Uh I
32:29
doubt that uh this meeting would be called for Trump to try to lord it over
32:36
Putin uh or to have a failed summit. But I think it’s important to recognize that
32:42
there are a number of things that can and will be discussed other than the war
32:47
in Ukraine. Uh as to the war in Ukraine, the United States should do one basic
32:56
thing. uh and that is to say that NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine and say it
33:02
publicly and say it clearly uh because that is the reason why this war occurred
33:08
uh and that is the basis for ending the war. To say it requires going against
33:15
the CIA and the deep state and the long-term anti-Russia strategy of the
33:21
United States, but it’s the truth. Uh, this war came from 30 years of the
33:27
United States pushing its military right up against Russia’s borders. And for the
33:35
war to stop, the United States has to stop that provocation. What What about on the ground? Trump has
33:41
been talking about land swaps and, you know, you give away some part of Ukraine, you freeze the conflict. Putin gets to keep the eastern part. The
33:48
Donbass Zilinski says that’s a that’s an absolute no-go. the constitution bars him from doing so. What about on the
33:54
ground? How how what will it take for Putin to stop this war? Well, there are a few points. There are
34:02
three areas of concern. One is Crimea. Crimea has been home to Russia’s naval
34:08
fleet in the Black Sea since 1783. uh when uh the US helped to overthrow a
34:17
neutral government in Ukraine in February 2014 which started this war. A
34:23
US uh joined coup. Uh immediately the new postc coup regime said Russia should
34:31
leave Crimea. Russia’s never going to leave Crimea. that is the place of their
34:37
naval fleet and naval power and ability to project power into the eastern
34:44
Mediterranean. And so Crimea is staying with Russia no doubt.
34:50
Uh then there is the Donbas two oblas Lugansk and Donetsk. These are heavily
34:58
ethnic Russian regions. They broke away after the February 2014 coup. Uh
35:06
Russia tried a treaty not based on annexation but based on autonomy for
35:12
these regions in 2015 2016 called the Minsk 2 agreements. The US blew up the
35:19
Minsk 2 agreements. It told Ukraine you don’t have to implement them. That is
35:25
why these oblasts are never going back to Ukraine as well. Then there are two
35:32
oblasts Zaparisia and Heron where Russia’s claim is much weaker. It came
35:39
in November 2022. It’s probably in part negotiable.
35:45
This uh language of land swaps, by the way, is a bit absurd and misleading.
35:51
Nobody knows what it means, but what it seems to mean is that Russia would give
35:57
up some of its claim in her and Zaparisia, which is its claim, uh, in
36:04
return for receiving in some sense recognition of its claim
36:12
in Lugansk and Donetsk. There will have to be territorial
36:18
changes. By the way, Ukraine will not accept them. That’s their problem. The
36:23
United States can accept them. These are negotiations between the US and Russia.
36:29
Uh they are not negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. The US should get out of this war. It
36:36
started this war. It dragged Ukraine into it. Ukraine was not a completely
36:42
innocent victim. It was a fool. I told the Ukrainians for years, the US is
36:47
going to bring you to disaster just like the US brought Vietnam to disaster,
36:53
Afghanistan to disaster, and countless other countries. And the Ukrainians
36:58
didn’t believe me, but this is the situation. But the negotiations
37:03
this Friday are between the US and Russia, and they should be a way for the
37:09
US to extricate itself and to end its participation in a war that it didn’t
37:15
start. I’d advise Ukraine to get real. Also, I’d advise Europe to get real.
37:21
Also, all this wararmongering against a nuclear superpower is nuts. It’s very
37:28
dangerous and it neglects all the history of how this conflict came
oooooo
@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu
Jeffrey Sachs Says U.S. NATO Expansion & 2014 Coup Make Trump’s Peace Pl… https://youtu.be/Dl9gfKA4x8Q?si=79J56pEvKmB2ah38
youtube.com
Jeffrey Sachs Says U.S. NATO Expansion & 2014 Coup Make Trump’s Peace…
Jeffrey Sachs Says U.S. NATO Expansion & 2014 Coup Make Trump’s Peace Plan Impossible | APT
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl9gfKA4x8Q)
Economist Jeffrey Sachs in a July 21 address to student at Thinkers Forum claimed Donald Trump cannot end the Russia-Ukraine war because it was triggered by U.S. and NATO policies — including rejecting Ukraine’s neutrality and backing the 2014 coup.
Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia – Will Putin have the leverage of four Ukrainian regions? This video will take you to the origins of Ukraine Conflict.
0:00 – Opening & Welcome to the China Institute’s 10th Anniversary Event
1:02 – Introduction of Professor Jeffrey Sachs
2:10 – Setting the Stage: The Israel–Iran Conflict Overview
4:05 – Why the World Is Watching This Crisis Closely
6:28 – Historical Background of Israel–Iran Tensions
9:15 – U.S. Involvement in the Middle East Power Struggle
12:42 – Economic Sanctions and Their Impact on the Conflict
16:18 – China’s Position and Role in the Peace Process
20:05 – Diplomatic Challenges Facing Global Mediators
23:44 – Humanitarian Crisis: Civilian Toll and Refugee Situation
27:10 – Regional Alliances and Proxy Forces in the Middle East
31:26 – Nuclear Concerns: IAEA Inspections and Non-Proliferation Issues
35:12 – Israeli Domestic Politics and Security Strategy
39:45 – Iranian Domestic Politics and Revolutionary Guard Influence
43:08 – Media Narratives and Global Public Opinion
47:15 – Potential Scenarios for De-escalation or Escalation
51:00 – Audience Q&A Session Highlights
54:25 – Final Thoughts by Professor Jeffrey Sachs
56:13 – Closing Remarks
Transkripzioa:
Opening & Welcome to the China Institute’s 10th Anniversary Event
0:00
Hello everyone, good afternoon and hello professor Jeffrey Saks. Welcome to Futan
0:06
University. Welcome to China Institute on the occasion of the 10th anniversary
0:12
of the institute. We will together explore a hugely important topic of the Israel Iran
0:20
conflict and its implications for the world. But to be honest, Professor
0:26
Sarks, you are so popular among the audience here and beyond. You can talk
0:31
on any subject you choose which will well be received well received by the Chinese and global
0:39
audience. It’s known to all that professor Jeffrey Stark is a well-known economist a
0:45
geopolitical analyst, a professor at Colombia University and president of UN
0:52
Sustainable Development Solution Network. The list goes on. But to my
0:58
mind and to many people here in the audience and beyond, Professor Sak is
1:03
first and foremost an original thinker on many most pressing global issues and
1:11
crisis. He’s also an intellectual fighter with unwavering courage against injustice and
1:20
evils wherever they emerge. He’s also a loud and articulate and
1:26
highly reasoned voice for our collective conscience in the interest of mankind.
1:33
So with this kind of deep appreciation and respect, Jeff, the floor is yours.
1:42
[Applause]
1:48
Thank you so much for that very kind uh welcome and also for this wonderful
1:55
invitation and thanks to all of you for the chance to spend a couple of hours
2:01
together to talk about the world situation. Indeed, while the title is
2:06
about Israel and Iran and therefore the Middle East crisis, I’d like to be a
2:12
little bit more general than that and to talk about geopolitics more generally.
2:18
uh geopolitics the relations among especially the major powers the United
2:24
States, China, Russia, India, uh Europe
2:30
are at a very difficult and fraught time
2:36
and we’re in a crisis that is very serious. It’s a crisis because
2:43
we’re living in the nuclear age. There are nine
2:48
countries that we know of that have nuclear weapons. Maybe some others also
2:54
do, but nine that we know of. Most of those nine are in conflict with at least
2:59
one other country uh that has nuclear weapons in geopolitical or diplomatic
3:06
terms and in the case of the United States and Russia in open conflict in
3:13
Ukraine because that’s actually a war between the US and Russia and a very
3:18
dangerous war. So my view is that we
3:23
need to uh understand the global scene well so that
3:30
we avoid terrible terrible mishaps
3:36
and I often refer to the doomsday clock of the bulletin of atomic scientists.
3:43
This is a US publication that was started in 1947
3:49
after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And it was started by the
3:56
atomic scientists who had their journal. And they wanted to tell the world this
4:01
is very dangerous indeed. And the risks of this new age of nuclear weapons is
4:10
unprecedented because the power of destruction is something unlike any time
4:16
before. So they started this clock and the clock puts the hands of the clock
4:22
closer or farther from midnight. And when the clock was started it was 7
4:28
minutes from midnight. And the message to the world was we are close to
4:34
destruction because of these new weapons. And that was in 1947 when the
4:40
US alone had the atomic bomb. But then of course in 1949
4:47
that monopoly was broken by the Soviet Union which developed its atomic bomb
4:55
and then in the 1950s and 1960s by Britain, France, China and then we know
5:03
Israel sometime in the 1960s uh though never announced exactly uh and
5:10
then India, Pakistan, North Korea and the clock has gone back and forth
5:18
depending on geopolitics. It went away from midnight at the end of
5:26
the Cold War in 1991. The Soviet Union ended. It seemed that
5:33
there was no more threat, no more cold war. The US and China were on good
5:39
relations. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev and then Russia under
5:44
President Yelson said, “We just want good relations. We want to rebuild. We want decent relations.” So the
5:52
scientists put the hand of the doomsday clock 17 minutes from midnight.
5:59
Every US presidency since then has experienced the clock coming closer to
6:06
midnight. I don’t think that’s an accident. I think that is the mistake of
6:12
American foreign policy, which though the United States is the most secure
6:20
country in world history in being able to avoid
6:26
an invasion from outside because we’re not afraid of Canada. were not afraid of
6:33
being invaded by Mexico, though there once was a war with Mexico in 1846,
6:40
but they lost. So, this is not a big threat. And we have two big oceans.
6:48
So, the US should be very calm. And the only threat that the US faces to
6:56
its security at all is the possibility of a nuclear war.
7:02
which should not be hard to avoid. You just have to be cooperative with
7:08
other nuclear powers. But as I said, from 17 minutes to midnight, Bill
7:15
Clinton came, it moved closer. George W. Bush Jr. came, it moved closer to
7:21
midnight. Barack Obama moved closer to midnight. Trump won moved closer to
7:27
midnight. Biden closer to midnight. Now it’s 89 seconds to midnight. So less
7:34
than one and a half minutes to midnight from 17 and 12 minutes. What is going on
7:42
that every administration is moving the hands closer to midnight? Of course,
7:50
there are many in possible interpretations, but mine centers on the
7:55
United States and centers on the Western world more generally, by which I mean
8:00
the US, the European Union, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, if I could add
8:08
those together because those are offshoots of Britain as well. And in my
8:13
view, what is going on is a serious misunderstanding of global reality by the leadership of
8:22
my country that has persisted now for more than 30 years. You had a wonderful
8:30
debate uh professor Jang with with Francis Fukuyama
8:36
uh which I just had the chance to read from 14 years ago. And as you told me,
8:42
you’re right. You won the debate. But the idea of Professor Fukyama
8:49
already back in uh n the early 1990s was
8:55
that the West had triumphed and it was the end of history.
9:00
And my basic understanding of the reality is something different.
9:07
And that is that with the end of the cold war, the world had triumphed in the
9:13
sense that we had the chance to escape from nuclear war and from confrontation
9:20
and we had the chance for rapid economic development in all parts of the world
9:27
which China led and China exemplified. So from the 40 years from 1980 to 2020,
9:36
China experienced the fastest economic development in world history for a large
9:43
country. And it showed what’s possible in our world today because of technology, education,
9:50
infrastructure, how big an advance can be made. And I watched this, by the way,
9:56
with my own eyes personally because my first visit to China was 1981.
10:02
And so China was not a rich country in 1981. Uh, China was very poor in 1981
10:10
because of the history of the previous 150 years. And over that 40-year period,
10:18
which is the period of my professional life, China experienced this rapid
10:24
development. And my view is that’s what’s possible in all parts of the world. So, while I completely hail
10:33
China’s accomplishment and know that it draws on deep roots of China’s history
10:39
and civilization, I do believe it’s something that all regions of the world can accomplish.
10:46
Maybe not at the same speed, maybe not with all the same success as China, but
10:52
I do not write off any part of the world, Africa or India or South Asia or
11:00
Central Asia or Latin America. This idea that we could all live in peace, in
11:08
mutual prosperity with rapid economic development in poor
11:14
countries, I think is the reality of our world in its potential, but obviously
11:21
not the reality of our world in its actuality. So we need to understand the world as it
11:30
could be and then aim to achieve that world. Unfortunately, this was not the
11:38
idea of the United States at the end of 1991
11:43
when Mr. Fukuyama, Professor Fukyama declared the end of history. The idea
11:49
was that the western world would lead the world from now onward and especially
11:55
the United States within the western world would lead the world onward.
12:01
Whether other regions developed or not was of modest interest, but if they did
12:08
develop, they needed to develop under the wing of the United States. In other words, what was important at the end of
12:15
the cold war was dominance, not cooperation
12:20
or peace. And this is why I think the world has remained and become more and
12:27
more dangerous over the last 35 years. So to my
12:34
understanding, we have a mindset problem. And the mindset problem is that
12:40
the western world dominated the world economy and world politics and finance
12:47
for about 250 years. Roughly from 1750
12:53
to roughly the year 2000. And during that period, the ideology in
13:01
the western world explained that dominance as an inherent
13:08
rightful feature of the world. And it explained that dominance in a number of
13:14
different ways. Some very extreme, some
13:19
a little bit less extreme because there were theories of racial superiority.
13:25
There were theories of social superiority. There were theories of cultural
13:31
superiority. There were theories of religious superiority that this was a
13:36
Christian world after all. But whichever theory one subscribed to, there were
13:42
theories of genetic superiority, biological superiority.
13:47
Whichever view one took uh the idea was deeply embedded in the mores the stories
13:58
the beliefs the institutions and the politics of the western world and two
14:05
countries dominated most of all and most of the world’s problems today can be
14:11
traced to them actually one was Britain and China had quite an interesting
14:17
experience with Britain starting from 1793 uh up through uh probably the end of
14:25
World War II. And the other has been the United States which is a a successor uh
14:32
to Britain in both the Western world and the Anglo-Saxon world.
14:38
So the British definitely had an arrogance of power. Uh and they used
14:44
that arrogance of power in China, in India, in Russia, in every part of the
14:51
world because the belief was that Britain was the empire on which the sun
14:56
never set. Uh this was the era of pox Britannica, although it wasn’t so
15:01
peaceful, but it was the era of British dominance. And the 19th century was
15:08
really defined by British dominance internationally. Europe experienced two
15:15
uh disastrous civil wars in the first half of the 20th century which we call
15:21
World War I and World War II. But in Europe they were really civil wars within European countries. And at the
15:28
end Britain was no longer able to maintain a global empire. But the United
15:35
States took over at that point and the US inherited the mindset and the
15:41
institutions of British imperial rule. The main geopolitical
15:49
institution of British imperial rule was to control regimes of different parts of
15:57
the world. So Britain mastered what we call regime change operations. If you
16:04
don’t like a government, replace it. It’s a different kind of foreign policy from diplomacy. In diplomacy, if you
16:12
don’t like a government, sit down and negotiate. If you’re British in the 19th century
16:18
and you don’t like a government, threaten it, kill the person, the ruler,
16:23
or overthrow it. uh and this was the main mode of British uh action. In the
16:32
second half of the 20th century, the United States took over that method of
16:38
operation. Indeed, the British taught it to the Americans, I would say. And in 1953,
16:44
we did a joint venture together, the British and the Americans,
16:51
the British MI6, the spy agency, and the CIA to overthrow the government of Iran,
16:58
which brings us to our current situation. Iran had a functioning democratic government in 1953
17:07
led by Prime Minister Mosedc. He had a very radical idea. Mosedc’s
17:15
idea in 1953 was that the oil that was under the ground actually belonged to
17:21
the Iranians where the British knew that it belonged to the British.
17:27
So when the Iranian prime minister democratically elected said this is our
17:32
oil it’s under our ground the uh British government knew that it
17:37
had to overthrow him and it connected with the US government and they made a
17:43
secret operation to overthrow Mosedc and to install the sha of Iran a palevi
17:50
dynasty and to make a police state under US control.
17:56
If you add up all such regime change operations by the United States between
18:03
1945 and 1989 at the end of the Cold War, one
18:10
scholar, Lindseay Oor in an excellent book in 2017 called Covert Regime Change
18:18
and she was a student of John Mirshimer uh at the time uh she counted 64 four
18:27
covert regime change operations by the United States, mostly CIAled
18:33
and six overt regime change operations, meaning an open war to topple another
18:39
government. So 70 regime change operations. This is a very distinct kind
18:46
of statecraft. It is the opposite of diplomacy.
18:51
You don’t have to deal with the other side. You have to control it or overthrow it, kill it, assassinate the
18:59
leader, make a coup, fix an election, buy an election, create
19:06
unrest to topple a regime. And this happened 64 times
19:14
covertly. What does covert mean? Covert means that
19:20
the US denied its role even though it was obvious to the people there. So when
19:27
these events occur, they’re not really covert in the sense of who did this.
19:33
Everyone says the United States did it, but the United States said we didn’t
19:38
have anything to do with it. That wasn’t us. That was a local unrest.
19:45
So I mention all of this because that kind of arrogant statecraft
19:52
which is imperial mentality was the US mentality from 1945 to 19 91.
20:02
It was justified to the American people as necessary because of the war against
20:09
global communism. So that was the explanation that was given. and
20:15
especially against the Soviet Union. And the United States accused the Soviet
20:21
Union of wanting to take over the world. And it used that as an explanation to
20:27
try to take over the world, every other place. And very importantly and
20:33
interestingly, the United States rejected neutrality by any country and used the expression,
20:41
if you are not with us, you are against us. So the US also actively opposed
20:50
neutrality. This is also a very interesting peculiar
20:56
idea because many countries said we don’t want to choose. We want to trade
21:01
with the Soviet Union. We want to trade with the United States. We don’t have a big army. We don’t don’t attack us, but
21:08
we don’t want bad relations with either side. And the US said, “No, that’s not
21:14
good enough. You’re either with us or you’re against us.” And very
21:20
interestingly for scholars here and this is a room of scholars if you read the
21:27
pelpeneisian war by thusidities which has become famous again because of
21:32
Graham Allison’s uh book in the dialogue called the Melian dialogue
21:40
which is a dialogue between Athens and the leaders of Melos a small island
21:48
The Melians said, “We want to be friends with Athens and we want to be friends
21:53
with Sparta.” And the Athenians says, “No, you can’t. You are with us against them.” And the
22:02
Melians said, “No, no, but we want to be just neutral. Just be leave us alone. We
22:08
like you, but we don’t want to be part of your empire. We don’t want to be part of their empire.” And the Athenian says,
22:16
“No, if you do that, you will weaken our power in our realm. You will show to all
22:26
of the allies of Athens that we’re weak. So, you must submit to us, otherwise
22:34
we’ll have to kill you.” And actually in history apparently in 416
22:40
BC the Melos said no we will be neutral
22:46
and the Athenians invaded and they killed all the Melian men. Actually
22:53
of course what the Pelpeneisian war really shows is that just 12 years later
23:00
Athens was defeated. So all that arrogance led to nothing but defeat.
23:08
It even shows something more. Sparta which won the war disappeared from
23:14
history also. So neither side won in the end. The war exhausted both sides and
23:22
Greece was invaded by Macedonia in the next century. So both sides lost from
23:28
this ongoing war. But the arrogance of Athens is the arrogance of the United
23:35
States. And by the way, Athens was a great democracy and it had a great arrogance and it made
23:44
a great selfd disaster by that arrogance. And by being a democracy, they elected a
23:51
lot of stupid people that were very demagogic and that told them, why don’t
23:57
we invade Syracusea? why don’t we continue the war and they had no sense
24:03
and they were defeated in the end. So I
24:08
began much of my uh work during this
24:14
period from 1989 onward. I was already uh working in Latin America. But then
24:20
came the end of the cold war. And just to say I was an adviser to President
24:26
Gorbachev, not personally but through his chief economist. And then I was personally an
24:33
adviser to President Yelen. And I was personally invi an adviser to the
24:38
president of Ukraine and to many of the other leaders. And I thought, well, this
24:44
is wonderful. The Cold War is over. We’re all now in a market economy
24:51
worldwide. We can all share in prosperity. The poorer countries can grow faster and
24:59
close the income gap with the richer countries and the richer countries should help the poorer countries to
25:05
catch up and then we’ll have a safe, prosperous world. And I also believed
25:12
and believe today as an economist there’s enough to go around because
25:17
another theory of economics the Malthusian theory is there’s not enough
25:22
for everybody. So the fighting is inevitable. There will always be those who lose in
25:29
the end because there’s not enough for everybody in the world. We could discuss
25:34
that but I reject that on economic grounds. In other words, not out of
25:41
moral theory, but out of practical theory, we could have everybody living
25:47
in good life as long as they’re using solar power, not if they’re using fossil
25:52
fuel. So, as long as we make the right technological choices, then there’s
25:58
enough to go around in the world for everybody in the world. That’s what I argued in the early 1990s.
26:06
The United States, however, maintained and even intensified its imperial idea.
26:16
Instead of viewing the end of the Cold War as the opportunity for a new world
26:21
order that was balanced, fair, peaceful, the United States viewed the end of the
26:28
Cold War as the opportunity for hegemony. And that’s very explicit. This became
26:36
the ideology of the so-called neoconservatives who dominated American politics from
26:44
1991 basically until today. And the neoconservative idea is the world can
26:51
only be safe if the US leads the world because the US is a power for good. And
26:58
so the US should set the rules. It should be the world policeman. It should determine what happens in each part of
27:05
the world and then things will be fine. This is a very arrogant position. Of
27:12
course, it’s a very delusional idea, but it is really the idea that was espoused
27:21
by government after government starting in 1991.
27:27
And I witnessed it close up because my argument as an economist was that we
27:33
should help Russia to get back on its feet. We should help Africa to achieve
27:40
development. We should make sure that poverty is overcome everywhere. And none
27:47
of those ideas was accepted in the American political leadership. Even by
27:54
my own colleagues who were in positions of power temporarily, they viewed
28:02
such ideas as naive uh and as contrary to American
28:08
interests. America’s interest is to be number one, not to be cooperative in an
28:16
open world in which there is shared prosperity. So the ideology was in my view uh made
28:26
even worse by the end of the cold war. It turned out, by the way, and it’s
28:32
relevant for China also, during the Cold War, all of the US rhetoric was, “We
28:39
fight the Soviet Union because of world communism.” That word, as you know, in the American
28:48
scene is viewed as something completely uh
28:53
shocking. when Russia became independent and
29:00
declared uh we are in a market economy
29:06
postcommunist this is a another age it made no difference to American politics
29:13
this is quite interesting in practice Russia was still an enemy even
29:19
afterwards because it wasn’t really communism or ideology ology. It was
29:25
simply big powers. And in this, John Mirshimer is right
29:32
about the American mentality, which is that the United States sees
29:37
Russia as a threat, not because of any specific ideology, but because it is
29:43
big. And the United States sees China as a threat. not because of anything that
29:50
China does or is other than being big and successful.
29:56
And therefore, China’s only offense is that it threatens American dominance.
30:05
And that I think is a succinct description of the viewpoint of the
30:11
American leadership. Now to come back to my view of economics, this is a terrible
30:18
mistake. Not only on a moral level, but on a practical level. The United States
30:24
has 4% of the world population, 335 million people. How could 4% of the
30:32
world dominate the world? It’s not possible. except if all the rest of the
30:39
world were to remain poor, unsuccessful, backward, and so forth. But there’s no
30:47
not only no moral reason for that, there’s no practical reason why that should be the case. So I long believed
30:54
that poor countries can grow faster and catch up. And China, of course, is the
31:00
greatest success story in history of that. But China follows a basic pattern
31:06
that Japan followed previously, that uh Hong Kong, Singapore followed previously
31:14
because catching up is possible if the leadership is good, if the planning is good, if the strategy is good, there’s
31:22
all this headroom for rapid economic growth possible. And China proved the
31:28
case once again at a scale unprecedented in history.
31:33
So the US viewpoint about dominance makes no sense, not only not morally and
31:41
not practically in terms of security, because the world’s not safe if the US is rich and Russia is unstable with
31:49
nuclear weapons. Why does that make the US secure? That makes the US more dangerous. But it’s also wrong
31:55
economically because Russia will catch up. China will catch up. Africa will catch up and the
32:04
United States will find out that being 4% of the world population is just 4%.
32:10
It’s not enough to rule the world. It the US will have to learn to be cooperative and will have to learn that
32:18
state craft is more than overthrowing governments. But and here I will come to the point
32:24
about current politics. The US still does not understand this till today. And
32:32
the wars that we see and the crisis that we see are still crises of the old
32:41
imperial mentality. So the war in Ukraine
32:46
is a war that the US caused, not a war that Putin caused, but a war
32:52
that the US caused by expanding the military alliance NATO eastward and
33:02
trying to set up a military base or bases in Ukraine and in the South
33:09
Caucuses, especially the country of Georgia and
33:15
the Russian government said, “No, you can’t have military bases on our border. We don’t accept that. That’s that’s a
33:21
real security threat for us.” And the American position was, “It’s none of your business, Russia, what we do. If
33:29
Ukraine says yes, we’re going to put our missiles next to you.” And President
33:34
Putin said, “No, you’re not. That’s dangerous for us.” And the United States
33:40
said it’s none of your business. And so this is the essence of the Ukraine
33:47
conflict which is that the US said we can expand our military reach anywhere.
33:55
The Russians said not on our border and it finally came to war. Before it came
34:01
to war, the government in Ukraine in n in 2010 was very clever. It said, “We
34:08
want neutrality.” Huh? Well, read Thusidities. Uh, the Americans did not
34:14
accept Ukraine’s call for neutrality. What did the United States do to the
34:20
president who wanted neutrality? It overthrew that president in February
34:25
2014. So, the US made a coup together with Ukrainian forces. The US role was quite
34:34
obvious though it was denied. So we can call it a covert regime change
34:40
operation. I happen to have been told by some of the participants just how much the US
34:47
played a role. And at a crucial moment, a phone call by the US diplomat Victoria
34:56
Nuland was intercepted by the Russians and posted online and that call said the
35:03
next government should be so and so which was the next government actually. So the US chose the next government and
35:11
where is Victoria Nuland today? She is my colleague at Columbia University. So
35:17
this is the route to success. Make a coup and then you get to be a Colombia professor. Uh so this is uh the Ukraine
35:26
conflict. President Trump came into office saying I want to stop this war
35:33
because it’s useless and the Russians are winning on the battlefield. But interestingly, President Trump does
35:41
not have the power or the logic to stop
35:47
the war because he can’t say publicly the obvious. He can’t say to the
35:55
American people, NATO will not expand. If he says that, he’s declared, “You’re
36:01
a weakling. You’re a traitor. You’re making a concession to President Putin. You’re giving up. you’re uh on the
36:08
payroll of the Russians. And so the imperial logic still prevails even if
36:16
the individual as president might want to do something different. Of course,
36:22
none of us can figure out Donald Trump’s mentality, not even Donald Trump. So, we don’t know
36:29
what he really truly thinks, but what I know is that he seems to want to end the
36:36
Ukraine war, but does not have the political strength and the individual
36:41
leadership to end it because all around him is the militaryindustrial complex
36:48
that says the US can go where it wants.
36:53
Then comes the Middle East conflict. second conflict. This is also an
36:59
imperial conflict. It started, of course, as so many conflicts do, with
37:05
the British. And the conflict with Ukraine, by the way, started with the British because in 1853,
37:12
Britain went to war against Russia for exactly the same reason that the United States went to war against Russia in
37:19
2014. Britain said, “We need to weaken Russia in 1853.” So the war in Ukraine
37:28
is like the 19th century Crimean War. Almost the same actors, but the United
37:35
States wasn’t involved in the first one, but Britain was involved in both of them. When it comes to the Middle East,
37:41
this is also a crisis made by Britain. uh and it comes from World War I as you
37:49
know when Ottoman Empire uh which ruled the Middle East was defeated by the
37:58
Allied powers the US, France and Britain and Britain was the dominant imperial
38:05
power of the age especially in the Middle East. It ruled over Egypt. It
38:11
ruled over Aiden which is Yemen today
38:16
because this was the route to Britain’s empire in India the seaw route and so
38:21
Britain was very careful to control the whole sea lane from the Mediterranean to
38:28
India and India was the crown jewel of the British Empire. So at the end of
38:33
World War I when the Turkish Empire was defeated, Britain aimed to control all
38:40
of this territory. And it made many promises and many
38:46
contradictory promises to other powers. Britain told the Arabs, “You will
38:51
control this region.” Britain told the French, “You will control this region.”
38:56
Britain told the Jews, “You will control this region.” uh and of course Britain
39:03
ultimately wanted to control the region. So this was typical British imperial
39:09
deceit or duplicity. But one of the outcomes was the Balffor
39:16
declaration which in which Britain called for the establishment of a Jewish
39:23
homeland in what was a province of the Ottoman Empire and which was became
39:31
known as Palestine after World War I which was the ancient Roman name uh that
39:37
was used for this territory also. So Britain took over Palestine under the
39:44
League of Nations and it said that this would be a Jewish homeland. This is a
39:50
very complicated weird story because the Jewish
39:55
faith had his had its uh main temple in
40:03
this place 2,000 years earlier, but it had been banished from this place by the
40:10
Roman Empire in the year 135 AD. And now
40:15
it was recreating this ancient state. The only problem was that 95% of the
40:22
population was Arabs who did not want a Jewish homeland in this territory. But
40:29
Britain used its imperial power to force the inmigration
40:35
of people of Jewish religion, especially from Eastern Europe, to claim a part of
40:44
uh British controlled Palestine. And
40:49
a very long story that has led to a 100red years of crisis because there was
40:55
a local population. the local population resisted the incoming uh of uh migrants
41:03
from Europe especially and then after uh the state of Israel was established
41:10
from other regions of the world including the Middle East and South Asia and the mentality of the British of of
41:18
the uh Jewish state which was established in 1948 by the United
41:24
Nations was Our security depends on having no
41:31
Arab state next to us that opposes us. And so the idea of sharing
41:39
the land, which was a UN idea, was actually rejected by both sides in a
41:46
way. The Arabs said, “We’re the majority. We should rule.” And the Jews said, “We’re the minority. We need to
41:52
dominate because otherwise we won’t be safe.” And so this has led from 1948
41:59
until today to an unresolved war. But remember it this was a state
42:06
created by the British Empire and now backed by the US Empire. So, Israel
42:15
could not survive without the US being the imperial power
42:20
that enforces Israel’s uh power in the region because Israel is
42:26
just 8 million people. The Arab world is about 400 million people and Israel
42:33
therefore depends on its security entirely on the United States.
42:38
The United States has seen this as an imperial project that’s good for the United States because if the US
42:47
has control over the Middle East through Israel, well, that gives the US control
42:53
effectively militarily in the region. So, the US has backed Israel for many
43:00
decades during this period. It’s a very dangerous ongoing conflict.
43:08
because it is very unjust and Israel needs to use more and more
43:15
force in order to repress the aspirations of the Palestinian people.
43:22
And the more force that Israel uses, the more resistance there is. And we’ve
43:28
reached a point of violence that is unprecedented in modern times. Israel is committing a
43:34
genocide in Gaza right now, which is one part of the Palestinian lands. And every
43:41
day they’re slaughtering tens or hundreds of innocent people with open
43:47
fire. And today there was another massacre. People came for food and they
43:53
were just shot by the Israeli armed forces.
44:00
Iran, as you know, which is a long empire that has 5,000 years of history,
44:07
backed the Palestinian cause, and it supported resistance to Israel,
44:15
both the Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups, and in Yemen also the Houthi uh
44:23
militants. So, Israel has always had the idea we need to topple the
44:31
Iranian regime. Instead of saying we need to settle the Palestinian crisis by giving a state of
44:39
Palestine next door to a state of Israel, Israel has said we need to
44:45
overthrow the Iranian government so that they don’t bother us.
44:50
And Israel actually made a long list of governments that it wanted overthrown by
44:55
the United States because those governments were resisting Israel’s
45:01
attempt to control the region. And the list actually was made, literally made,
45:07
we want seven governments overthrown. And that list was unveiled in 2001
45:15
uh in a and one of our generals, General Wesley Clark, talked about this in an
45:21
amazing set of interviews. And the seven countries are Lebanon,
45:27
Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia,
45:33
Sudan, and Libya. So, seven countries that were supporting
45:40
the Palestinian cause and the Israeli government said to the Americans, “You
45:45
overthrow those seven governments.” Well, it’s not so easy. Those turned
45:51
into seven major wars. We had the war in Lebanon for many, many years. We had a
45:58
15-year war in Syria, which is still going on because the US tried to over or
46:04
did overthrow the Syrian government. We had the US invasion of Iraq in March
46:11
2003. We had the US bombing of Libya in 2011,
46:19
which created a civil war in Libya. We had the US supporting an insurgency in
46:26
Sudan to break Sudan into two countries, Sudan and South Sudan, both of which are
46:32
in civil war now. And we have had the US supporting interventions in Somalia,
46:40
which is an ongoing battleground as well. So the US, the one that was
46:46
missing up until two weeks ago or up until last month was Iran.
46:52
And the Israeli government was always begging the US, “Bomb Iran, bomb Iran,
46:58
bomb Iran.” And finally, Trump, who’s again not very smart,
47:06
not very effective, uh not very capable of resisting uh these kinds of demands,
47:14
said, “Okay, we’ll bomb Iran.” And the war, such as it was, lasted 12
47:21
days. Israel went in and assassinated dozens of people through its Mossad, the
47:29
Secret Service or the um spy agency, but
47:34
basically it’s an assassination unit. And the idea was to create a regime
47:39
change, but it failed. The government is intact. Uh and um the situation is more
47:47
dangerous than ever because Iran is a country of a 100 million people almost.
47:52
It’s a major country. It has big missile systems. It has a real military capacity
47:59
and it has an alliance with Russia and it has friendship with other nuclear
48:05
powers like Pakistan. So even if it doesn’t have its own nuclear weapons, maybe Pakistan will
48:11
give it nuclear weapons. Maybe Pakistan would defend Iran if there was a full-fledged war with Israel. So this is
48:20
the second region where imperial mentality lasts until today. The US is
48:27
unwilling to compromise on the imperial prerogatives.
48:33
So the final uh point that I want to raise and then close is the US China
48:39
confrontation and how dangerous it is.
48:44
As I said, the US got along well with China from the 1970s
48:52
to around 2010 in my estimation because China was viewed by America as poor.
49:01
lots of villages that grew rice. You could make uh our components for our
49:07
products, make our smartphones uh and so forth, but China wasn’t a
49:14
threat. And it was a good counterweight to the Soviet Union or to Russia. That
49:21
was the attitude. Not too much more. So, not too much attention given and not too
49:27
much concern. and ideology played no concern because during the cultural
49:35
revolution period uh which was not exactly American ideology this is when the relationship
49:43
was formed between Mao and Nixon then came the opening and that was an
49:50
opportunity for investment and trade that’s fine but ideology played no
49:57
special role started ing around 2010, the American leaders that were watching
50:04
this said, “Oh, this is China’s getting awfully big and uh rather successful.”
50:12
And then I think two announcements by China really opened up American eyes.
50:18
One was the belt and road initiative which was suddenly an economic financial
50:24
uh infrastructure initiative that had suddenly a 100 partner countries and the
50:30
US didn’t have anything like that and then the made in China 2025 program
50:37
which was a really brilliant initiative of China to identify 10 major technology
50:44
areas and set policies to make a major major advance in these areas. And this
50:51
is one of the most successful industrial policies I know of in history, the made in China 2025 because it really worked.
51:00
It really produced the EV revolution. It really produced uh the digital
51:06
revolution here. It really produced the renewable energy revolution. So it was very successful, but it terrified the
51:15
Americans suddenly. So starting around 2015, the whole view changed almost
51:22
suddenly in the United States. The view went from economic partnership to the
51:28
need to contain China, the need to do something to slow down China’s economic
51:35
advance. Okay, all of this is quite dumb in my view. Uh you don’t get ahead in
51:41
this world by stopping someone else. uh and uh there’s no reason to. You’re not
51:47
going to be better off. You’re not going to be safe. Uh it’s just a lose-lose
51:52
proposition if it’s successful and it probably wouldn’t be successful in any
51:57
event. It started under Obama, by the way. It didn’t start with Trump. It
52:02
started definitely under Obama and the uh Trans-Pacific Partnership idea, which
52:10
was the dumbest idea of trade policy that I know of, which was to make an
52:16
Asian trade system without China. How can you do that? China’s the main trade
52:22
country for all of Asia. But the United States had the idea, we’ll make an Asian
52:28
trade system without China. This is only in America uh could you have such
52:34
delusions. In any event, it started with Obama, it continued with Trump and it
52:42
also implicates Taiwan issue. Of course, this is the most dangerous flash point
52:48
of all, maybe the most dangerous in the whole world because the American
52:55
politicians because of this mindset do not know how to stay out of China’s
53:01
internal issues. And so rather than saying that’s not our problem uh you
53:08
settle this peacefully but uh it’s not our issue, the United States of course
53:14
is providing large flows of armaments to Taiwan. And the American political
53:20
leaders are talking openly about defending Taiwan and militarily
53:25
defending Taiwan. If China said, “We’re going to militarily defend the state of
53:31
Missouri or we’re going to militarily defend Texas or we’re going to
53:36
militarily defend California, it would not play very well in the US.” But the
53:43
US because of the imperial mentality cannot put itself in China’s position or
53:49
doesn’t care to because the US can determine what should be done. So just
53:55
to conclude, I view this issue as extremely dangerous and peace actually
54:02
depends on the good sense of the Taiwanese leaders, which is fragile because if a
54:10
Taiwanese president were to declare independence, all hell could break out
54:18
because the United States would not necessarily have any responsibility.
54:25
And this is why the situation is so dangerous. And if Taiwan were smart, and my feeling
54:33
is Taiwan could end up like Ukraine, destroyed in between two uh fighting giants.
54:42
And if Taiwan were smart, the first thing they should say is to the United
54:48
States, don’t send us any weapons, please. We don’t want a fight here. We’ll handle
54:56
our own diplomacy across the Taiwan Straits. Please quote don’t defend us
55:04
because we don’t want to end up like Ukraine caught between two giant powers.
55:11
So I’ll conclude here for our discussion to say that the world really is
55:18
dangerous right now because of this mindset on the one hand
55:23
that I’ve described in the US and at the same time because of changing reality. I
55:30
want to end on an optimistic note. If we can avoid conflict
55:37
because of the technological revolution, we really could have a world of shared
55:42
prosperity. And other regions of the world that seem hopeless right now, like African
55:49
countries, could really have 40 years of economic development if they would
55:58
follow China’s road map for how to do this. and they would end up as a
56:03
highincome continent alongside the rest of the world. So I’m actually basically
56:10
optimistic, worried, but optimistic. Thank you.
oooooo
Geure herriari, Euskal Herriari dagokionez, hona hemen gure apustu bakarra:
We Basques do need a real Basque independent State in the Western Pyrenees, just a democratic lay or secular state, with all the formal characteristics of any independent State: Central Bank, Treasury, proper currency1, out of the European Distopia and faraway from NATO, being a BRICS partner…
Euskal Herriaren independentzia eta Mikel Torka
eta
Esadazu arren, zer da gu euskaldunok egiten ari garena eta zer egingo dugun
gehi
MTM: Zipriztinak (2), 2025: Warren Mosler
(Pinturak: Mikel Torka)
Gehigarriak:
MTM klase borrokarik gabe, kontabilitate hutsa da
oooooo
1 This way, our new Basque government will have infinite money to deal with. (Gogoratzekoa: Moneta jaulkitzaileko kasu guztietan, Gobernuak infinitu diru dauka.)
