From the River to the Sea: Ibaitik Itsasora (133) eta Jeffrey Sachs

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

abu. 16

How Putin-Trump Alaska Summit was a masterstroke for Russia

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFCix71qv8)

In Alaska, US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded their high-stakes talks without a breakthrough on Ukraine.

Despite three hours of negotiations, Trump admitted, “There’s no deal until there’s a deal,” while Putin insisted the two had reached an “understanding” and warned Europe not to “torpedo progress”.

The war, the largest land conflict in Europe since 1945, continues unabated, with air raid sirens in Ukraine even as leaders talked. Trump pledged to brief President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and NATO allies before any next steps, signaling that peace remains elusive.

Key Takeaways from the Alaska Summit:

1. No Ceasefire, No Concrete Agreement

2. Putin’s Broad Agenda

3. European Anxiety

4. Kyiv’s Exclusion and Anger

5. Fighting Unabated During Talks

6. Symbolic Optics for Putin

Transkripzioa:

0:00

The Alaska summit will go down as

0:02

Putin’s big win at the cost of Donald

0:04

Trump’s high stakes meeting pulling off

0:07

very little in terms of deliverables for

0:09

Washington or Trump’s hope of a no peace

0:13

prize. Over eight clear factors, Putin

0:16

has come out stronger and the clear

0:19

winner.

0:22

[Applause]

0:28

There’s no other way to read this. The

0:31

mere fact that Vladimir Putin was

0:33

sitting across the table from a former

0:35

US president is a giant leap from being

0:38

labeled a global outcast. It is known

0:40

that there have been no summits between

0:44

Russia and the US for four years and

0:46

that’s a long time. This time was very

0:49

hard for bilateral relations and let’s

0:51

be frank they have fallen to the to the

0:54

lowest point since this the the cold

0:56

war. I think that’s not benefiting our

1:00

countries and the world as a whole. It

1:02

is apparent that sooner or later we have

1:05

to amend the situation to move on from

1:08

the confrontation to dialogue and in

1:10

this case a personal meeting between the

1:13

heads of state has been long overdue.

1:15

naturally um under the condition of

1:17

serious and painstaking work and this

1:19

work has been done in general. Me and

1:22

President Trump have very good direct

1:24

contact. We’ve spoken multiple times. We

1:27

spoke frankly on the phone

1:32

and um special envoy of the president

1:35

Mr. Witkov traveled out to Russia

1:37

several times.

1:46

Alaska wasn’t a low-key affair. Putin

1:48

used the international media glare to

1:50

pitch Russia as a legitimate trade

1:52

partner, pushing back against years of

1:55

sanctions in isolation.

1:57

Mr. Putin, will you commit to not

1:59

killing any more civilians?

2:02

Come on, guys. Thank you.

2:04

Mr. President,

2:05

thank you.

2:06

President Putin, why should President

2:08

Trump trust your word now?

2:11

It is clear that the US and Russian

2:15

investment and business potent

2:17

cooperation has tremendous potential.

2:19

Russia and the US can offer each other

2:21

so much in trade, digital, high-tech and

2:25

in space exploration.

2:27

[Music]

2:36

In fact, Putin dug in. He made it clear

2:39

Russia’s core security interests in

2:41

Ukraine are non-negotiable, framing it

2:44

effectively as a precondition for any

2:46

breakthrough in the future. Russia has

2:48

its own national interests. I expect

2:50

that today’s agreements will be the

2:53

starting point not only for the solution

2:55

of the Ukrainian issue, but also will

2:58

help us bring back business-like and

3:00

pragmatic relations between Russia and

3:01

the US. Even otherwise bully Trump

3:04

couldn’t do much to get Putin to budge.

3:07

So, uh, there’s no deal until there’s a

3:09

deal. I will call up NATO in a little

3:13

while. I will call up, uh, the various

3:16

people that I think are appropriate, and

3:18

I’ll, of course, call up President

3:19

Zalinsky and tell them about today’s

3:21

meeting.

3:25

[Music]

3:28

There was zero concession from Putin’s

3:30

side, no political bargain, no back

3:33

channel delusion. If anything, he

3:35

doubled down on calling EU and Zalinsky

3:38

out.

3:39

We expect that Kiev and European

3:41

capitals will perceive that

3:43

constructively and that they won’t throw

3:45

a wrench in the works. They will not

3:47

make any attempts to use some backroom

3:50

dealings to conduct provocations torpedo

3:53

the nent progress.

3:55

[Music]

4:01

Notice this. Not a single mention of a

4:04

ceasefire across the press conference.

4:07

Not one line suggesting Russia intends

4:09

to back off. That silence in fact was

4:13

the signal.

4:20

[Music]

4:25

Whether the West likes it or not, Russia

4:28

is firmly back in the conversation.

4:30

Incidentally, when the new

4:32

administration came to power, bilateral

4:34

trade started to grow.

4:37

It’s it’s still very symbolic. Still we

4:39

have a a growth of 20%. As I’ve said, we

4:42

have a lot of dimensions for joint work.

4:45

It is clear that the US and Russian

4:49

investment and business potent

4:51

cooperation has tremendous potential.

4:53

The Alaska summit itself becomes Putin’s

4:56

re-entry ticket to real politic.

4:59

[Music]

5:05

Strategically, Putin shifted the

5:07

pressure on to Trump, forcing him to

5:09

take the onus of dialing up NATO and

5:12

Zalinski for the next move.

5:14

I will call up NATO in a little while. I

5:17

will call up uh the various people that

5:21

I think are appropriate and I’ll of

5:22

course call up President Zalinsky and

5:24

tell them about today’s meeting. It’s

5:26

ultimately up to them. I’m going to have

5:28

to agree with what Marco and Steve and

5:32

some of the great people from the Trump

5:35

administration who’ve come here, Scott

5:37

and John Radcliffe. Thank you very much.

5:47

And finally, call it what it is,

5:50

Washington legitimized Putin. They

5:53

rolled out the red carpet. That’s a

5:55

symbolic victory. And Putin knows the

5:57

value of that symbolism better than

5:59

anyone.

6:07

Putin came to Alaska with a plan. He’s

6:10

walked out with a win.

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

Jeffrey Sachs BREAKS DOWN Trump Zelensky ‘PEACE’ Summit

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0IgICec6RE)

Krystal and Saagar are joined by Jeff Sachs to discuss the Trump Ukraine summit.

Transkripzioa:

0:03

Good morning everybody. Happy Tuesday. Have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have Crystal? Indeed we do. We got a big show today.

0:08

The one and only Professor Jeffrey Saxs is going to join us to be able to break down that big Ukraine summit from

0:14

yesterday. So really looking forward to hearing what he thought of everything that has transpired to the state. Um we

0:21

also had some other interesting sound come from Trump uh as a part of that summit talking about how he’s getting rid of mail-in ballots. He also posted

0:27

true social to the same effect. also sort of floating the idea of hey maybe for a war we just don’t have an election

0:32

so he wants to copy Ukraine got the idea lot to uh lot to take note of there and break down also we are asking the

0:38

question whether Gavin Newsome is going to meme his way to the presidency um he seems to be making some progress in that

0:44

regard very interesting dynamics unfolding there a little bit of weird horseshoe going on as well so uh we’ll

0:50

break that down for you the ADL chief is just outright lying about Zoron Mandani so we’ve got the receipts on that and

0:56

some uh quite noteworthy developments visa the Israel Hamas has accepted a ceasefire deal. I wouldn’t get too

1:02

excited yet because, you know, the Israelis will probably decide they just want to continue the war. But we did want to give you those details as well

1:08

as some other updates. Um, before we jump into the show and this interview with Professor Saxs, Sagra had uh some

1:15

great breaking news yesterday, very significant. Why don’t you break down for folks what you uh what you found and were able to get your hands on

1:20

for our premium members. I dropped it last night uh just to get ahead of the news, but basically uh you’ll remember

1:26

the story about Tom Alexandervich uh the Israeli government official who was caught up in an FBI uh child sex sting.

1:33

Actually got my hands on uh some of the arrest documents and specifically the interview notes. And what we found

1:38

inside of the documents is that Alexanderich immediately identified himself as an Israeli government official. The FBI and HSI agents who

1:46

interviewed him uh basically said, “We’re going to contact the embassy on your behalf.” This directly contradicts the prime minister’s office who said

1:51

that they didn’t know that he had been arrested. He said that he said I need to get on a flight to Israel immediately.

1:57

Like he was making it clear I need to arrange for my international travel back to Israel after being caught up in the

2:03

sting. And more most importantly he was here basically on government business to

2:08

attend a quote black hack conference for cyber security professionals. He had met with FBI agents and an upcoming meeting

2:15

with the NSA. So with our own security establishment. This is all on the record

2:20

here uh from the documents that we were able to review. So, we did drop that early for our premiums and uh you know,

2:25

if you can help support journalism like that, breaking points.com if you’re able. We’re not keeping it behind the payw wall or anything. I’m going to

2:31

release it all publicly today, but it was important to give it to our premium subscribers first. The other detail there is the um

2:37

undercover agent who was posing as a 15year-old. Oh, I didn’t I didn’t even talk about the actual crime. It’s disgusting.

2:44

That’s what what you know is alleged to have occurred here is um he was arranging to meet up with this

2:50

15year-old girl for the explicit purposes of sexual contact. Unbeknownst to him, this was, you know, an

2:56

undercover agent who was going to take her to Cirto sole and classy very disgusting. Utterly

3:01

disgusting. This is the guy that the government was like, “Oh, let’s just make sure you get on a flight to Israel.” Linda escaped scotfree.

3:06

Meanwhile, the other people who were caught up in this thing, you know, were are under arrest, have court days, etc. So,

3:11

right. Very interesting. Interesting. Interesting indeed. We will continue to follow the case. I’m hoping to get some more. And uh by the way, if

3:18

you are in uh the Henderson Police Department, the FBI, the HSI, if you are involved in this investigation in any

3:25

way and you want to talk, hit me up. Let’s let’s talk. All right? Because uh you know, I will be knocking on your

3:30

door and I will be uh beating down your door or I guess virtually uh to try and get on the phone. There’s still several

3:36

leads that I would like to follow up on. There’s some very interesting stuff uh potentially behind the scenes. Uh anyway, with that, we’ve got Professor

3:42

Jeffrey Saxs standing by. Let’s get to it. We are very excited now to be joined by our friend, Professor Jeffrey Saxs,

3:48

uh who is obviously a major geopolitical expert. He’s going to help us break down the Trump, Ukraine, and European summit

3:54

that happened yesterday. Professor, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Great to be with you. So, professor, first we’re going to go

4:00

through this so that you can help break this down through the audience kind of clip by clip and each one of those things that it represents. To us, the

4:06

major headline that came out of the summit was Trump not ruling out United States troops on the ground in Ukraine

4:13

to provide some sort of article 5 style security guarantee inside of Ukraine is

4:19

some sort of grand peace deal with Russia. Here’s Trump refusing to rule it out. Your team has talked about security

4:24

guarantees. Could that involve US troops? Would you rule that out in the future? Uh, we’ll let you know that maybe later

4:30

today. We’re meeting with seven great leaders of great countries also and

4:36

we’ll be talking about that. They’ll all be involved. But there’ll be a lot of uh there’ll be a lot of help when it comes

4:42

to security. There’s going to be a lot of help. It’s going to be good. Uh they are first line of defense because

4:48

they’re there. They’re Europe. But we’re going to help them out also. We’ll be involved. We’ll be involved, professor. So not

4:54

refusing to or basically refusing to rule out uh not putting US troops on the ground. Uh there were several other

5:00

instances during the meeting where this quote article 5 style guarantee was brought up by many of the European

5:06

leaders. Of course, we’re hearing from the Kremlin, but first we want your reaction to what that would mean to the

5:12

overall situation and uh Trump’s rhetoric here and what it could potentially mean for any sort of peace deal. Well, I I don’t believe we’ve just

5:19

had 11 years of war and that the war is about to stop uh because uh the United

5:25

States or Europe says they’re going to have troops on the ground or article 5 like agreements. This whole war started

5:32

because the United States was pushing NATO uh to surround Russia and as far

5:39

eastward as they could get. So, um I

5:45

don’t think that the Russian side is going to say sure, whatever you like. Uh what what we saw

5:53

yesterday was a I wouldn’t say a master class, but it was a a class in ambiguity

5:59

on everything. Nothing was clear. Nothing was very truthful. Nothing was

6:06

settled. Uh but there is a general recognition that Ukraine is losing on

6:13

the battlefield. A general fact that the United States uh political scene is not

6:18

going to continue any large-scale war uh proxy or otherwise with Russia. And so

6:26

that something should be uh done to end this. But the specifics are as vague as

6:34

can be uh and deliberately so. And Trump thinks that uh the way to make deals is

6:43

uh to proaricate to make things vague to

6:48

keep things behind the scenes to pull each person in as his buddy to say yes

6:55

to everything in an oblique way. But it’s not going to end with the article 5

7:01

like guarantees in in my view. Yeah. Uh the Russians have been fighting against

7:06

that basically for more than 30 years. Uh they’ve been in a hot war over it for

7:12

11 years because this war started in February 2014 when the United States uh

7:18

conspired in a coup to overthrow a neutralist government. And the Russians

7:24

aren’t going to just say, “Yeah, Trump, you’re our buddy. You put troops if you

7:30

want.” I don’t believe it. I think it would also be a terrible idea if the United States had troops in Ukraine.

7:36

Yeah. Well, and to your point, you could put A4 up on the screen, guys. Kremlin negatively reacting to that proposal of

7:43

uh article 5 like security guarantees. Certainly no surprise there. You know, just zooming out a bit, professor, I

7:49

just love to get your thoughts on what are the core sticking points for the Russians. What would be a deal that they

7:56

would be interested in? What sort of conditions would um the US, the Ukrainians, the Europeans, the West

8:01

broadly have to meet in order to conclude some sort of a a grand peace deal and bring this war to a close?

8:08

We have to understand where the war came from and therefore how it can end. The

8:14

war started uh with the the continuation of the cold war after 1991.

8:21

People thought there was peace, but the CIA, the militaryindustrial complex continued the effort to weaken

8:30

Russia. Bjinski talked about uh Russia

8:35

falling into three pieces in a 1997 article saying that maybe there’ll be a

8:41

loose confederation of a European Russia, a Siberian Russia, a Far East Russia. But the US design was that

8:49

Russia should finally basically be crushed. Uh that the cold war was with the Soviet Union, but we’re not over

8:55

yet. We’re dominant. We won. And on that basis, Clinton began NATO enlargement. I

9:02

say Clinton because basically every president then did the bidding of the military-industrial complex. Clinton,

9:09

Bush, Obama, Trump won, Biden, and uh maybe this is going to end this crazy uh

9:19

misadventure. But uh this has been 30 years of trying to push NATO to Ukraine

9:26

and to Georgia, by the way, in the South Caucuses where the US meddling continues to this day. The idea is Russia is a big

9:34

country and therefore it should be a weak country according to the US

9:39

strategic doctrine. Okay. We overthrew a government in February 2014, installed a

9:46

pro-NATO regime. Russia immediately took back Crimea at that moment because uh

9:55

the postcoup government in Ukraine said, “Okay, we want Russia out of its black

10:02

fleet naval base in Crimea.” That’s a naval base that Katherine the Great

10:07

established in 1783 and that has been core to Russia’s uh national security

10:14

and power since 1783. The United States and let’s say the deep

10:23

state said we want Russia out of there. That was the same idea of the British and the French in 1853 have tried to get

10:30

Russia out of Crimea in the Crimean War. Okay, enough history. The basic point is

10:36

Russia does not want to be surrounded. It does not want NATO present. It does not want security guarantees like

10:44

Article 5. It does not want Western troops on the ground. It wants Ukraine

10:49

at a minimum to be a neutral buffer zone between the United States and its

10:55

proxies and allies and Russia. That’s the bottom line. So starting point no

11:02

NATO similarly nothing that’s

11:07

NATO like uh or NATO light of you know

11:12

French and British troops and German troops and that’s what the whole war has been about. Second Crimea is never going

11:19

back. This is absolutely clear. This was a gambit. It was a this was a ploy of

11:26

NATO to grab Crimea. And the whole idea which Bjinsky spelled out in 1997 was if

11:33

if we can basically get Ukraine and push Russia out of the Black Sea, then Russia

11:39

has no power in the Middle East. It has no power in the eastern Mediterranean. Uh and that was part of the strategy. So

11:46

Crimea staying. Then come the uh territories that Russia has annexed as

11:53

of November 2022. This is two in the east and two in the south. The idea of this goes back

12:03

to uh two points. One is that at least in the east these are overwhelmingly

12:08

ethnically Russian right regions the Donbas and Russia said in

12:15

2015 make them autonomous we don’t want them as territory but make them autonomous

12:21

under a treaty called the Minsku agreement the United States typically because it was still in its expansionist

12:28

mode said no told Ukraine you don’t have to honor that agreement Russia did not

12:35

claim those territories. It just said leave them alone to have the Russian language, Russian ethnicity and so

12:42

forth. And Ukraine in the post coup environment said no, we uh will take

12:48

them in a unitary state. So Russia grabbed those back. Now it’s claimed those back because the Mids 2 agreement

12:55

failed. The reason why I think the map is quite important, sir, is if you look at the red areas, this is I guess this is I

13:02

mean probably as accurate as it gets. This is the United States, you know, intelligence community creating this map

13:08

for the president in the Oval Office which he used. And as you were talking, you can actually see the percentage

13:13

numbers that have been listed here by the US intelligence community. If we zoom in, we can see some 70 to 80 to 90%

13:21

of many of these provinces like you were talk or sorry these areas like you were talking about and they’re controlled by

13:27

Russia. So you can just as you can see from that map, it backs up much of what you’re saying. So the basic idea is that

13:34

uh ironically before the United States made the coup in February 2014, Russia

13:41

was not claiming these territories at all. Not at all. We blew it for Ukraine

13:47

because this is so typical of the CIA by the way. Uh we lose for our supposed

13:54

friends. So when uh the coup came and uh

14:00

Kiev that is the new central government in uh the postcool Ukraine said we’ll

14:08

crack down on the ethnic Russian regions in the east and the south. A treaty was

14:15

uh brokered by Russia to stop what was then a beginning war called the Minsk

14:21

one and then the Minsk 2 agreements. And the idea was that those regions especially the two in the east uh

14:29

Lugansk and Donetsk would be uh autonomous. Interestingly by the way

14:35

just a little footnote the model of that was a European model in Italy. There is

14:43

a Germanspeaking region called South Turroll which has autonomy within Italy.

14:50

Actually, Chancellor Merkel, who was then the German chancellor, knew about that and said that the Minsk 2 agreement

14:56

can be modeled like South Troll. In other words, an autonomous region in

15:02

Italy, but of German speakers, but very peaceful, very successful, very beautiful, wonderful skiing and tourism

15:09

by the way. And um they said that could be the solution. The United States wasn’t

15:16

having it. uh and the extremist nationalists in Ukraine were not having

15:22

it. They said no, no autonomy, unitary state, and they blew the chance to keep

15:28

those provinces because after Russia’s invasion, they control almost all of it.

15:34

Now, that’s what the shaded areas of the map are. Uh the the battle line control,

15:40

the battlefield control that Russia has over these areas. Now where does that

15:45

bring us till today? Uh Ukraine cannot win back those territories other than

15:53

through a massive war which could again be a a massive failure, massive deaths,

16:01

a massive escalation to nuclear war. So it can’t really win those back. Ukraine

16:07

has said every day, “We’ll never give up a a a square meter of our territory.

16:15

Impossible. This is all ours.” The European leaders who were there yesterday have parited that line. Well,

16:24

what’s the alternative? The alternative then is the fighting continues. If the

16:29

fighting continues as it’s continuing now, Russia will simply take those

16:35

regions physically, it will proceed to take more territory by the way of

16:41

Ukraine and eventually I think on the current scenario Ukraine would simply be

16:46

conquered. The hardline wararmongers and Mertz is a true wararmonger. Uh he is

16:55

really disgusting in my view by the way. awful chancellor. Just unbelievable.

17:01

Every word he says is more war. Basically, they say, “Sure, let’s

17:06

escalate. We won’t give up an inch.” Well, this already has been the last 11

17:12

years. I don’t think Trump wants that. I don’t think his MAGA base wants that. I don’t think the American people want

17:18

that. The Ukrainian people don’t want that. The most recent Gallup survey in Ukraine said, “Stop this war. were

17:26

exhausted. More than a million Ukrainians have died. So all of this is

17:32

to say that no NATO, a neutral Ukraine,

17:39

Crimea is ours, and these four territories are contested. What is

17:45

likely to happen is some de facto recognition that Russia controls these

17:52

that there will be a permanent peace. Maybe Ukraine in the end will not

17:58

recognize them. Dejour, but uh if the war ends, it will end with these areas

18:05

being under just to say permanent Russian control. Just to back you up on the Mertz point,

18:12

the German chancellor set a condition which seems very important because one of the goals of this meeting was to

18:19

eventually lead to a meeting between Donald Trump, Vladimir Zalinski and uh

18:24

Vladimir Putin. What has now come out is that there is a disagreement within the European Union and by these major NATO

18:31

powers as to the preconditions for that meeting. Chancellor Merse was probably

18:36

the most pessimistic in his language, demanding an immediate ceasefire as a precondition. Guys, let’s go ahead and

18:43

take a listen, please. A3, we all would like to see a ceasefire,

18:49

the latest from the next meeting on. I can’t imagine that the next meeting

18:54

would took place without a ceasefire. So let’s work on that and let’s try to put

19:00

pressure on Russia because the credibility of this efforts these efforts we are undertaking today are

19:06

depending on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations from next step on. So I

19:14

would like to emphasize this aspect and would like to see a ceasefire from the

19:19

next uh meeting which should be a trilateral meeting wherever it takes

19:25

place. So you could see he says an immediate ceasefire. He was the most pessimistic in his language, but he was

19:31

backed up by Emanuel Mcronone. One of the things I also took note of is that even though Donald Trump in his truth

19:37

social post after the meeting said there will be a meeting between Zilinsky and Putin and then eventually a trilateral,

19:44

there was no such mention of any future meeting with Putin by Zalinski in his p

19:49

comments afterwards. It seems to be one that Trump wants to happen. So this precondition of a ceasefire seems to be

19:56

the way that the both the European Union, the major NATO powers in Zilinsky can get out of any future diplomacy or

20:02

do am I seeing it wrong? You know, nobody speaks in a

20:07

straightforward way. Maybe that’s to be expected, but it’s it also is why we’re

20:13

at war endlessly because there’s dishonesty everywhere. There was no

20:19

straightforward discussion. what are the alternatives? Uh Mertz,

20:25

he hasn’t said one thing that I’ve agreed with since he became chancellor.

20:30

And I I would say that that’s basically true of the German people also because

20:36

Mertz’s popularity is in a free fall or his approval rating, let’s say, is in a

20:42

freef fall. It’s down to around 30%. He came in with the majority support as

20:48

you do when you’ve won an election and it’s in freef fall because he doesn’t make any sense. Russia will not agree to

20:55

a ceasefire without a solution to the issues that we’ve been discussing. That’s been

21:02

Russia’s position understandably by the way in my opinion from the start. Well,

21:08

we are at war for reasons. uh vanlowvitz the the German war theorist of the 19th

21:15

century famously said that war is a continuation of politics with other

21:21

means and so this is a very important observation this is a war about politics

21:28

it’s a war about NATO it’s a war about USRussia relations it’s a war about the

21:35

US overthrowing governments with impunity by the way It seems to be a rule that

21:41

once you’ve overthrown a few governments, you retire to Columbia University as my colleague because we

21:47

have Victoria Nuland, we have Hillary Clinton, we have Mike Pompeo. I don’t

21:53

know. And they teach diplomacy. This is unbelievable to me. But uh this this is

21:58

part of what this war is about, which is uh that the US acted with impunity after

22:04

1991 and told us that they would. The Project for New American Century said,

22:10

“Hey, we’re not only the big kid on the block, we’re the only kid on the block. We’re the sole superpower. We are the

22:17

world’s policemen. We are the world’s hgeimon. We do what we want.” That’s what this war was about originally.

22:25

Now, Trump, I think, probably understands uh that uh the

22:33

American people are just sick of this. By the way, uh it’s endless wars. It’s

22:39

not only this war. It’s the wars throughout the Middle East that Israel uh wangles us into. Uh absolutely

22:47

destructive and vile wars. And the American people are sick of it. Nobody speaks straightforwardly.

22:54

Trump doesn’t explain after Alaska or after yesterday anything. There’s no speech from the Oval Office. There’s no

23:00

explanation. We’re in a different time from the time that I used to remember. Not that things were perfect, but if

23:06

President Kennedy wanted to achieve a a treaty with the Soviet Union, he’d give

23:12

a speech and then people would analyze the speech and understand it and so forth. Now we have true social posts

23:18

that are completely ambiguous, mean nothing, and we’re trying to parse what the words mean and can be reversed the next day, by the

23:25

way, the exact opposite thing the next day when he’s with someone else. Um, I wanted to ask you about uh how Zalinsky

23:32

figures into all of this. Let’s say that the vibes between him and Trump were very different this time than the last

23:38

time Zinsky was in the Oval Office. Let’s go ahead guys and play A2. We had very good conversation with

23:43

President Trump. Very good. And it really was the best one uh or sorry maybe the best one will be in the

23:50

future but it was really good and we spoke about very sensitive points. Uh

23:56

the first one is security guarantees and we are very happy with president that all the leaders are here and the

24:03

security in Ukraine depends on the United States and on you and on those

24:08

leaders who are with us and professor uh Zagardi both noted he seems to have like really been working

24:13

on his English clearly he realizes that it’s very important he’s able to have an effective relationship with President

24:20

Trump here but you know you said earlier it seems like the Ukrainian people are exhausted want to bring this war to a

24:26

close. It’s not clear that their president is on board with that. You know, what do you make of his role and his positioning and what he wants to see

24:33

going forward? First, it’s important to understand that there is martial law in Ukraine. Uh we

24:40

watch the videos also of people being forcibly knocked off their bicycles or

24:46

dragged off the street to the front line to their death. uh and Solinski is ruling over a military regime, not a

24:55

democracy. His democratic uh term of office expired

25:01

years ago and he continues to rule by martial law basically by by decree. So I

25:08

don’t give any uh I don’t give any legitimacy to his statements as

25:14

reflecting the will of the Ukrainian people. uh this is a starting point.

25:20

I’ve never really admired what he’s done because rather than signing a peace

25:25

agreement that he had in front of him in April 2022, that would have ended this

25:30

war on far better terms than anything that’s going to happen now. He let the

25:36

United States talk him out of that. Maybe he’s a mere puppet anyway, but

25:42

instead of signing an agreement that was on the table on April 15th, 2022 in the

25:47

so-called Istanbul process, he walked away from a peace agreement. Since then, has lost massive territory and probably

25:54

a million Ukrainian dead. So, I’m no fan, I have to say, no admirer. I’m no

25:59

believer that this is defending Ukrainian democracy. There is no democracy. Uh and so one of the things

26:05

that makes the idea that if Zilinski meets with Putin, he’s shown to be on

26:12

the big stage globally and then he can maintain his power either through

26:17

winning a re-election perhaps or just expanding and extending

26:23

his military rule. But this seems to be the carrot that Trump is dangling to

26:30

Zilinski. I’ll put you on the big stage. We won’t overthrow you. Uh we won’t let

26:35

Putin diss you. You’ll have respect, but you have to give in on this, this, and

26:40

this. So, frankly, you know, Zalinski is uh look, he’s

26:47

losing a war on the battlefield. He doesn’t have the public support. He rules by martial law. By all accounts,

26:54

which I I can’t personally verify, but by all accounts, the regime is incredibly corrupt. Uh and um so not

27:03

only am I no fan, I I think probably what Trump is trying to do is uh to uh

27:10

appeal to the the most narrow and basist

27:16

uh survival instincts of Zalinski himself and dangling this uh meeting

27:23

with Putin, the big stage summit as the prize and then getting Zalinski in one

27:31

way or another to uh ba basically uh end the rhetoric of fighting on to restore

27:39

the 1991 borders. I think that’s what’s happening. Last thing we wanted your take on sir is

27:44

some of the continuation because you know the threat from the United States is well if this doesn’t work we’ll just

27:50

go to more sanctions as if Russia is not the most sanctioned country in the world. Already we’ve actually seen we

27:56

can put uh A7 please here on the screen. Both Lindsey Graham and the White House adviser Peter Navaro say that India’s

28:03

quote Russian crude oil buying must stop. Of course, even the imposition of 50% tariffs on India has not changed

28:11

their behavior uh a single iota. In fact, Narendra Modi is posting about phone calls with President Putin just

28:18

yesterday. Uh I believe I was reading this morning uh that the Chinese foreign minister is actually in New Delhi as of

28:25

this morning meeting with the Indian foreign minister. So they’re basically holding up a middle finger uh to the US

28:30

in response to these tariffs. So it does appear that many of the cards that are supposedly left to play both by the

28:36

Europeans and the US don’t really exist if they want to put any more quote pressure on Russia.

28:42

Lindsey Graham is the worst senator in the US Senate. I just want to be on the record stating that. I will state that

28:47

every show you have me on. He’s he’s a fool. Just a fool. Okay, let me put that

28:53

aside to get on to the substance. Um the imposition of the uh 25% penalty tariff

29:03

on India was the stupidest tactical move of US foreign policy

29:11

for a long time. And that’s saying a lot. By the way, I couldn’t make a list of the top 10, the top 20.

29:17

I’d like to see that list, professor. Yes, we talk about that sometime. But but uh what it did overnight was uh

29:28

unify the bricks countries as never before. That is Brazil, Russia, India,

29:34

China, and South Africa. I watched it, by the way, pretty close up, actually, because I know the leaders in all of

29:40

these countries within 24, 48 hours, there was a flurry

29:45

of calls. Brazil with India, Brazil with Russia, Brazil with China, China with India, China with Russia.

29:53

Donald Trump was the great unifier of the bricks. Uh, and uh, wonderful. Okay,

30:00

I like the bricks, by the way. So, I I have no I have no problem with that. But the opposite of what Lindsey Graham

30:08

conceivably could have been thinking or Peter Navaro who

30:14

okay I’ll put him on the list of probably the most incompetent PhD that my former department ever granted. Uh he

30:22

is a PhD in economics uh that apparently learned nothing. Certainly didn’t take my class. uh but in any event going

30:31

after India a country that the US has been cultivating for strategic and diplomatic

30:39

relations and it’s it’s a long story but trying to get India on side against

30:44

China and the so-called quad arrangement and so many things and Trump ended it

30:50

overnight because by the way even if this 25% tariff penalty is removed and I

30:57

think It probably will be. The Indians learned a lesson that I was trying to tell them, by the way, for years. You

31:03

cannot trust the United States. And they, no, no, we’ve got the inside track. We’ve got good relations. No, you

31:10

don’t. There’s no ability to have a trusting relationship with the United States. This is improv land

31:18

and you’re not going to get the kind of relationship that you think. Well, everybody in India understands that

31:24

completely. Not only have the BRICS countries been pulled together, but in the media in India in the print and

31:32

online media nonstop, we covered some of that days and days. What is the United

31:40

States doing? We have to find our friends and so forth. So, this was a

31:45

blunder that has zero practical import of getting anyone to any negotiating

31:50

tables. Zero. But it completely undermined one strand of US foreign

31:58

policy built up for years. I don’t like that strand. So I like the bricks. So

32:03

good. The bricks are much stronger and more united now than ever. Fine. Donald Trump united them. Peter Navaro united

32:10

them. Lindsey Graham united them. Congratulations. Totally agree. Um, Professor, thank you so much for

32:17

spending some time with us and helping us understand all these issues. We’re going to have you back to get that top 10 list, though. Yeah, we do. Thank you

32:22

very much, sir. Okay, let’s do that. That’ll be fun. All right, thanks a lot. Have a great day. Great to be with you.

32:27

Hey, if you like that video, hit the like button or leave a comment below. It really helps get the show to more people. And if you’d like to get the full show,

32:34

ad free and in your inbox every morning, you can sign up at breakingpoints.com. That’s right. Get the full show. Help

32:40

support the future of independent media at breakingpoints.com.

ooooo

“Trump Is Not Intelligent Enough To End The War”, Prof Jeffrey Sachs | Full Q&A

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3-s0HUlrkA)

Transkripzioa:

0:00

My name is Wat Albert. I’m an independent video person focusing on international relations and I’ve been a

0:07

big fan of of both of you thoughts writings and videos people recognize the world shifting from

0:14

uniolar to water polar. So many people believe that EU could become one independent poll. So uh uh do you see

0:22

potential for Europe to become a true dependent uh poll and how should China

0:27

engage with Europe today? Well, I just came back from Europe from Berlin uh last week. You know uh

0:35

European EU officials are still pretty arrogant to be honest. You know they

0:41

want to say please China get rid of Russia and then we open up whatever

0:47

trade relation. I said my goodness you know you have to wake up you don’t have independence you don’t have autonomy I

0:54

said China like a bullet tree we don’t wait for you to wake up so I really we are deeply disappointed with EU it’s

1:02

does not have its real foreign policy security policy it’s become vessel state of United States until it wakes up to

1:10

its own interest we don’t wait for them that’s it I think uh

1:15

the European situation is um uh rather

1:21

surprising in that Europe lacks any effective diplomacy right now. That’s

1:28

true visav China and true visav Russia. Uh they meet uh with President Zinski

1:35

every day, but that’s not diplomacy. Uh this is a failure of diplomacy.

1:41

uh there’s no negotiation between Europe and

1:49

Russia to find a security arrangement which would not be hard to find actually

1:55

at the same time the and what are the problems there are multiple problems but

2:01

one of the problems is there’s no Europe as Europe still uh so the European Union

2:08

is not really a union in the end of the day. It it hasn’t made a real

2:15

unification. It’s too weak. Foreign policy is still the prerogative of individual countries and the countries

2:23

are quite divided in outlook. There’s also a uh

2:30

there are many puzzles by the way on this uh I have to say because I know these countries very well. I know their

2:37

governments well. They tell me things in private that are opposite of what they say in public. So

2:43

I find the whole situation very unnerving um and a big failure for

2:50

Europe as uh uh as you just heard. When it comes to Europe and China,

2:57

part of the problem is that Europe blindly follows the US. Part of the

3:03

problem is Europe is again uh not well

3:09

led right now because Europe’s interests are trade with China for sure. Uh this no question

3:18

uh this would be the key for Europe to actually recover some economic dynamism.

3:25

The United States resists that and many countries just follow the US and Europe

3:32

many European governments are confused about this. What I believe

3:39

uh one of the things I hope could be the case is that

3:46

actually some of the other uh independent actors in this drama in

3:51

Eurasia could help to bring Europe and China effectively closer together. And

3:58

I’ll give you one little example. I was in uh central Asia last week and meeting

4:05

with especially the government of Usbekistsan. They have the concept of uh the five

4:13

central Asian countries which is Turkmanistan, Nuzbekiststan, Kazakhstan,

4:18

Tajjikstan and Kyrgystan forming a middle corridor that connects China and

4:24

Europe because this is the old belt silk road. uh and they want to form a

4:31

transport and digital and environmental corridor

4:36

which makes a lot of sense. So I advise them of course ask China to

4:44

participate in the belt and road initiative. Ask Europe to participate in their

4:51

global gateway and say to both sides, we’d like the two of you to work together on this common

5:00

effort. In other words, Central Asia could be kind of a little bit of a magnet pulling

5:07

Europe and China into a common practical effort because they’re in between and

5:14

they need both sides. I don’t know whether this will work, but it’s what I

5:20

am going to try to to promote. In other words, find practical ways for Europe

5:26

and China to work together on the infrastructure, the modernization of

5:31

Eurasia, the investment in green technology and so forth and put aside

5:37

the ideological claims and so forth and try to get practical and very

5:43

operational. So, I’m not giving up on Europe in this. Um but Europe is not an

5:49

effective partner with China right now because of their internal divisions, their ideology, their dependence on the

5:56

United States, their fear factor, their arrogance. It’s not working properly.

6:03

We mentioned professor several times in the lecture. uh in his book he point out is logic has

6:12

influence on American foreign policy in so what kind of role do you think of the

6:18

new are in this conflict so given the fact that Iran uh was actually step by

6:26

step on the inration do you think they have fresh time to intervene the

6:32

conflict directly for example depend the big problem and second another friend of

6:37

yours published his interview with president

6:42

about two weeks ago. So in the interview I also mentioned Iran and the US who on

6:50

the negotiating table and they were attacked by Israel. Yes. So in terms of

6:56

reentering the negotiation so it point out the key point is that uh how is

7:01

going to trust uh US again? So uh how do you qualify the set uh for diplomacy in

7:10

201 uh do you think US will take some

7:16

actions to trans on the question of why the United States

7:25

aligns so closely with Israel or with what the government in Israel wants. I

7:32

think that there are uh three explanations.

7:38

The first is that the uh US security state

7:43

views Israel uh as a part of the security apparatus of the United States.

7:52

And the links between the CIA and Mossad, for example, are very deep, very

7:58

operational, and very long-term. So the military-industrial complex or

8:05

the neoconservative uh movement views Israel as a major

8:12

strategic ally. Uh there’s also of course the uh Zionist

8:20

lobby so-called which is an ideological lobby uh that supports the cause of

8:27

Israel. whatever the government of Israel is saying is the cause of Israel.

8:33

And there are two different Israel lobbies or Zionist lobbies which are

8:38

quite interesting. One is a Christian lobby or Christian support for Israel

8:46

which is politically very powerful in the United States for uh very um

8:55

uh bizarre reasons. in my opinion, but in the in some versions of Christianity,

9:04

especially what we call Protestant evangelical Christianity,

9:09

the belief is that the Jewish state is part of the prophecy of God that must be

9:16

fulfilled in order to bring the return of Jesus Christ. So, it’s a very

9:23

religious idea. It’s an interpretation of the last book of the Christian Bible,

9:31

the book of Revelation. And it’s a very influential idea among one group of

9:39

Christians, not Catholics, not many other Christian groups, but one group.

9:46

That group has millions of Americans in it. Uh, and by my count, more than 40%

9:55

of Trump’s voters were part of that Christian Protestant evangelical

10:03

group. They are very pro-Israel. And they’re pro-Israel because of a book

10:09

written 25,500 years ago, not because of events today, but they interpret today’s

10:16

events as prophecies by God.

10:22

It’s a little strange, but it’s true. Then there’s the Jewish lobby because

10:28

Israel is a Jewish state and most American Jews have supported Israel and

10:35

many American Jews are wealthy and in positions of influence and major

10:42

campaign contributors and major supporters of Israel. By number the

10:48

number of Jews is much much much smaller than the number of Christian evangelicals. It’s

10:55

uh 10 to one. Uh so it’s a huge difference. Um but in terms of uh social

11:05

political weight, it’s a major grouping as well. So

11:13

it’s hard to evaluate exactly where this influence comes from entirely. Uh

11:20

there’s also theories that Israel has successfully blackmailed

11:27

many American politicians. That’s what this so-called Epstein affair is about

11:33

because the claim which I find to be believable is that Epstein was a Mossad

11:41

agent that was being used to blackmail American the American political class or

11:48

much of it. I think this is quite plausible although I I don’t know I

11:54

can’t prove it but it’s well well documented in many ways. So there are

12:00

many ways that this lobby has influence, but saying all of that, it’s very

12:08

detrimental to American interests. And a president that truly represented

12:13

American interests would say no to this pressure. And that was what Trump

12:20

claimed he would do. He said, “I will put America first.” If he put America

12:26

first, he would tell the Israeli government, “We’re not going to go to war for you. We’re not going to provide

12:33

you weapons for slaughtering Palestinian people. We’re going to support a two-state solution.” But he doesn’t say

12:40

that. And the question is uh exactly what pressure

12:46

uh he feels or what ideology he maintains or what payments somebody is

12:54

making. But I think there’s a bit of a mystery in this or maybe all of those

13:01

pressure points are being felt when it comes to Iran. The United States has

13:07

been at war with Iran effectively since 1953

13:14

or at war with the Iranian people. So, uh 72 years ago, the US overthrew a

13:21

government. Then it installed a police state from 1953 to 1979.

13:29

That’s a long time. That led to a lot of resentment. Then when the Iranian revolution came, the US supplied Iraq

13:38

with weapons to kill Iranians. That went on for a few years. So this uh attitude

13:48

towards Iran is uh very longstanding.

13:54

I of course know many Iranian leaders. Uh, I had the chance to meet with

14:00

President Pzeskian when he came to the United Nations last September. I I go

14:06

I’ve been to Thran. I know Iranian diplomats. They have tried to make peace with the

14:13

United States for at least 10 years very actively.

14:19

But Israel has blocked those peace efforts by the United States. And in

14:26

fact, of course, an agreement was reached, the JCPOA uh agreement with Iran, which then Trump

14:34

vetoed or abandoned. So this story is a

14:41

again a story of the true American interest is peace with Iran. But the

14:47

Israeli government because of its uh militant attitude which is overthrow governments

14:55

that oppose us rather than support a two-state solution uh has blocked

15:00

diplomacy. Iran of course should have no trust of the United States. uh bec under these

15:08

circumstances. So the only way that it could conceivably work and it hasn’t

15:15

worked would be through the UN security council. So an agreement would be

15:20

reached in which Russia and China would be guaranurs

15:26

as well as uh the European countries uh

15:32

in the security council France and and Britain. this approach could conceivably work. Uh

15:40

but we’re far from it right now because Trump is not pursuing diplomacy with

15:48

Iran as far as we know. Um and if they

15:53

came close to a diplomatic agreement, Israel would do everything possible to

15:59

stop it. It would go bomb Iran again. it would raise the political heat in

16:06

Washington. Uh, and the main thing the United States needs to do is to tell

16:12

Israel, “Stop it. Uh, we are not your vassal state. Uh you don’t have to be

16:20

our vassal state, but we are not blindly supporting you in your completely

16:28

uh erroneous, illegal, and violent foreign policy. That’s what I advocate

16:35

every day, that the United States tell Israel, “This game is over. Now we’re

16:41

going to represent peace, not represent you. uh you will benefit from peace but

16:48

not by us ar fighting your wars anymore but only by you living side by side with

16:55

the Palestinian people. Uh thank you very much Professor John for hosting this uh great dialogue.

17:02

Thank you very much for your brilliant speech. I would like to say uh to to to

17:07

ask you about uh Ukraine and turrets. Yeah. Uh last week the American

17:13

President Donald Trump said that uh the US will involve 100% uh tariffs on

17:20

Russia and its um trade partners probably including China if within 50

17:27

days uh Moscow and Washington do not reach an agreement on the Ukrainian

17:33

prices. um praylessly um Trump’s policy uh

17:43

uh showed that Trump’s policy towards China and Brazil for example showed that not everybody in

17:48

the world uh listens to his tweets especially in social media and um now is

17:57

going to spruce Um so what do you think about this new

18:04

threats? Uh how will it end up is my first question and second one is um how

18:11

how do you see the end of the Ukraine war from today’s perspective? Thank you. I don’t think the threats mean very

18:18

much. Uh and I uh think that if the

18:24

United States were to try to apply such so-called secondary sanctions,

18:32

uh again, China would respond in a way that would basically stop the US

18:39

economy. uh I don’t think that uh the US has the power to enforce such one-sided

18:47

views and this is what I was speaking about earlier. There’s a lot of

18:52

arrogance in general in Washington and Trump is especially arrogant and not

19:00

very intelligent also. So he he believes

19:05

uh I think what he’s saying but what he’s saying makes no sense and that’s

19:11

why when the first tariff increases came

19:16

they with China they lasted a couple of days uh and China said no and uh

19:25

we’re not back to any normal level but the US cannot impose such penalties.

19:33

the rest of the world will just say to the US, “Okay, you’re on your own. We

19:39

don’t need to trade with you. We’ll trade with each other. You won’t trade with us either.” Uh, and so I don’t

19:46

believe that this is going to happen. The problem is Trump probably would like

19:53

to stop the war, but he’s unwilling to accept the explicit conditions for

20:02

ending this war. For example, Trump should say to the American people, not

20:08

just to Russia and to Ukraine, NATO will not enlarge. This was a mistake. This

20:15

was a a provocation. we will not support this anymore. He hasn’t said that. He

20:24

has said it privately to President Putin supposedly.

20:30

I think Witoff has said it privately, I would guess, but publicly Trump doesn’t

20:38

want to bear the political cost of peace.

20:44

But that’s the job of an American president to explain to the American people, we made a mistake. Actually,

20:52

that’s very hard. But Trump is not bad at it because what he needs to say is

20:58

Obama made a mistake. Biden made a mistake. I never make a mistake.

21:04

So, I’m going to correct their mistake. Okay, we could then all roll our eyes,

21:09

but we could actually get to peace. But I thought Trump was going to do that,

21:15

but he stopped short of doing it. If you notice, the senators are even

21:21

stupider than Trump. I’m sorry to say. Lindsey Graham, our number one stupid

21:29

politician in the world. Uh Richard Blumenthal, my neighbor, because he

21:35

lives in Connecticut. I live in New York. Unbelievable. They’re the ones pushing these sanctions

21:42

and these tariffs because Richard Blumenthal, for example, is the lead

21:49

supporter of the military-industrial complex. He’s really gutless.

21:56

He won’t tell the truth to the American people. It’s the job of a president to stop

22:03

these wars. We’ve had a few good presidents, many mediocrities or

22:10

terrible presidents, but the few good presidents know how to do this. But

22:16

Trump, I’m afraid I don’t see it right now. I was more hopeful that he would

22:22

know how to do it. The war, of course, should never have taken place

22:28

because there should never have been a coup in February 2014. then there would have been no war. Then after the coup

22:36

came the mince coup agreement that could have stopped the war also autonomy for

22:43

the donbas the west didn’t accept that no no we set

22:48

the terms not the mince 2 agreement even though that was supported by the UN security council so they cheated on that

22:56

then president said to president Biden in December 2021 here is a security

23:03

arrangement you stop NATO enlargement. Biden refused.

23:09

I called the White House at the end of 2021 to talk to Jake Sullivan, the national

23:15

security adviser. I said, “Jake, avoid a war.

23:21

Say that NATO won’t enlarge.” He said, “No, we can’t say that.” I

23:26

said, “Why?” Said, “We have an open door policy.” I said, ‘Oh, also in in the

23:33

Western Hemisphere, could Russia set up a a military? No, no, Jeffrey. Jeffrey.

23:39

So I said, ‘Why don’t you say that NATO won’t enlarge? He said to me, don’t worry, NATO won’t

23:46

enlarge. I said, Jake, NATO’s not going to enlarge, but we’re going to have a war

23:52

over something that’s not going to happen. He said, don’t worry, there won’t be a

23:57

war. This is American government. It’s like children actually. This is so

24:05

nonsensical the conversations that I have experienced. They seem to know

24:11

nothing or to say don’t worry, everything’s fine. And then you have three years of war afterwards. So to my

24:20

mind, this war could have been avoided as late as January

24:26

uh 2022. They blew it then. Then when the war

24:33

started, well the war started in 2014, but when the special military operation

24:38

started, within a week, Zalinski said, “Okay, we can be neutral.”

24:44

And within two weeks the Istanbul process started and I followed that. I flew to Anchora

24:53

to talk to the Turkish negotiators or mediators.

24:58

There was a draft agreement as you know on April 15th 2022

25:04

nearly complete. The US said don’t sign that and Zalinski abandoned it. So the

25:11

US has prevented peace from the beginning

25:16

and what you need today is a president who’s willing to say the truth about how

25:24

to make peace. I’m not saying, by the way, that every single condition that

25:29

the Russian government has uh set down needs to be followed or would be

25:35

followed or should be followed. But the broad contours for sure, no NATO

25:41

enlargement. Crimea is never going back to Ukraine. I guarantee it. Uh never because it’s been

25:50

home to the Russian fleet since 1783. And the purpose of the coup in part was

25:57

to grab Crimea away from the Russian fleet. And it’s not going to be allowed.

26:04

And the purpose of the Minsk agreement was to give Donbas some relief and the

26:10

West blew that too. So what Russia is saying to my mind makes a lot of sense

26:16

but not necessarily in every detail of negotiation. But the president needs to engage the

26:22

American people truthfully to say these are the terms in which the war will

26:28

stop. He needs to tell Ukraine, “Sorry, we’re not fighting for these principles

26:35

anymore. You’re not going to be part of NATO. It’s not going to happen. It’s a

26:40

bad idea because we would never let Russia set a military base in Mexico.

26:46

Never. We never let Mexico set a milit Russia set a military base in Canada.

26:52

And when the Soviet Union tried in Cuba, we almost had nuclear war. So, we’re not going to do it.” He has to tell the

26:59

Ukrainians publicly. But he’s a weak president. And this is

27:04

the big problem. You need a strong leader who can make peace. Peace isn’t

27:10

just the absence of war. It’s it’s it’s more than that to quote

27:18

Spininoza. Uh, so the answer to your question is the war will continue

27:25

until the United States does something sensible, which is to say publicly with

27:33

Russia, here are security arrangements that we can both live with and then say

27:38

to the Europeans and Ukraine, the fighting has to stop and this is the basis. and then go to the UN Security

27:46

Council and get a unanimous vote of the UN Security Council on a peace framework

27:52

that is globally backed. It’s nice to see you. We know each other

27:57

for 30 years. Yes. I have a question for you because there are three dimension for the conflicts.

28:05

Nuclear weapon is a technology and military dimension but there is a

28:12

economic dimension. I think from my history I can see

28:18

Israel want for speedy war not protected because economic cost is very high for

28:27

Israel also I think Trump has some similarity with global tr and because

28:36

they have a similar consideration but the cost of the war it is too heavy so

28:43

my question for you is how long the Israel and the Iran conflict could last

28:51

which limits the capacity of Israel or even United States to support the

28:58

protracted war. Thank you very much. the the war uh such

29:05

as it was lasted 12 days and from what we can gather it was Israel that was

29:13

pushing to end the war and the main reason is Iran has missiles that can

29:22

penetrate the uh Israel air defense system and Israel was very hard hit in

29:30

uh three regions in the south in Beerva uh in the coast in Tel Aviv and in the

29:36

north in Hifa and a lot of damage was done. We don’t know exactly because

29:42

military sensors have uh to some extent limited uh our precise knowledge but my

29:51

view is there was a lot of damage and that Iran could inflict a lot more damage.

29:57

What’s true is that the bombing and the attacks by Israel uh also inflicted

30:03

damage in Iran. So it wasn’t just one way. But I don’t believe that uh Russia

30:12

and China and others would let Iran fall to an outright defeat. So I think

30:20

that Israel cannot afford a long war. it can’t win. It has wanted the United

30:28

States to fight a long war, but the US can’t fight a long war and doesn’t want

30:33

to. Uh, and in the United States public, there’s no interest in this at all. So,

30:42

there were no voices of public opinion saying, “We need to fight Iran.” None.

30:50

This was a totally elite lobbydriven

30:55

political elite war and most of Trump’s own base was against this. Uh Tucker

31:04

Carlson was against this uh war and Tucker Carlson has an audience of

31:09

millions of people and they listen and the MAGA crowd

31:16

is actually not militaristic. Uh

31:22

it doesn’t like immigrants. It there are many things that it does that it likes or doesn’t like, but it does not want a

31:29

war. So I think you’re right that the American view is

31:36

uh is very uh conflicted.

31:42

Now uh the US or Trump maybe thought or

31:48

was told we can have a decisive effect in the short bombing by destroying Iran’s

31:56

nuclear capacity. I don’t really know if he was told that. There is still debate

32:02

about what happened with the US bombing. My own view is nothing happened with the

32:08

US bombing. That’s my own personal view. By that I mean they may have destroyed

32:13

one facility or damaged a facility, but Iran is a big country and they have

32:20

centrifuges in many places. And my guess is that they got their nuclear material

32:27

out of uh Fordo before the bombing because they had several days notice and

32:33

there was satellite observations of trucks moving in and out of the facility. So I don’t believe that Iran

32:40

lost its uh processed uranium which is processed up to 60% and could easily be

32:48

processed to nuclear arms level if they wanted to which I don’t think they do

32:54

but could be. So I don’t think there was any strategic victory by the United

33:00

States. I don’t think there was any tactical advantage by the United States.

33:05

I don’t think Israel won anything. I think it was uh if anything a loss by

33:14

Israel and the US and Israel and by that I mean Netanyahu

33:21

is probably pushing for some kind of revival of a a longer war but the United

33:27

States is not interested and Trump probably

33:33

probably will resist that. Remember, by the way, in the US, the budget situation

33:40

is bad. The social situation is bad. The public is not interested in any of this.

33:47

So, this is a lobbyingdriven activity. And you’re right in your observation

33:54

that it is not feasible to maintain for a long period.

34:00

It’s similar to the Ukraine war in the same way. There is no interest of the American people in this war or in

34:08

Ukraine, but for for that matter, this is no cause for the American people.

34:14

This is a deep state cause and it’s not explained to the American people at all.

34:21

Our mass media support the government, but the public is against all of this.

34:27

and the public doesn’t matter in American decisionm very much but it’s

34:32

against it I want to come back to your larger vision hi to the larger vision of how you see

34:40

it developing into 2100 and roughly the vision is the United

34:46

States will sort of fade to something like 4% of global power it will others

34:54

will catch up and so the US will be a power from the part with Nigeria,

35:00

Brazil, Brazil, Indonesia and so on countries that have roughly the same size. So I can sort of see I mean I

35:08

would be very happy with that world but I can see how US policy makers and the US public are horrified by that right

35:15

now they have 20% of world economic power roughly speaking 50% of world

35:21

military power and they are rule makers they tremendous influence of how the

35:27

world is structured and in that 2100 world yes they would be safe from

35:32

nuclear war but they would also be quite margin was. So I can see more than just

35:40

stupidity at work in resisting the vision that you outlined. And that

35:46

brings me to the second point which is that one has to look a little bit into the black box of the US and other

35:52

countries and see what constituents are behind that. And here we have talked a

35:57

lot about the big billionaires and the big finance companies and the banks and the corporations.

36:04

And for them of course the US government is a fantastic instrument for exerting

36:10

power both nationally and internationally. The US government is more for sale than any other government

36:16

in the world. It is very powerful. It’s a big door opener. And so if I were one

36:23

of the billionaires in the US, I would also be horrified by your vision and would say, “My god, you know, you are

36:30

disabling this incredibly powerful instrument that can help us open

36:37

markets, capture resources, shape the international financial system, pressure

36:43

other countries into reducing our taxes and reducing regulations and so on and

36:50

so forth. So again I think that as an explanation

36:56

something more needs to be delivered to understand why the US government is

37:02

acting the way it it is acting. First of all I’ve not made forecast to

37:07

2100 but I am working quantitatively on trying to assess a a world seen to 2050.

37:17

Uh so I’m trying to take a 25y year forward view and in that 25-y year view

37:26

I don’t remember exactly the numbers but the United States economic share measured at purchasing power parody

37:33

comes to something like 11%. Uh so it’s not that it’s uh um down to

37:40

nothing or down to just population parody. Uh it still is a rich region. uh

37:47

much above the average world uh GDP per

37:52

person but um yes not in any sense

37:58

dominant and I think it’s already true of course as we know the bricks 10

38:05

countries uh so Brazil, Russia, India,

38:10

China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia uh UAE the Iran and Indonesia

38:19

are 41% of world output according to uh

38:25

IMF 2024 data compared to uh the uh G7

38:32

which is uh oh god maybe 36%

38:39

uh so already eclipsing the G7 significantly

38:44

and now there are more bricks partners. So I think the diminishing is going to

38:50

happen. It may not be attractive but it is going to happen. It’s true that my

38:57

vision is not really aimed at um the satisfaction of Peter Teal and Elon

39:04

Musk. uh I don’t know what their views are but my view is so what uh I agree

39:10

but but you’re right in terms of analytical uh view of how the reaction

39:17

would be um the world cannot be operated for the benefit of uh 20 uh cent

39:27

billionaires uh who have this crazy net

39:32

worth that means very very little. Uh as

39:37

an economist, I look at uh not uh the shares but at the levels in the sense of

39:46

um will the US be well off in such a world? Will average Americans be well

39:53

off? And the answer is if we do the right things, life expectancy will be much higher. Income per capita will be

40:01

much higher. the benefits of AI will really reach a lot of the population and

40:07

the fact that other parts of the world are sharing in those benefits does not

40:12

detract in my opinion from the benefits that American people would have in

40:19

having high living standards. If you are an IR specialist though, you view the

40:26

world differently. You’re not interested in the level of well-being. you’re interested in the gap of power. Uh, and

40:32

yes, the gap is much reduced. To my mind, that’s good. Uh, to the mind of an

40:39

American strategist, that’s terrible. You’re making another argument that to

40:45

the uh mind of at least the the rulers of the United

40:52

States, it’s absolutely bad because not only will others catch up, but the

40:59

exorbitant privileges of the United States will diminish. So that could be

41:05

true. Uh that um it would mean less prerogatives for the US. But I have to

41:11

say the prerogatives for the US are not very impressive. The

41:17

prerogatives are the right to have wars, the right to overthrow governments, the

41:23

right to borrow debt up to uh very high limits and then find yourself in a mess.

41:30

I don’t really feel that the prerogatives of being an empire are such great benefit. So, I would argue to the

41:38

American people that scenario is not bad for you. It’s actually better than the

41:43

one that we’re on. It may keep you from getting blown up. It will be higher

41:48

living standards for you on average than the alternative. And what are you really

41:54

getting out of being an empire? Uh, to my mind, not very much. So, that’s the

42:00

argument that I would make. But I take your point that this vision

42:06

doesn’t work for those who see power either for its own sake or for

42:13

exorbitant advantages that are otherwise unavailable.

42:19

And um I think we need to take that into

42:24

account. So I think you’re right about that. uh and to the extent that the US

42:29

is run by its billionaire class, we’re in for a lot of trouble.

42:35

I have a research from Shanghai academic of social science. So I have a question

42:40

which one I like which I would like to ask you. So as we know that baby is part

42:47

of Carol is in his final stage and most eastern people do not want to

42:54

do not want to fight forever. But as we all know the true state solution also

43:02

cannot seem to be a very good or maybe useful solution to this traits. For

43:08

example, the previous solution about the solution is about India and Pakistan but

43:15

and we all know that Ind India and Pakistan do not seem to be very well or

43:21

we would like to say they have to fight with each other very times and the second most people they want peace but

43:28

doesn’t mean they want to back to the border of 196 1967

43:34

and the third the and we Let’s see it cannot be very useful or to make the

43:41

peace from these two countries. So, professor do you think we have any more

43:47

realistic solution to solve this problems? I’ll tell you on the Israel Palestine

43:55

issue what I’m proposing. Yeah, I read some articles. Yes. But whether it is achievable or not

44:03

is another matter. So, first of all, I don’t believe that the Israeli

44:10

government or the Israeli political process will ever accept a state of

44:16

Palestine. So, I’m not looking for negotiation between Israel and Palestine.

44:24

We saw that play out many times and for one way or another, it was always

44:31

blocked. either the Israelis uh just refused to implement what they had

44:38

agreed. For instance, the Oslo process was basically killed because Israel

44:44

would not continue to do what was supposed to be done under the agreement

44:50

or the leader in the case of Yeetsak Rabbine was murdered uh by a more by an extremist

44:59

who opposed the two-state solution. And Netanyahu

45:05

has a 30-year career as prime minister. 29 years ago,

45:11

he came to power as prime minister. Completely dedicated to one idea, no

45:18

state of Palestine. and his approach is overthrow any

45:25

government in the region that threatens that control by Israel over Palestine.

45:33

So in this sense I don’t believe negotiations can work but I do want to

45:40

use the UN to force the outcome. How to do that?

45:46

Not simple. But my proposal is that

45:52

we have a vote which admits Palestine to the UN

45:58

as a member state, the 194th member state on the borders of the 4th of June

46:05

1967, which is what international law declares to be Israel’s borders. So the borders

46:12

before the six- day war. Such an invitation to the UN is not only

46:19

feasible, it has been tried twice and the US blocked it two times. In 2011,

46:29

Palestine applied for membership. It was supported by 14 of the 15 members

46:37

of the Security Council. And the United States told the Palestinians, “Don’t push the case. Take observer status.”

46:45

and then in a few years we’ll grant you membership. This was a lie. Uh so they

46:51

accepted observer status, no membership. Then this came up for a vote in 2024

46:58

again because the Palestinians said now we really want it. And this time the vote was 12 in favor, two abstensions,

47:07

and one veto by the United States. So my

47:12

interpretation simply is that the United States is the barrier, not Israel.

47:18

Because if the United States doesn’t veto this, Palestine becomes a member

47:23

state and Israel has nothing to say about that. Of course, the next day,

47:30

Israel remains an occupying force illegally with a Palestinian state at a

47:37

certain border. So, it’s not the end of the story, but it would signal to the

47:44

Israelis and to the world and to the Palestinians there can be no reversal

47:52

but a state of Palestine. Never in UN history has a state been

47:59

eliminated. Of course, China replaced the seat in 1971, but other than that,

48:05

no state has ever been a member that has been thrown out. So to my mind, if

48:10

Palestine is admitted, it becomes a reality.

48:16

Then there are the problems of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank which

48:23

is uh probably 600,000 and another 200,000 in East

48:31

Jerusalem and the mess in Gaza. But my

48:39

idea is uh that practically speaking

48:44

the whole world other than Israel and the United States agree that there

48:50

should be a normal Palestinian state and Israel should live within its borders which by the way is 78%

48:58

of the original British mandate of Palestine. So they get a very good deal

49:04

out of this. Thank you, Israel. And I think that establishing the state of

49:10

Palestine, agreeing with

49:16

the Arab countries and Iran that there can be normalization with Israel when

49:22

Israel accepts this will step by step lead to an outcome of

49:31

peace. not immediately solving everything. Many of these settlers are very extreme. They’re armed. Uh they are

49:39

not going to peacefully uh settle this issue. Uh so it’s many

49:46

years I would say the settlers will remain in Palestine even after Palestine

49:52

exists and that will go on for some time. So this crisis won’t end quickly.

49:58

But I would like to signal to the Israeli people and the Israeli

50:03

government, you will not rule over the Palestinian people in the long term.

50:10

They will have their own state. They will live side by side with you. Get on

50:15

with reality. So I think that that step actually could make a very important

50:21

contribution. All that requires is a change of one vote uh which is the United States. And

50:29

my argument in to Washington and to

50:36

uh everybody in public debate is that this is the only way actually to make

50:43

Israel secure. It’s the only way to make peace in the region and it’s in the

50:50

interest of the United States because 185 countries agree with this right now.

50:57

And so the US has isolated itself on behalf of Israel to America’s

51:04

detriment. So the current policy is no favor to the United States. It’s not

51:11

even any favor to Israel in my view. and almost all the world opposes it. So the

51:20

only point I’m making is I would not leave this to Israel to decide. I would

51:25

impose this on Israel by a vote of the UN Security Council which is under

51:33

international law a feasible action to take a very direct action to take when

51:40

it comes to uh India and Pakistan. Uh this is another terrible uh unending

51:50

crisis. It all goes back to well it all goes back of course to 1947.

51:56

Uh and it goes back to a failure of India to implement agreements over a

52:02

vote in Kashmir. Uh that goes back uh already uh for

52:09

75 years. So this is a longstanding issue. It’s also we didn’t talk about

52:16

that conflict. It’s two nuclear powers very dangerous as well. Um and that

52:26

I I won’t say more about how difficult that is but I again it’s really

52:33

important to resolve it. Let me say one word about the India China conflict uh because that also is

52:41

quite relevant. The India China conflict goes back to

52:47

1907 as I understand it when a British military mid-level official drew a line

52:55

on the map in the Himalayas of what the border is, the McMahon line. He didn’t

53:01

visit the location. It was not surveyed. It was not based on anything except his

53:08

line on a map. And um it meant nothing at the time because theQing dynasty was

53:15

falling uh and India was in British imperial control anyway. But then came

53:22

1947. Then came 1949 and the uh new government in Beijing

53:31

said we need to demarcate the Himalayas and Nou’s

53:37

unfortunate response was to accept the British line.

53:44

Here was a newly independent country, non-aligned movement, a real chance for

53:51

resolution. But Nou just accepted McMahon line.

53:57

This leads me to my theorem that all problems in the world go back to the

54:03

British. So I find this true almost everywhere in

54:09

the world. The British messed up. Uh and they even messed up in the Himalayas

54:14

where they weren’t even present. They messed up. But I would like India and

54:20

China to solve this thing because I think that if

54:25

India and China could get back in a a good direction, that would really tell

54:32

the Western world, look, that world’s over. We’re really in a multipolar

54:39

world. No joke. The two of us alone are 38% of the world population. So, and you

54:47

cannot play India against China because America’s dream is to play India against

54:55

China. This is very naive because India is not going to be used by the United

55:00

States in this way. But it’s the American dream to use India as a push

55:07

against China. And uh I would like India to say clearly to the US, don’t play

55:14

that game. We don’t want to play that game. We want a multi-polar world.

55:20

I would like India and China to reach an agreement.

55:26

But I have one idea which is maybe not so popular in either place. But I say to

55:34

Chinese friends, make a list of all the things you want from India.

55:39

And then I say to to China on the other side

55:44

support India as the sixth permanent member of the UN security council to

55:51

make India a great power settle all these other smaller disputes and then

55:57

we’ll have a much more representative world and the security council will be much more representative

56:04

and China, India, Russia will be able to say to uh the west

56:13

so-called we’re here it’s peaceful it’s fine but

56:19

you don’t run the show anymore. So it’s a truly multi multilateral

oooooo