The Duran Podcast - Can Germany be saved? w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

Episode Date: September 5, 2024

Can Germany be saved? w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

All right. We are live with Alexander Mercuris. And once again, joining us on the Duran. We have the fantastic Jeffrey Sacks. How are you doing, Professor Sacks? Well, like we all are. We're trying to get day to day, but happy to be with you guys. It's great to have you with us. I have the links where you can follow Professor Sacks, including his excellent websites, where he posts all of his articles and interviews. Alexander, Jeffrey, Professor. Professor Sacks, let's get started. But before we get started, just a quick hello to everyone that is watching us on Rockfin, Rumble, Odyssey, YouTube, and our community on Locals at Durand.Locles.com. And a big shout out and thank you to our moderators. Thank you very much for all that you do.

Gentlemen, let's start off with Germany and then we've got a lot of other things that we can discuss obviously. So Alexander, Professor Sacks, let's get started. Yes, let's indeed talk about Germany. because there's a lot of news coming from there. There's also a lot of economic news, which is, of course, what provides the background to the political news. And today, I understand the big story in Germany.

It's not the elections in Syringia and Saxony. It's the problems of Volkswagen, which is now talking about closing its factories, and it's apparently economic problems, and there's lots of other things going on economically in Germany. the German economy, especially if you read the British newspapers, which are never very kind about Germany, it must be said. But anyway, I think it's probably true that the German economy is in some difficulties. And nobody talks, at least nobody outside Germany wants to talk, I think about the proximate cause, which is that Germany has been manoeuvred into a conflict

with Russia, with which it had a good and stable economic relationship. And not just Russia, but it's been pressured to take steps against other countries like China, which were also important trade partners for Germany. And I should say, I have strong connections with Germany. My wife is half German. I travel there regularly. I was there a few weeks ago, before the United States. these elections. I was in Western Germany. I don't know the east of Germany at all, apart from Berlin,

but I was very, very surprised about the mood that I found. People were unhappy. They were worried. And interestingly enough, they were increasingly talking about the war. And they were worried about the wall. And their sentiment about the war was becoming much more, much more negative than I had expected. And this was, I said, in Western Germany, not people I talk too much about politics, but that's what they were saying. That's a bit of an introduction,

and we never have enough time with Professor Sachs as we would want it. So I'm going to open up, Geoffrey. If you're Professor Sachs, tell us what you think about the situation in Germany and maybe perhaps also discuss the politics. And this new movement, the BSW, which is now making waves.

more important, a more interesting party, perhaps, because it's the one that people talk about less. They always talk about the IFT. Well, what's happening in Germany is happening all over Europe, first of all. So the fact that incumbent governments are losing is a long streak right now. Incombing governments do not win re-elections in Europe because the mood is sour. The mood is sour because the uncertainties and anxieties, are very high. Economic growth is nearly a standstill close to zero. There are lots of refugees, lots of migrants that concern a lot of people, but concern people basically because the situation is

stagnant. And frankly, nobody likes to hear about war and war talk and will there be nuclear war, and we need a war mobilization day after day after day when it doesn't make sense to people. So what's happening in Germany, well, it's the same thing that happened in France in the elections this summer, both for the European Parliament and then for the surprise election that Macron called France is completely paralyzed politically right now. It's the same thing that happened in the Netherlands. And when you look at the approval ratings of leaders across Europe, basically they're all unpopular, except when they come in, there's a little bit of a boost, and then that goes away over time. So Schultz is deeply unpopular at around 20% approval rating, maybe 60% disapproval rating, and the rest not knowing what to think.

Macron almost exactly in the same situation. Now, specifically in Germany, but again, I would say it's a European-wide situation. We have to start from the notion that there's a pretty deep and disruptive change in the world economy taking place right now. we are moving from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles. Well, the internal combustion engine has been the heart and soul of the German economy for a century. And Germany is the second largest EV producer, but way behind China and not competitive with China right now. And so there's an underlying challenge. A second fundamental change underway, of course, as everybody knows in this world,

is the move to artificial intelligence and digital. And where is Europe in this in general? The big players are all American or Chinese. And Europe regulates, but it doesn't produce. And it arrests digital platform owners like Durav, but it doesn't have its own base, which is extraordinary. So Europe is really, in a bind in the sense that the world economy technology fundamentally is transforming extraordinarily rapidly.

And one can also add that electric vehicles are basically not automobile producers. They're basically sophisticated software producers. And Europe depends on its auto industry. And Germany utterly depends on its auto industry. And Volkswagen is in trouble. and can't compete right now. So the last thing in the world, Europe needs right now, is a prolonged war that has no purpose,

that has a boomerang effect directly on the European economy by the cutoff of low-cost energy, which at least was a competitive advantage and a very significant one for German industry. So it's not only the automotive, excuse me, industry that is in trouble, but of course the entire chemical sector is closing down right and left. And the deeper transformations that are needed in the chemical sector are also paralyzed right now. We need deeper change.

We're moving to green and digital economies. The one place in the world that is just doing its job, getting its act together, building capacity phenomenally is China. China's not doing anything wrong, not cheating on anybody on its economics. What it's doing is building capacity. So suddenly the United States Treasury Secretary opens her eyes and says, by the way, she's a good friend, but so not right on this issue. opens her eyes and says China has overcapacity. No, sorry. We're in the middle of stupid, endless, perpetual wars that are only threatening,

only destructive, only boomerangy, and China's building its economy. And then we have the stories so absurd, by the way, in your absurd press in Britain and my absurd press in the United States, which gets everything wrong about the war, but then gets everything wrong about China also because it says, oh, China's in the great deep crisis. China is building the industrial capacity for the future. Germany is closing down shop. Europe is in disarray.

Everybody talks about a war economy that the public doesn't, every leader that absolutely doesn't want, is absurd, is tragic, is completely in the wrong direction. So that's the story of the day. And are we surprised that the voters continue to vote against the incumbent parties? Of course we shouldn't be. They have no approval. They have no strategy.

They're following some CIA plan from the 1990s that we're going to run the world. And we is not Europe, by the way, it's the United States. And Europe has fallen into line. and the voters who are not exactly part of this agreement are saying, what the heck is going on? So in all of this, the anti-incumbent vote is completely understandable. You have that vote in many dimensions, but from my point of view, the most important point about these elections in Drinia and Saxony is,

that the anti-incumbent parties won and the anti-incumbent parties agree on the most basic point. Stop the war, thank you, because we don't want it. It's not helping us. Least of all is it helping Ukraine. It just kills one to two thousand Ukrainians every day. So that's what the public voted for overwhelmingly. And the current coalition could barely muster, a vote and the Greens, who I find the most absurd of all of this, because they're the least green and they're the most militaristic, could not even enter the parliament of Deringia, if I know the updated account correctly. So this current coalition is completely losing the support of the public, but that's the same. same has happened in France. That's the same as happened in the Netherlands. That's the same as is happening election by election in Europe. Indeed. And in Britain, by the way, we've had

the fastest decline in popularity of an incoming government that I can ever remember. The prime ministers, our new prime ministers' ratings have completely collapsed and have fallen into negative territory. What's amazing to me, Alexander, is that they come in and they read the script of the party, of the government that they just defeated because it's the U.S. script and they pledge that they're going to do exactly the same as the party that they just defeated. But they're doing that everywhere. Well, this is my next point because there is no, you know, we have an expression.

I don't know whether you have it in American English, which is when you're you're in a hole, stop digging. We are not doing that. We're digging deeper. Now, Michael Schoenberg, I think you know. Very well. And admire very much. And he's just written a wonderful piece, which is in various places, about the fact that the European Parliament has just passed another incredible resolution demanding more war, more support for Ukraine, saying that the only acceptable outcome in Ukraine is victory and defeat for Russia, calling for more support for Ukraine in terms of weapons, militarization, in other words. And this is what all the leaders are saying, in Britain, in France, in Germany still, because Mertz, who is the new Christian, you know, the leader of the

Christian Democrats, and likely the next chancellor of Germany, he's not saying anything different. It is such a complete misjudgment of the mood of people in Europe now. And it is so completely self-destructive of the state of Europe's economy. What has to happen to make people change? I think the fundamental problem for Europe in this regard is that Brussels is the capital not only of the EU, but also of NATO. And the two became exactly the same thing. They weren't exactly the same thing 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. But now the EU, the European Union, which is basically a monetary and economic construction,

it meant to say market construction, has become part of the U.S. military arm. And so all we hear is the military from the European Union. That was not the mission of the European Union. In fact, it was exactly the opposite originally, was to make the interconnected economy so that militarization would not be the main subject. But with the NATO and European capitals being co-located, and of course with this push by the United States since 1991, active, designed, delusional, destructive push for global dominance

and hegemonic status and full-spectrum dominance, whatever you want to call it. Europe has really been pulled out of all that it knows how to do and should do, which is to build a 21st century infrastructure to support at the scale that is needed of the 450 million people in Europe, the digital sector that can compete with the U.S. and can compete with China, but it's not happening now at all. It's war all the time. And the fact that van der Leyen is just reelected in the context of one of the terrible, moments of Europe shows that this script is still unchanging. It's still coming from Washington, and it's still read by these hapless, unpopular, unsupported European politicians. It's very sad.

I love Europe. I just, and I love the quality of life in Europe, and I love the idea of of Europe getting its act together to be at a scale, which can be a counterweight to the United States, which can deal as Europe with China, which is fine to the two ends of the Eurasian continent should be dealing directly with each other, not through Washington, not through Washington's dictates, but this is exactly not happening anymore. which is of course I mean the connections between the two parts of Eurasia used to happen I mean there was there were Roman embassies to the court to the court in China we have records of them I mean it's it's not we have the Silk Road we had all of those things if you if you want to if you want a growth and well-being agenda it's Europe and China working together for a 21st century peaceful Eurasia Russia has an important role in that central Central Asia has an important role in that. Western Asia has an important role in that South Asia. In other words, this could be a wonderful time, actually. We need and have the chance to upgrade quality of life, technology, digital services, interconnectivity, fast rail, so many fantastic things. And we're doing the opposite right now. Russia is the enemy. We can never even talk to them. We can't even be in the room anymore. This is absurd and self-destructive.

China, we can't deal with China. Washington says we can't deal with China. Well, this is utterly self-destructive again. So what we should be doing right now, and by the way, Eurasia is a good concept, and it's been there since the Roman and Han empires dealt with each other constructively. This is what the future really should be about, and we're just doing the opposite right now. And I have to tell you, I mean, you know very well, and you clarify this every day, both of you, that Washington medals a lot. Europe's main mission in life should not be promoting American hegemony.

Europe's main mission in life was not to make sure that America could have its military surrounding Russia. For God's sake, was this really the most vital thing in the world? world to provoke open war and the destruction of relations between Europe and Russia. No, but the U.S. walked Europe into this. And interestingly, you know, if you go back to even the start of the Ukraine war, which please everybody remember, is February 2014, not February 2022 as the mainstream. media would tell it. This war started when the U.S. brought down a government in Ukraine. The Europeans were there. I don't think the European role was very sophisticated at all in

that moment, and the European role was whipsawed by the United States, who our point person was caught on tape saying not a very nice expletive about Europe at the time, which people may recall. But the point is even on the eve of the coup, the European foreign ministers were there making a deal with the incumbent government for early elections later in 2014, but for an end to this violent overthrow. And so the Europeans made a deal. the United States basically put its foot down, said we're getting rid of Yanukovych right now, together with the right-wing extremists in the uprising. And what did Europe say? It didn't say, well, wait a minute, we have a deal already.

We need to enforce that. The Europeans from that moment would not raise their voice to the United States. And that's when all of this started spiraling down. So even at the last moment when Europe could have salvaged something and said we can deal straightforwardly. We've reached an agreement. We have a diplomatic approach. We have a way forward politically that we have agreed with the government of Ukraine. The Europeans couldn't hold it one day and then can't even open their mouths about the circumstances.

That's sad. It's also astonishing to somebody who remembers recent European history. I mean, I remember Vili Brandt. I remember Helmut Schmidt. I remember the various French leaders, De Gaulle, Pompadou, Descartes, Mitterrand. They could all, they were Shiraq, they were all able to speak with restraint.

By the way, it's, say no to the Americans. It is fascinating. It is fascinating. It is fascinating. It is fascinating. Look, Germany, France, and Russia in 2003 said no to the Americans about the Iraq war. And then they were proved right. And the U.S. prevailed over the politics of Europe.

It's crazy. So it's exactly true. This is not so deep that European leaders, if they had some gumption, actually, could not say to the United States, You know, your ideas don't make so much sense. And we have our own issues and our own interests. They could do that. And you point that out. And it was really there and it was there as late as 2003.

But the turning point, we already saw it in 2008. When Bush Jr. pushed NATO enlargement, I spoke to some of the European leaders. There are some that are still there. And they said to me, what's going on with your government? They promised they wouldn't do this, that this is too provocative. Why is he pushing for NATO enlargement to Ukraine, for God's sake? And we know at the Bucharest summit that Merkel, the French, and others were trying to stop. George, don't do it.

You don't have to do it. And George put his foot down. And Victoria Nuland, my colleague at Columbia University now, NATO ambassador, put her foot down. You have to agree that NATO's going to enlarge Ukraine. And it was after that, essentially, it seems that Europe completely lost its voice as Europe. when Minsk was a way out for Ukraine not to lose the Donbos and not to be engaged in terrible war. And the Russian said diplomacy and, yeah, some autonomy so that Russians can speak Russian. Ethnic Russians can speak Russian in Ukraine.

Perfectly sensible, normal. The United States said, no, not interested. The Ukrainian regime said, no, not interested. And what did Merkel and Sarkozy and Olaan do afterwards? Olaan? Nothing. They were supposed to be the guarantors of this. Complete quiet.

So Europe basically left the geopolitical stage, gave it over to Washington. I've had European leaders say very weird things to me when I've asked them, why don't you stand up for European interests? They say, oh, they treat us like children in Washington. Come on, you don't let yourself get treated like a child as a leader of a European country. That resumed the next thing I wanted to ask, which is that this mood of fatalism that is now taking hold in Europe, which is very corrosive. People are very, very gloomy. All of the things that you said could happen, the digitalization, the development of the infrastructure, all of this, it is doable.

It can be done. We have the resources in Europe. We have the financial reserves. We have the technological skills. We have the industrial skills. And if we start to do them, I think people would find them exciting and enjoyable and energizing. And it would create optimism. and buoyancy.

And a lot of these problems that seem so intractable about migration, for example, I think they could be handled much more effectively and successfully in the context of an optimistic, buoyant Europe.

But do you agree with me? I mean, we can do it, and it would be fun, I mean, if I could say, if I really like that. Yeah, you know, I want to, I make lists for a living,

on economic competitiveness and sustainable development and many other things. And first of all, Europe's quality of life is the highest in the world. I give a lot of credit for that. There is, and I appreciate it to prove of it, a very good work-life balance. You can make fun of it, lots of vacation time, shorter work hours. But, yeah, come on, that's what life, that's a good life, because Europe is highly productive, highly sophisticated. You look at top-ranked universities in the world.

Europe, of course, invented the university network a thousand years ago, and it's got the greatest university network still in the world. Life expectancy, highest in the world. Japan is actually at the top, but for a region, Europe is extraordinary. scientific capacity, extremely strong. All the makings are there. So what is this disarray? We don't trade.

We're protectionists. We don't deal with Russia. We need a war economy. Everything wrong. And of course, one of the reasons is the United States has its agenda. I mean, it's crazy. It's delusional in my view. It is this hegemonic agenda to this moment, although it's absurd and completely out of reach.

Europe was yanked into it. But the U.S. agenda is not even that Europe is a part of that necessarily. The U.S. likes its giants. The Europe doesn't have its successful global competitors now in the artificial intelligence space at all. There's nowhere to be seen. And that's true across a lot of the new technologies right now. Europe needs its focus on that future, which is a very interesting and very positive future potentially.

And Europe is not building that out at all. And where is the strategy? You think Vanderlaine's going to come up with that strategy? that Kayakales is going to come up with that strategy. I thought back in 2019, when I was speaking with the then early commission, when Europe made its Green Deal, I said, okay, this is kind of an industrial strategy for how to make a modern transformation and to lead. And it could be.

China had its industrial strategy. They called it made in China 2020. And by the time we're reaching 2025, they achieved all their objectives, actually. It was a very impressive document that freaked out the United States and actually China succeeded in it. It became at the cutting edge of essentially every major green and digital technology looking forward. Europe has abandoned that. Now, one clue to that also is not only the craziness of the neocon agenda, which remains entrained as it fails and digs us deeper into the hole.

But when I spoke recently with a big authority in Europe on the digital economy, she told me that she had gotten involved in some industrial issues with Brussels, and that the thing that overwhelmed her about Brussels was the American lobbying in Brussels, the dominance of the American narrow interests swaying all of the decision-making the regulatory apparatus and the rest because there's a lot of U.S. lobbying money in Brussels. They know what they're doing. That's how America, you know, it still has some technological edge, but basically our government has been handed over to plutocratic lobbying groups sector by sector.

and the U.S. has done that to Brussels as well. Europe has its own semi-tradition of that, but the United States really accelerated it. So it's not only the geopolitical side, it's purely the commercial side. And Europe let itself be exposed to that as well. It's very sad. And, you know, the anti-incumbent mood is typically an anti-Brussels mood,

perfectly understandable, because that's anti-incumbency. And it's also understandable because what Brussels has on offer is just not very exciting. But I'll tell you for Europe or any other region in the world, in my view, you better have scale right now. China's big. India is big. The U.S. is big to say, we don't like Brussels. And so we just want to do it in Saxony or Thuringia.

Well, you're not going to have much of an auto industry that way. You're not going to have a digital industry that way. You're not going to be able to make it. So we need a Europe of scale, but not doing this ridiculous bidding of the United States and digging the whole deeper every single day. And they just don't get it. By the way, I was on an Irish television show yesterday. Apparently, I didn't know the other people, but one of them was a,

the minister in the government taking me on. I just found they didn't know even the basic facts, the chronology, how Europe has gotten into this. And I discover, of course, I listen to you guys every day to keep me informed. But people don't know even the most basic step-by-step. TikTok of how, or not TikTok, we can't say that anymore, of how we got into this. But if you know year by year what happened, it's a completely different story from the unprovoked attack of 2022, this absurd narrative.

And that's another part of why Europe is just so much on the back foot on this, because people are not even aware of this, how, this mess has evolved? This is completely true, by the way. I have a friend of mine who worked who worked until very recently in the British government and he's been telling me all kinds of things about how ministers

are briefed and how profoundly ignorant they are. They are very, very poorly informed, not just about foreign policy, but about most things, as it turns out, and they are never there long enough to learn. That's the other problem. This is

The mainstream media collapsed on us. You can't get a sensible word in the FT, which I used to read not only for facts, but for pleasure actually, because I thought the writing was good, and everything has deteriorated with that. Our government, the politicians don't know, apparently, because their fact universes are pretty limited and maybe from reading the mainstream media. And I thought what Putin said in an interview in Figuero in 2017

that is reproduced in a wonderful forthcoming book of historian Jonathan Haslam about all of this, Putin said, you know, the politicians. He said, I dealt with three presidents. You talk to them. It's interesting. They have some ideas. But by the afternoon, the men in the dark suits with the blue tithes have visited them and have straightened them out about things. And so that's the U.S. presidents. Of course, you know, they're kept in line. There is an agenda, a direction. I think it's been going on for 30 years in the United States. Europe was yanked into it by the United States. That's what they're told. Okay, you do this, you do that. Everybody reads from the script. Nobody knows even the basics

right now. Everyone sees things in this incredibly weird way. Incidentally, to digress, the minister said to me, or one of the participants on this Irish show, you know, the Russians would never negotiate. Of course, you take on that trope all the time. But I said, excuse me, it was Russian diplomacy that made Minsk. It was Putin that put forward a draft security arrangement. It was Russia that negotiated with Ukraine in Ankara in March and April 2020. and it was Boris Johnson that March did to stop that, you say the Russians don't negotiate, and he's sitting there.

I don't think he knew, frankly. It wasn't just that it was debating points on his side. I don't think he has any idea at all of the actual basic situation that has brought his country into a war zone. And which is affecting the morale, and the material conditions of his people, which is what a government should be focused on

more than anything else. Peace, of course, being the precondition of achieving those two things. Proversa Sachs, again, thank you very much for joining us. I'm going to hand over to Alex. I'm sure he's got a few questions. If you could just stay with us just for a very short time. Sure.

You have time for three questions? Of course. Of course. Great. Ralph Steiner says, the USA and especially Britain seem totally bent on defeating Russia. Is this because the Anglo-American Empire needs the resources of Russia to keep going? That's a great question. First of all, this is the Anglo-American Empire, albeit in decline.

This story goes back to, I would say, to the 1830s and 1840s. If I say Europe is fulfilling the American delusion, I would say America is fulfilling the British delusion. The great story of Britain and Russia is with the short exception, Britain has been consumed with Russophobia from the 1830s onward, for no reason, by the way, except somebody got it in their heads around 1830 that Russia was going to invade India through the Khyber Pass and that this was going to be the great game of Asia and the crown jewel of the British Empire was going to be threatened by Russia. The point is this kind of great power game goes back almost two full centuries now.

Britain has been in the lead. There's a wonderful study by a historian named Gleason, written in 1970. the origins of British Russophobia. Why did Britain come to hate Russia? And he goes through basically every speech, every news story from the end of the Napoleonic Wars when Britain and Russia were on the same side to the emergence of this great rusophobia in the 1840s to the Crimean War, which is almost identical to what we're playing out right now because the Crimean War was a contrived war by Britain and France to get Russia out of the Black Sea.

We're in the second Crimean War, the continuation of the first Crimean War with a bit of a gap right now. Anyway, Gleeson looks, he spends a whole learned book and he can't find anything that Russia did that created the Russophobia. It arose because Britain, which at that time was the world hegemon, didn't like the the fact that there was a big Russia. That's all. So Russia was a threat because it was big. By the way, that's the reason the United States hates Russia and China, because they are an affront to American hegemony. That's all. Why does America hate China? Not because of what China's done. China's pulled itself from poverty. It's pulled itself to the front lines of world technology. It's extraordinarily impressive and good for the world.

The U.S. hates it because now there's a peer that they don't want. So, yes, this is about the Anglo-American Empire. Boris Johnson said so, by the way, we have to defeat Russia. Otherwise, Western hegemony will be over. Well, anything Boris Johnson says is idiocy. So there you have it. But he explained it quite well. Gift of the Gab asks, what's Jeffrey's opinion on one world government?

You know, it's complicated in that I am a big believer that we need global agreements on certain things like getting rid of nuclear weapons. We need global agreements on protecting the oceans. We need global agreements on protecting the air from poisons. I want global agreements on keeping space demilitarized and so forth. So my view of government in general is an idea that actually comes from the Catholic Church originally. It's the idea of subsidiarity, which is you do things at the level that you need to do them. So if you can run your schools and your clinics at the village level, do it there. You don't do it at a global government level.

That's crazy. You don't even have to do it at a national level. If you need an intercity rail, you don't do that at the city level. You do that at the national level. If you need to transport power across nations, you do that at a regional level, like the European Union. If you need to do things at the global level, like protecting the oceans or space or something extremely important for me, nuclear, in my view, I should say, nuclear, disarmament rather than nuclear Armageddon, you have to do that at the global level. So it's not one or the other.

It's we do things when we need to do things together as opposed to individually or in our families or so forth. When we need to do things together to build infrastructure or to take some protections for our safety, do it at the most local level you can do it, but not at a level so low. that you can't solve the problem. I don't want Europe to solve the problem of its competitiveness at a country-by-country level alone, because I want Europe to have some champions

that can compete with China, with India, with the United States and so forth. And that is why I like the European Union for that purpose. So the question is, what are we trying to get out of government and where can we best get it? And that idea of subsidiarity is go to the low, most local level you can because that gives the most diversity, the most freedom, the most

ability to meet the local tastes and local needs. But don't pretend that there aren't issues that are not national or regional or global. From Sangeva, it's a two-part question. Actually, Sangeva, me and Alexander will answer the question in detail. But from Sangeva, what were your thoughts, Professor Sacks on Modi's visit to Kiev. Very quick visit, a seven-hour visit from what Sanjava is told me. Yeah, look, India is one of the world's four superpowers in my view. That's the United States, China, Russia, and India. India should be engaged in global problem-solving to the extent that it can.

I think the meeting was just normal. Modi has close relations with Putin, which is excellent. I like the bricks also. I think that it's a constructive force for the world. And so I'm happy that they take this step. I don't think he heard anything at all constructive. Everything that comes out of Zelensky is delusional right now and destroying Ukraine. not solving anything. But I'm glad that they went and I like Indian diplomacy. And I want to see more

of it. And I want India in the UN Security Council as a permanent member because it's one of the world's major powers. From Ralph Steiner, do the people instigating these wars care about the human cost incurred? Or is it the almighty dollar, the primary factor? Or is it something more insidious? You know, I can tell you for sure, no one counts the dead in these positions of power. You don't even hear the words. You don't even hear the handwringing. It's not even faked. They don't even think that they need to fake it to show a human side.

I haven't heard anyone in U.S. authority among the 500 or 600,000 or 700,000 Ukrainians dead. You don't even hear it. But by the way, this has been American war. making from the start. And it was war-making. America's been bombing civilian populations, mass bombings from Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, America's instigated wars all over the place, causing hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths that we never even hear about. No, nobody counts the dead in this. And it's one of the most. shocking things for me.

I mean, as a human being, also, I take it. I'm an economist. I don't like waste. You know, I like things being done efficiently. I don't like wasting human lives. I don't like the suffering, the mass suffering. It should be our goal every day. How do we stop the killing? It's not even the goal.

The goal is how do we win, not how do we stop the killing. The mindset is nothing about how to stop the killing. That's weakness. You have to win. That's the thing that counts. And so it's a very good question. And the answer is absolutely straightforward.

And I can say I've been through so many American wars. I'm giving you a comprehensive answer. They don't care. Professor Sachs from Shalendra, I read your article on Matt Taipi's substack. It was very informative, although you did cover it on the Duran. Yes. Thank you for that.

And the final question for Professor Sachs coming from Zarael. Professor Sachs, where did the Monroe Doctrine go? That's interesting. You know, the Monroe Doctrine, 1823, said to the European powers, two very interesting things. We only remember one of them. But the Monroe Doctrine actually says two things. One, it says, don't meddle in our neighborhood, to the European powers. The second thing it says, actually, is we won't meddle in your neighborhood.

That is not so often mentioned, but it's very clearly stated because they stated something for world opinion, and it was reciprocity. It was the Kantian imperative. Don't do to us what we wouldn't want you to do. don't do it us, and we won't do the same to you, because neither of us should meddle in each other's affairs. Well, of course, the U.S. position, especially since 1898, since the U.S. finished its continental genocides and its continental conquest and said, oh, now we've got to get a world empire because we're a little bit behind the Europeans and launched a war on false premises, a kind of a weapons of mass destruction war against Spain in 1898 to claim Puerto Rico and the Philippines and Cuba briefly and so forth. Now the U.S. position is don't expect any reciprocity from us.

We can go wherever we want, but don't you dare come close to our neighborhood. So the literal thing that is killing Ukraine, the literal thing every day is the U.S. claim that NATO can go where it wants, when it wants, with any partner, and in particular up to Russia's 2,100 kilometer border with Ukraine, and it's none of Russia's business at all. this is the central claim. I had a long talk with Jake Sullivan about this in 2021. He said, that's our principal. That's a principle, Jake? Are you kidding? That's an absurdity guaranteed to get us into endless war.

And we don't like it, do we? So if Russia said we're going to have a military base on the Rio Grande, on the Mexican side, the Washington would say, oh, that's just fine, Mexico and Rome. You can do whatever you want. No, we'd be at war in 10 minutes. And we basically nearly ended the world in October 1962 when the Soviet Union tried to install a base and offensive nuclear weapons in Cuba. No, you have no right to do that, even though the U.S. had offensive nuclear weapons pointed at the Soviet Union in Turkey.

Everything's asymmetry when you are the hegemon. We do what we want, you do what we say. This is the whole point of all of this. And if the United States even re-read its own Monroe doctrine, it would learn two critical things. You know what? I am a believer in the U.S. meddling in internal affairs of Latin American countries, but I'm happy to say to the rest of the world.

you keep your militaries out of our neighborhood in the United States, but we should do the same. I want our military bases all over the world close down, for God's sake. We don't need them. The United States is not threatened. The only threat the United States faces, the only military threat the United States faces, period, is a nuclear war. That's it. So if we don't provoke other nuclear superpowers, if when Russia says, no, please, don't move NATO to our border, we say, uh-huh, we understand, we have kind of the same idea. We wouldn't be at war. If we would listen to China, say, don't arm Taiwan right now. We don't want a war across the Taiwan straits.

If we just listened for one moment and did what we would do, we'd actually be perfectly safe in the United States. We have no security crisis. We are safe except for nuclear war. Don't provoke one. That's the bottom line. But we are provoking everywhere because they're not after our safety. They are after hegemony, which is a crazy idea. and the idea that the U.S. could be a global hegemon in a world of India, Russia, China.

It's completely delusional and extremely dangerous. And that's why we're in the mess that we're in. Professor Sachs, thank you so much for another amazing show. I will have your information in the description box down below. I have your information in the description box down below. I will also have it as a pinned comment as well when the live stream ends. Hey, great to be with you guys. And thank you for everything you're doing every day, which is amazing.

Thank you. Thank you for everything. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Sachs. Thank you very much again. See you soon. Bye-bye. See you soon.

All right. Fantastic show. Alexander, let's get to the remaining questions. Absolutely. Are you ready? Absolutely. All right. From Peter.

Welcome to the Duran community. Great to have you with us. Sanjava says, greetings from Australia. Hello, Duran. Hello, Sanjava. O.G. Wall says, good day. Gail, Linda Mark, welcome to the Duran community. Here's the two-part question from Sanjava.

More detail on the question that Sanjava put out to Professor Sachs. Part one of two, Alexander. By the way, my take on Modi visit to Ukraine was confirmed by Swati Chaturvedi. writing for RT. Modi only spent seven hours in Ukraine. Also, Indian pundits are aghast at this visit. Here is part two. Let me pull it up. Modi foreign policy pulled on opposing directions by BJP, Indian diaspora wing, especially in the USA, and the civil services institutional memory, example, the USSR, Russia being all-weather friends to India, example. 1973, Alexander.

Oh, that's exactly right. I think it was a mistake, by the way. I mean, I've come round to the view that I think it was a mistake. And I think that Modi himself has gradually come to see that it was a mistake. But you're absolutely right. There is this push and pull. There's the diaspora, the pressure from the diaspora. I believe, and I'm, you know, an awful lot more about this than I do, that there is a strong Atlanticist faction in India as well.

particularly amongst the business community in Mumbai. So I have heard, and they're very influential within the BJP. And I think Modi has to be careful to balance internally in India with those people as well. But I think what he did, he went to Kiev. I think he thought that by doing that, he would get the Americans and all these people off his back to a certain extent. I think what he found and what many people have found is that when they go to Kiev and they speak to Zelensky and they speak to people like Kulibar, who of course has now gone, they are completely unreasonable. They are not people you can reason with or discuss things with or try and find ways forward with. And if you actually look at the joint statement that Modi and Zelensky signed off after the,

the visit. It's a fascinating document because there's an awful lot about, you know, the kind of cooperation that India and Ukraine is going to do, but it's all very general. There's no real specificity about it. But when they actually talk about the conflict, there's something which I've hardly ever seen, scarcely ever seen in a statement before, which is you have one sentence, one numbered article which says, this is the Ukrainian view on this and then there's another one which is the this is the Indian view on that the statement actually if anything highlights the difference between India and Ukraine rather than showing that there is real commonality between them and I think a statesman who goes to the capital of another country

and finds himself having to sign a document like that has made a man mistake and has wasted his time and has had problems, he's going to have problems when he gets back home, especially with his officials, and probably will also find that his friends in Moscow in this particular case, well, they're going to be rather less than pleased by what he has done. And if you look at the Russian readout of the conversation between Putin and Modi, it was a little stiff as compared with some of the more effusive readouts that I've seen at other times. So I think your take is absolutely correct, Sangeva. And by the way, just to also say, I modified my own comments about Modi's visit to Kiev on the strength of information that

you provided. The fact that the visit was very short, the fact that it had come in for some criticism in India itself, all of these things I've taken on board and I've taken them from you. From Alan Shepard, would history repeat itself in Germany, but this time will be uprising against Muslim immigrants as things will get tough and the population will be looking at someone to blame? My overwhelming sense when I was in Germany is it, yes, the people are very upset and worried about immigration. They think it's getting out of control. but their primary anger is with their political establishment and with their own government.

That was the experience I saw when I was in West Germany, in the Rhineland. I didn't ask people, because I never do that. I didn't ask them which party are you going to vote for. The area of the Rhineland, I know, is a social democratic heartland. But people were to say that they were unconstitutional. complimentary about OLAF Schultz would be an understatement. And some of the young people I met, many of whom had been very, you know, supportive of the Greens of one time, have completely turned against them.

I don't know whom they're going to vote for. But it was against the German government against Olau Schultz, against his policies, the policies on immigration, all of those things that they were angry with. And the other thing that struck me is that none of them seem to think very much of the CDU alternative either. Fractured, thank you for that super sticker. Ralph says if Germany and Turkey were to try and break free of the Anglo-American Empire control in place since 1945, would this spark a violent reaction from the USA? I don't know how, I think there would be a reaction.

I don't know how violent it would be. I mean, what exactly would they do? I mean, sent tanks into Berlin. People would be a rather reckless thing to try. But there would be a reaction. I suspect what you would see is enormous economic pressure exerted on Germany. And if you're talking about Turkey, well, they've been going to the med coups there. John Bolton is quite open about it, by the way.

Yeah. A lover of the Russian team says Russia looks more appealing by the day. No. Putin has just passed and acted a change to the law to make it easier for people who feel that they're being persecuted in their own countries to migrate there, just so. OMG puppy says Democrat summer, nuclear winter. Ralph Steiner says, do the Anglo-Saxons USA and the British Empire have the military power to, to inflict a definitive and lasting defeat on Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. No, they don't.

Some people understand that. Unfortunately, an awful lot of people still live in delusions about this, especially, I'd say, would add, in Britain. I'd get article after article, which continue to help on the fact that, you know, we can ultimately prevail over the Russians, we can prevail over the Chinese, we have overwhelmed, superiority in military terms. No, we don't. How many one would have thought that by now two and a half years into the war in Ukraine, people would understand that. But probably it's one of these things which those who understand it are too frightened to explain to their leaders. So I think an awful lot of

people in London, in Washington, still believe that we have a military advantage over all of these countries. The reality is we don't. We don't have the advantage over any one of them and certainly not against them taken together. Zahir, thank you for that super chat. Ralph says Napoleon called Britain, perfidious Albion. Has Britain long played at these games of inciting conflict between other powers and hopes of benefiting? Yes, it has. I mean, that was very much the classic nature of British foreign policy about which, by the way, the British at one time were completely unembarrassed. You read Churchill, for example, you know, he was amongst many things that he was. He was also somebody who wrote extensively about international relations and about British history. He wrote that and remember, he was also a major practitioner of this. He was quite straightforward about it. This is what the British is.

do, that they try to keep Europe divided, that they play off great powers against each other, that they have a divide and rule concept? Absolutely. The point is that Britain is not a great power anymore. And that kind of foreign policy today is obsolete and dangerous. All it is doing is it is making Britain enemies amongst countries that might otherwise be its friends. Stefan Christian Gavrilla, thank you for that super sticker. From Ralph Steiner, do the people instigating these wars care? No, we answered that. Care about the human cost?

Jeffrey Sachs answered that. Another one from Ralph. Historians reflect that World War I and World War II sucked the capital out of Europe to the USA, as the USA remained mostly ineffective. Is this wealth effect reversing? No, I don't think so. I mean, I think we're still seeing a particular moment that we're in. We're still seeing a transfer of wealth from Europe to the United States.

In fact, it's the events of the last two and a half years have intensified that trend. There was a period of time, about the 50s. 60s, when you did see something like that reversed in the other direction. The United States was investing heavily in Europe at that time, because in those days it had a profoundly different philosophy about what to do with its allies than it does now.

In those days, it wanted its allies to be rich and prosperous. Today, it wants them to be poor and emiserated. But, you know, there was a transfer of funds and the European economy is recovered. And in the 1960s, they started to obtain competitive advantage. over the United States. And those who have long memories, remember that in the late 60s,

early 70s, there was a big American deficit with the Europeans, and the Europeans were demanding payment of gold, and the Americans couldn't satisfy that, and that was one of the proximate factors that led to Richard Nixon's decision

in 1971 to break the link between the dollar and gold. But I don't think that's the case anymore, I think if you're talking about the situation today, the transfer of funds is from Europe to America, and for the moment it's accelerating. Salvador says,

what is the faith of Georgia Maloney and her relation with Brick's members? I think she's on a major voyage of discovery. I think she came in saying to herself, remember, she's not very experienced in the very highest level of politics. I think she's thought to herself, look, if I go along with what the EU is doing on Ukraine, and if I swear fealty to the US, particularly over China, that will buy me political space to make changes in Italy. And to a certain extent it did. But then she very quickly discovered that that kind of game doesn't really work with Brussels and Washington, because

they never give you that much political space in the end, if they don't own. you, they don't want you. And I think she's gradually coming to realize that the policy towards Russia is wrong and is leading Italy and the rest of Europe into a corner. And that it's also very unpopular, by the way, with the Italian public, which tends to be, as it is in most southern European States relatively Russified. It wasn't overstated this. So I think she's understanding that the Russian side of things

really isn't working. And I think she's also understanding that the move away from the BRI and all that really isn't working economically for Italy either, which is why she went to China. So I think that's, she's

trying to reposition herself. For the moment, her political position in Italy, is strong. She remains popular. Her government looks strong also. It remains united. The stresses are going to start coming fairly soon. And as she shifts her policies, she's going to find that all the, you know, all the political favors that she thinks she bought with the EU Centre are not going to help her at all and that before long we'll be hearing all kinds of things appearing, seeing all kinds of things appearing in the European media about how Italy is regressing,

how, you know, the F word is going to be conjured up again, the far right and all of that, pro-Russian parties, all of that, and we're going to start seeing Italy again, experience squeeze. Abraham Tal says they have aligned interests, but China and Russia be doing a shrewd calculus open to the idea of the USA exhausting itself against Iran. Well, I think that's probably true. But I mean, I think also one shouldn't underestimate now the fact that the Russians and the Chinese have got to know each other pretty well and have come to decisions which are long. long term and are independent of each of their relations with the US. Just saying.

Now, 10 years ago, it would have been different. And if the United States had conducted a different policy towards each of these countries, it would still have been different. But we are where we are. The Americans pull them together. And when they came together, they found that it was in their. interests to make long-term deals, and those long-term deals are going to be there in the long-term, and they will be built on. I mean, it's inevitably so.

Ralph Steiner says, have the 1884 creation of the British Fabian Society and Planning for World War I that began in 1891 in London, had the desired outcomes so far, in your opinion? Now, I think that if you're talking about the British role in the World Wars, they were in a profound sense a disaster for Britain. They led to massive loss of life by British standards. They led to the weakening of Britain's position in the world economy, from which Britain has never recovered. And they did something else, because as a result of the fact that Britain

came out one of the victors in the two world wars. It resulted in an atrophy in the political and economic system. It meant that the imperial structures that had existed in the 19th century were perpetuated and are still there today in the way that Britain is governed. And they're completely not fit for purpose. They are obsolete and they're holding the country back. We see that in the way in which you've just had an election, in which a party which has the support of the fifth of the electorate, control something of the 60% of the seats in the House of Commons and has come to power without any ideas at all.

So it's been the world wars have done great damage to Britain. They've done damage to Europe as well, by the way. but to Britain specifically, I don't see that they've been any kind of plus at all. Pope Rackett says NATO is a scam. EU death equals healthcare, USA, military, industrial complex, the world at war. Yeah, I think you're completely right. No comment to make about any of that. Thank you for that.

Matthew says the EU is a total parasite. do you think that Russia is now so far ahead that it will absorb further provocations such as long-range missiles? Right. Two very interesting points. Firstly, on the first, I agree, and it's a parasite that's killing the host. I mean, what Professor Sachs was talking about was the EU, which is not the EU, it was the European economic community. The key words there were economic community. It was a grouping of European states that emerged in the 1960s, which realized that in some important fields, economies of scale were needed, and that Europe should work, European states, in their own interests, should collaborate with each other on those projects.

It's evolved into something completely different, basically a geopolitical and political. complex, fundamentally contrary to European traditions and political culture, and which has become, frankly, not just a parasite, but the parasite that's killing the host. It's centralising power within Europe. It is leading Europe in completely the wrong directions. And of course, by centralising power, it is draining political and social and economic energy out of the European states where historically it has always belonged. So that's about the EU. Now, about Russia, I think you might be on to something in the sense that the military balance, if we're talking about the Ukraine war, which is. I think what you are talking about has now shifted so decisively to the Russian side. I think that whereas even a few months ago, they were saying, look, if you do this,

we're going to have to react because it's a danger to us. They're now starting to say to themselves, well, you can do what you like, because quite frankly, we don't care because it's not really a problem anymore at all. We can handle it. So I think there is that shift. I don't think we should take it too far. If the United States starts authorizing the Ukrainians, which isn't really authorizing,

working with the Ukrainians to launch missile strikes on Moscow or St. Petersburg, or attack nuclear power stations, or do that sort of thing, then the Russians will respond, and they have said so. John Scott says Slava, Ukraine. Thank you John for that. Tim Gibson, thank you for that super sticker.

Abraham Tall says, in the wake of fascistic attacks in the West against Ritter, Medhurst, and others, have you been advising friends to leave the five eyes? No, but I should tell you I have been in contact with one of those people. And on Monday, we had a very long conversation, and I don't want to say more.

And I don't want to say which one of the people. them it was. Okay. Ralph says, it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.

H. Kissinger. Is everyone except for Britain and Israel covered by this? I think it is dangerous for everybody. If we talk about Israel, for example,

Israel is now in an existential crisis. Even Israelis. If you go to the Israeli media, you will find people talking about this. Why is Israel in an existential crisis? Because of the way it has, because this relationship with the United States has encouraged the Israelis to do things which left to themselves they would probably not have done.

They might even have made peace with their neighbors, which would have been better for them. And peace with the Palestinians as well, which would also have been better. better for them. So the risk they now run is they've got themselves into an unending confrontation with everybody around them. They've seen their own society divide and radicalise. And of course, they do run the risk that one day the United States will no longer be there. The same, by the way, for the Baltic states. The Baltic states should have worked especially hard to make, to keep and develop good relations with Russia. Russia is the only country that can provide

cast iron permanent guarantees of their prosperity and independence. Instead, because of this connection with the US, the Baltic states have run amok, they've been as outrageous and as aggressive and as hostile against Russia as it is possible to. and one day America will leave because it must and then where will the Baltic states be.

So it is always dangerous to be America's friend in the way that America wants you to be. The Black Cat, thank you for that super sticker. Angry Warhawks says how much longer can the Ukraine keep fighting? I think next year will be the end. That's my own view, which apparently is the Russian plan. This is something that was leaked by the Russians about a year ago. They're looking for victory to 2025. Harry C. Smith says, input valve for last major Russia to EU gas pipeline,

Olensky wants to kill, just happens to be in Soudza. No way that's coincidence, but no one's mentioning it. No, I know, absolutely. Of course, that's a telling you. Now, I mean, why, again, here we go. The Europeans helping the Ukrainians cut them off from even more Russian gas. It's not, you know, enough that Volkswagen is collapsing, which apparently it is. I mean, Volkswagen, you know, which dominated the European car industry.

Ten years ago, I mean, it was the colossus in the European car industry or the chemical industry, as Professor Sachs were saying, closing down across Germany. So what do you do? You go on and provide even more support to a man, the man who wants to make your situation even worse. There is so lack, so little sanity and reason in this, that it is beyond understanding. And when I was in Germany, the one thing I would say again is people could see it.

They are starting to see it themselves. They've got past the hysterics. hysteria and the anger and they're starting to put two-and-do together and make fall. Ibrahim says, are the attacks on U.S. personnel in Turkey a harbinger? Will Turkey leave NATO or will it be expelled? Might such an event never formally occur? Well, you know, I had a very interesting email from someone in Turkey who is very shrewd and very well-informed. and this person suggested that this attack on the American sailors in Ismir was not quite what it seemed and it was all very carefully arranged by one particular political group and that it might actually be intended to create problems for the other one government

and you know I take what this person says quite seriously and you know anything about Turkish politics you will know that it is very much like that there's often wheels with it. wheels within wheels within wheels the expression deep state by the way originates in from turkey it was in turkey that that expression was first coined so you know we need to keep that in mind but having said that 20 years ago it would have been impossible that there should be attacks on american sailors in any Turkish court that would have been absolutely inconceivable No one, whatever faction in Turkey they belonged to, would have done something like that. So the mere fact that it's happened, regardless of exactly who did it and how it was done,

is indicative of a major change in Turkey. And I personally think that we've still got a huge journey to travel. I don't expect Turkey to leave NATO tomorrow. I certainly don't expect Erdogan ever to leave NATO. Just to say that, I think he will always keep Turkey inside NATO so long as he's president. But I think we are seeing a steady move of Turkey away from the West and towards the Eurasian states, which ultimately, as I've said previously, in other places, it's a more natural place for Turkey to be, not in a Europe that doesn't want it.

Matlas X says Alexander, a few days ago you had mentioned the phrase planting flowers and was unsure of what it meant. The mayor of Pakrovsk literally had city maintenance planting flowers on the roadside instead of putting up defenses. Good grace. Pauli says, when will you invite Guidoji Preparata? He wrote Conjuring Hitler, among other books. I would be delighted. Thank you both. We are working on it.

We are working on it. Bin Lin says, how is Cyprus doing Alex? Cyprus as a whole, not doing so great. Some cities doing better than others. Some cities are in a terrible state. Other cities are holding up. Abraham says, do you see parallels between the English Civil War and the future of the West? compare and contrast religious civil wars

simultaneous with imperial wars. The English Civil War was an event that it is impossible to reproduce in terms of future history. I don't think it has really very much bearing to what has happened, what might happen in other places. The English Civil War was not

a collapse of the police, system, exactly. Everybody in England, in the 1630s and 1640s, was, who were within the political class. And the English political class at that time, by the way, was enormous. I mean, all the country gentlemen were in effect part of it. They wanted to prolong the political system as it existed then. The problem was that the king and his ministers had particular ideas of how to develop England and its constitutional system. And probably more as a result of misunderstandings and failures of policy, this whole thing spiraled out of control and led to a civil war. The Civil War was in itself a very alarming thing for the English political class. It started or it opened up possibilities for more democratic forces to start to assert themselves within English society.

There was talk about parliaments elected democratically through universal suffrage. and that sort of thing. So the English political class collectively took the decision, we can't have this, and they brought back the king. And so we ended up with a system that was very like the one that had existed before.

So this is not, I think, where we're heading for in the West today. This is a much more chaotic, dysfunctional system where the system itself is losing credibility and is completely breaking down. I've said this before, and I want to repeat this, if you want, for me, the closest parallels

to what we're seeing at the moment, look at three countries, Pan Dynasty China, just before the dynasties collapse. 17th century Spain, where ossification, and imperial overreach results in a political crisis, from which ultimately, arguably Spain has never recovered to this day, and late 18th century France,

where again the massive dysfunctions and problems led to the events that we call the French Revolution. From Ibrahim, Serbia just bought 12 Raphael's. Gotta appease NATO. Yeah, absolutely. They also sent their prime minister. to meet with Putin, by the way. Just to, again, it's what the Serbs have to do.

Joe Public says, where did the EU butter mountain go? Oh, I, no idea. Probably melted. That's a problem of another time. John Skee says, what role and power does the W.E.F. have over Europe, the USA, Canada and the world in general. They've become quieter since their insane policies were revealed last year. I think they had enormous influence at one time.

I think the last couple of years that influences lessened to a certain extent, but they did have a great deal of influence. They were right there at the inception of the current iteration of the European project. I mean, they started to become very influential. In the 60s, they were instrumental in converting, as I said, the European economic community into the EU project that we have now and in trying to centralise everything in the way that we've seen. And they were instrumental in selling the leadership of the West, the idea of globalization and Western hegemony. So they played a significant role in the world that we have.

Ibrahim says even the elitist Nietzsche said, an overpowered state left no energy for other pursuits. Germany produced its greatest thinkers free unification. In some respects, yes. Top in the way, by the way. Pope Rackett says the I in FBI somehow is more accurate than A in NATO. said. Ibrahim says, thoughts on the U.S. updated nuclear policy.

The U.S. or the Russian? I think the Russian is the updated, but it says the question is U.S. updated. U.S. because the, oh, I know what you, this is about competing with the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians all at the same time. I mean, it is a good, it's a case example of the utter bankruptcy of neocon foreign policy. Because whereas, of course, conventional wisdom would say that the United States deals with all of these countries separately, tries to keep them separated from each other, seeks at least stable relations with each one, the neocons by trying to isolate, break apart, regime change, the governments of all of these countries have ended up bringing them together. And of course, folly upon folly, they want to run a nuclear arms race

against all of them at the same time. I mean, it's incredibly dangerous. It's incredibly reckless. It shows how completely American foreign policy has failed. And it also shows how it also shows how impossible it is to change this failed foreign policy. Dave, thank you for that tip on Rockfin. On Odyssey, Fish asks, what would the right economic path forward for Europe and specifically Germany in current geopolitical landscape? Cutting back the political and administrative waterhead of the EU back to the core idea of European economic community or founding a new economic

European Alliance altogether. In my opinion, there's one thing that has to be done, and it is the precondition without which nothing else can succeed, and that is they have to dismantle the euro. The euro is the core of the whole problem. It is what binds everything together, and it is what gives the European centre its power. Now, doing away with the euro is going to be a, would be a very, very difficult problem now. I mean, it's not something that can be done easily or in a day. But of course, it can be done, and one shouldn't say that it is impossible.

But if you bring back national currencies and, you know, within a system of trade that is maintained between countries, then all sorts of possibilities begin to open up and all sorts of. of things can be done, which up to this point in time can't be done. From locals, Heiner Miller says, in addition to Turkey and possibly Azerbaijan, which will join the bricks, discussions about the geostrategic orientation have long been taking place in the eastern EU states. The Bulgarian opposition, for example, has just proposed leaving the EU and joining bricks instead of integrating into the Eurozone.

What would it mean for the EU if a member were actually? actually were to actually secede, would it disintegrate in the medium term, analogous to the divisions of the Roman Empire into East and West Brussels? Oh, they would be horrified about it. And I think they would do everything, everything that they could. And they can do an awful lot to prevent it happening. If there is a party were to come to power in a place like Bulgaria that was committed to taking Bulgaria out of the EU, it would face a regime change attempt.

I mean, it's as simple as that. I mean, even countries that are outside the Eurozone will come under tremendous pressure. Look at the pressure Hungary is in already, and Hungary continues to exist that even tends to remain in the EU. So they will do everything they can to prevent secession in that kind of way. and everybody should have been

under any illusions of this if it were to happen and if the country that succeeded managed to break away successfully and prosper then of course it would be an existential moment I mean at that point a lot of people in Brussels

would fear that this would be an example that might be infectious and that's precisely why they'll do everything they can to prevent it. Look at Brexit. Look at Brexit, exactly. Yeah, Stomar is going to move, it's going to move the UK back into the EU in one form

or another. So even with the UK, they haven't given up on reversing Brexit after all this time. From Rumble, speaking of Stammer, from upstream culture. Stommer causing snap elections within two years, reform swelling to 50 seats. Am I full of opium or should I pop down the bookies for a crafty one pound bet? No, I mean, what you say is not an implausible scenario. It's just that we're not there yet. And my own view about Starma is he's going to cling on as long as he can.

I don't think he's going to do what Sunak did and call an early election or anything of that kind. He's got a huge majority. Why would he risk it by calling an early election? Abraham says two guest requests Laith Maruf and Max Blumenthal. Thank you. We are working on Max Blumenthal and we'll take note of Laith Marouf as well.

Thank you, Abraham, for that. And from Elza, I missed it alive and couldn't thank Jay Sachs for his work and afford to save the world, an effort to save the world from being destroyed by the Western leaders, just like you do. Well, I would endorse that as well. By the way, I would strongly urge people to read the articles, the article that Matt

Taibi has been writing, has written recently. I haven't watched the program that they all did together, but it does again go over the whole story of what happened in 1990s, Russia. And it is extremely interesting and frankly, very disturbing. Yeah. That is, I think that's everything, Alexander. Let me just do a final check. Any thoughts to close out the live stream as I check everything? You know, just to say again, there is so much we could do in Europe. The means to change things, to change things in Germany, in Britain too, are all there. What is holding us back is this political system that we have got on top of us. We have a, we have. We have a, we have. We have a,

The crisis in Europe is a political ideological one. If it can be resolved in some way, if the EU centre can lose its grip, then, as I said, things can start to happen. And they could start to happen, I think, quite fast. But until that happens, things will just continue to get worse. Yeah. Upstream culture says, fair point.

I'll hang on to this pound. I have a feeling I might need it. Thank you for that. And Darren says, as for Brexit, what Brexit? Well, what Brexit? Thanks for that. And from Ibrahim, the final question, the US faces a looming budgetary crisis.

I don't see the neocons giving up their budget, taxes and civil war incoming. Well, you may very well be right. All right, that is everything. Thank you once again to Professor Jeffrey Sachs for joining us on this live stream. Thank you to everyone that watched us on Rockfin, Rumble Odyssey, YouTube, and our community on locals, our great community on locals,

the durand.com. Thank you for all your questions and comments. Thank you to our awesome moderators as well. And Alexander, that's everything. Wonderful live stream, wonderful program. Thank you, everyone. Thank you all. Take care.