The Duran Podcast - Europe doubles down on Ukraine war w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

Episode Date: February 20, 2025

Europe doubles down on Ukraine war w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

We are live with Alexander McCurris in London. And with us today, we are very happy to have on the show. Once again, the fantastic Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Mr. Sachs, how are you doing today? Great to be with you guys, as always. And amazing times. Absolutely amazing times. Yep.

And we are going to get right into it. So a quick hello to everyone that is watching us. A big shout out to our fantastic moderators. Alexander, Professor Sachs, we have quite a lot of news. to discuss. By the way, I have all of Professor Sacks's information in the description box down below, and I will add it as a pinned comment as well, so you can follow all of his amazing work. So, Alexander, Professor Sacks, let's talk about all the events of the past couple of days. Indeed, absolutely momentous events and hopefully eventually consequential events as well,

because we are now seeing finally a dialogue between the American and Russian superpowers, something we haven't seen for three years, very dangerous situation, when that doesn't happen. Professor Sachs has been in program after program that we've done with him in many, many places. He has been pointing out what an incredibly dangerous thing that is. He's been advising, to the extent what could give advice,

the Biden administration, President Biden himself, that it was his duty to pick up the telephone. phone and speak to the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin. Whatever feelings the two might have about each other, the responsibility the American and Russian presidents carry is so great that it is absolutely unacceptable for us to have a situation where they don't talk. Well, that has now happened. The president of the United States, the new president, Donald Trump, has spoken over the with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin. There has been a meeting in Riyadh.

Apparently, the meeting went well. There have been discussions on many topics, not just the conflict in Ukraine. And I have to say, to my own incredulity, I mean, in spite of everything, I am still astonished. The leaders of Europe, many people in the United States, so-called respectable opinion in many people, in many parts of the Western world, instead of being relieved that finally we have a dialogue going

and moves towards some kind of settlement of the outstanding conflicts and perhaps a return to arms control, Putin touched on that in a press conference he gave yesterday. It's not being happy about that. They are furious. They're organizing counter summits. They're making criticisms but I mustn't speak too much because we only have Professor Sacks. We're privileged to have Professor Sacks for only a relatively short time. So I'm going to hand over directly to you, Professor Sacks, and just, I think firstly, your thoughts about where we are, but also if you could say something about this extraordinary reaction that we are now seeing. Thanks a lot. You know, we should always be cautious and careful.

when we're analyzing these events. But I have to say, I hope I'm not just getting swept up in it, it seems pretty momentous what's happening right now. It seems more than the new cycle or the spin cycle. I've always believed, I've said for years and years and years and years, and the years are now quite long, that there are no fundamental conflicts between the United States and Russia. I'll say the same that there are no fundamental

conflicts between the United States and China. It seems that President Trump is pursuing that approach, which would mark a dramatic change of American foreign policy, a fundamental change, I would say, that is a break with the last 33 years. 33 years. Why? Because when the Soviet Union ended in December 1991. The neocons, the believers in the United States in the unipolar world that America and its unique military, financial, economic, technological power in their minds meant that the United States ran the world. What has happened in the last few days is President Trump has respectfully spoken with President Putin and said the United States does not aim to run the world or to damage Russia's security.

The United States government has acknowledged that NATO will not expand to Ukraine and to Georgia, which was part of a 30-year game played by the United States, very dangerous and violent game. And more than that, it was not only picking up the phone or having a discussion or having a meeting in Riyadh, but actually a rather impressive, it seems, move to normal relations, a restoration of economic relations. as you said, a new chapter, we hope and pray for a stability of the nuclear arms framework. President Trump made remarkable statements, brief statements, but remarkable statements, about three-way negotiations of Russia, China, and the United States to reduce nuclear arms, to avoid an extraordinarily dangerous and costly, quote, modernization of nuclear arsenals. And then yesterday, our Secretary of Defense, Hegesith, called for deep.

And according to the headline numbers, truly deep cuts in the U.S. military. This has not happened for decades. And immediately our congressmen and senators jumped up and down because they're on the payrolls of or they're funded in their campaigns or their families that are funded by the military industrial complex in the United States. So these are all extraordinary statements. There was another extraordinary statement by President Putin's spokesperson, Mr. Peskov, who said, And our concern is not about Ukraine joining the European Union. Our concern is about military, security, NATO. This is quite different.

Extraordinary, such a statement. So clear. So, of course, extraordinary in the context that it's so rational. I've always believed that. I've always said that Europe's greatest mistake was to co-lade. co-locate NATO and the European Union in the same city. Almost an accident, by the way, when NATO headquarters left Paris. Shouldn't have gone to Brussels.

But increasingly, NATO and the EU became the same thing to Europe's devastating consequence because Europe lost its foreign policy, lost its autonomy, lost its sense, lost its voice, doesn't understand what's going on. And when you ask me, I'm here in Brussels. I was at the European Parliament yesterday. There is so much confusion in Europe because it's been years and years and years in which Europe simply gave away its foreign policy. So they don't have diplomacy. They don't know how to have diplomacy because they're so rusty at it. I've been saying to European leaders for years. Go to Moscow. Talk. You're on the same continent. Your neighbors. What are you doing? But they don't. They warmonger. Now, yesterday, interestingly, in the parliament,

I can't speak for more than those that I met. And it was a peace group that hosted the meeting. but there were many members of many of the political groups at this talk that I gave. Something will change even in Europe. Of course, you know, they're completely bewildered because Banderlayan and Kallas and everybody else in the European leadership staked everything on a militarist confrontational. U.S.-led Biden-esque deep state U.S. approach. And it's gone suddenly. And so they're all out there without any scaffolding, without any sense, without any direction. They don't know what they're doing.

But they are realizing something different needs to be done. And Europe is one of the huge, complete puzzles in all of this. Europe is a, it's 450 million people. It's got an economy in purchasing power terms of about $30 trillion. This is a big, important place without a foreign policy. It's rather amazing. Absolutely. And I think a point that was being made.

I think Putin made it, actually, was that, you know, they're complaining about being excluded. Nothing prevents them picking up the phone and calling Putin as well. Nothing prevents them appointing their own high representative, if they wish, and sending that person to Moscow. I think it was Putin actually said that. And the same, by the way, applies to Ukraine. I mean, they are complaining that they are excluded from the negotiations. But again, I think it was the point that was made. And I think it was again Putin, that these are ultimately American-Russian negotiations, a lot of them concern, bilateral mandate.

matters between the United States and Russia. If the Ukrainians, likely Europeans, want to be involved, it's very easy. They appoint a negotiator and send that person to Moscow. It's not difficult. In fact, it's what used to always happen. Adonauer, who was very anti-Russian and very anti-communist, went to Moscow. They all once did. Margaret Thatcher went to Moscow. She was the Iron Lady and all of that. It's not difficult to understand. And Putin, of course, came to Europe. And, you know, it was a mutual, mutual relationship.

And for years, a mutually fruitful relationship in the 1990s that the United States went out of its way to break. And Europe let itself be broken by the U.S. This is the tragedy. Germany and Russia are absolutely complementary economies. Russia, with its combination of technology and incredible engineering sophistication and vast natural resources, and Germany with its industrial base, fit together economically. It's an incredible combination. The United States hated that idea, the deep state. So one of the subtexts of the last 30 years was not only U.S. hegemony, but also make sure that there isn't a close German-Russian relationship. And that's, of course, the essence of the U.S. opposition to Nord Stream and to natural economic trade between Europe and Russia and the United States broke it.

And the Europeans basically worked for the United States during that period against the interests of Europe. Now they're recognizing, my God, what are we supposed to, I mean, they're not quite recognizing their shell shock. They're completely bewildered of what's happening. What's happening is very sensible, which is we're pulling back from the brink of World War III. This is great news. There's no question about it that it's great news. And as you say, they can't even figure out. that it's good news. This is amazing.

This is absolutely. Now, there's something I wanted to discuss, which never gets talked about, but it was apparently a big topic of the discussions in Riyadh, which is American-Russian economic ties as well. Now, these are two big economies, of course the United States is a huge economy, Russia's not a small economy, according to what many people think. There's been much talk many times. And I remember back in the 70s, there was talk about establishing good, strong economic relations between the United States and the Soviet Union's. It never happened. Always, there was opposition and obstruction and attempts to prevent it happening. And I always felt myself that one of the reasons why the political relations between the United States and Russia never really

came together was that they were never underpinned by an economic relationship. Anyway, they were talking about that in Riyadh. It was interesting that one of the people the Russian sent was a man called Kiril Dimitri, whom I believe you know, by the way, I think you've met him,

who is the head of Russia's direct investment fund and said, you know, we can offer you this and that, you can do all of these things with us And apparently the Americans were very interested. They listened and they heard and they said, yes, this could actually work. Can you say something about this? Because this is something you have known.

Yes, you know, I go back on this issue 35 years. At the request of President Gorbachev's economic team, I tried to bring the U.S. and the Soviet Union together in 1990, 1991. My idea was that the United States at that time would help with financial stabilization, provide some grants and loans so that the Soviet Union could carry out its political and industrial and economic reforms. It was the idea that I had was rejected completely by the White House, and I didn't understand that that was the neocon, moment taking hold. Recently, it was fascinating for me. I read the minutes of the National Security

Council meeting dissing my idea. And I never read them before. It was somebody sent them from the archives. They've just been opened up. And the Americans were completely stupid and obnoxious. One of them was a former colleague of mine at Harvard, completely obnoxious. What they say in the meeting is we have to do the minimum. We're not going to help on. anything where no vision, just U.S. nastiness. Well, I experienced it, but I hadn't read the minutes of the actual meeting when this approach was decided. In the 1990s, basically, the American view was, you know, Russia is nothing except we can grab the natural resources. I hated it. Of course, I tried to help with President Yeltsin, raised.

funding again turned down flat because the Americans had a completely different idea, which was unipolarity and grab natural resources where you can. Russia is a very sophisticated economy filled with very sophisticated people and well-trained engineers. And by the way, as the world's largest land area with vast natural resources, the popular. is modest by big power standards at 150 million people, but we're entering an age where the number of people is not really decisive. They're going to be humanoid robots and AI systems and many other things. This incredible land area, the vast resources, the northern route, the Arctic route, something that is obviously on President Trump's mind, means that Russia is a great power, no question, for, generations to come and one that will play in increasing significance in the world economy.

And this is partly what was discussed in Riyadh. I also found it extremely important. Now, it's tantalizing. It doesn't prove anything, but it's a glimmer of hope. Here the two are meeting in Riyadh. Now, Saudi Arabia is absolutely the linchpin of a achieving peace in the Middle East. And there they are at the invitation of the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman. And I believe, I'm guessing, that they spoke about Israel and Palestine. Just as peace will come to Ukraine now, peace could come to the Middle East, basically with the one change a vote by the United States, a vote for a Palestinian state as the 194th member of the UN. And then there will be normalization of relations with Israel by Saudi Arabia, by actually

all 57 countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation were tantalizingly close to a breakthrough for peace. Again, whether Donald Trump can break the iron grip of the Israel lobby in the United States, which has done so much profound damage to American politics and to the Middle East and to world peace and risks, I don't know. But he's broken the iron grip of the deep state neocon project, and maybe he can break the iron grip of the Israel lobby the same way. I just wanted to talk quickly about Ukraine, because we have to talk about Ukraine, because, of course, it remains the conflict. Now, again, this fury and rage. about the fact that they're talking about Ukraine.

The Russians and the Americans used to talk about Vietnam when the Vietnam War was underway. In fact, relations between the superpowers during the Vietnam War improved, despite the fact that they were each backing different sides, exactly as they are now in Ukraine. Now, there is a pathway to peace in Ukraine. The reason we have a war there is because that pathway

has been consistently rejected. We have had a war, a war that is being lost. Now, it seems to me that if you put away all the storm and anger and, you know, the storm and theater and all of that, this is what the Americans are now finally saying, that there is a pathway to peace. That pathway lies to some extent through Moscow, though obviously others have a part to play. But Moscow is obviously the key party. Military victory is clearly not going to happen.

In fact, what we're looking at is defeat. And we can nonetheless still find a way through. Now, am I getting this wrong? Well, the war is, of course, a war between the U.S. and Russia being fought on Ukrainian territory. It's not a war between Ukraine and Russia. This is the basic point. This goes back for 30 years in the Ukraine project of expanding the U.S. military reach eastward. Eastward basically, by the way, from Brussels to Vladivostok was the ultimate aim.

In other words, this is U.S. hegemony at play, and President Putin said no. And the war broke out 11 years ago at the Maidan, who, which was also a U.S. action to a very substantial extent, to overthrow a Ukrainian government that favored neutrality. And the Ukrainian public favored neutrality overwhelmingly. There was no move by the Ukrainian people to join NATO. This was a top-down push and coup in February 2014. So in this sense, the war started by the United States' eastward movement and every other U.S. action, especially, by the way, and it's very much underestimated in its impact. The 2002 unilateral abandonment of the anti-ballistic missile treaty by the United States was, to my view, the most profound destabilizer of all.

because ultimately we're talking about survival, nation-state survival, national security, missile systems. This is what has been on President Putin's mind for 20 years. Keep your missile systems away from our border. This has been enunciated repeatedly. As Ray McGovern, the former CIA, wonderful analyst, told us a few months ago, in January, 2022, Blinken said to Lavrov, the United States reserves the right to put in missile systems in Ukraine. So of course it's the U.S. and Russia negotiating. Of course, the negotiations could have been between Ukraine and Russia in March 22, where the United States should have jumped in

and said, great, we have an end of this misconceived conflict. And they were close to finalizing and of course the U.S. stopped it. So then, you know, we don't have to belabor the point. It's so foolish. But it was Zelensky who said, I'm never talking to them, ruled out any negotiations by decree in October 22. And then they say, why aren't we included in the negotiations? Well, because Ukraine ruled them out. you, come on. Can you say one sentence of truth? Similarly with Europe, I dealt a lot with Yosef Borel. I was inscribed at one time as an advisor to him. He fired me afterwards because I dared to say that the U.S. blew up Nord Stream. I was an unpaid advisor. I want to make clear. This is only public service. But the point is, I said repeatedly, go talk to Moscow. No, no,

no, we can't talk to the enemy, the implacable foe. There's nothing to discuss. There's no negotiations possible. And then they complain when peace is breaking out. So I think this is going to change quickly. I really do. The point, obviously, the basic point about all of these wars, which people should keep in mind. Wars are very expensive propositions. They're big capital intensive operations. I'm putting side the fact that they're devastating, dangerous, and kill a lot of people. But they require big power backing. Whatever Europe may say, whatever Zelensky may say, whatever any of them may say, the war is ending because the U.S. is ending its arms and financial support to Ukraine. It's over. Now, people can deal with it in a truthful way. They can deal with it in a grown-up way.

or they can rant and rave and they can be foolish and idiotic. Europe can say, we're going to continue to fight the war. I'll tell you a secret. No, you're not. You can't. It's impossible. So get on with something more realistic. I agree.

Can I ask you about China? Because the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, also made a speech in Munich, which has attracted no attention, but which I thought was very, very interesting. very consequential, because he clearly is aware that the Americans are now accepting, and Secretary of State Rubio has talked about this, that there is a multipolar system, that there are now different great powers, that those great powers pursue their interests, and that the role of diplomacy is to achieve, to resolve conflicts. That was what Marker Rubio said. and it is really an astonishing breakthrough conceptually that he said that.

But Wangy went further than that, and he said, look, we are great powers. There are great powers in the world. But we mustn't think of the relationship between great powers as necessarily or properly adversarial. There's no reason to even look for conflicts. What you should do instead is work together in harness, in partnership. And that ultimately is much more efficient and far more effective and, of course, better, not just for the great powers, but for humanity altogether. Now, I have to say, again, to me, that is common sense.

And you said at the start of the programme that in your opinion, there is no fundamental conflicts between America and Russia, with which I agree. And you also said, which I also agree with, that there is no fundamental conflict between America and China either. But of course, there are so many people in the United States, including in the current administration, who think otherwise. So can you say something to that? Because it looks to me as if Wang Yi is holding the door open. There's so many interesting things to say about Chinese statecraft and about U.S.-China relations. One place to start is that President Trump said yesterday or the day before this Ukraine war.

It's not about we shouldn't be doing this. We have this big, beautiful ocean between us and the Russians. We're not in conflict with each other. Well, the Pacific Ocean is a lot bigger. China cannot, is not, not in a million years going to invade the United States. And the U.S. can't invade and defeat China. It's very simple. The two, if we're misguided, could provoke each other.

The United States could do in East Asia what it did in Ukraine. The obvious analogy is Taiwan. If the United States continues to provoke to unilaterally armed Taiwan, this could trigger war. The war would be devastating for the world, but devastating for the United States, as every war game has shown. And it makes sense. You fight a war against China, thousands of miles away from your shores. You think that's going to work in this day and age with new technologies with the hypersonic missile systems attacking your naval fleets, with the continual space, surveillance of the oceans and so on. Come on, this is so ridiculous. Even the idea is absurd. Now, that's one point. There's no possibility that the two sides could damage each other except to blow up the world. And so stop provoking. This is the number one point. Number two is Chinese statecraft. It's incredibly mature, in my opinion, and in my experience.

And I go back in China 43 years, and I don't know how many dozens or hundreds of visits, but it's a lot many times every year. Chinese statecraft is extraordinarily impressive because you do feel the lessons and awareness of 2,200 years of history of statecraft. The U.S. is a baby compared to this, trying to find its footing. China was unified first in 21, BC. Now, there's a phenomenal period to understand and study between 1368, the beginning of the Ming dynasty and 1839, which was when Britain invaded.

Hello. I've lost him. Yeah, it froze. At war. Oh, sorry? You go back. You go back. Just just a second. You stopped on when Britain invaded China. China.

Yeah, so 1839 when Britain invaded. During that period of several centuries, East Asia was dominated by, dominated by a very successful China, but not tormented by China. It was an era of peace. Unbelievable. Europe's fighting. Everybody's fighting each other, killing each other, nonstop wars. East Asia is in peace, sometimes called the Confucian peace. So you had nation states, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, China. They're not fighting each other for centuries. China never, ever in its history, invaded Japan, ever. The Mongols did when they controlled China twice at 1274 and 1281 AD.

They tried and they were defeated by the so-called kamikaze winds, two typhoons. But the point is the Chinese, when they were running the show, not the Yuan Mongol dynasty, but the Ming and the Qing never invaded Japan. Never invaded Korea right there, right on the border. Never. With Vietnam, there was a war. 1410 to 1427. You know, basically 17 years out of six centuries.

Whereas think about France and Britain, for example, nonstop, 100 years wars, nonstop conflict. So the idea that China is an aggressive power, there's nothing in the Chinese statecraft, history, or tradition of this. Even when China was undoubtedly the regional hegemon in terms of power, it did not impose punitive actions. It did not invade. It did not try to expand its territories. this is all very important to understand because when Wang Yi speaks about statecraft,

he's speaking about a very deep vision of state craft. When the West speaks about statecraft and the Westphalian order and so forth, they're speaking either with knowledge or implicitly, with their implicit knowledge or their background culture that states fight each other. And in the international relations of the West, the realism idea is, well, it's just a tragedy. We're doomed to fight. The Chinese actually do not hold that view. And I mean not just superficially, not propagandistically.

Actually, they do not hold that view. They do not quite understand. Why are you always fighting? Stop. We can get along. We can trade. can do other things. And this is absolutely basically true. China does not threaten the United States in any way. It happens to be extremely successful, very dynamic, technologically sophisticated,

wonderful. It's bringing all sorts of great things to the world, like deep sea, low cost AI and many, many other things. And China has for most of his history being technologically advanced and economically successful, which is about people tend to overlook. You know, it gave the world gunpowder, but it used it for fireworks, you know, and the West perfected it to go back and beat up, beat the hell out of China. You know, this is history. I just wanted to ask now about the United States, because this is the other thing, because there is a certain view, which I think is ultimately a European view,

that if you're a great power, the way you achieve wealth is through basically being predatory, that the United States itself would benefit massively from disarmament, a proper system of international relations, peace, and all of those things. Because I think some Americans are afraid of it. They'll think they'll be swamped by Chinese goods and the economy will be devastated, and the dollar will lose its reserve currency status, and this will be a tragedy for the United States. I don't agree.

I've always felt, this is my last question, by the way, that the United States could actually prosper and do much better, in fact, from a peaceful system than this very tense meocon system that we've been living under for 30 years. Of course. I think there are also a couple of basic points that are really important.

For many centuries, many recent centuries, certainly the 20th century, the idea that control over natural resources was the decisive element of economic wealth, the military power, national greatness was taken for granted. And in the petroleum age, especially after Churchill put the British fleet on oil, this was the view. You have to control the Middle East. you have to control the natural resources. We're living in an age, of course, it may sound trite to say, but it's true. We're living in an age where it is advanced technology, it is digital technologies, it is a knowledge-based economy that's the source of wealth, the source of well-being. And you don't need that physical control over natural resources in the same way at all.

Now, I don't know whether the Trump administration is going to follow that particular logic. Donald Trump loves oil and gas under the ground. This is not where our future lies in the 21st century, actually. But he loves it. It's not the basis of U.S. well-being U.S. prosperity. Now, there is, to put it a different way, no shortcut to, economic well-being in a knowledge economy, except knowledge, technology, systems, thinking carefully, basing decision-making on evidence, on science, and so forth. China is extremely good at that.

Made in China, 2025, which was an initiative launched a decade ago, to come to the forefront of several technologies, succeeded because it was systematic, because, because it had a decade long, if not 20 or 30 year long forward vision. For the United States to succeed, it should do what it absolutely can do. We have wonderful universities, wonderful research centers, wonderful enterprises that are investing heavily in research and development, building the economy. it has nothing to do with war with Russia, war with China, fights over natural resources. It's knowledge, capacity, organization, science and technology.

This is what we're really talking about right now. Incidentally, the protectionism that the Trump administration is putting in is also beside the point. It's a little sad. It's not getting to the point. if Trump will play to America's strengths, which is its deep educational excellence, it's technological excellence, its human diversity, which is wonderful because I live in New York City, I hear English once in a while.

And I love the fact that 200 languages are spoken. It makes it a great city that reaches the entire world and becomes a, media and financial and technology, diplomatic capital. This is the strengths. So I think Trump gets a lot of this absolutely right. War is useless. This isn't about war. This is not about conflict and so forth.

He gets that right. And if he can play to America's true strengths, this is going to be a golden age, exactly what he wants it to be. If he plays to, you know, the short-term gimmicks that thinking grab resources or, you know, somehow protectionism or something else, it will not quite work the same way. Professor Sacks, thank you so much. I know you've got a tired schedule, but you've given us your time and we're very, very grateful. Thank you very much. Always great to be with you guys.

Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye, bye. All right. We had to do a hard stop with Professor Sachs, but that was a great show. It was.

Discussion. One second, Alexander. You want to answer some of the questions? Absolutely. All right. Let's do it. One second. Let me pull them up here.

All right. From Nikos, Mr. Sachs, people in our circle are split on Trump. I saw your interview with Napolitano and he couldn't get past his tunnel. vision about Israel. I always said that Israel isn't the priority. If Trump makes peace with Russia and China, which I do believe he only wants to, isn't that enough if he maintains diplomacy and just competes with them economically? Can't these countries persuade him to change his mind about Israel and Palestine? I think to some extent actually, Professor Sachs talked about that during the program. I think this is true. In fact, I think if we have a framework of good and strong

and friendly relations between the great powers. And we also have good and friendly relations between the United States and the great powers and the major regional powers in the Middle East, of which Saudi Arabia is, of course, one, but Iran is another, just saying. Then that will start to push us or pull us gradually steadily towards some kind of Middle East peace.

It's going to be very difficult and very, very complicated. And if we're talking about Palestine, Israel, I'm afraid a religious dimension has now entered this conflict, which did not exist, by the way, in, say, the 1960s, but it does now. And that makes conflicts even more difficult to sort than they would have been if it hadn't been there. But no conflict ever is unsolvable. That is a council of despair. And I always say that you should never fall for councils of despair. The first thing to do, as you rightly say, is to sort out the relations between the great powers. And then slowly, gradually, with a lot of hard work, other things will fall into place. Elza says, after all that happened, including the first Trump administration, the Russians put that aside and started a dialogue with the U.S.

They offer beneficial relations for both parties like adults. Correct. Can I just make a point, which is that the Russians also have a long diplomatic history. It might not go back to 2021 BC, as it does with China, which is true. But they have been very, very active in diplomacy for a very, very long time now. And the one thing they have long understood is that you've got to control your anger. That's not to say they're not very, very angry. about many of the things that have happened over the last 33 years. But they have to look forward.

If you look at Putin's latest press conference, it is so cool and calm and logical. And the contrast with the hysteria in Europe and, you know, there's some of the things that are coming out in Ukraine at the moment, could not be starker. When you look at Putin's comments, well, anybody in their senses could see who is the more reliable partner if you want to move forward. Just saying. Ralph Steiner says, Dr. Sachs, if you were a British lord, would you now attack Sevastopol with the British Navy or risk a ground battle in Russia like at Balaclaba in 1854? What Royal Navy? I've just been watching a program just a couple of days ago.

You can find it. It's on YouTube by a man called Mark Felton, who's a historian, and who does lots of excellent programs on historical topics, mostly about the same. Second World War. Anyway, he did one recently about the Royal Navy, the British Navy, and pointed out that it now has more admirals than ships. I think we are dwindled to the level that our Navy, our Navy is, well, it's a couple, I think it's about 12 surface ships and two aircraft carriers that constantly break down. So what, what Navy are you going to send to Sevastopol to fight the Russians? ridiculous and there have been articles in especially the Daily Telegraph interestingly about the state of the British army the British army is in a terrible state they could put together for a peacekeeping force

to go to Ukraine in such were talked about perhaps 3,000 men and they would be under armed and under train and there would be no logistics you're not going to invade 3,000 men with, you're not going to invade Russia with 3,000 men. I mean, Napoleon and Hitler tried to invade Russia with rather more, and they still lost. Three thousand British troops isn't going to take you anywhere very far. I mean, these are ridiculous ideas. Graham says, great to see you in the EU Parliament yesterday, refreshing voice to hear there. How do you think the Bandarite organization could destroy a possible peace deal? It is a major concern because, of course, they are.

still there. They are probably very frightened because peace is a disaster for them. They must be afraid that the Russians will come after them in any peace. I understand the mood in Russia, by the way, after revelations about what some Ukrainians have been doing in the Kusk region, is very, very angry. I mean, the mood in Russia has absolutely come after these people. And I suspect there are an awful lot of people in Ukraine would love to come. come after these people as well. So a stable, peaceful situation is one that fills these people with terror, put aside the fact that, of course, it contradicts their ideology and their ambitions.

How you deal with it, I don't know. And it's going to be one of the big challenges going forward. But the first thing you need to do, and I get to anticipate some points we're going to be making a lot about over the course of this program and our next programs, what you need to do first is change the government in Kiev. I think it's now become absolutely crystal clear that the current political setup in Kiev cannot achieve peace, does not want peace, wants war, because that is the only way it can survive and function. Matthew says, would a false flag work? Surely the Americans know. Well, agreed.

I mean, they've already tried one, haven't they? If you believe that the Russians really attacked Chernobyl, then I have a bridge to sell you. That's all I can tell you. And Ralph Steiner says, could you fly a drone into Chernobyl at this time? Exactly. Exactly your point.

I mean, they're going to try. Of course, they're going to try. They're going to try all kinds of things. And some people, unfortunately, will fall for it. And others will know what really happened, but will pretend that it was the Russians again. And we've got to be prepared for that. I think Trump himself understands these things very well now.

I think he understands who he's dealing with and what they might do. But I can't pretend that this isn't something of concern. And sooner or later it will happen. And we'll just have to wait and see what it is. Ralph Steiner says President Trump has accused Zelensky of being a nasty little dictator. begging constantly for more money. Can the British become the new sugar daddy? No. We have a massive budget crisis. We have, as I said, 3,000,

we could perhaps send 3,000 men on a peacekeeping force to Russia. We are, our army, our major, our key division, this is, again, information that was published in the Daily Telegraph just the other day. Our major armored division has 12 guns, 12 artillery pieces. 12. There is shortages at every single level in the military system. We've pushed up taxes. Our borrowing costs are huge.

We are in no position to take over from the United States. And it is ridiculous to think so. Matthew says, Mr. Sachs, a man of your knowledge should be advising Trump on geopolitical affairs. Well, I hope so. I think it'd be a very good idea, actually. Ralph Steiner says, political elites will obviously be suffering an intense crisis following Vance's blistering speech.

Following tears, will they turn nasty? Yes, well, they already are. I mean, the events that we've seen play out over the last 24, 36 hours since Trump's initial comments basically saying, you know, that make peace you fall. What else can you do? because that's what he basically said. You know, Trump's initial comments, the subsequent Zelensky Press Conference,

the Trump reply, all of that was stage managed. And I think this is a point I really want to get across the people. It clearly was the way it was all covered. They are, the European elites are in panic, they are furious about this, they're terrified the Americans are leaving, that terrified the Russians are going to. Go on. Go on.

No, they stage managed Zelensky's press conference. That's what you're saying. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. It was all. No doubt. Yeah.

No doubt about it. And the media. Clarify. Yeah. That's what you're saying. And the media stories that preceded it, which distorted what Trump actually said. And as I said, they are furious.

They're clearly trying to push Trump. back, they're reviding the Russia gate hoax, or trying to, at least plant people, seeds in people's minds, thinking that that is true. I don't think anything's going to work. In fact, I get to say what happened. I think the events of the last 24 to 36 hours have been a disaster for Zelensky and the European elites. And if you look at the shocked reaction in Britain, they know it too. It didn't play out the way they expected at all. But we're going to have a lot more of this over the next couple of weeks and months. And we've got to be prepared for all of that and for the rocky ride that is to come, as they work constantly, continuously to prolong a war that is already lost,

having the illogic of it is staggering. Well, my question is, what place is there in the European Union for Cayacalus and for Ursula Vandelaan, specifically Taya Callas? She was appointed as the foreign minister just because of her rusophobia and her hate for Russia and the fact that she must escalate. So what place does she have now in the European Union as a foreign minister? She doesn't. I mean, again, the right thing is for Kayakalas to step down. I mean, it is absurd that she's occupied.

It was absurd that she was appointed to that position in the first place. I mean, it should have rung alarm bells already in Europe that she was being appointed. And, I mean, Ursula has to go also. I mean, I'm sorry to say it as bluntly as that. But she has brought Europe to the brink of disaster, as we can see. Yeah, I think, I don't know, I think Orban should go on the offensive. I think I think I fully expect that he will and that he will be supported by a lot of people. Just saying.

Yeah. Zaryel says, good morning, Professor Sacks. Love to listen to you, sir. Thank you for that. Flying Boar says questions for Dr. Sacks. Why don't you call the White House an offer to advise President Trump on Russia and roots of the problem? Who says he doesn't? No, we just say.

Paul Walker says the EU block wants to be a military block, despite knowing that 80% of munitions and equipment are non-interchangeable. Do they then design everything from scratch? Won't take long. Russia doesn't want Europe. It's just a saber rattling. It's absolute nonsense. You're completely correct.

I mean, to achieve something like that would be a project. It would be an absolutely sterile and pointless project, but it would be a project of 20 years, 20 years at least. if you got the planning systems organized and worked out, you know, proper plan in order to do it and put all the resources in place and sorted out the many problems of interchangeability that you're talking about. It was a decades-long program that would cost trillions. It will never happen. Fuzzy Ball says deal Russia and America would go for. Russia agrees to sell rare earth minerals in exchange for America cutting off all further funding for Ukraine.

I do think the Russians need to trade rare earths for America cutting off funding for Ukraine because after the events of the last couple of days, I think we're already there basically on that one. I cannot imagine that the Americans are going to just go on piling in more money into Ukraine. They're going to do what we've said that they should do on these programs. they're going to leave it to the Europeans to try and do that. So I think that the Russians don't need to trade rare earths for this. But from a Russian point of view, getting some kind of trade moving with the Americans would be a good idea. Because as I've said many times, the absence of that trade has meant that there have been very, very few voices in Washington,

which have wanted to maintain a stable relationship with Russia. Russia because in America, I'm afraid money talks. It's the thing that decides everything. And nobody loses money by taking a confrontational line with Russia. Nobody important does. Fractured 0-1. Thank you for that super sticker. The Alchemist 19 says, Professor, it's great to see your blood pressure is normal.

Alex and Alex, I trust you remember my analysis comparing the dynamics of the EU and NATO to the Soviet Union. and it's even more relevant in 2025. Absolutely, and Jady Vance is coming around to your point of view. LZo-6 says when Zelensky is hit by his own curse, I hope the ghost of the Olensky curse will stay and hunt down everyone who supported him. I just have to say this. I did my locals live stream yesterday, and Alex joined us. And he said that the Olensky curse is coming for Elensky.

That's absolutely brilliant. I've the entire live stream just lit up when you said that. And it's true. It's true. Yeah. Yeah. Zaryl says, Professor, how do you react to people who regard Gorbachev as a traitor and with the

associate, and with that associate you with? Please do not misunderstand my objective question. I still think you tried to be honest with helping. Well, I'm sure he did. And I've no doubt he did because I can, I remember that time. I followed events at that time extremely closely.

Now, Gorbachev made tragic mistakes. He did all sorts of things that he got hopelessly wrong. But it is also true that he bet on understanding in Washington, which he had to some extent when Ronald Reagan was president, because Reagan was in control of the U.S. government. and did have a vision. But when Reagan departed the scene, that vision went

because George H.W. Bush, who succeeded, never had Reagan's authority and never had the kind of vision and wasn't listening to the right people in the way that Reagan did. I know an awful lot of people, by the way, have all kinds of views about Reagan. I remember Reagan, and I absolutely opposed him

for much of his presidency. But I've now come to understand that he was a much, much more sophisticated and intelligent person than I had realized at the time. In fact, you know, really quite extraordinarily a clever man, contrary to what many people think. But anyway, so I think that went, a lot of things went wrong. I think Gorbachev also did not understand his own country very well. He didn't understand its traditions. He didn't understand how its economy worked. He didn't understand the bureaucracy.

He has a very different figure, very different personality from Putin, whose heart beats with Russia's, as I always say. So Putin knows his country in a way that Gorbachev didn't. Awakening Richard says Chinese geopolitical channel here. do you think Russia-US negotiation will end with Russia's reduced involvement in BRICS, especially when it comes to de-dollarization? Absolutely not. In fact, Lavrov made a speech to the Russian parliament in which he said otherwise. In fact, he said that not only are we fully committed with BRICs, but we are moving fully forward with all of the financial architecture that we agreed in Kazan,

The responsibility to move forward with that at the moment is with Lula, because Brazil has the Briggs chair. But he seemed to be speaking about the fact that Lula has actually been doing things. And Putin, who gave a press conference yesterday, very short one, very interesting one, he went and said that the Russians are going to keep all their Briggs partners fully informed about all of the discussions that are taking place with it. the U.S. The Russians understand that it is bricks amongst other things, but it is bricks to a great extent that gives them leverage over the Americans, and they're not going to throw that away, quite apart from the fact that they understand that membership of bricks is in their interests

also, and developing bricks works fully to their advantage. Ralph Steiner says Trump, pressing for new Ukrainian presidential elections must be putting extreme pressure on Zelensky. Is USA capable of seeing him retire to London? Well, I wonder. We'll have to see. Absolutely. I mean, I think that we've come very, we're coming very close now to a position where the Americans are going to say, look, if Zelensky stays, we're washing our hands of this. This man is impossible. That's a conclusion that the Russians came too long ago. man is impossible. He won't, I mean, notice that in all of this hysteria over the last couple of days, Zelensky ruled out elections. He says he's going to stay. And he's not rescinding his decree of 2nd October 22 on negotiations about not negotiating with the Russians. He is not moving

He wants things to go exactly as they were. He wants the Americans to give him guarantees. He wants the Americans to give him missiles. He wants Western troops in Ukraine. He is not prepared to negotiate. It is as simple as this. And the Americans can see that. So we're getting very, very close to the point where they say,

if Zelensky stays, then we go. We can't continue whilst Zelensky is there. Maybe they will try to, engineer his removal. Maybe the Russians will do that too. But one thing that's also become clear over the last 36 hours is that Zelensky still has important backers, first and foremost, the British, who are doing everything they can to keep him in place. Ralph Steiner says, imagine Johnson and Zelensky hanging out in London. Ralph Steiner also says, Alex. Quite a scene. I can just imagine, you know,

going, seeing them, you know, outside a pub in Mayfair or something. That may happen. Ralph Steinis says, Alexander, would you invite Zelensky on as a guest? No. What would be the point of it? I mean, all the man does is lie. He lies all the time. He's utterly manipulative.

It's a complete waste of time. I mean, to say it straightforward, if he came on as a guest, I've never, you've never seen me in cross-examination. mode, but I can cross-examine him and take him to pieces in ways that he would never, which is in ways that he wouldn't like, and which

would probably mean that he wouldn't come on our show. But what would be the point of it anyway? Yeah, he'll go on Pierce Morgan or something like that. Exactly. Exactly. Zareal says, China illegal immigrants have invaded USA. Sorry.

Well, possibly, yes. Serafim Gulen says, what about Trump calling Zelensky a dictator? Can this backfire on him with his supporters or will it be his advantage? What can Zelensky do now? I think what has happened is going to turn Trump's electoral base increasingly against Zelensky. Remind, they don't like him anyway. They want to see the war in Ukraine end. And what they see is Trump trying to make peace, and Zelensky is standing in the way and criticizing Trump and through his criticisms of Trump, criticizing the United States.

They wouldn't like it. Axel O says, is USAEU asking Russia to pay Ukraine's debt? And is it going to do so like North Vietnam? If so, why would Russia do so? Well, this is an excellent question. I don't think the Russians will assume liability. for Ukraine's debt. I mean, by the way, they did back in 1991.

They agreed then that Russia by itself would pay the whole of the Soviet Union's debt, which they did, by the way. They mean, they paid it all off, and they got very good, strong financial position. But they're not going to take over Ukraine's debt now. They're not going to pay the Europeans or anyone like this. But what they will say to the Americans is,

look, if you want to come out ahead, then we are a much better, far more reliable partner for you than the Ukrainians have ever been. The Ukrainians can't keep their promises. They're offering you things they don't have. There's been a latest report, by the way. I think it was in Bloomberg, that Ukraine doesn't even have these rare earths that people are hearing about. And people have got this again completely wrong. it was not Trump who brought up the topic of rare earths

it was not Trump who came to the Ukrainians and said give me your rare earths it was the Ukrainians it was Zelensky Zelensky's first first raised this with Lindsay Graham and then he met with Trump at Trump Tower in September

and that was when he brought it up and then he brought it up as part of his victory plan it's extraordinary how all of these things get forgotten. So Zelensky offered things he didn't have and which don't exist. The Russians can offer real things. That question in the Oval Office from the reporter, I believe it was a plant. Yeah. I believe the White House planted that question so that Trump can come out with his opening bid, which is 50%.

Exactly. Yeah, they completely outplayed Zelensky. Of course. Because Zelensky's It's a fool. Well, not just Zelensky. He's a fool.

He's a fool, but also he's a media minded. He's media minders. Who are Europeans? Yeah. Yeah. And on the point of who's going to pay for Ukraine, Europe's going to pay for Ukraine. EU. They promised they're going to pay for Ukraine two, two, three years ago.

Ursula said it. We're going to pay everything for Ukraine. She said it. Yes. And she promised it. Europe's going to pay for it. Of course. Of course.

Studio Ryder said, Every developed nation is most afraid of their citizens above all. Whichever great power can match it with the least bureaucracy will succeed. The managerial system dooms us to fight. True. Derek says Naomi Klein was dishonest in the way she vilified Professor Sachs in the shock doctrine. Can he please address her accusations for those who were misled? Well, I think that requires a completely different program.

I, by the way, didn't like the shock doctrine. I thought it was a paranoid book, actually. It attributes a degree of intelligence to the people that she was criticizing, which simply does not exist, in my opinion. AMM 4467 says, well done. Thank you for that. Ralph Steiner says, Why did God put all that British and American oil under Arab and Middle East?

I mean, it's really very inconvenient controlling all those people. Of course, true enough. The British who started all that, by the way. I mean, they went to Iran with the oil because it was essential for the British fleet. And that meant that they then became increasingly involved in the Middle East. And then they gradually gained control of Arabia and they carved up Arabia amongst the various families that they wanted, so they had the Hashemites in it. in Iraq and Jordan and the Saudis in what is now Saudi Arabia. And they ran things very,

very tightly in the 20s and 30s in ways that people simply don't know. And they created a huge pile of problems which have never gone away. Studio Raynor says the motive is ideology, capitalism and Marxism, both base material satisfaction above all else. Tyrants are dangerous, but hedonism is lethal. Peace is overrated. Well, I wouldn't say peace is overrated, but you don't have to have hedonism and peace. Just saying. Fuzzy Ball says Maria Zaharava speaks fluent English. So on interview with her and Jackson.

Hinkle, you guys should have her on would be a great guest. Yeah, possibly. Possibly, yeah. Bill Rose says we need to lock Michael Hudson and Tom Lungo in a room for 24 hours to figure out a new geopolitical financial system for the next 50 years. Alexander Mercurz can mediate. It's a great idea. Nico says my main points about the split of opinion in our community

of analysts are in your Robert Barnes interview. I'm sorry, Alexander, about the column. Yeah, we'll answer those questions in a dedicated video, Nick. We're going to do that. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. It's coming up, yeah. Studio Reiner says,

the British can claim single-handedly responsibility for what the entire world has been indoctrinated, but to believe, is universal economics. Alexander doesn't understand British soft power. Understand it very, very well. Remember, I live in London. I'm in awe of it, actually. I mean, the extent to which the British still shape global thinking, given the realities, the underlying realities of British power, is extraordinary. But can I just say something? I mean, I think that period is coming to an end.

I think that we are not going to be able to sustain it for much longer because the realities of what we have become are now catching up with us. Frank Mears says, can you guys give an update on your thoughts on Elon Musk and Trump, possibly weighing in on the Australian election cycle? I haven't followed this story anywhere near enough to be able to comment. So I'm not going to hear. I think my senses that it would probably be a mistake for them to get too involved in Australian affairs. Australia, to my knowledge, is a very different society in the United States, despite certain superficial similarities.

Rob Wan says, will we see a back-to-Russia pivot in 20 years time? I don't believe the US can stay away. where does this leave Iran, in which direction will a reconstituted European military be directed? Well, every reconstituted European military, if it's ever created, is focused against Russia. That is the iron rule, by the way, of European geopolitics over the last 300 years, that when Europe unifies, when Western Europe or Central Europe unifies, it invariably marches on Moscow and gets smashed. That's been the recurring pattern. So I hope we are going to break out of that finally.

I don't think it's going to happen. I think that the realities of European power make it impossible, just to say, and the realities of Russian power make it impossible too. Now, a pivot to Russia? I'm not quite sure what that means, precisely. Russia is a great power. It is at the absolute center place in global affairs. It has been now recognized as a great power again. There's an extraordinary cartoon in a German magazine called Cicero, in which you have the three great powers, you know, embodied by the eagle,

the bear and the dragon, carving the world up between them. I don't believe that, by the way. But anyway, so the Russians are reestablished as a great power again. That is what the neocons have achieved through the war in Ukraine. Saddam says sanctions. What idiot thought of putting sanctions again? Why would a European individual country's care of EU sanctions when clearly America is thinking of removing them? Well, it's very simple.

If the Americans remove sanctions, the Europeans, Ursula and Co. I was saying that they will keep them. You're kidding me. I mean, it's ridiculous. I mean, what will happen, first of all, I mean, put aside the fact that European businesses and companies would finally, I think, at that point, generally rebel. They'd say this is absurd. And what will happen is whenever each sanction, each wave of the sanctions comes up for renewal or bond will veto them. He knows then that he's got the Americans behind him.

And that's what he will do. Yeah, she needs to go. Christian Fortin says, Meanie J.D. Vance made the nice MSC chairman insecure, then crying, although the gentle chairman had done nothing to J.D. Vance. Then the beautiful blonde, Butch, Bulgarian bureaucrat came to defend the chairman against J.D. Vance. There you go.

It was an extraordinary scene, by the way. Klaus Clemenson says the Danish prime minister is behaving like a woman who's lost her grounding. Drama, drama, drama, help. What should we Danes do? What should we Danes do? Calm down. And instead of constantly supporting conflict in Europe, conflict with Russia, start advocating for peace with Russia.

There have been times when Denmark's had good relations with Russia, just saying. And, of course, the last but one empress of Russia was Danish. Studio Reiner says, Alexander, you do realize all the so-called countries are British colonies, right? He who writes the laws of monetary policy for the industrial world will rule the industrial world. Churchill is misunderstood. No, it's not true.

That may have been true once, but it's certainly not true anymore. And I get to say something else. If really in Britain, we run the world in that kind of way, then we have absolutely nothing to show for it. Come to London and see what it looks like. Go to any British city and see how drab and disheveled it looks. Even rich people in Britain feel less rich than they used to be. Raphael says Russia said every leader who took action against them will be dealt with after the war.

I think they were talking to Macaron and Bojo directly. I think they said the same thing to the Americans. following just now. Raphael said, like always, thank you and keep it up four years. Thank you, Raphael, for all the support. Thank you very much. Nicos says, I recently found

a left-wing YouTuber called Shabby Sabs. Unlike others, she is responsible and willing to listen to others as she has invited Scott Ritter multiple times. Look her up. Well, yeah. Thank you. Well, thanks, thank you.

Nicos. Caspian Lake says, thank you, guys. Matthew says Brian Beledick is far more cynical on Trump. Is this not an opportunity for the USA to reset and rearm its policy positions haven't changed? Lots of people are very, very cynical about Trump. And I can understand why. They're very cynical about the United States. And they're saying that, you know, this is simply an attempt by the United States

to pause and recalibrate before it comes back and starts things all over again. Maybe that is true. but in the meantime securing a peace even for a short time is surely a better thing and bringing the war in Ukraine to an end is also a better thing

and if the United States continues if it ends up doing what you say what you know people like that say then all that's going to happen is it's going to be more trouble for the United States itself American interests are not served by neocon policies

it's as simple as that and Putin and Xi Jinping they're aware of everything absolutely they're not they're not going to just allow this to happen again because they're

they're clueless about what's going on though believe me if we understand this they definitely understand I was going to say the assumption people constantly make is that Putin and Xi Jinping and Modi

and all those people the naive people. You're kidding. They're not naive, not in any possible way. The fear with the fear with Russia, which I understand as well is, is you go back to the Maidan and Minsk and then the agreement in March of 2022. And the narrative is, which I understand it, we've talked about it many times is that Russia got burned on all this stuff.

Yeah. They got played. As they themselves say, they acknowledge that they were played, and they have been telling everybody that they're not going to be played in the same way again. I have to add something else, and this is a point which people just don't seem to get, but it is very important. Russia wasn't anywhere near as powerful in 2014 as it is now. Yeah.

No, yeah, there was no way they would have been able to handle. the sanctions onslaught like no like we saw yeah all of that that would have that would have crushed the country that would have crushed the country i mean their own banks relied on swift to send messages to each other there was no backup then there was i mean it was a completely different setup i mean Putin used the eight years after 2014 to completely change the whole industrial and financial architecture of Russia. Give you an example. We got the information about this just yesterday. When the Baltic states cut off the electricity supply from Russia, it was clearly what they were doing was that they were intending to plunge Kaliningrad into crisis. But the Russians, starting from 2014, thought that was coming. And they made sure that

Kaliningrad had all of the electricity stations and all of those things that put them in a position to ensure that Kaliningrad continued to receive electric power. The Baltic states, by the way, have seen their prices double. In Kaliningrad, it's remained stable. But that required preparation and planning, which the Russians did starting from 2014. And that was just one small thing that they did. They did everything else. They reorganized their engineering industries. They set up their machine tool industries.

They started rebuilding their armed forces. They developed hypersonic missiles. And, of course, they completely transformed the financial architecture. within Russia, it's so. Which proves that back then in 2014 and 15, when they signed the Minsk agreements, that Russia had an understanding that these guys are going to probably come after us again in the future, so we better start preparing. They probably said we hope that doesn't happen.

We hope that doesn't happen, but we better start preparing now because they might come after us again. Exactly. And they were right. Yeah. Studio Rainer says the EU lost. when Constantinople fell. When Europe loses Greek culture, they become Apes, Apes, Apes.

Remember Aristotle thought the barbarians were idiots, make Greek great again. Well, I would love to say that. I must admit, the idea of the EU falling when Constantinople fell. Constantinople fell in 1453. I think that was rather earlier than the establishment of the EU.

But anyway, I take your point, And I like your sentiments and thank you. Ralph Steiner says, Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority, Sir Francis Bacon. Even though truth is first casualty of war, do you see her recovering victoriously? Oh, yes, absolutely. I mean, there will always be some people who will cling to the myths

and narratives of the Ukraine war, that Ukraine was this heroic, gallant country up against the grasping Russian bear, that Zelensky's church, that he's a hero that the Ukrainians would have won the war if we'd given them more weapons that if we kept up the sanctions

or tightened the sanctions or enforced the sanctions properly Russia would have collapsed there will be people who will continue to say that and claim that in 10, 20, 30 years time but gradually over time that narrative will fall apart and become discredited

Monty 1.5 says how will Balkan countries like Bulgaria and Greece tackle the strategic depth problem coming from the southeast if NATO leaves Europe. Well, we're going to have a lot of work to do in the Balkans, and it's not going to be easy for us, because, again, our diplomacy and our politics is atrophied. And one has to say this. But, again, it is not beyond the reach of statesmanship to do this. And if you're looking about what NATO and the EU have done, they have balkanized the balkans. They took Yugoslavia, they broke it up. They've surrounded, as I said many times, Serbia with micro-protectorates, which are antagonistic to Serbia.

They've tried to interfere in Serbian domestic politics. And, you know, I've discussed this in one of my programs. I'm not disputing that there are genuine grievances in Serbia. under this movement that we've seen in Serbia doesn't have real origins within Serbia itself. But there are always the interference and the meddling in Serbia. So there is a real risk that when NATO the EU crumbles, we will see an explosion in the Balkans. It will be the responsibility of the people there to make sure it doesn't happen.

And I hope we can do it. But the reason the Balkans is now a. bomb is because the NATO and EU made it so. The Huckie Goley says the hysteria politically within the broader public feels like a mass psychosis event. Ideology hurting reality can be a potent mix, not sure how we navigate this as a wider society. Well, absolutely. We will run.

We will get over it. You know what? There's that famous quip that, you know, firstly, the truth is ridiculed. Then it is passionately rejected. then it is universally accepted. And we're at that point at the moment where the truth that the war is ending and we have lost, in the West we have lost, is being passionately rejected. And that's what we're seeing across Europe at the moment.

But give it a couple of months, get a negotiating process going, engineer eventually some kind of regime change in Kiev, because that is essential. I mean, that's now become clear to me that it's the key. then things will start to abate and perhaps this madness will start to pass. But when it does, we will see that the damage that's been done in the meantime in Europe is tremendous and will probably take decades to repair if it is ever repaired at all. If the terms of Istanbul are met by the United States and you get elections in Ukraine,

and you get sanctions relief, would you consider that a huge victory for Russia? It would be a loss. I don't think they talked about sanctions relief in Istanbul. No, they didn't. No, they didn't. No, they didn't. But the Americans are now quite clearly committed to it. So it would be a colossal victory for Russia.

And by the way, yes, it would be a defeat for the United States. But we're talking about the United States of Joe Biden and Victoria Noland, not the, United States as a nation and that's an important thing to understand it would be an absolute disaster for europe what we're talking about would be a disaster for europe for the whole structures that have dominated europe over the last 80 years and which have developed there under the shadow of american power studio writer says why doesn't the press just say ukraine won and russia was pushed back end of story i'm so tired of people yapping I mean, they can't do that because it's so obviously isn't true.

Nectaria, thank you for that super sticker. Rocha's thank you for that super sticker. Seraphim says, just wanted to say thank you. You are the light in the sea of information. If I was a world leader, I would offer you positions as my advisors. Thank you, sir, Afin. Gleb Purch says reading an interesting book called Stalin's Gamble about Soviet attempts to get France and the UK into an anti-Nazi alliance. If only the French and Brits had more sense, a lot less people would die.

There is a huge, huge amount of academic writing about this. Lots of, lots of books. And what has made this happen is the opening of the Foreign Ministry archives in Moscow. So we now have a lot more information about what the Soviets were really trying to do in the 30s. And what it shows is that their attempts to create an alliance with the French and the British to restrain Germany were real. I mean, they were sincere. It failed utterly. And, of course, it led to the great crisis of the 1940s.

Rafael says China has the best group of Anatolian Shepard I, Russia to look out and deal with everything for them. position to be in life. They are one. I'm not sure I understand that question, actually. Russia, Russia and China are Russia. I guess Raphael is saying that China has Russia there to... Oh, absolutely. Yes. I've made this point many times. I mean, if you know your Chinese history well, you will know

that the most, the greatest existential threats to China came from its northern border. I mean, put aside what the Europeans were doing in the 19th century, which was terrible for China, but did not result in China becoming a colony. China was always conquered from the north. That was the root, the Mongols and the Manchus and all of those people came through. Now, for the first time, China has on its northern border a great power, which is a friend. And as a Chinese person once said to me, one of the key events that made it possible for China to take off economically, was that in the 1980s, as tensions between China and the Soviet Union relaxed,

because of Gorbachev, and we have to say this. The Chinese were able to start scaling down their armed forces on their northern borders, and that released resources for the Chinese government to start investing in the Chinese economy. And of course, Russia has abundant raw materials, as we know, food, oil, gas, all of these things, strategic metals, rare earths. The Chinese need rare earths. So, I mean, they can give everything that the Chinese,

the Chinese need, and they give them security as well. Nico says, I always forget to ask this, but there was an article a month ago that mentioned the Brazilian opposition wanting to get out of BRICS. Is it possible? It's absolutely plausible. It's not to be underestimated at all. Of the BRICS states, the one that is by far the least committed is Brazil. Ralph Steiner says, D.K. could have stopped Ukraine blowing up Nord Stream. Yeah.

Yes. Iranian kiddo gifted the Duran membership. Thank you for that. Iranian. New 2 says, Go, guys, continually conveying valuable cutting edge material. Thank you. Thank you for that.

Raphael says, could it be European leaders are the ones who wanted the war in the first place, that American leaders simply. went along with them we had it wrong my my in view is that it was a joint enterprise uh one which was basically agreed way back in uh 2014 2015 that there were some people who pushed against it in europe one was angela merkel not because she was pro russian but because she realized that a war against the Russians would have bad consequences. She never really argued with the people who advocated it.

But I remember the sense of relief when she finally left the scene in 2021 and made it possible for, you know, the rest of Europe to combine behind this enterprise. The other person who had doubts and, you know, did so in a very, I mean, I should make a clear, I didn't like either of these people, was Obama. When he left the scene in 2016, again, there was this expectation that they would finally have this opportunity to settle scores with the Russians. They were hoping Hillary Clinton would come along, that she would do it. Instead, they got Donald Trump.

They did everything they could to basically eliminate Donald Trump from the scene. In 2020, they achieved it. Biden came in and euphoria. We finally got rid of Merkel. We finally got rid of Obama and Trump. Now it's full steam ahead. And I remember they all came together at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022 and they were throwing a party.

The sense of excitement and exhilaration was just, was just, incredible. Yeah. And people, no, what's underreported is that in October and November of 2021, Ursula made trips to the United States with the Biden White House so they could coordinate, to meet with the Biden White House so they can coordinate the sanctions packages that were going to be thrown at Russia. Absolutely.

Absolutely correct. Yeah. She's on record as saying that. It's not me. She's on record of saying that she was in the United States and they were. They were planning out all of the sanctions that they were going to throw against Russia. Ralph Steiner says, so does Project Ukraine get a C-minus grade or what? C-minus grade.

It's an absolute complete fail. That's all it is. Disastersful. Vinicious Arcaro says, thank you for all your work. Fuzzy Ball says is Nigel. Thank you, Vinicious Arcado. Fuzzy Ball says, is Nigel Farage the biggest UK winner out of Ukraine? Yes. Why else do we have this sagging, disastrous situation in Britain?

I mean, the British elite gambled everything on Project Ukraine. They got Brexit as a result, which they didn't expect. And they've now got reformed UK leading the polls. Bill Rose says, is Russian gas such a powerful asset that it can control the governments of Western Europe? No. never been used in that way. This is the other paradox of it. What it can do is make Europe prosperous if it uses it intelligently. Not that we ever did, by the way. Monti one of five says, I was actually hinting more at Erdogan's expansionist ambitions. Oh, right. I see. Okay. Well,

you mean, you mean, this is your question about Russia, China. Well, you know, we mustn't, I mean, we mustn't underestimate Erdogan, but Erdogan is hardly a threat to China, despite the fact that he's at times back the Uyghurs and done things of that kind, but he's hardly someone that can take on the Chinese. I mean, and I don't think he, I think he understands that as well. Erdogan always understands and respects power and will never push beyond a certain limit. even though, as I said, he's a dangerous and ultimately treacherous man. Studio Ranner says, I think the Chinese put Serbia in debt, not sure why the Western media is hiding that. Also, the Brits conquered China through commerce, opioids.

The Brits conquered China through all kinds of means. Opioids certainly played a significant role. War also played a significant role, too, and should not be underestimated, just. very close to where I live there is the tomb of one of the people who led the Elgin expedition, which was a military force, that

captured Beijing in 1860. Just saying. And burnt down the summer palace and did all kinds of other destruction whilst they were there. Studio Reiner says, also, did you see Israel's plan to destroy the dam at the Nile River, which would delete 10 million people?

There is no, there seems to be no limit to the, to the taste for destruction of some people in Israel at this moment in time. This is going to be a very, very difficult crisis to end. It can, it can be done. I have to say, I think Trump might be the only person who could, actually. Raphael says, I can see a change in BRICs leadership soon. Downgrade India and Brazil, elevate Indonesia and Vietnam. Germany will be a member soon too. I wouldn't make those predictions.

My own sense is that India is a full supporter of the BRICs. Obviously, they want to have good relations with the United States. why wouldn't they? And they need the United States to hedge against China to some extent. But I think that Chinese-Indian relations have actually improved over the last couple of months. And whenever discussions come up within the bricks for further financial integration, India is always there supporting them. All right, Alexander, those are all the questions. Let me just do a final check to make sure we got everything and your final thoughts as I check. Well, I mean, these are extraordinary times.

I think people need to understand that project Ukraine is over. I mean, the Ukraine war is not over. But these attempts by some people in Europe, especially London, to keep it going, are absurd. and they will backfire horribly on those who are trying to do it. All right. That's everything. Thank you once again.

Thank you once again to Jeffrey Sachs. To Jeffrey Sachs, absolutely. And thank you to everyone that watched us on Rockfin, on Odyssey, on Rumble, on YouTube, and our community on locals, the durand.com. and thank you to our moderators. Peter Zareel.

Ralph Steiner asks, will the peace be terrible after the war ends? No, it will be better for everyone, including the people of Ukraine, by the way. The war has been a disaster. The peace will be much better. Yeah, agreed. I think those are the moderators.

I think I got the moderator, Zareel and Peter, we're with us today. All right, take care, everybody. be back soon with more videos on Alexander's channel and on my channel. Take care. Thank you.