The Duran Podcast - John Bolton escalation. Removing Imran Khan w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

Episode Date: August 16, 2023

John Bolton escalation. Removing Imran Khan w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

Okay, we are live. Welcome everybody to another Duran. Live stream. I have Alexander Merkiris with us. And I have the one and only a voice of sanity, reason, and intellect. We have Professor Jeffrey Sacks joining us. Thank you, Professor Sacks, for joining us once again for a great to be back with you guys. All right. So we have 30 minutes. We have a lot of ground to cover. We're going to talk about John Bolton. We're going to talk about Imran Khan, Alexander, Mr. Sacks. Let's get rolling. I have all the information for Jeffrey Sacks to follow him in the description box down below, and it will be available as a pinned comment as well, the Center for Sustainable Development, Columbia University.

Let's get rolling. Hello to everyone. Hello to our moderators. Alexander, Professor Sacks, let's talk. Indeed, let's talk. And I'm going to suggest that we start with Imran Khan, because obviously John Bolton is an important person, but this is an ongoing crisis in Pakistan. Pakistan, a very important country, a large country, a country with a lot of economic potential, also a major nuclear power, a military

power with some significance, a country with a longstanding history of tension with India, an ally historically of the United States, an ally historically of China as well, so it's a complex country, lots of things come together and it is going through a major political crisis. And this political crisis dates back to recent events when the elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, a man widely supported in Pakistan itself, a person who, by the way, the Pakistani community in London overwhelmingly supports. I know quite a lot of members from that community, people who'd be very angry with the way in which he was removed from office and who went into protested and people who were not interested in politics at that time. There now moves to try

to remove him from the political scene. He's been the target of lots of prosecutions and he's now facing a prison sentence as well. And I think Professor Sachs that you actually are personally acquainted with in Rantan and perhaps you can give us some of your thought. about this ongoing crisis and what it means. Yeah, thanks so much. You know, first of all, he's in solitary confinement right now. His life is at risk. He, as you said, was targeted in an assassination attempt.

He's a superb person, first of all. Very smart, very decent, very brave. I'm extremely fortunate to know him. And of course, I've been watching with great fear and trepidation all these months. When he was removed from power a few months ago, he immediately said, of course, this is the U.S. doing. And then the MSM, the mainstream media in the West either ignored that or said, see how flaky this is. I am on regular communication with him, and he knew what he was talking about. It was not just making some statement, and it all came out last week. It came out through the

continued, wonderful work of the intercept to which we owe an enormous amount in the last couple of years because the Intercept is investigative reporting telling us things that absolutely the New York Times would never say, never cover, show no interest in, and disguise. And the Intercept keeps telling the truth. And what they released was a memo, a cable that was leaked by a Pakistani senior military official that described how the, Pakistani government was threatened by the United States, get rid of this guy, basically. This was the gist of it. The gist of it was we are very unhappy with the prime minister, and things will go badly for your country if he continues. But things could go much better

if something else happened. And this message was reported as an ambassador is supposed to do, reported who said what, how this conversation went down back to Islamabad, and sure enough, he was thrown out of power. And I know more of what said, not with the same documentary detail about bribery to vote against Imran Khan, because he's by far Pakistan's most popular politician, He's like not only enormously in the diaspora, but inside the country. So bringing him down is not an easy thing. It takes an organized effort. And that organized effort was made in response to the U.S. threats.

And this is a typical U.S. regime change operation, which creates so many problems all over the world. And we see it vividly here. and when it happens, you know, in the mainstream U.S., no question is asked, nobody cares, no one says a word, no coverage, because that's normal. You're just supposed to turn your head the other way if the U.S. brings down governments in this place or that place. Well, that's normal business. And this is what we need to understand right now. first, because Pakistan is important, because Imran Khan is important, because we're talking about a nuclear power for heaven's sake that is in a very unstable region, because now it is exposed

that the United States was not only a party to this, but an instigator to this regime change. You'd expect something from the U.S. government, not a peep, right? right now. And this is, unfortunately, how all of this works. And I would say, gentlemen, if I may, though it's obvious to you, and I'm sure obvious to your listenership, it's this kind of thing, which brings us to the war in Ukraine and to so many other conflicts. Because this is not some extraordinary event. This is the normal stupidity and arrogance of the United States. States, which completely abandoned diplomacy decades ago and believes that the way to foreign policy is regime change.

And, you know, other countries don't like that. They don't want their regime changed. They don't want their neighbors regime changed at the U.S. behest, but we're addicted to it in the U.S. security state. And this is the source of the problem. And one thing that I think is just worth us reflecting on, and I would encourage people to read, there's a wonderful book by a very, very smart young scholar in the United States, Lindsay O'Rourke, who's an assistant professor at Boston College, who tracked meticulously all of the U.S. regime

change operations from 1947 to 1989. In other words, the Cold War regime change operations, 70 of them. And 64 of them covert. So because she had the benefit of space and time, some of things had been declassified so she could really provide that evidence. And it's basically 64 covert operations in little over 40 years, so one and a half per year and ending

one after another in failure, disaster, destabilization, civil war, assassinations, ongoing. And that's just documentary evidence. The book is beautifully written regime,

covert regime change, 2017. And we need to bring that up to date because, of course, Yanukovych's overthrow in February 2014, which is the start of this war, is on the updated list. And now we have Imran Khan on the updated list. And until the United States learns to stop this rather bad behavior and turn back to diplomacy, this is an extraordinarily dangerous world. I don't have to say, I mean, that's what, that's a little repetitive, but a little obvious and trite, but we're making the world so so dangerous by secretly overthrowing governments.

Absolutely. I mean, I find it astonishing that the United States should tell people in Pakistan that overthrowing Imran Khan, the most popular politician in Pakistan, is going to make the situation in Pakistan better. I mean, it's manifestly going to make. make it worse. Now, I said, one of the interesting things about this very scholarly account of these 64 covert covert operations, which is a lot. She goes through which ones worked, which ones didn't work, quote unquote, working in the sense of changing the regime. Most of them fail. I think 25 of the 64 succeed, if I remember the precise number. But then she says, So what happens after those 25?

And most of those are complete disasters afterwards. Not that the U.S. gets any policy that it wants. Instead, the country falls into civil war or into deep chronic violence or into coups and further assassinations and so forth. So none of it works, but they keep trying. It's very depressing and very strange. Can I just make a few quick observations? As I said, there is a very, very large.

Pakistani community in London, with which I'm very familiar with. Now, the interesting thing about Imran Khan's support is that it extends right across the social spectrum within that community. And I believe that is true at Pakistan itself. So you have secular-minded Pakistanis who support him. You also have deeply religious Pakistanis who support him also. As far as they were concerned, He was their elected Prime Minister. He is seen as somebody who is fundamentally honest. He appeared to represent a change, a hope for a better Pakistan in the future. And the fact that he was removed basically feels to them as if the future of their country,

the hope for their country has been taken from them. And that is what I have heard without exception from all of the, these people. And I've spoken to many. The second point I wanted to say is that without exception, before these documents appeared, they all were sure that the United States had a role. I mean, it was something that they didn't just, you know, assume they took it for granted. It wasn't a rumor. It wasn't anything of that kind. They could already, because they followed politics in Pakistan, they could see that it was happening. And of course, they are outraged.

They are furious that the future of their country, as they see it, is being taken from it by another country, by the United States. And I have no doubt that that is the sentiment in Pakistan as well. So this is a wrong policy from every point of view. It's trying to do something covertly when everybody in the country knows that it is being done and it is not strengthening the U.S. position in Pakistan. It is undermining it.

And you know, two things that I would add to that, which I agree with, of course, a thousand percent. First, he's very smart and very serious as a leader. And one of the things that I've known about him for several years is he's constantly writing about information or asking about a study or what do you think of this report or what's going to happen to this part of the world economy. So he's absolutely serious of doing the right things. And second, of course, the stunning thing, what was his crime so called that brought the U.S. rap? It was that Imran Khan wanted to be friendly with the United States, but also with China, also with Russia. His whole message was, it's not us versus we have good relations with everybody.

That makes America hugely upset. You can't have good relations with everyone. That means you're against us. And the response against you, I just said, we have very good relations. We're not against our enemies. No, no, I'm not against your enemies because we trade with them. We have normal relations. Well, then you can't be a friend with us. This is, of course, you know, absolutely the mindset of the United States. You're with us or you're against us. And even being friendly is not enough. You have to be on our side because the whole message was. you're not putting on the sanctions, you're not breaking relations, you're not doing all these things. Most of the world doesn't want to do it, but they sit, you know, watching the United States behavior. It certainly doesn't win friends. Indeed. And let us now come to the other person

we're going to talk about because that leads directly to him and that is John Bolton, who is, if I can say so, the high priest of this kind of thinking, at least publicly in the United States. He is somebody who absolutely sees the world in terms of an them and us division. And he shows no restraints in the kind of policies that he proposes to follow, that the United States follow in order to enforce that view. And he's been writing about Russia. He's been writing about Ukraine. And he's making all the kind of proposals that one would expect from him. And the One that really stood out for me is obviously he demands a further military escalation on behalf of Ukraine. Well, that's inevitable.

But he also demands enforcement of sanctions against Russia in a way that will directly impact U.S. relations with practically every country in the world if you take what he says literally, or so it seems to me. And this is exactly that them and us, either us, either with us or against us philosophy that Professor Sacks, it seems to me you're talking about. You know, one of the amazing things about American politics is how chronic failure is maybe just about the biggest guarantee for a pay raise and a promotion. So Bolton has failed in every, every single area that he has been engaged in. He's been the walking disaster of American diplomacy for 25 years. He was dead set against any diplomacy with North Korea. No, no, we have to crush them because otherwise they'll get nuclear weapons. And so when there was a diplomatic process that,

Clinton started. As soon as Bush Jr. came into office and Bolton was there, Bolton shut it down. Boy, that was great. That really prevented North Korea from getting nuclear weapons. You know, in other words, he absolutely provoked the opposite of what he wanted. Then, of course, he was the great champion of every single war and regime change operation that has taken place since then, every one of which has been the worst debacle. He was the high priest of the invasion of Iraq, of course, but all the destabilization throughout the Middle East, he's been in favor of every one of these things. He was the one that absolutely was determined to torpedo the agreement with Iran. And this is Purdue. His work to complete

destroyed the JCPOA, the joint agreement with Iran. It's a typical thing. What is it accomplished? Well, he wanted regime change. Then he wanted the regime change in Venezuela, absolutely one of the most farcical episodes of American foreign policy imaginable because these dunderheads in the White House, and this was Trump and Bolton, decided one day that the way that they would bring down Maduro in Venezuela, in addition to the economic sanctions, was that they would decide one day that, well, Maduro's no longer president. Now we have named another person. We have named Juan Guaido president. So they thought in the Oval Office, we'll just choose a different president. And they actually said, okay, now we recognize the presidency

of this person. What's a little pathetic is how many countries went along with the United States. It was like watching a comic book. Even some of my colleagues in the East Coast became, you know, officials of the Juan Guaido government. I said, are you kidding? Are you joking? Because the White House Trump says that now this guy's president, now you're going to be his representative at the IMF, this is one particular person. They play this game as if this is a grown-up game. You know, if you're eight-year-olds, okay, now you're president. No, no, now I'm president.

But this is how Bolton actually operates. And he's failed in every single thing that he's done. He did get himself fired by Trump. Okay, that was a success for the American people. But here he's back again, telling us just what to do. And basically, if we read it in the 180 degree reverse, we'll get some good guidance. If Bolton says we should escalate, well, certainly it means it's a past time for negotiation because he's wrong systematically on everything, not randomly. The only one that comes close to him is Newland.

The interesting thing about Newland is she's been in both parties and now is the number two in the State Department. she got promoted for this disaster, which she has, I won't say single-handedly because it's, it's Biden in the lead and Newland and Sullivan and blinking in some role in this. But Newland just got promoted to acting Deputy Secretary of State. A walking disaster for 20 years, failed in everything. And there she is with another promotion. motion. So Bolton is is extraordinary. And he gives us systematic guidance, what not to do. I wrote to you, I was grateful for Bolton. I was advisor to Kofi Annan in 2005 when the world's governments were

leading the discussion about the ending poverty. And there were proposals on the table. There were actually goals. that had been adopted in the year 2000, but they didn't have a fully organized name yet, but they were known as the Millennium Development Goals. And Bolton came in as U.S. ambassador and said, we will never accept the term Millennium Development Goals. And he took a draft document that was the draft outcome document for a summit coming up at the UN in September 2005.

And he crossed out 700 times or so the phrase millennium development. goals. What was interesting about that is that it united all the rest of the world in favor of the Millennium Development Goals. So it was always grateful to Bolton in that one narrow sense that he brought the whole world together, except for one person, in favor of fighting poverty under the Millennium Development Goals. He has a way of getting everyone to hate him. And maybe this article could have the same galvanizing effect, letting people. in Washington know, well, God, we miss the point, but it must be time for negotiation. Indeed. The thing about Bolton is that you're absolutely right. Everything he does, everything he

touches in foreign policy fails. It fails disastrously. It causes havoc and tragedy wherever he goes. But there's one place where he tends to win his battles, and that is Washington. And the big question is why is he able? Why is someone like Bolton able to win his battles so effectively? Now part of it I think is due to his personality. He's a very, very aggressive person. I think some people find that intimidating. He presents himself, I've noticed, as the realist,

even though what he proposes is completely unrealistic. But nonetheless, his record is there. I mean, Professor Sachs, you have been to Washington, you understand these people, that's a bit better than we do. I try not to go too often. That makes him so influential there. How could he win his battles, given his record? I think the main point is American foreign policy itself is a track record of wreckage,

and yet it persists in an unaccountable way. And that is, for me, the deeper question. I think Bolton is a reflection of that. How do you fail so often, whether it's Newland or Bolton or the whole Neo-Con approach and not have accountability? We never have a systematic accounting of anything in the United States. There is no issue in which there is a serious attempt at an authoritative account. count. It's all narrative morning till morning. I mean, it's not even till night because there's

no rest over the night. It's all spin. And so the question is, who's running things and what is the purpose of all of this spin? And I, you know, reach the not terribly unusual or, you know, profound conclusion that the foreign policy is in the hands of a relatively small band. It has nothing to do with the public opinion in the United States. It certainly has nothing to do with the truth. It has nothing to do with an attempt to figure out what is the right way forward. It is the proverbial military, industrial complex. It's real. Those are companies, lobbyists, funders of the congressmen and senators in the armed services committees and in the foreign relations committees. It's not even across most government because you don't need to

control most government. You need to control a pretty narrow slice of things. And they want to sell weapons, basically. And war is, you know, so what's war, especially if you're not the one fighting it. This could go on for a long time. This is great show. Just, you know, hope the Ukrainians don't run out of Ukrainians too fast. So this is really a general unaccountability in a context where every real discussion is in secret. So the only things we really see are things that are leaked because there's not one shred of honest discussion of any issue. We know. We know. know it, whether it's about the origins of the Ukraine war itself, the nature of the diplomacy that failed to take place before the war, why the negotiations broke down in March 22,

Nord Stream, anything, not one issue persists with a serious look at it. And so because of that, it's a completely unaccountable system. And then one has to ask, well, if it's unaccountable, and it's being managed in this very narrow way. What are the interests of this? And the interests aren't peace. They're not diplomacy. They are, in some sense, U.S. predominance, but that's collapsing as we speak

because of all of these failures. So I think the main point is Bolton survives because this rotten system is very deeply entrenched. Indeed. And just to say, of course, that decisions made in secret by a small group of people running a country like the United States, that is not a democratic way of formulating policy. I mean, that is an obvious statement.

But it's also the case anybody who has experience of decisions being made in that kind of way knows that, of course, bad decisions are inevitably going to come out of that process because alternative use, facts, data, expert advice is not going to be able to penetrate through. If things are done secretly, expert advice is not going to reach and be discussed and people, you know, you're not going to have somebody who's a real expert in the situation. in Pakistan, for example, being able to come forward and discuss what's actually the situation there. I think your point is extremely important, and it is really the difference of the mayhem that we have ongoing and, say, serious realists like John Mearsheimer, who, by the way,

is just a wonderfully kind, intelligent person. I disagree with him on the end line, but we talk to each other constantly about all of this. And his point about realism is that in the realist view, governments at least seriously consider their self-interest. They understand their self-interest. They understand the power structure before taking decisions. they don't operate in a completely flaky, personalistic way.

And that is how we in the U.S. are operating. That's how our government operates, God forbid, in our name, but it is in our name. It's flaky. And that's why, John, as a realist, is saying what's happening now in U.S. policy vis-a-vis Russia is the opposite of realism in this sense. he's acknowledging this is one of those completely irrational periods because it is a few people that for whatever reasons, interest, ideology, confusion, being nut cases, whatever it is, they have had their hand on, or corruption, by the way, like Biden, because there's surely

something weird going on with that also, no doubt. something's really deeply wrong. What the hell is he doing as a vice president talking about a prosecutor general in another country? Isn't that about eight rungs below his pay grade? And it just happens that his son works for the company under investigation. That is serious rot. So this is, you know, of course, we have to add that to the story here.

There's just some particular personalized. things. And where we get the glimpses of rationality and you've been reporting on them, beautifully, the realist view comes out in Rand reports. They're actually very good, if you're a realist. They're very, you know, I don't agree with much of it, but on the case of Ukraine, I agree with it. Certainly, they take a hard analytical view because that's what they were set up for. But they're not listened to. They're just, blown away because of the personalism. Ah, we don't have to listen to that stuff. That's thinking. We have other interests involved, my own, our own, whatever it is.

Just as you who know about Pakistan or not consulted about Pakistan and perhaps more specifically returning to an old subject, you were there in Russia in the 1990s and your advice was not heated and of course it's the same group of people or at least their predecessors who are in control then who are in control now reverse as acts you've given us 30 minutes of your time i'm going to finish because i understand you have a hard stop but can i just to say on behalf on my behalf thank you very much for joining our program Alex i don't know if you've said anything quickly you want to well did you have maybe two three minutes to uh sure just a quick questions uh and And then, Alexander, we can answer the remaining questions.

But let me just look for some questions to Professor Sacks. There's a thank you for speaking to Janja Babasikova. Someone says thank you, Professor Sacks, for speaking with her. Why does no one want to tell the U.S. no? This is from Mobia Zero. Why is that? Mostly fear. Fear that they will get thrown out of power.

Because the U.S. skill does have lots of chokeholds in lots of places. I was recently, and I won't even say which country because it's just so awful. But I asked a question like that rather naively to someone who had been a leader. And the answer was, Mr. Sachs, the CIA. And that was not us chatting around on a conspiracy. theory. That was a former head of government and of a serious and important country. And I was I was really, it's very dispiriting to hear that, by the way, because I was having a very fascinating discussion about very substantive issues. And the response that I got was so blunt.

and so clear and not a game. It was, we were in a pretty intense discussion. And he said, it's power. You know, you understand we're under the thrall of that institution. And you just don't like to hear that. But it's true. And it is, I think, one of the reasons, by the way, why, you know, the five Anglo-Saxon countries are especially egregious.

in all of this right now. You have U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. And they're all awful on this issue. But they're all part of the five eyes. This is where the intelligence system is so intensely knitted together. And if you're being run by your intelligence system, in essence, you're really being controlled by it. The politicians are even within are afraid. But outside, so many governments are afraid. But I think the fear is coming down, but the fear is there. The fear is there. Dominique says, isn't it scary that the West uses the most sinister maneuvers to eliminate politicians like Trump, Khan, Farage, young African leaders eager to promote a

change and protect politicians as corrupt as Biden, Zelensky, Troubu, Macron, Ursula. Is this going to end badly for them? Look, there are a couple things to say. One is that so many of the world's most promising politicians were just taken out by these covert or not so covert operations. But perhaps the worst, most evil and diabolical of these in Africa's history was Lumumba. at the end of the absolutely vicious and evil Belgian rule over the Congo, a very bright, decent, charismatic, intelligent young man suddenly arose that could actually carry forward an independent country.

and literally because he said something that made the United States think, well, maybe he's going to be a commie. He accepted a flight, transport flight from the Soviet Union when the U.S. didn't provide it. Eisenhower in the White House said, well, eliminate him. And the CIA carried out an operation, didn't, wasn't the one that put the final bullet through his head, but it was part of the whole operation. They killed him. They just killed him. And since then, the DRC, it was then Congo, then Zaire, then DRC. It's been in turmoil. Because we killed the first politician that was the legitimate politician, elected and charismatic and smart.

we had to destroy him. And how many times did this happen? And this is what, I don't think people know this history because it's not exactly on the front page of the New York Times. There's another story, if I could just share it just for a couple of minutes. It's worth sharing. In Guyana, at the moment of independence in the early 1960s, the, again, very smart. young leader for independence, Chaghan came to see President Kennedy in this case. And his hardline advisor, Arthur Slessinger Jr., was in the room.

And at the end of a fine conversation, Chaghan mentioned an article in the monthly review. In other words, a left-wing Marxist thing. and when he left the room, Schlesinger said, I think we have to get rid of him. And within a few weeks, they had overthrown this guy by stoking a phony general strike in Guyana. Now, the guy ended up coming back to power several times in the next 30 years. And the beauty of this story is that in 1991, I think it is,

30 years later, Chaghan was prime minister of his country and came to the Council on Foreign Relations on 58 East 68th Street. And there was Schlesinger in the audience. And Schlesinger raised his hand at the end of the talk and said, Prime Minister, I owe you an apology that I want to give here. I was the one that had you overthrown 30 years ago because of what you said in the Oval Office. And this was one of the amazing experiences. True story. But how many times have we done that? And if the United States would just do one thing, stop overthrowing other governments,

we would be on the fastest road to peace in this world imaginable. This is the whole Ukraine story. If Yanukovych had not been violently overthrown in federal, February 2014, all of the rest of the events would not have gone the way they were going. Yanukovych wanted neutrality. He had a long-term lease agreement with Russia about Savastopol and the naval fleet. This was peace. But the United States could not stand the idea of neutrality for Ukraine. That's Bolton. That is Newland. Yeah. Well, Sid. Peter Jackson, could you ask Professor Sacks if he could do a program on neoliberalism and its value? Is the free market the great liberator or a race to bottom?

Let's do that any time you want. I've been thinking about that issue for 43 years. I have a few things to say about it. Let me point out one thing that is really important, just as a prelude if we ever do the show, which I'd love to do. The, liberalism is a British, is a British philosophical political conception. And it's a fascinating one. And it's got a long history that is really worth understanding from Hobbs to Locke to Manderville, Hume, Smith, and so forth. But it always went hand in hand with Empire. And this is the basic conclusion of all modern scholarship. You might think intuitively that liberalism would be anti-imperialist or that it would reject imperialism, but it went hand in hand with the two great Anglo-Saxon, too great, I mean two powerful Anglo-Saxon empires of the last 250 years, the British and the American. And so as a philosophical trope, it has always been part, there's always been an imperialist side to it.

And that's fascinating because it seems at one level it's antithetical to that. And Adam Smith was probably the one, is a real gentleman and very fascinating thinker. And he was saying, you know, we don't really need the British colonies as our colonies to have success. economy and relations with them, let him go. That was 1776. But most of the rest of the liberals were real imperialists, including the high liberal of the middle of the 19th century, John Stuart Mill, who actually worked for the East India Company and certainly promoted imperialism in India. Elza says, Mr. Sachs, how optimistic are you that the U.S. government will have a regime change instead of changing others.

Oh my God. By the way, and it's fascinating thing. Our Constitution was very clever in 1787, but we have a kind of lock-in effect right now. It's way out of date. You would never design it this way if you were starting de novo. one of our very clever, brilliant founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, thought that laws should have an automatic sunset clause so that you don't bind future generations and you let new innovation take hold. We have a real problem in the United States to say the least, sorry to stated in such a strange way. But the problem is the political system got hacked about a 40 to 50.

years ago. It's basically in the hands of a series of vested interests that are very powerful, finance in the hands of Wall Street and our food supply in the hands of big ag and our healthcare sector in the hands of the big health insurance and our foreign policy in the hands of this military industrial complex. And so the system doesn't work. It doesn't represent public views. It doesn't lead to the liberation. It doesn't lead to transparency. It's a broken political system, but very hard to change. And this is where we are right now. Let's do two more and we will let you go, Professor Sachs. A lot of questions for you. We'll do two more on Imran Khan. Pakistan is to India, is a lot like Ukraine is to Russia.

What are your thoughts? I have one general theorem as an economist from a development point of view. and that is look to your north, look to your south, look to your east, look to your west, and be nice to your neighbors. So every economic success is bolstered by decent relations of neighbors. And the tragedy of South Asia, of course, is that you have two nuclear-armed powers at each other's necks over-cahazia. and other issues. It goes back now more than 70 years. It's extremely detrimental for both India and Pakistan that they have not found a path to peace. And you can't even take a bus from one country to the other, much less a 5G network, much less working together on harnessing

renewable energy, which in the Indus Valley or many other ways, which the two countries of working together would have huge mutual gains. And by the way, when it comes to Abram Khan, he would be one of the great hopes for finding a path for peace and finding a constructive path with India. So I know India very well. I want India's success. I want Pakistan success. And if the two were talking with each other, this would be a huge, huge plus. And the United States constantly intervening, whether it's Ukraine and Russia or whether it is in South Asia and especially in East Asia aims to prevent actually regional cooperation. Regional cooperation weakens the U.S. leverage. So the U.S. is pumping up the anti-China sentiments in Japan, in Korea,

all over China's periphery, deliberately, where when I go to Japan or Korea, I say, be nice to your neighbor. My God, if Japan, Korea, China said to themselves, look, if we stop the U.S. from pushing us apart and actually cooperate together, we're pretty good economic unit. And so this Pakistan-India tragedy is both extremely dangerous. but enormously costly on both sides of the divide. And just to finish this riff about neighbors, this is one of China's great contributions in just in recent months, but in recent years, this coming rapprochement

and peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a tremendous thing. And by the way, it opens up space for all the rest of the countries in the region. I'm talking to a number of them. If Iran and Saudi Arabia actually realize we got common problems, we're both facing climate disasters, we have the hydrocarbons challenge, we have everything, and work together. Boy, what that would mean for well-being, not only of those countries, but of the whole neighborhood, is fantastic. And I'm seeing that a number of governments are saying, oh, my God, this gives us a real opening, a real chance. Be nice to your next door neighbor. It really makes life easier.

Yeah. And let's do one more from Tool FATH from Local says, who, if any country, has interest in using Khan as a political talking point? Well, I don't think he wants to be used as a political talking point. the U.S. wanted to make sure that he couldn't be his own spokesman because he's extremely articulate. I don't think that I think what we need to do, by the way, is just be very clear to the U.S., to the U.K., to any place that has, especially with the large Pakistani community, to tell our governments, this is so harmful to every conceivable interest. Imran Khan needs to be today let out a solitary confinement, protected in his personal safety,

and restored to his political role. It's not complicated. This is absolutely straightforward. There isn't a country in the world that would not benefit from those developments taking place immediately. Well said. Professor Sacks, thank you so very much for your time. John Bolton is a walking oxymoron, says Swarty. We will leave it there with Professor Sacks. Thank you so much.

All your information is down below the description box and does a pin comment. Terrific. Talk with you guys soon. Thank you. Thank you very much. Take care. Bye, bye. Alexander.

I am so sorry about that. How are you doing? Very well. We're still alive. The delay in the live stream. was a personal matter of mine. And my apologies to everyone. A great show from yourself and from Jeffrey Sachs.

It's always great to listen to. Outstanding show. And Professor Sachs, two people who, I guess together you guys could probably solve all of the world's problems. Or most of the world's problems. All three of us, all of us, the entire community, we should join it.

Let's just answer some quick questions, Alexander, 10, 15 minutes. And we'll call it a day and allow everybody to enjoy their Wednesday. Viva Las Vegas. Welcome to the drag community. Nigel, welcome to the drag community. O.G. Wall says, good day. And we have a hello, Alexander, from Claudia.

Good morning to all the beautiful souls. Greetings from Ann Arbor in Michigan. I'm excited to be able to view a live stream again after my three weeks of about a go in. Spectacular Madeira. Welcome, Claudia. Great to have you with us. Fred, welcome to the Durant community. Trachanska Baba, welcome to the Duran community. D.F. says, why doesn't Russia send, train the Syrian Army S-400 and let them bomb oil facilities

instead of letting the U.S. steal billions? Russia can rebuild them, Alexander. Well, that is a policy of war. And I think that in terms of what the Russians have been trying to do in Syria, what they want to do is to do. to secure peace there. Now, I think there's an important thing to understand about Russian policy in Syria, which is not fully grasped by many people, which is that the Russians intervened in Syria to defend their own interests. They did not want to see the Syrian government overthrown. They certainly did not want to see it replaced by a jihadi government,

and they absolutely did not want to see it replaced by ISIS, an ISIS government, which was a real possibility at one time. Now, Russia has achieved that objective in Syria. The other question of securing for Syria full control of all of its territory, that is, of course, a priority for Syria. and for the Syrian government, it is not a priority to the same extent for Russia. Now, that is a distinction that I think people do need to understand. Now, I think that the Russians, even though it is not the same priority for them,

do ultimately want to achieve that objective. They want Assyria, which is free and whole, and which is at peace, but they will not jeopardize. their longer-term relationships with other countries, with Turkey, with Saudi Arabia, with the whole of the countries of the Middle East, by escalating a crisis in Syria with the United States in that kind of way, in a way that those countries might not like, and which could be unpredictable, and which might potentially reverse the gains which have been achieved. So they're taking an incremental step-by-step approach, and I think eventually they will achieve that. goal. I think the Syrian government, President Assad himself, understand that very well. And that is why they are content to go along with it. Yeah. The Black Cat, thank you for that super sticker.

Brian, thank you for that super chat. William says free Imrod Khan. M.B., thank you for that super chat. Salt Thore, thank you for a super chat. F-22. Daniel says, Jeffrey Sachs, thank you for speaking to Jana Babasiscova. We need people like you to speak to Czech public. We would like, would Alex and Alexander do the same? Oh, absolutely, of course. To everybody. Certainly to the Czech Republic. By the way, I know the Czech Republic. I've been to Prague. I have very well bits about Prague by the way and about the Czech people. I know quite a few people from there. So I would be delighted for that kind of interaction. And I think, you know, we speak here for both of us. But I bet, you know, there's lots of people we want to talk to. There's so many hours

in the day, as we say. Mobia Zero asked the question, why does no one want to tell the U.S. no, which Jeffrey Sachs answered. Why does the country after country want to die for the U.S., Ukraine, soon, Taiwan, etc.? Why does no one want to defy the U.S. or die trying, so to speak? Well, I think more and more, I think Professor Sachs did answer that question, right? It's important to say that more and more countries are defying the US, and they're doing so successfully. Even a place like Niger has been prepared to say no to Victoria Newland. Now, that is an evolving story, and we don't know how it's going to turn out in the end, but it's starting to look as if the new government in Niger,

and, you know, one can be, have issues about how it came to power, or whatever, but it's starting to look as if it's called the bluff of ECOWAS, of Newland, and of all of these sort of people. So countries are starting to defy the US. Professor Sacks explained very well the enormous power that the United States still has, the ruthless and cynical way with which that power is used. And of course, they do have their supporters. they're able to find support in places like Ukraine, in places like Pakistan, which you've just been talking about, because there are people in these countries who see their objectives and their interests fulfilled by an alliance with the United States.

So unfortunately, a great system of power, such as that the one that the United States has, does not collapse or fall apart immediately. does take time. 456T. 1-2-3G says, God is the truth. Thank you for all your pursuit of righteousness, the prophet's wife. Mobius Zero says,

is Russia and China going to not only have to eradicate their neighbors, save a few, but eradicate the US completely for all this S-H-I-T to stop? Perhaps nuke war is a sad destiny we have to accept. I sincerely hope not. And I would point out that that is absolutely not the stated policy of the Russian and Chinese governments. I mean, if you read their comments,

if you read Vladimir Putin's very extensive speeches about this, they still want ultimately a modus vivendi with the US. I think they've come to realize that friendship with the US as it is today is simply not on the agenda, but they do not want an uncontrolled war, certainly not with their neighbours, certainly not with the US either, because, and I think this is a key thing to understand,

certainly in Russia's case, and I suspect also in China's, economic and social development of these countries is the priority for their governments as well. Their governments know that their ultimate future as governments depends on the success of their own countries. And of course, they are very conscious of their own problems, both the Russians and the Chinese are conscious of their own problems and they want space and time so that they can address them, which if they do have that space and time, they are confident, I am sure, that they will be able to do. Sparky says John Bolton is a walking oxymoron. Sparky says all U.S. diplomats are walking oxymor. Thank you. I might even use that myself.

Yeah, we might use that one, Sparky, if you don't mind. Oh, Robin R. Thank you for that super chat. Sparky says, you can't make this stuff up. Jeff says, thank you, thank you, Jeff. Sparky says, Victoria Newland is a disciple of Dick Cheney. Yeah, true, absolutely. I think it was he who brought her into the highest right into the government. This is absolutely correct.

Mobia Zero says, how correct would I be on this? A U.S. China War is fake destiny. literally nothing China can do and or say to stop the U.S. is bloodlust. And that's, and that's such a war will be the U.S.'s last war. Well, I hope and pray that you are wrong about the first part of it. I'm hoping that it can be avoided and that it's not written in faith. We must never, I think, fall into the trap as saying that because something is possible or even likely, it is inevitable. there are always alternatives and there are always options.

Now, I will say this, China's a very powerful country. It is becoming militarily more powerful that might in time have a deterrent effect upon the United States, just as Soviet military power in the 1950s and 1960s. In a kind of a sense, did open the route to detente on. One has to say this. So, you know, it's not impossible that eventually the Chinese and the Americans will find some kind of way to, if not normalize their relations, to relax tensions between each other. And I hope that is the outcome, because what you're describing, certainly it would be probably

the last war, the United States fought, but it might be the last war any of us ever's experience because, frankly, a war between those two countries would be devastating for everyone. Yeah, Sparky says Glenn Greenwald did a great review of Newland and U.S. diplomats, yeah, and U.S. diplomats haven't been diplomatic in decades. No, that's absolutely correct. I mean, there's a good question of the extent to which the United States ever did do diplomacy particularly well. Chas Freeman, Ambassador Chas Freeman, who we interviewed Glenn Dyson and I, on the Guban, you'll find our program there. He actually said as much. He was a U.S. diplomat. He said U.S. is a U. never been particularly good at diplomacy. Empire management, perhaps, but diplomacy, no. Having said that, there have been periods in the past when you did see the United States produce some very capable

diplomats indeed. You go back to say the Second World War period. They did have some good diplomats then, but certainly in recent years, diplomacy in the United States, it doesn't exist in any real sense. Yeah. Lana says, thank you, Duran. Thank you for that. Sparky says, make Ukraine rush again. Get your wish.

Kynwood F8 says, if you lopped off the top 10 floors of the UN, you would not see a difference in world policy. That's a quote from John Bolton. I think I remember that. Yeah. Moon Chaser says it is 10.30 p.m. in China. I found out about the Duran and Mr. Sachs through the small, town voices program in China.

I just want to let you know and wonder if you can invite Sophia to be on your show. Thank you. We will certainly do so, if I may say so. And I think that will be a great idea. Yeah. Sparky says, build a better world with bricks. Thank you, Sparky. Jamila says, thank you, gentlemen, for your amazing work.

Elza says one year membership and it's only getting better. Sparky says, Nico House interviewed a Nigerian news editor. He said Nigeria's puppet leader may not. have enough control of the military to invade Niger. Good news, not all civilian leaders control the military. Well, can I just say my impression is that the mood in Nigeria has hardened strongly against an intervention. And I understand the African Union today has come out against it. So I think it is beginning to look increasingly unlikely that it will happen. I hope so, by the way. So now what? Thank you for that super stickers. Aliel says, thank you again for having

Professor Sacks. Thank you, Zaryl. Jamila says, I'm so grateful what you guys do and you make a big difference. Thank you for that. Harry C. Smith says, I wonder if it was merely an ill-time coincidence that Khan happened to be in Moscow on February 24th, 2022. Well, I think it was a coincidence, but of course it was not just a coincidence. It was what, I think, infuriated and provoke the United States, because of course, instead of returning to Pakistan, to Islamabad, instead of denouncing Putin, instead of walking out on him, he continued to represent his country, pursue the interests of his own country,

and continued to see about ways to do deals with the Russians in his country's interests. And I think that infuriated the United States and it was the event that led to his overthrow. Now, again, as you said, the great paradox in all of this, the unspeakable irony is that the government, that has been created in Pakistan

as a result of the overthrow of Imran Khan is actually continuing to try to develop commercial relations with Russia. They want to import Russian oil, they want to import Russian gas, they want to forge those economic links with the Russians. So that tells you

that what Imran Khan was trying to do which antagonize the United States must be in Pakistan's India. interests because even the present rulers of Pakistan seem to be intent on continuing that policy. Alex Mark, thank you for that super chat. Rockabilly says, share this great show on every media you are on. Lance says the Russian currency has fallen in value to one US dollar is equal to 100 rubles. Are sanctions kicking in?

What are the implications of a falling Russian currency? I think this is a popular question you have been getting. over the past. Oh, I know. It was good to hear you answer it because a lot of people got questions. What has happened? And I've discussed this many times. Let me say again, what has happened?

It is connected with sanctions, but not in quite the way that people think, because the particular economic conditions that exist globally this year, which is to say falling oil prices in the first half of this year, would probably, in fact, would definitely have led to a decline in the value of the ruble anyway, because the ruble is connected to oil prices, and the Russian government, to some extent, wants it to be so. Because if oil prices fall and the ruble falls in tandem, then Russia gets as much in rubles for its oil as it would if the oil price was higher

and the ruble was higher. And of course, remember that the Russian budget is in roubles. Now, sanctions have played a role. And the reason that the sanctions have played a role, but it's different from what people think, is that last year, when the sanctions were imposed, Russia went into recession, imports collapsed. That created, there was also a collapse in demand.

The result was against a, background of very strong oil prices, the ruble became extremely strong. And that was the situation, if you like, last year. Now, this year, Russia has come out of recession. Its economy has been growing. And in the second quarter, it began to grow very fast. It almost hit 5% growth. I mean, very fast growth. Now, that is causing supply issues. It's caused a sense of overhearrow. heating in the economy. But it is also sucking in imports. Now, Russia has successfully established new trading relations with other countries, China, especially with India too. So there are places now that Russia can import goods from. Now, importing goods is actually a good thing because it helps

your economy to grow. It satisfies demand. But if you're importing, lots of goods at a time when your major exports are falling in value, then that inevitably means that more money is going out of your country than is to some extent coming in, and that is going to depress the value of your currency. That is what has happened. Now, the Russian central bank has taken steps to bring the situation under control. They're not worried, I think, so much about the value of the value of the money.

the ruble, they're worried about the effect it might have on inflation, on prices in Russia. So they raised interest rates, typical nebulina. She's raised them 3.5% and much more than most people expected. It's very much a style. You're going very hard at the beginning. You bring the situation under control. She's now strong arming Russian exporters to use the currencies, the dollars and the euros and the R&B that they're getting to actually buy roubles.

And the result is she will stabilize the ruble. I mean, I'm quite confident about this. And then within a few weeks, months time, having done so, she'll be able to cut interest rates again. She's done this many times. And this she's going to do again. She did it in much more difficult conditions in March last year. and she'll be able to do it once more.

And in the meantime, even as all of that is happening, because the rule has been weak, against a backdrop of generally growing oil prices, the Russian budget is going to start to move into circles. Yep, well said. And Kristen, thanks for the great show. Order out of peace. Thank you for that super chat.

Sparky says Nigeria, editor also said that Niger and Nigeria are the same people, much like U.S. and Canada empire arbitrarily drew their borders. Radio Constantinopley says the so-called judicial reform in Israel is just smoke and mirrors. They're just after Netanyahu for reaching out to the Eurasians. You know, I think you may be right about this. The trouble is, though, and I'm going to say it's right away, I am, there's so much else going on. I mean

you know about Ukraine, Russia, the EU, the United States with, you know, all the indictments that are flying around there. Pakistan. I can't I am not able to keep track of everything. And

I'm not saying that what's going on in Israel is not important. I think it is extremely important. But I'm not really in a position to comment upon it in an informed way. And I have to say, I think you may be right in what you say. But I'm not going to say that, you know, the judicial reforms are, you know, an irrelevance either because, frankly, I just don't know.

Sophisticated caveman says if Poles occupy Brest and Grosno, is it wise for Russians to intervene? They are former Polish cities. Putin wants to defend the Union state, but does it cause more problems than it solves? I think that if the polls move into Western Ukraine, I think Putin's initial inclination was this isn't anything to do with us. In fact, he said as much. It's their problem. They're going to have all kinds of problems from it. We're going to let them make their own mistakes and sitied out.

But I think the more time has passed, the more it's become clear to Putin, that that simply isn't a practical position. Lukashenko in Belarus has already said this is unacceptable and dangerous. to Belarus, it would surround Belarus on three sides. And that isn't what he wants. And I think there's also a great feeling amongst people in Russia, and I suspect the military as well, that this is not really something that they can afford to tolerate. So I think that the Russian position will gradually harden against this, but not gradually, is going to rapidly harden against all of this. I think the Russians are giving lots of warnings to Poland not to do it.

And interestingly, I get the sense of the polls are listening to these borg. I agree. Gort, thank you for that super chat. Commander Crossfire says Putin and Mali leaders held a phone conversation. Apparently Putin told Niger to open negotiations. I think to cast them in a positive light, make it easier for Russia to intervene on Niger's side. I think this is probably true. Well, the Russians, let me stress again. I think from a Russian point of view, the Kuwaiter, Nisier,

came at a very difficult moment. I mean, they have good relations with some of these countries in Akka, West that are opposed to the coup, countries like Senegal, for instance. They also basically don't like coups. I mean, I think that's a point people need to understand. When Putin met the African leaders in St. Petersburg, he said to them, I don't like coups.

You don't like coups. Look at what happened in Ukraine. This government that exists today is itself the product of a coup. I oppose that for that reason. I don't like coups. You should oppose it also for the same reason, because you don't like coups. Nonetheless, he gets a coup. He gets a coup in Niger.

The people come out with the Russian flags. Victoria Nuland says that, you know, Wagner might eventually become involved. And the impression is fostered that the Russians somehow sympathise and support the coup in Niger. And I think this isn't something that the Russians welcomed at all. Now, if they can get the situation in West Africa stabilized, I say if they can, but of course if the situation in West Africa stabilises, if all of these countries start talking to each other, if there are serious negotiations, then of course,

what was an embarrassment ceases to be one, if the regime in Niger stabilises, if it becomes, if you like, a government acknowledged as such by all the neighboring countries, then of course, why not for the Russians to go in and help Niger, you know, in whatever way the two countries agree? But that's why Putin, I think, is talking to people in Mali, he's talking to people in West Africa, he's talking to people in New Jersey, he's talking to people in Niger to the extent that he can and says, look, try and sort it out peacefully, all of you together in negotiations. And don't let the Americans and the French divide you between each other.

Yeah. Russell Hall says, I wonder if the harsh financial conditions imposed on Russia in the 90s are precisely why they are in a position to oppose the West today, facing hard realities forced to them onto an alternate path. Absolutely. Can I just say, I mean, this goes back to some of the discussions we've had with Professor Sachs. It went back to Russia in 1990, for example, before the Soviet Union collapsed, what you would have found amongst many, many Russians, perhaps even a majority of, shall we say, middle-class Russians, is a very, very strong pro-Americanism. I mean, this is the paradox of the Cold War. The Soviet government was very anti-American.

It's propaganda, its internal propaganda, sorry, was very anti-American. And that somehow convinced an awful lot of Russians who were unhappy with things the Soviet government was doing, that, you know, to be pro-American instead. And this is a time when American cultural influence in Russia was very strong. I mean, you know, all those jokes about Russians being interested in rock music and blue jeans, they had a basis in truth. I mean, what should not even state this, but there was always an element of that there. What happened over the course of the 1990s and beyond is that that has all dissipated entirely.

I think that you would be, you still find a few pro-American people in Russia in that kind of way. But I think the overwhelming feeling in Russia now is that Russia shouldn't, look to copy other countries. It shouldn't borrow from the United States. It needs to find its own solutions consistent with its own culture, its own history, its own society, and to do it itself. So it's weaned the Russians off that kind of thinking. Yeah, Tabernak says by launching a proxy conflict on Russia, we have turned Russia into China's ultimate proxy against the United States. If the King's Al-Wall Kinsal works in steps. It'll work in the Pacific.

Yeah, absolutely. And I agree with that completely. I mean, if the idea was to divide China from Russia, they've achieved the opposite. Yeah. Elza says in Moscow, one liter of gas is about 50 rubles. That's around 50 eurosets. No one is complaining about that. In Germany, three, four times higher. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Death dealer says, will the polls protest against their government on the idea of entering Western Ukraine? Yes, I'm sure they will. I mean, maybe not all polls. but I think there'll be a significant opposition to this in Poland. I agree. Lance says Russia, Russian Federation Ukraine conflict, heading for a freeze or stalemate? Question work?

No, I don't think so. I mean, Larry Johnson has done actually a good piece on this on Sona 21, which is going through all the various factors in the war. And we're not in a stalemate situation. In a recent program I did on my channel, I said that where we are at the moment is in a period of, the unstable equilibrium. The front lines look stable, but the underlying situation is not.

The balance is shifting remorselessly in the Russians' favor. Yeah, that was a great observation, an unstable equilibrium. Tool FATH says, could Stein Jansen have attempted to open the door for future NATO talking point about possible solution on Ukraine, including Ukraine losing land? of talk about yeah uh jonson's comments wait wait wait for my video today by the way on my channel because i discussed that there you go there you go it'll be it'll be up on alexander's channel in the next hour we're all going to be talking about yeah just briefly yensen would not have talked said those things if he hadn't been put up to do it by stultenberg stultonberg's he's boss now stultonberg

would not have put up yensen to do it if people in washington weren't telling him to do that as well. I mean, that's, we can be certain that this is now plan, not be actually, the plan Zed one. I mean, you know, they got through all these different plans. So this is it. The point is whether the Ukrainians can be strong armed into accepting it or not, and they're protesting furiously against it,

the Russians never will, because from the Russian point of view, NATO membership of Ukraine is the key issue. So again, they're coming up with proposals for Ukraine, which the Ukrainians don't want, and the Russians will reject. They're in a mess. The offensive has failed. Ukraine is going to start losing the war very visibly beyond very long. But they cannot let this idea of Ukraine joining NATO go.

And until they do that, we will not have peace in Ukraine. Yeah. And from NATO's standpoint, this is the only way they could claim some sort of victory in this debacle because they could come out and say, well, Sweden is in NATO, Finland's in NATO, Moldova will soon be in NATO. And now we got Ukraine. It's a smaller Ukraine, but they're in NATO as well. Also, you know, Putin's plan to weaken NATO has backfired because NATO has now grown. I mean, it's the only way they can achieve some sort of victory from a media point of view. Yeah.

It's desperation, actually. It makes sense for NATO if you're looking at it from NATO's point of view. Okay, let's do a couple more questions and we'll wrap it up. Let's see here from locals. No, I answered that. We answered that. We answered that question. From Marien, when can we have Laughlin and Baudet on again?

Oh, we'll see. No, I'm sure that we will have them eventually. These are busy people, too, of course. OMG Puppie says a lot of my liberal friends read The Economist. What is the story with that magazine? It strikes me as a neocan or neolib owned by the city of London bankers, correct? Yes. Yes, I think that well, I mean, I don't know much about his background.

but I mean throughout my lifetime, going all the way back to the 1970s, it's had that particular perspective that it has today. It's the one magazine, by the way, they're basically unchanged throughout my lifetime. They have this extraordinary perspective. Somebody once described it to me when I was at university, actually. So that takes you way back to the 1970s now, which is support every dictatorship, except the Russian, oppose the Russian, but support all the others,

which is what basically the economist in those days was all about. And it essentially hasn't changed very much today. It is an ultra-neacom place. It has a very, very peculiar format. I don't know if anybody has ever read, well, how many of you read the economist, but you don't get writers. None of the articles are signed, and it has a very, very rigid style.

So the impression that you get is that one person is writing everything, which is most all. But it's a very, very strange magazine, but one which does have influence undoubtedly, and which an awful lot of people read, and which an awful lot of people think is the sort of Rolls-Royce place where you get the best analysis, which can I say absolutely is not the case. And interesting covers as well, very provocative cover art. Yeah. Yeah, so they have an interesting style there. Pippi Lim, thank you for that super sticker. Richard Law says, I asked this a year ago. You didn't think it would happen.

What if Zelensky is now assassinated by either the West or Ukrainian generals and they try to pin it on the Russian Federation? How might that pan out? Well, that's a very good question. I mean, I don't remember you asking that question, to be honest, a year ago. And I think in fairness, we've never discounted completely the possibility of a co-in-key. in Ukraine. I think we're closer to that point now than we've been, actually, because going back

to the Jensen comments, the fact that they're now talking about negotiations, negotiations of a sort that Zelensky himself can never agree to. I mean, his position would collapse if he did it. It could very well be that that really is what they want to do. They will start looking in the West for an alternative leader to take that negotiation process forward. So it's not impossible. I think we're closer to that point now than we have been at any time up to this point. Yeah, sophisticated caveman says

Russia to annex Kiev and move Ukrainian capital to Lviv. Good move seems to solve some issues. Well, it might happen. And of course, Medvedev, who is invariably now the Supreme Troll in Chief in Moscow. And I say that, I mean, he's a lot of other things. to. But he's actually, I think he does all this in a pretty clever way. He says, you know, if they're going to concede territory to us, well, they'll have to concede Kiev as well, because Kiev is part of the

territories that we will need to have if, you know, and even then they can't have the rest of Ukraine and NATO. Yeah. And finally from Odyssey, from DAFB3TA, says the Millennium Development Goals that Jeffrey Sachs spoke to positively about form the foundation of the UN Agenda 2030, aka the globalist framework for installing an authoritarian, technocratic, dystopia, the likes of which will make North Korea seem like a liberal paradise. I find that difficult to believe, but I haven't read it, so I can't say more about it than that, but I'll be very, very surprised if Professor Sachs lent himself to that. And bear in mind, if John Bolton, of all people, took such a strong exception to

to it and was going around making all these 700 crossings. I can't quite imagine that he would be so aggressively hostile to a document that outlined the kind of plans that you've described. But, you know, I don't want to say more because

not having read something, I can't really comment on it in, you know, in an informed way. And I don't want, I don't like to do that. I don't like to sort of make, you comments that I don't really on the topic I don't really know very much about. All right.

Thank you everybody for joining us on this live stream. Thank you once again to the amazing professor Jeffrey Sachs. His information is in the description box down below and I will pin it as the first comment as well. Alexander, your video will be up in about an hour, hour and a half. That'll be up on Alexander's channel. And are you doing something on locals tonight? Yeah, absolutely. All right.

Tonight. All right. The usual time, 1,400 hours, Eastern Standard time, 1900 hours, London time. I'll be there on locals again, doing my own live stream. So for locals. And if you want to join me on locals, please do. The durand.com, Alexander will be doing a live stream there. It is free to sign up and join locals and to listen to Alexander.

Talk about more news. I'm sure you're going to talk about the NATO comment as well. Absolutely. And of course, the ruble dollar. All right. Alexander, any final comments before we sign off? Are we good to go? And as I said, just to say again, I mean, just one very last comment about assassinations in Pakistan,

which Professor Sachs alluded to. I mean, there's a history of this in Pakistan. Benazir Muto, who was in the opposition leader, a very complicated person. I know she provoked strong feelings, but she did have occasional clashes with the US as well. And of course, she was assassinated. I'm not saying there was a direct connection. I'm not saying the US had a hand in it. But that is the political culture, this very twisted political culture,

which the United States has to some extent fostered. in Pakistan. And when Professor Sachs talked about the dangers that Imran Khan was physically in and his courage in facing up to those dangers, you must understand and remember that that is the background in Pakistan today. All right. Thank you to everybody for this live stream to everyone that watches us on Rockfin, Odyssey, Rumble, the duran.locals.com and YouTube. And thank you very much to our amazing moderators, Peter, hope all is going well, Peter. Tish, and thank you for helping us moderate. The one and only is Zareel.

Thank you for the moderation. And I think that is everybody that was helping us moderate as well. All right, Alexander. Let's get back to work. All right, everybody, take care.