The Duran Podcast
Holding on to the empire w/ Brian Berletic (Live)
We are live with Alexander Mercuris and we are joined by Brian Berlett. The great Brian Berlettic from the new Atlas, Brian, how are you doing? I'm doing very well. Again, thank you so much for having me back on. It's always an honor and pleasure. I always really enjoy doing these. It's always great to have you with us on the Duran and Brian, I have the links to your YouTube channel, to your Rumble channel, your Telegram, your Twitter, and I also believe your Buy Me a Coffee. I believe I have that link. It's all in the description box down below and I will add those links as a pinned comment as well when the stream is over. Are those the best places to find you, Brian? Yes. In the video description of every YouTube channel, every YouTube video is all the different places you can find my content. Thank you. Okay. Great, great. Let's say a quick hello to everybody that is watching us on Rockfin, on Odyssey, on Rumble, and the Duran.locals.com. How is everybody doing on the locals community? And hello to everyone that is watching us on YouTube as well. Hello to our moderators. Peter is in the house. How are you doing, Peter? Who else is moderating? Let's see. Zariel is in the house. How are you doing, Zariel? And that's everybody for now. Yeah, that is, so at least that's everybody that I see moderating. All right. Welcome to everybody that is watching us on YouTube. Alexander, Brian, let's talk about some news. Well, some news. I mean, the news that we are actually watching, I mean, it is completely momentous. In my opinion, it is more momentous than anything that's happened in my lifetime, including the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War, and all of that, because it's quite clear to me having lived through one end of empire period, which is the sun setting on the British Empire, that we're starting to see the sun setting on another empire or at least another hegemonic system. But in the process, there is a lot of conflict, a lot of violence. One sense is that the US government itself is hardly in control of what it's trying to do, by which I don't mean that they don't have lots of plans and lots of schemes, but those plans and schemes are not turning out the way they expect, and things are constantly happening to take them by surprise, and which are not working out at all as they expected that they would, and that is creating a whole set of new tensions. And at the same time, we get the sense that the geopolitical tectonic plates are shifting in ways that ultimately will determine everything. That ultimately is the big colossal story. And perhaps, if I can say very briefly, we're going to talk about wars, and these are very important. The wars in the Middle East, the war in Ukraine, but China, all the talk about economic collapse, all of this, has come through with higher growth rates than expected in the first quarter. I should make it clear, I believe those figures. I think it is true, somebody has written to me about this. But I believe it is true that, you know, a couple of years ago, 10, 20 years ago, Chinese statistics were somewhat unreliable. What I understand has happened is that especially since the Xi Jinping has taken over, he's made it an absolute priority to get everything like that, shorted out, and straightened out, and that we can actually rely on these figures. Always remember, when you hear about Chinese economic problems, like problems in the property market in China, you know all that information from Chinese statistics. So you shouldn't try to be a little consistent if you rely on economic statistics for bad news about China. You should also take seriously statistics when they tell you good news about China. But anyway, that's a digression. Let's now talk about the wars. We have a war in Ukraine, and I think I'd like to start with that one first, because Brian, you've been talking about it so long, and things are turning out so clearly and exactly as you always said they would. War of attrition fought over two years, I think that's another universal consensus. A war of attrition, which we're losing, you've done some brilliant programs about the immense problems the West is having in sorting out its defence production issues. And we're now seeing that play out decisively on the battlefield. And of course, the fact that the West is having these problems in terms of production in itself is telling us an awful lot about the state of Western economies and Western societies at this particular time. So I'm going to hand over to you now, your comments, and let's move on and talk about this in a little more detail. Absolutely. And you were talking about how the sun has set on the British Empire, and in many ways the US inherited that empire, but more than an empire, it is a system that they inherited. And they do things in many ways very similar to the British Empire, but overall, it's a system that is unsustainable, and that's what we see with Ukraine. We see an unsustainable approach to managing your own economy and also managing this global economy, this advantage the West has had for generations over the rest of the world is eroding, and they're not changing their approach appropriately to adjust for this. So they're just trying the same thing over and over again, even though it is completely obvious to everyone, including the Western media, I'm looking at the headlines right now, this Politico article, Ukraine is heading for defeat. Again, these are things that we were talking about for the last two years, Ukraine ran out of missiles to thwart Russian strike on power plant, Zelensky says that's CNN. Then they're talking about the mobilization, and this whole mobilization law is just an act of desperation. They are now admitting they have this huge manpower problem. Even with the mobilization bill, even if it was passed in its most ideal form for the hardliners, it would make no difference because mobilizing people is one thing, training and equipping them is another. And this is the part of the problem that Ukraine has had this entire time, the support simply isn't there. And one other additional thing to point out is if you read these articles, they're still using the obstructed $60 billion in US Congress as a crutch to explain away why Ukraine is having so much misfortune lately, but it's not the $60 billion. As both of you have pointed out daily in your videos, even if the $60 billion, even if it was $600 billion, it's not going to make any difference, so the weapons simply don't exist. Well, indeed, and the astonishing thing is that there's no ability to reflect or understand that and it comes back to exactly your point. Even as things go wrong and start to fall apart, there's no ability to address that or to recognize this. This is by the way of difference with Britain. I mean, again, I lived through the end of empire and I remember how the British were responding to the failure of their empire, the fact that they were having to retreat from all kinds of places. But they did have a much better understanding of the limits of their own power. The American leadership doesn't seem to have that capacity. They don't seem to want to reflect on the underlying military, industrial, political, financial realities. Now I was reading this morning in the Financial Times, big article, headline article, that the International Monetary Fund, no less, is warning the United States that its budget is out of control. Now, that's the International Monetary Fund. They don't criticize the United States ever. I mean, they are largely owned by the United States. If they are doing this, it just demonstrates how dangerous the situation financially has become. And if your budget is as out of control as the American budget so fervently is, and if your inflation rate is as out of control as the American inflation rate also is, logically you will to be looking for ways to reign in spending. But what you're doing instead, you're coming up with another $61 billion to give to your Fed, you pretend that $14 billion of that is alone, but you've already introduced mechanisms into that spending package whereby that loan, 50% of it can be written off. We all know Ukraine is never going to repay the loan. So I mean, you are just pretending to yourself that you're not spending money when of course you are. And the other thing is, there are just too many lies being told now. There's lies about capability, about the importance of financing, lies about the situation. On the battlefront lies that have been said about what's been happening on the battlefront for years, lies about diplomacy, lies about Russia's economic potential. And anybody who knows how lies work knows that if lies start, they spread like, you know, they spread like rabbits, they get completely out of control and they completely distort everything and people's understanding. And I think this is where we are, we're in a situation where I did think political leaders in Washington really understand the situation anymore because they're living in a world that really doesn't exist, it's completely different from how they imagine it to be. Yes, and this is something that we've been talking about for quite a while. The quality of the people in Washington probably also in London today versus their predecessors, they have this disconnect with how the world actually works. And you're talking about these spending bills and we hear the narrative that, well, this is actually going to benefit the United States. The money's going right back into the military industrial complex. So the whole reason why the entirety of the West cannot sustain this proxy war against Russia and Ukraine, because the money goes into the military industrial base and it's misappropriated, wasted, everything is being overcharged for, the money just disappears and it's not benefiting Americans, it's not producing the amount of weapons and ammunition required to sustain a war of this scale. And so it's much like a black hole, it's just being siphoned away. We're talking about lies, even as we still hear prominent Western officials talk about how, I don't know what percentage they're off to now, the original Russian military has been eliminated in Ukraine. This is a great investment and I'm looking at the business insider, it says Russia's army is now 15% bigger than when it invaded Ukraine. This is a US general saying this and this is again an illustration of this disconnect between what you say is this world that they live in and then actual reality and can the people right now in Washington, on Wall Street, in London, in Brussels, are these people even capable of readjusting their world view and recalibrating their policies to even make the Vegas amount of sense and I think the answer is no, they've demonstrated this. What they're going to do instead is just double down on everything Ukraine, the Middle East and of course China because maybe we'll talk about this later, but the conflict in Ukraine is directly connected to the Middle East which is directly all connected to trying to contain China eliminated allies, disrupt its source of hydrocarbons in the Middle East and then isolate China itself and drop it down a few pegs so the US can reassert hegemony in Asia Pacific and over the entire planet. This is their plan, it's always been their plan since the end of World War II and this is what they're still stuck on no matter how badly it's going. They simply can't think of another way of existing on earth coexisting with other nations they cannot, they cannot accept that so they're just going to continue investing in this clearly failing policy. I agree with all of that by the way, just to say, let's go and just talk about the situation in Ukraine. I mean I've been following the situation on the battlefronts, I think you're doing, well obviously you do the same. My sense, I don't know whether you get the same sense, my sense is that the tempo is now accelerating, I mean I'm putting completely to one side the question of whether or not the Russians are going to launch a big offensive in the summer, they may, they may not, that's up to them, we don't know but on the actual battlefronts, I'm getting the sense that the Ukrainians are getting smashed, I don't know what your feeling is but they've been bombed, they've been shoal, they've been pushed back, places that a year ago have taken months to capture of falling within weeks, I get the sense it will soon be within days. But what is your sense about the situation that Ryan? I mean I agree, I think what's going on is Russia's continuing this incremental war of attrition as we've all been saying for the last two years, that is their strategy is to grind down Ukrainian military capabilities while building up theirs and as the balance continues to shift, you're going to see an accumulation of effects of this strategy and I think that's what we're seeing right now, the diminishing of air defenses which took place over a long period of time. It's not something that's going to happen overnight but it's something that is building up there's an accumulative effect of all of these capabilities being whittled away by Russia, the West's inability to replace them, the manpower issue, another huge factor. As trained manpower is eliminated, Ukraine's ability to find just enough men, let alone train them to a quality that renders them effective on the battlefield, they simply cannot keep up. It's going to be an accumulative effect and as Russia builds its military capabilities up and whittles away Ukrainian military capabilities, the tempo is going to increase, not necessarily because Russia decided for that to happen, it's just a byproduct of their strategy, this patient war of attrition, it's finally paying off to the point where nobody can deny its success at this point. On the question of patience, Alex and I, I think it was with Larry Johnson, we actually mentioned the fact that the Russian defense ministry has on several occasions used this word rhythmically to describe its operations. I think if you think of that in that way, it's a very interesting choice of words to use to describe what they're doing, they're acting steadily, I think the word was steadily purposefully rhythmically, in other words, not dynamic, not vast, media, big arrow thrusts or things of that kind, but things that are very carefully thought through, planned out step by step, you build it all up towards, towards, towards victory. And as you said, I think it is now clearly playing out, you're getting the sense of the Ukrainians, at least to me it looks like the Ukrainians are now completely outmatched whenever any encounter battles happen and they're struggling to close the gaps, they're having to pull troops in and as you say, not really particularly well trained troops anymore, the best trained troops have all gone. And there's reports starting to appear that Ukrainian units are refusing to accept orders to be deployed in various locations, because they are at the receiving end of this grinding and of course they don't want to be, they don't want to hold out in various positions and be ground down in the same way as other Ukrainians before them have been. Yes, and reading these Western media articles about, it is finally admitting that Ukraine is losing, it looks like they're going to lose and they're talking about trying to convince Ukrainians to continue signing up or volunteering or even just being called up and sent. The hesitation they obviously have because they can see it's a losing fight, why should I go and die for Ukraine when there's no prospect of winning, we're just delaying the inevitable we're not getting enough weapons, we're not getting enough ammunition, they want to continuously blame some sort of political hold up in Washington, but it's actually a systemic problem that prevents the collective West in its entirety of supporting Ukraine sufficiently. So morale will continue to fall. I think it has been a continuous process all along and there's going to be a tipping point where yes, there's going to be mass surrendering, there's going to be discipline problems within the ranks that we haven't seen up until now. I don't know when that tipping point will happen, but I think we could see the beginnings of it, we can see that. And as far as a big arrow offensive, as I've always said, the Ministry of Defense, the Russian Ministry of Defense has never said anything about it, I guess it's always a possibility, but I think Alexander, it was you and one of your videos, you cited a source that, I think it was a Russian source that was explaining, we have this system that is just grinding down Ukraine's military, why change it if it's working, just continue doing it. Do more of that rather than launching and I honestly believe that as of now, that is still their plan. That was Marath Khairulin, who is the absolute dohian of Russian war reporters, I mean, he's an outster, I mean, Russia has superb war reporters, by the way, so does Ukraine, but Khairulin is in a class of his own and he's fairly well known that he's quite close to many senior people within the Russian military system. So what he says, I think is pretty authoritative and his point was exactly what he said, that you know, since we've perfected this rhythmic system to use that expression, why change it, why we stampede it into doing something which is different from what we're doing now and which is working so well for us. And I think we should listen very carefully to what the Russians say, which of course far few people actually do. What do you think, what do you think is going to be the major places where things are going to happen now? We're hearing a lot about Chassafja, we're hearing a lot about places west of Odefka. There's lots of talk about Harkov, do you think that the Russians are going to try anything in any one of these places over and above what they're doing now or are we, you know, he's not really for us to try and guess, because I've always asked these questions, that's why I know us. Yes, I think people should just wait and see, again, it is just, I don't think they even know, what they do is they apply pressure everywhere when they see an opportunity to exploit it. It's hard to tell one, even for them, maybe it's hard to tell one that opportunity will present it, they always, you know, they're increasing the size of the military, the capability of their military, they have more resources to exploit one or more of these opportunities. I was just looking at the pro-Ukradian live map, and I always check that one, I follow other people who follow the pro-Russian maps and some of the middle of the ground maps, but I always check that one because even they are admitting Russian troops are, they have the red rifle icon, which means Russian troops are somewhere in Chassa VR inside, that is critical, that is bad news for Ukraine, even the pro-Ukradian map is admitting that. And they have what look like breakthroughs or advances all along the line of contact in the Dombos region, especially west of Difka, and I remember the western media saying, well, maybe they got a Difka, but it's already been stabilized, their forces have been stopped and actually, no, even according to the pro-Ukradian map, Russian forces continue moving west. I just wanted to sort of turn again to this perennial topic of production and weapons. One of the things I constantly read, at least especially in the British media, it's less or so in fairness in the American, is that our weapons are wonderful, amazing, modern, the Russian ones are not, that they're crude. This is the latest in word in the British media, so I was reading about the Russian bombs, for example, the precision guided bombs, that they're crude, and they're somewhat crude as compared with our weapons. I'm not at all sure what that means, by the way, but perhaps you can explain to me what makes these weapons crude as compared to ours. Yeah, and I see pro-Ukradian, pro-natal commentators on say X, and they zoom in and there's like some metal that was hammered, and you could obviously see it's not sleek and perfect as you see many western weapons are, but this is the whole reason Russia is winning in the first place. I don't care how it looks. It's not a product. It is a tool that they need to use it if it works, that's all they care about, and it's obviously working. So they're able to build these so-called crude weapons at lower prices in greater quantities than the West could ever hope to, and this is why they're winning what is a war of attrition. This is what Iran does, this is to a great extent. What China does, this is the whole, the West has dug themselves into this. They desire global hegemony, but they don't want to create the military industrial base to achieve it, the corporations that make up the western military defense base. They are profit driven, they are not purpose driven, and Russia's very clearly purpose driven. They don't care if you zoom in and it looks like someone hammering it just to get it just right. It's not perfectly machined and everything fits together so perfectly. They don't care. And if people who study history think back to World War II is the exact same thing would say the German panthers, perfect, it was just over engineered in every way, but everything was perfect, the welds were perfect, the T-34 that had welding gaps, you could fit your hand through, and people look at them, they say, "Well, that's crude," but it was crude because they were focusing on quantity, not necessarily quality in the sense of superficial perfection. And that is to think of the fundamental difference in how you approach war. And I would have to say, talking about production issues, this discussion of war economies, Russia's a war economy, and we have not yet in the West converted to a war economy. Again, as somebody who started an awful lot of economic history, people could say that, really don't know what they're talking about, they don't know what a war economy is, Russia is not one for the record, and it could become one if it chose to, but for the moment it's not choosing to. But in the West we're probably not capable of operating a war economy in that kind of way, at least not without massive societal and political change, which of course is not what our political leaders want. War economies, you could tell when they exist because there's rationing, there's price controls, there's all kinds of things of that nature which you don't see in Russia today. Just saying. Yeah, so I think the key to Russian success is they want to say that it's a war time economy so that that can be an excuse that they can use in realities because it's all state owned enterprises, and state sets the agenda and these enterprises execute it, purpose. It's purpose driven. When you look at the Pentagon's own analysis of the military industrial base, they were trying to figure it out. I think people remember that report that they put out very recently, and they were at one side of their mouth, they're saying private industry is the great strength of Western economies and society, then out of the other side of their mouth, every single problem that they were describing, the ultimate source is the fact that these are profit driven private corporations, and they don't care about making things that are cheap and abundant, they want to maximize profit. And so if there's any juncture that they come to and they have to pick profit over purpose and function, they're always going to pick profit. And they even admit in these reports, and analysts that discuss this report, Western analysts, they admit that there's no way for us to make these corporations do this unless we nationalize them, which as you say, Alexander, it'll never happen. So this is their big problem, a hurdle they just cannot get over, and if they cannot get over it, we already can see how it's going to unfold. I think a point which many people don't know, by the way, is that according to Anglo-American corporate law, which I used to work in, maximizing profit is illegal duty. I mean, you have a duty to your shareholders to maximize profits. You cannot legally make the decision to run your corporation at a loss. If you do that, then you are legally liable to your shareholders for the consequences. I mean, you can make mistakes, and of course, people do all the time, but literally running your enterprise in that kind of way for corporate leaders is a very high-risk thing, even if, of course, they had any real desire to do it, which, of course, they don't think this is how beneficiaries of the system as it exists now. I mean, if it was not a profit-focused business, they wouldn't be able to have their telephone number plus salaries and their share options and all of those things with Cup, which come with it. I mean, that is the reality of the system. It's systemic, so they would have to solve that and just think about how difficult that would be for the collective West would have to collectively solve this problem, because I think that is the case across the board. I mean, they could solve it by just creating a state enterprise that did all of these things, but there's just the military industrial base of consisting of private corporations. They just have too much power over the government, whereas in Russia, the government controls the enterprises, just the way it should work. It's the only way it can work, and now we can see why it's just so night and day when you look at these two systems, and then for the West, to be having these problems with Russia, but still obsessed with the idea of continuing this conflict with China, whose military industrial base and industrial base in general is just so much more massive than even Russia's. Well, indeed, because that was the difference. In the 1940s, the United States had a colossal industrial base. So even despite all the things that we've just been talking about, you could, to some extent, in fact, to a great extent, mitigate the factors that work against a privately based industrial system, producing weapons cheaply and inexpensively in vast quantities. You could mitigate it because of the sheer scale of the American industrial system. And it was all that was done under a system of very, very tight state control, which operated throughout the Second World War, which included price controls and rationing and sweeping laws that enabled the government to allocate resources to enterprises and things of that kind. And of course, there was enormous engineering resources, massive depth of engineering resources in the United States. Now that exists so far less at extent today in any Western country. Of course, engineers, and I've worked with engineers, are the people you need to manage these enterprises. They are the right people to run the enterprises because they understand the production system, they understand the supply chains, they understand how the machine tools work, they understand how to deploy the workers. We don't have that managerial skill within the engineering class anymore, because managers in the West are not drawn through it to any great extent any longer. In China, through great extent, still in Russia, it is different. They too have, they have also, just as the United States used to do, a colossal industrial manufacturing base. They have massive capacity and of course, a lot of their manufacturing is, as you rightly said, state and so competition with them is hopeless. They cannot succeed and people who say that the Russians are achieving what they're doing because the Chinese are helping them. Well they are helping them up to a point maybe by, you know, supplying processes and machine tools and things like that. But of course, if the Chinese got into this in earnest, I mean, it would change the whole picture. Very, very fast indeed. We would not be talking about a war that would last, you know, a year, months even. It would probably, we'd see visible differences within weeks. I mean, we wouldn't be talking about hundreds of thousands of shells being produced a month. We could easily talk about millions. Yes, and I've seen even Western sources and this is something that I've got to do additional research into, but I think you and Alex have talked about this as well, these automated factories in China making more cruise missiles and I don't forget what the period of time is but many more in a very short period of time than the US makes all year. And just again, just looking at Russia, talking about the 60 billion over and over again and they're talking about getting additional Patriot missile systems before the show we were talking about how they talked about upgrading the Hawk air defense systems. Look at the number of missiles that Russia has fired into Ukraine and considering that air defense systems have to usually fire two interceptors for every incoming target, they've already sent in more targets than Patriot missiles that have ever existed on the planet Earth. There's no way and you're talking about capabilities say back around World War II in the West. These are capabilities that they've allowed to atrophy and as we can see, they're desperately trying to revamp it all trying to bring it back on mine and they realize how much goes into building up an industrial base. It's not just spending money and building factories. You need the manpower, you need downstream suppliers, all of these things that they put into China because it was cheap for them. Now they have to rebuild it from scratch. It's something that will take as we've all pointed out years and years and years to do. And then, and additionally, they say, well, we'll just build these factories inside Ukraine, I think as Alex pointed out in a recent video, how are you going to operate factories, forgetting about the fact that Russia will just shoot missiles at them if your power grid is being systematically disassembled. So it is a combination of mounting problems and there is no incapable of solving them. And the first step in solving this is to understand that the West should not even be doing this in the first place. This game of global primacy is a game that cannot be played, it will fail and they need to reexamine where they fit in with the rest of the world, but psychologically, ideologically, I think they're incapable. At least the people that are in power right now, they're in. Yeah, I just, I think that's absolutely, I mean, I just want you to mention this. I mean, you get sometimes rational people, there's an article in the Hill by Thomas Graham who was a senior official and believe it, I think it was the George H.W Bush administration. He says, you know, we didn't take into account Russia's security concerns. We should avoided the war. We can come to some kind of a peaceful resolution now. Let's do so. J.D. Vance in a somewhat elliptical way is essentially the same thing, but then I was really an article. I think it was in Foreign Affairs by my uncle Paul Tinti, who said, you know, we haven't managed the relationship with China. We must win, we must win against them. We must achieve victory over them, which, you know, it does make me wonder what planet these people are on. I mean, how do they think that can be achieved? It shows a fundamental failure to understand the realities of power. How power really is created in the United States in the 1940s. The United States had this enormous industrial capacity because it had been built up continuously, even during the Depression, ever since basically the Civil War. I mean, that was when the industrial surge in the United States really took off. That's a period of around 80 years. You can't achieve in a few months what it took 80 years to do. Now, and looking at China's rise, that did not happen overnight. Even when they're talking about steps to increase production, again, we've gone over this many times with the artillery shells, okay, you're going to increase the production of artillery shells in the United States, the UK, Germany, I heard that there were two fires, one in the Scranton, Pennsylvania plant, and I think the BAE plant in the UK, they're having accidents because I almost guarantee you that they were mocking Russia for cutting corners in terms of safety to produce more shells faster. I guarantee you that that's what they're doing in their plants right now and it's causing problems. But they're talking about doing all of this expansion while at the same time almost ignoring the fact that Russia is also continuously expanding. Even if you increase it by this amount, by the time you reach 2025, 2027, when you think you're going to have this expanded production, how much further along is Russian production going to be? Same goes for this sort of arms race US is having with China. By the time you're making all of these AI drone wingmen for your F-35s, F-22s, how many is China going to have? Plus the fact that you're trying to fight all of these conflicts on the other side of the planet from where you're actually located on a map. Indeed, but if you're warring, Ukraine isn't going so well, why not fight another one? The same in the Middle East, because that's what we have at the moment. We're hearing all of these reports that the United States is very anxious to avoid general conflagration in the Middle East, that it doesn't want to war in Iran, with Iran. And logically, that makes perfect sense when you are already tied up in a war in Ukraine, which you're losing, and where you don't have enough resources. The last thing you should want is to start yet another war in another place. Now I don't know what to make of these reports, because the Americans, supposedly urging the Israelis to exercise restraint, the Israelis going ahead, attacking embassies, preparing to attack Iran. I've no doubt that attack is coming. The United States, or this urging, apparently it's not prepared to do anything to stop Israel doing that. It looks like we're heading remorselessly and relentlessly towards a war with Iran, which as Alex and I have been saying in program after program, and I know you've been saying it to many people in government in the United States have absolutely won't, and I'd appreciate he's not in government anymore, but you only have to listen to John Bolton talking, and he was very busy over the weekend. He was all over the place, by the way, listening to what he's saying about the need basically for a war with Iran. And he still has influence, a huge amount of influence, and speaks to many, many people. People in the United States want this war with Iran. Why do you think it's going to turn out well for them? I don't know, but anyway, that it seems to me is both where we're heading and what some people want. Am I getting this wrong? Well it's as you and Alex always say, there is no reverse gear. So look at how disastrous the proxy war in Ukraine is going. It is a complete disaster, catastrophe, and yet what are they doing? They just continue moving forward. There's no, they're not constructing it off-ramp. A lot of what they're doing is simply the fact that they physically cannot do more to escalate. They're just out of weapons, out of ammunition. Ultimately, their goal is containing China. They wanted to draw Russia in, they've talked openly about collapsing the Russian government, they want to remove Russia off the board to further isolate China. They want to disrupt the Middle East. Maybe not even necessarily win a war against Iran, but disrupt the Middle East sufficiently to cut off hydrocarbons to China, a large percentage at least, to disrupt the Chinese economy. And it's the same mentality. If we do all of these things, even though we're at this disadvantage, we're out of time, we have no choice. It's either now or never. Maybe something will happen and the Chinese government will just collapse, just like they thought the Russian government and economy and society would collapse. This is the premise that they're going off of. You just said it. They're publicly saying, "Oh, we don't want Israel to attack Iran," but every single action that they take is to embolden and enable Israel to do this. Just like they had been doing with Ukraine, all throughout the Minsk agreement, development, they were posing as taking the diplomatic path, all while encouraging and enabling Ukraine to escalate. And that's what they're doing with Israel. They have entire policy papers where they have entire chapters. We'll call leave it to BB, just have Israel start this war. We can pretend like we didn't want it. We tried to stop it, but, "Oh, Israel just did whatever it wanted, and now we have to reluctantly go aid them because they're our ally," and you can see them building that narrative up right now as we speak. People see that old policy paper from 2009 and say, "Well, it's such an old plan," but you can see they're thinking does not change. It does not adapt to the reality taking place right now. So I have no doubt they're going to try to get Israel to attack Iran. They're hoping Iran miscalculates, overreacts, and so they could create a conflagration across the Middle East. And all while they're doing this, they continue to build up their military provocations in Asia-Pacific against China. Ultimately, they want to create the perfect storm where Russia is distracted. The Middle East is on fire, and they can fight a war to isolate China. In their mind, they think there's even a slight possibility, possible victory, because they never pay the costs for all of these policies themselves. It's Ukrainians paying the price. It's Iranians, Israelis in the Middle East paying the price. It'll be the Philippines and the people on the island province of Taiwan paying the price. It'll never be the people in Washington, Wall Street, London, Brussels. I forgot to mention why we're talking about Ukraine, but for me, one of the most horrifying upsetting things is watching all these Western people, Ben Wallace in Britain, Lindsey Graham in the United States, but they're just the most extreme examples, commentator after commentator demanding that Ukraine mobilize and send more of its young men to the slaughter. I mean, I find that kind of thing, I mean, it is so incredible to me, the callousness of it. I mean, it just leaves me speechless. But anyway, on the run, I actually was reading in the Financial Times, also the financial times is an important newspaper for getting this information. Iranian oil exports have been surging this year. Guests, most of them have been going to China. What the reason those exports have been surging is because Iran has been able to join BRICS. It's had this reconciliation with Saudi Arabia. There'd been a reduction in tension. Trade, therefore, has resumed. The Iranian economy is growing, growing quite fast, living standards in Iran are finally rising. So you have this complex game, chess game, geopolitical chess game that you think you're playing with the Chinese, and of course, all that has to apparently go into reverse instead of seeing it as a good thing that people are getting, people who have been poor are becoming less poor. That's apparently a bad thing because that's making Iran stronger. I mean, I have read article after article that basically says that. And again, it's very concerning and alarming to read it. But going back to that 2009 paper, I don't need the thinking has changed in Washington. What has changed is the world, the world today is not the same as the world that it was in 2009. Iran is very different place than the place it was in 2009. Much more sophisticated, more advanced, all of these friends and allies. China is stronger. The West relatively is weaker. We've had the problems of the financial crisis and the pandemic and all of that. But our thinking doesn't change. We just continue stuck with the same schemes and plans and policies that are becoming more and more out of date and disconnected with the reality that's changing all around us. Yes, absolutely. And if people read that paper carefully, they will notice that the paper itself, these policy makers who are, you know, they're not crafting this plan on their own in this paper is a reflection of the consensus in Washington. And they admit over and over again that Iran doesn't pose any actual threat to U.S. national security. Doesn't even pose a threat to Israeli national security. What it poses a threat to is the impunity of the U.S. and Israel to do whatever they want in the region. It is an obstacle that they need to remove so that they can craft the region into a shape that suits them and their interests. And so when they see Iran prosperity increasing people's lives improving, that is a problem for them because it creates an even greater obstruction, which they need to clear out. And that's what they do to one country after the other. They target them, their economy. And ultimately it's about a small percentage of the world wanting to control the rest of the world. And the only way to do that is if you divide and destroy the rest of the world because otherwise the rest of the world, working together, prosperous, doing constructive things, they will be a power, the U.S. or anyone else trying to gain privacy. They will not be able to compete against them. And that's what we see this huge disparity in military power, economic power, technology that the West had held for generations. That is the playing field has leveled and just like you said, their mindset is still stuck a generation ago where the West had all these advantages. It was just a given that they were more powerful and that these countries wouldn't be able to defend themselves. It is completely reversed, but their mindset has remained. This is their actor. As I say often, the West's biggest enemy is themselves, their own mentality in the way that they're thinking. I'm talking about the people driving foreign policy. I'm not talking about the average Westerner. The average Westerner is also a victim of this entire process. I totally agree with that. Coming back to this, what do you think is going to happen in the Middle East? I mean, we're going to have an Israeli strike. The Iranians are going to be under enormous pressure to strike back. In fact, I don't see how they can avoid it. They tried and people have pushed back on this, but we've had articles before the Iranian strike to place in the financial times. There were another places too, by the way, which I've now squirreled up. The financial times was the most interesting. The Iranians tried to explain, they were very careful to explain before the strike happened what it would do and what it wouldn't do. They tried to keep the situation under control. I get the sense that the situation is getting out of control, that we're going to have a very powerful Israeli strike against Iran. I do think they're going to exercise restraint. I do think that's really the DNA of the people who make these kinds of decisions to exercise restraint. There's going to be a very powerful Israeli strike. There's going to be an Israeli counter strike. Where is this going? Are we going to see the straits of Hormuz closed? For example, are we going to see bigger escalations across the Middle East? How do you control this situation? It's a very good question, honestly. I don't know, but I can speculate and I often say that this was a trap, leveling a consulate in Damascus. That was a trap for Iran. They're trying to get Iran over react, so they can justify this war that they've been planning and trying to move into position for years and years. Iran stepped into the trap. It does not mean that Iran is oblivious to the trap. Surely, they know all about it. Surely they knew the Iran nuclear deal was a trap. It was going to be sabotaged and abandoned. They knew that, but they went along with it anyway to show the world that they have the right intentions, they're going along with the process. They did take advantage of it as much as possible, but they were prepared for it to be sabotaged and abandoned just as the US was pretty much openly said they would. And now we look at this trap. We see Iran step into it. It does not mean that they're unprepared for it. I think from their point of view, they have prepared for this. They're ready for a large-scale conflict with the United States and Israel and anyone else who gets pulled into it. The question is, and this only time will tell, have they miscalculated? Have they prepared and they think they're prepared, but in reality, they're not going to be able to do in Ukraine, like they're not going to be able to do in the region what Russia was able to do in Ukraine. Ukraine was a trap. Remember the Rand Corporation paper extending Russia. They said, we'll just keep giving weapons to Ukraine until we suck Russia into a large-scale conflict. Russia prepared for it. They sprung the trap. It blew up in the West's face. Iran is probably doing something very similar. Only time will tell if it is prepared or if the West will get the upper hand. Of course, the more chaos in the Middle East, the more it suits the West. They want the region back in chaos. They don't want to see Saudi Arabia and Iran repairing their ties. They don't want Syria back in the Arab League. They want everyone divided and fighting like they've kept them since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. This is the natural state they think the Middle East should be in. That's kind of the framework and we just have to see how it all unfolds. It's all very alarming, very disturbing. You've talked about the word trap, what many people are not aware of is that the Chinese are starting to talk about the United States being in a trap, that it's trapped in the conflict in Ukraine and that it's trapped in the conflict in the Middle East. And the Chinese are saying that far from strengthening the US, these conflicts are draining American resources and are putting the United States relative to China overall in a weaker position. Now, I've been following comments coming out from China and of course we've had a number of very interesting meetings that Xi Jinping in particular has had. These had a telephone conversation with Biden, he's met with Schultz, he's also met with Lavrov, but my overall sense of the Chinese is that they're starting to become more assertive towards the West than they have been at any point previously. I thought that Xi Jinping was that he's tougher, tougher than he's ever been with Biden in the recent call that they had, which Biden wanted. And he, I thought, gave an excorating lecture to Schultz about the whole Ukraine conflict. Do you get the same sense that the Chinese are gradually coming round to the feeling that one, the West is getting weaker and two, it's also time for China to start to assert itself more? Yes, yes, I do and China has been playing a very long patient game. They had been in the process of being colonized by the West. So think about from that period of time to where they are now, how much change has taken place and how patient and how thoroughly thought through everything they have done throughout that process has been. And so now we see this, it's part, yes, China is stronger and they're able to do this. It's also part, the West is giving them no alternative. But alternative is the West giving China, even as the West is unraveling, they are putting more troops on Taiwan, which is internationally recognized as part of China. They're turning the Philippines into another Ukraine. They are encouraging the Philippines to provoke China, ruining their relationship and China does not want to burn bridges. They don't want to destabilize the region. They do most of their business in that region. So yes, they have to become more assertive and if being more assertive can force the West to change its behavior even in the slightest way, I think they're willing to do it because by being patient at this point makes no sense because it's very clear what Western intentions are. Being patient at this point isn't going to make a difference, I don't think for China. So they're going to lay out what needs to happen and it's going to be up to the West to either take it or leave it and then pay the consequences. It's been pointed out to me by a Chinese commentator that the agreements, the core agreements made between the United States and China back in the 1970s which were the foundation stone, the relationship between China and the United States, the development of relations thereafter. Not only required the United States to recognize the government of the People's Republic as the government of China, including Taiwan, but also committed the United States to reducing arms sales to Taiwan eventually to zero. And of course, what we're seeing happen is the exact opposite and apparently in China itself, this is talked about all the time. And just as we are now getting statements from the Russians about the fact that the United States is untrustworthy and is not agreement capable, there's a Russian word for this. When starting to sense that some people in China are coming to exactly the same conclusions. Yes, the one China policy that the US itself agreed to has been trampled, I mean, utterly pulled apart and turned upside down, just like the Minsk agreement. It's like the Minsk agreement in many ways, it's just happened over a longer period of time that the US had withdrawn all of their troops from Taiwan. Some people don't realize that the Republic of China existed solely because the US put its military there to protect it. That's the only reason it exists. And so they had pulled all of their troops out, but more recently, they've been adding them back. And again, in all of their policy papers, they're talking about turning Taiwan into a battering ram against the rest of China. They admit that Taiwan is going to be obliterated, the economy, the infrastructure, everything gone. But this is the same mentality that they have regarding Russia and Ukraine. We can't win, let's just make the cost as high as possible. That's what they're doing with China over Taiwan. They're also doing it with the entire Southeast Asian region. They're burning Myanmar to the ground right now as we speak. They're militarizing the Philippines, putting US troops on the Philippines. They continue getting Japan and South Korea to sleepwalk into a war with China, but even though again, if you look, all of these countries, their biggest trade partner is China. And people might find that hard to believe, but it is, it's true. And Taiwan is part of China. It does almost all half, I think, about half of its exports go to the rest of China. So it's madness. And they're going to do to this region what they've already done to not just Ukraine, but we have to remember how the rest of Europe has been affected by this proxy war. That is what they're trying to do in Asia. Again, the mindset is maybe we can't win these wars, but we can just create chaos everywhere, knock everyone down, we're down, maybe we could get everyone down here with us. I think that's their primary strategy at this point. And we can see Russia, China, even Iran, they're hesitant to fall into these traps. They have to win force to, but they want to try to maintain stability because they know time is on their side, ultimately. Just think about Israel and the United States, even a year from now, do people imagine they will be stronger in the region or weaker in the region, obviously weaker? So they're at a time, and when you're at a time when you're desperate, you come dangerous. You start doing irrational, unpredictable things, and I think that's what we see the U.S. doing, and it's not unpredictable in the sense that we don't know what they're going to do. They've planned these things for years, but it's irrational for them to continue trying to implement these strategies considering what's actually happening now. I mean, it is tragically sad if you're a Westerner as well, because this is not, I mean, China is not going to conquer the United States, Iran is not going to conquer the entire Middle East, Russia is not going to conquer the whole of Europe. Despite all the overheated rhetoric that we're hearing, I mean, this is a very big world. There's plenty of room for everybody, including us, and if we worked to sort things out, we could actually ultimately improve our societies, which are an urgent need of improvement. But I fear, what I fear, you know, all right, there's the big fear that things are going to get so completely out of control that we are going to lurch into some kind of cataclysmic confrontation. But even putting that aside, it seems that there's a very real danger that in the end, the world will organize itself without us, and I suppose it us, you know, us in the West, we're going to plunge and get into a deep crisis, and the rest of the world will move on, and we will be far weaker and far worse off than we would have been if we'd simply gone with the flow and worked with the system that's developing and accepted that history, you know, goes forward and, you know, and had adapted ourselves to it. We're also going to make ourselves, and actually, to an extent, we don't even understand already are deeply unpopular. One of the most bizarre things that recent weeks has been apparently the French blaming the Russians for the fact that they've been pushed out of Africa. It has to be the Russians, it can't be the Africans, the Africans, you know, they don't like the French, but no, no, no, don't talk about them, don't talk about the Africans not liking the French and not liking being exploited by the French. It's the Russians who've done it. The fact is France is very unpopular in parts of West Africa now, and if we continue this trajectory, the same will be true of the West. Am I right? Without that, I mean, you live in Thailand, for example, where outside the West. Yes, you're absolutely correct. This is what many people in the West don't know, because the Western media poisons them against this reality, but the reality is inside Russia, inside China, here in Asia, people don't want to have a conflict with the West. They like the West. They just don't want the West dictating to them how to live their lives, how to manage their own affairs. They like working with the West, or things they admire about the West, at least in terms of idealism, in reality, that's another story, and they go out of their way not to burn bridges with the West. Look at how Russia is going out of it, not to burn bridges with Europe, despite everything that is being done right now, because they hope sometime in the future, these circles of interest running the West into the ground, they will be replaced by someone more pragmatic, more rational, and more willing to coexist rather than being obsessed with domination. They see that possibility in the future, and they're trying to plan ahead for it, just like they play ahead for everything else. This seems like the West is right now, people running things, they're the ones not thinking ahead. And just as you say, the harder they push, and the harder they fail at this, something they cannot succeed at, the worse it will be, the deeper the whole will be that the collective West wants to crawl out of, with or without these interests that are doing it right now. I'm a balletic, this is where I'm going to finish, I think we've done a wonderful conversation and discussion. I'm going to go over to Alex, I'm sure he's got various questions that he's going to want to put. Thank you. You want to answer a few questions for us, Brian, stick around for a bit? Sure. Yes. Great. Thanks. Morgan says, and I'm going to Brian as an honorary Alexander. Let's see here, from a goose says, why are Western globalists so obsessed about not looking weak? Is it insecurity about their strength, the care, reform over substance, fear of losing control, spiritual void or combination? I think it's a combination, and then add to that a sense of supremacy, they honestly believe they're inherently better than everyone else on Earth. And the idea that all of these other countries are surpassing them, it is just such an alien concept to them, they cannot accept that they will do almost anything to try to prevent it. And I think that's why we've been led so far over the precipice so far toward this completely avoidable conflict. Eleanor asks, how can the USA pay their military when their debt is so out of control? How to finance a federation? I think this is something Alexander could probably answer better, but so far the US dollar being the reserve currency has afforded them to run up this debt, but now because the balance of power is shifting, including in terms of finance, and this is something the US has done to itself abusing sanctions, forcing the rest of the world to come up with alternative systems. And that has been going on for years, and at first people are like, oh, that will never work. But they kept at it for years and years, now it's finally reached critical mass, people are using it, and now the US dollar is in a very precarious situation. I don't know enough about it to say how soon it's going to collapse, or if it will collapse, but it does not look good. And as Alexander was saying, the world's going to move on without the West and their systems, and their monopolies over those systems. Jan Cain says, would love to hear a discussion on Brian's review of the which path to Persia paper, and how much control of current events is the US deep state versus the current administration? Yeah, I mean, just remember, if you've done a dedicated video on that, man, I've been talking about it since actually 2009, so writing articles, and then more recently doing videos, they've talked about everything. Before President Obama signed the nuclear deal with Iran, they talked about signing the deal like this, and then sabotaging it. And that took place over the course of the Obama, Trump, and Biden administration. And people might remember Biden saying he's going to dust it off, and we commit to it, but they had no intention of ever doing that. That was just lip service. So if people have to pay very close attention to what is being done rather than what people are saying, because there's the narrative, and then there's the, if you want to call it the deep state, there is a continuity of agenda. And all that they do with the different presidents and senators and representatives is spin the narrative that they're using to sell this one single agenda. So Tsunabiba asks, question, do you think that the US election inauguration is a deadline for defeating Ukraine so that Trump can start over on a new page with Russia? No, no, honestly, I don't think the elections make any difference at all. It might make a difference to some people involved in them. But as far as US foreign policy, this is something they have been obsessed with since the end of World War II, dominating the Soviet Union, and after it's collapsed the Russian Federation. This is what they've, and then, of course, containing China. This is all they've talked about, this is all they've pursued since then, and I don't think this election is going to make any difference in that. Again, people have to remember, even though President Trump, while he was campaigning, said all the right things when he was actually in office, whether this was him doing it or people usurping his authority, every single agenda was advanced without exception during his four years, and then it just continued uninterrupted into the Biden administration. Karen took the kid, says, "The decline of the West falls into three possible categories as I see it. Incompetence, complicity, or both, I'm curious as to how the panel thinks these options are weighted or if there's additional categories I may be missing." Arrogance, also, I would add, and obviously, incompetence and complacency, the idea that we're superior, we cannot fail, is very deeply rooted in their mindset, I believe. I completely agree, just to quickly say, I completely agree, and we have been through these moments before, perhaps, because it's the one that's best academically researched. Look at the decisions that were being made in Madrid in the early 17th century, because Spain at that time was the great power of the world empire. Which, too, was taking to maintain its position, even as it sensed that it was eroding. One of the things that happens is that from about the 1600s, it becomes steadily more aggressive until eventually it just everything just implodes. Sparky says, "Brian, you and Angelo are doing great work on the new Atlas. Keep on trucking." And Sparky also says, "The American education system filters out clever people, leaving only the obedient who jump through hoops on command, D.C.'s full of such educated people." Yes, absolutely, very true. Christo says, "Crazy times we never thought would come are happening. Could it get any worse?" Yes, the U.S. could start a war in the Middle East, and then one in Asia Pacific, and get the whole world burning, and upside down just like they've gone to Europe, which I believe is their plan. Lada Marosa says, "Hello, gentlemen. It's nice to see Brian on the Duran live stream." Thank you, Lada. Elaine says, "All three of you keep me from despair. Brian opened my eyes to China, Alex makes me laugh, not even the darkest day in Alexander's ultimate optimism, compassion, and breadth of knowledge is a joy." Thank you, Elaine. With that, Yahoo! says, "Big congrats to Duran, securing Brian's first return video, invaluable Brian's expertise of historical policy papers. Brian, can you please do a video on Russia's new turtle tank as the tank expert?" I will look into what I've seen. I've seen this. I think the mindset behind it is to trick AI drones that are taught to identify the shape of a tank, but obviously all you have to do is teach it to identify these large, hulking things that will be a problem in the near future. It's a cat and mouse game being played right now with these drones and countermeasures, and we're going to see a lot like this as this conflict continues on both sides. "Libertarian by default" says, "Superficial perfection, as Brian has called it. That sums up the West's essence and mindset quite well." Thank you for that. Huristo says, "Where will most of the CIA people in the Ukrainian secret services go after Russia smashes them out of Ukraine?" Into the Baltics, probably. We go back to Virginia with their handlers. Huristo says, "I hope they don't go to Greece or Cyprus." Maybe a few will come to Greece. Huristo says, "It's possible." Savvy says, "Great show. Support Brian. Support to the Duran." Thank you for that. Christian says, "Thanks for yet another great show. How can we work towards global cohesion in times of propaganda and demonization? People get ever more hostile towards Russia due to the media narrative." We just have to keep -- I mean, that's the whole reason I got into this. I'm not a journalist. I'm not actually an analyst. I'm just a regular person who got angry at being lied to, and I just felt like putting my voice out there might help even if in the smallest way, and that's how people tuning in, supporting alternative media, people starting their own channels, people sharing information with other people. It has been making a huge difference. If people remember 10 years ago, 20 years ago, how much control the West had over the narrative and how tenuous it is now, despite how much they've expanded their attempt to control it. It definitely is making a difference, so we need to do more of that. I think that is the key to it. Right. And Sparky says, "Brian, there are many lobbies with undue influence on the U.S. Congress. Congress supplies them with money, much of which is kicked back to the congressmen and senators who voted for it. What can be done?" Again, you just have to try to wake people up to this. People knew the role of these lobbyists, and people have to remember, beyond lobbyists, these corporations, the U.S.-based corporations have all kinds of ways of channeling money into Congress' pockets. There's so many different ways they can do it, where there's not even a record of it, and they've been caught doing this. The pharmaceutical corporations especially have all kinds of ways of doing this. By exposing it and raising awareness of it, I think that is the best way to start. You're certainly not going to demand of them to stop doing it, and then they'll just stop doing it. They'll take awareness and start putting pressure on them, while at the same time creating alternatives to these corporations that are putting money into their pockets. We pay into these corporations every single month. You start paying into local alternatives. You're taking all that money that's going to them and diverting it to your own community. That is basically multi-polarism, is Russia, China, all these other countries creating alternatives and channeling global resources into those alternatives away from Western monopoly. You can do this on a local level also. Sham says, "Thank you for your insights. I watched daily and have for a while now. You give me hope. Thank you." Latimero says, "I don't think hypersonic cruise missiles are made crude. They won't be able to perform, unlike Boeing airplanes." Ricardo says, "The F-22 was mostly hand-built, and parts had to be hammered in place too. That's one of the reasons why some planes don't have interchangeable parts, and Boeing's build quality isn't anything to brag of." Now that people see the truth, that's that layer of superficial perfection killing off for all of the same. Sparky says, "Brian, in the late 1990s, many safeguards to keep America war ready were taken down since they were inconvenient and viewed as unnecessary since the Cold War was over. Shortsightedness run amok." Yes. Shortsightedness, one word is one word. The main problem that the West has in not thinking all of this through. Yeah. Libertarian by default asks, "Is there a breaking point at which the West realizes that having their way is not going to happen, and that they need to start compromising to avoid collapse? Which country will be the first to do that? Which country will be the last?" It could happen in the sense that the circles of interest controlling things now are slowly displaced by a more rational circle of interest, and then that's how it will happen. These people are never going to get it. They don't get it by now. They never will. And they will just continue until they're flying off the cliff into oblivion and taking everyone with them. Yeah, Oscar says, "How many missiles and drones did Iran send on Israel?" First Israel said, "200, and now they say 350, and 120 was ballistic missiles, which they say they downed 115." Do we know the exact numbers or? No, actually, Alexander was talking about it about whether or not they were counting missiles and rockets fired by Hezbollah and other groups in the region. So I don't think we're going to get a concrete number on that. Obviously, they're lying about how many they've shot down. Can I just say to that? I can remember this is going all the way back to the 1982, Lebanon War. There were all kinds of claims reported at the time about the number of Syrian fighter jets that the Israeli Air Force claimed. They had shot down in a single day, specifically at one point, he claimed they did a shot down up to 80. And then years and years later, decades later, in fact, it turned out that it wasn't anything like that many. And we had the same with the Patriot missiles that were shooting down the skuds over Q-8 during the 1991 war. I think we need to be very, very careful before we just accept these numbers that are thrown at us. And the history tells us that these figures can be subject to very, very radical change. Zariel says mocking the Russians for lack of manufacturing security while Boeing planes are flying apart. May they talk about projecting typical Western hypocrisy. True, let's see here. Why don't China take Taiwan now and open up a third front? Wouldn't that help the Palestinian people and simultaneously achieve a long time Chinese aspiration? Why let the USA restock weapons? I think because they know that they're stocking weapons much faster. They know time is on their side. Ultimately, Taiwan is part of China. The people living there are Chinese, as Angelo Giuliano always points out, he having spent time there and living in China. They don't want to create a conflict that is going to scour human life off of the island. As US policy makers have planned, that is their plan is to fight the rest of China to the last person on Taiwan, just like they're doing to Ukraine. If you could avoid that, I think that you would. If Russia could have avoided what is happening in Ukraine, I think they spent a lot of time trying. And I think China will only go to war over Taiwan if it's absolutely the last resort. Cluster musician says, "Have you seen what the city of Marupo looks like now? Let Michigan problems still not solved quite the contrast." And Lim says, "Will Israel be able to overwhelm Iran's air defense systems? Does Iran have the capacity to produce ammunition for a long war?" Good questions that I think only time will tell. What I will say though, is if Israel could not bomb Hezbollah to submission in 2006, they're not going to be able to bomb Iran its mission now. That's not going to happen. And they overwhelm Iranian air defense, probably. What difference is it actually going to make? Is Israel able to bomb Iran into oblivion with their nuclear weapons? And this is the one thing that I do worry about because the clock is ticking. They know they're out of time. They are becoming increasingly desperate, thinking about the French president, talking about sending troops to Ukraine. How catastrophic would that be if they actually did that? These are the things that are going through their minds as they get increasingly desperate. The idea of we have this proxy Israel in the Middle East. They've got nuclear weapons. It's probably the last chance we'll ever get to use them. If a rational administration ever gets into power and starts working with their neighbors instead of bombing them, we'll never get this chance again. So maybe there is some interest in doing that. That is actually my biggest fear. I hope I'm completely wrong about it. But that is something for people to keep in mind. Jerry says, "Will the CIA color revolution in Georgia succeed?" I know you've been following this story on your Telegram, Brian. Yes. And because the US does this everywhere. They did it in Thailand not that long ago. They were passing a bill based completely off the US. The US's own national security laws preventing foreign interference in the US. And they had all these US government-funded fronts come out and protest it violently here in Thailand and the government ultimately back down. I don't think it was because of the protests. I think it was because things the US was saying in back channels to the Thai government about what would happen if they went ahead with this. They're doing the exact same thing in Georgia. But the presence of these violent mobs coming out is the biggest example, illustration of how dangerous this US foreign interference is and how desperately needed these type of laws are to eliminate it from within your borders. Under the UN Charter, you have the right to defend your political independence. And the US is blatantly violating it by funding all these mobs, coercing governments either pass or not pass legislation. And again, it's that hypocrisy that people in the comments section have been pointing out, Western hypocrisy, where they're talking about Ukrainian sovereignty, all while trampling Georgia's sovereignty. Yeah, Sparky says, Brian, as a neo-colony of the US Israel of late seems like a child with poor moral judgment, leading around their demented parent to the US. Is this the case or are blinking at all that evil and stupid? Having Israel look like they're, they cannot be controlled works perfectly for stated US policy to trigger a war with Iran and look and absolve themselves with culpability. Israel did it. They tried to stop them. They couldn't be stopped. It was exactly like with Ukraine. Oh, Ukraine is killing journalists in Russia. That's so evil. How can we're not supporting that, obviously, we're not supporting cross border strikes into Russia. All while, you know, I think it was the New York Times eventually admitted, maybe the Washington Post it. The CIA has been embedded with Ukrainian security who's doing this all along for years. Surely they know and surely they're involved, but it just suits the US to appear like they have no control over this plausible deniability. Lim says what could the Philippines and China actually fight over neither would be invading the other. So what would the war be over control over a few rocks in the SCS? How does that play out? That is exactly the point. There is no reason to have any sort of conflict between the Philippines and China. The fighting over World War II era landing vote that they that the Filipino navy grounded on purpose on this submerged shawls, not even an island, and if that's what they're fighting over and they're only fighting over it because the US has politically captured the Philippines and has encouraged them to do this and enabled them to do this. In reality, the Philippines and China, the trade between the Philippines and China, the Philippines largest export market. It's also their largest import partner. Why are they starting a war with their largest source of economic trade? It makes absolutely no sense. And it's exactly like Ukraine being pitted against Russia. They were doing all their business with Russia. They were also enjoying trade with the West and the US overthrew the government, put a client regime in power and artificially cut Ukraine off, created an artificial conflict with Russia that ultimately destroyed Ukraine as we can see. They're doing the same process all over now in the Philippines and people will say, "Well, what about these maritime disputes?" Philippines has maritime disputes. Their claims overlap with other countries in the region too. You don't hear about that because it doesn't suit the US to trump those up and escalate those. They're only escalating the disputes with China to take normal disputes that people have all around the world, escalate it into a conflict the US can use as a pretext for a wider war. That's exactly what they're doing. Michael Seymour says the equivalent is unimaginable. China with 400 military bases, warships close to US coasts, pushing Puerto Rico for independence. And having troops on Catalina Island, maybe right off the coast of California to make it a little more accurate. Well said, Michael. Irish partisan says Belarus kept the USSR state enterprises, which enables the government to not only plan, but allocate resources. Its economy is self-sufficient. Belarus produces its own food, consumer goods and machinery. Yeah. It is not completely self-sufficient. I think that's an important, I mean, it's not self-sufficient in energy terms. Its economy is tightly integrated into Russia's. And it requires a lot of trade with Russia to function. But of course, it is a mutually advantageous trade because the Russians also need a lot of the goods that Belarus produces. We did a very, Glendesen and I did a very, very long, very interesting program with the interview with the Belarus ambassador, Ambassador Miroshnik, and we discussed the Belarus economy there extensively. You want to look up that program. You can find it on the Duran. You can discuss, you know, we discussed it all there at length. Yeah. Sparky says, Brian, wasn't it great when Garland Nixon's Taiwan tweet went viral, unlock Garland's account. Yes. And I've had, I've actually on X. I've had a new Eastern Outlook articles that I write. I cannot post the links. They're banned. They had been on band when Twitter was taken over and became X and now they're back on the band list. So people, I mean, essentially, even if you're in the U.S. and you have a U.S.-based social media platform and you're trying to open it up, there's always going to be pressure and ways they're going to try to force you to restrict free speech. And that's why I tell everyone, follow, follow people on Telegram if they're on Telegram. That so far has been the best by far social media platform. Yeah. G1416 says, I'd like to understand better who takes decisions in U.S. foreign policy. Which key players would you say are there? Think tanks, NSC, et cetera. It's the corporate, the corporate financial interests. So the shareholders, the board of directors of these corporations, they create these think tanks, they fund these think tanks, they draft these papers which reflect consensus among them. Then they go to Washington, while they're created into bills by lawyers, they go to Washington with lobbyists to go get signed. And then they work with their media partners who are often both sponsors of these think tanks, but also sometimes just partners of these think tanks. And they use that to sell these agendas to the American public as if it's somehow in their best interests. That's actually how foreign policy and domestic policy works. And the U.S. is not being decided upon in Washington, mainly by these think tanks funded by corporations and financial institutions. Yeah. Game of chairs says, are we seeing the end of conventional weapons, i.e. tanks, armored personnel, carriers, et cetera? No, I don't think so. I think we'll just see a change as it always has changed. Many people have said that over and over again from one conflict to the other. But what ends up happening is militaries will adjust the way they use these weapons systems. The tank is still an incredible weapons system, highly mobile, very well armored, and it has a very long range. So it's maybe not so great for assaulting anymore these days, like say in Ukraine, but they still use them for kind of a standoff, highly accurate direct fire role, which is still greatly needed on the battlefield. So I think it will change. The roles will change, but they will still remain very important. Elena says to Brian, what does Brian think about AI in the Russian military? The way they're using AI right now is for helping drones identify and lock onto targets. And usually a human operator will select the target, and then as the drone goes in, even if the signal is interfered with, it itself can stay locked onto that target using AI and then hit the target, even if the connection has been completely severed with the operator. That's the main way that they're using it. It's not really like Terminator, Skynet, yet like some people might imagine, but I guess the people should keep a very close eye on this technology. It's changing very rapidly. At most says, thank you, Alex Alexander and Brian for keeping us so well informed. Keep up the great work. And Mathès says, can you please ask Brian Alexander, Brian Alexander, what they think about Iran's strategy? It looks like actually strategy was to map the Israeli, US and Britain defenses in the region. Now they could destroy those. I don't think that that will be possible because it would involve taking out ships, airfields all across the region, even outside of the region. I think what they were doing was mainly trying to establish some sense of deterrence. You can definitely tell a lot about your enemy's defenses by launching a salvo like this. So they've definitely learned a lot about the capabilities and limits of it. And that's what they'll be using, that information as they go ahead if this continues to escalate. Briefly, I think Iran's strategy is an overwhelmingly defensive one. What else can it be? They can't realistically send an army all the way down to fight Israel. I mean, that isn't remotely possible. They have assets that will help them if they were to find themselves in a war, which would help them in a defensive war. Firstly, Iran itself, the huge country, it is extremely mountainous. It's one of the most mountainous countries in the world. It has a large population, an educated population, a significant industrial base. It produces more motor cars, for example, than Russia does. In fact, many people don't realise. So it's got a very large amount of inbuilt resiliency. So it will resist attacks upon itself at the same time it has developed a long-range missile capability, which it can use to counter attacks upon it by its adversaries. And at the same time, it's built up regional alliances and larger alliances in the Middle East and within the BRICS and will hope that those work diplomatically and economically to sustain it throughout any conflict that it finds itself in. So its purpose will be to outlast an attack. It will not be looking to attack itself. I am sure that any all claims about the Iranians having some kind of offensive, aggressive strategy are completely wrong. Sparky says, "Brian, it seems like US foreign policy is writing checks. It's as cash." And Sparky says, "Brian, is it possible that Israel having nuclear weapons under their own control is a bluff, or do they really have them?" If the US was ever to give anyone other proxy's nuclear weapons, I think it would be Israel. Let's hope that it's a bluff. Yeah. I don't think so. Jerry Kuchen says, "Thanks for replying Brian and the Alexanders." And D.F. says, "What will happen to Armenia if the West does not succeed in flipping Georgia?" That's a good question. They've made a real mess there. And again, that was in all the policy papers about how to create all different kinds of fires along Russia's periphery and overextend them. That's what they've been doing. And these countries themselves want to be stable. There are certain groups there that want stability, and so they're fighting for that. And Armenia, I don't know, they've had just such bad luck recently in the form of successful US subversion and interference. Yeah, Rafik says, "How do you see the Israel-Iran conflict playing out? Will Israel attack Iran's mainland? What will be Iran's likely response? Will the US enter directly?" Yes, Israel's openly talking about striking Iran itself. They've been talking about this for many years. They've rehearsed it, practiced it, developed the capabilities to do it. And the US all along, as a matter of policy, has always said, "We'll get Israel to do our dirty work for us. And if we want a big war, we can use Israel to provoke it." They've always had this special status across the collective West, where they're able to get away with anything, and people are able to just brush it off, even though they started it, but we still have to jump in and support them anyway. We even see that already happening with Israel striking a consulate in blatant violation of international law, and the US and Europe saying, "Well, maybe that wasn't such a great idea, but our commitment is still ironclad." Yeah. Brian, some people are asking if you're posting on Rumble. I've had a problem with that. I need to start manually uploading to Rumble. I'm going to try to do that. I actually did try to upload to Rumble, and for some reason it just double posted on YouTube. So maybe I thought I'd go through the settings or something. Okay. Okay. And one more for Brian. One more if possible from John Skie asks, "How do countries defend themselves from the US's color revolutions?" You have to build strong institutions. You have to build a strong education system that has a clear pipeline from students to school, to say your ministry of foreign affairs, and from student to school to media. You have to build up your own strong national independent media, independent of the West and its influence. As a matter of fact, Russia and China have done a lot of this. Create your own social media platforms rather than allowing Silicon Valley to determine how your information space is going to be run. Here in Thailand, they have Facebook, they have X, they have YouTube, and it's all policies determined in Washington and in California, not here in Thailand. So to protect against this, you create your own strong independent institutions, social media platforms, media, traditional media, education is extremely important. There's still people all around the world sending their kids to the West to go get brainwash basically, and then sent back serving Western interests at the expense of their own country. It's a combination of things. Brian, thank you very much for answering a lot of questions that people have for you. No problem. Thank you. Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure. Brian Boletik, from The New Atlas, I have all of Brian's information in the description box down below, and I will add it as a pinned comment. Of course, we highly recommend following Brian's work because we watch Brian every day whenever he puts out a video. We are watching it and we are learning from Brian. Thank you, Brian. Likewise. Likewise. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Brian. It's a pleasure always to have you in all programs, and of course, I also follow you every day. I mean, it's well every time that you publish. Thank you, Brian. Thank you. Take care. Okay. All right. Another great show with Brian. Fantastic stuff. Alexander, let's answer the remaining questions. Mm-hmm. What do you say? Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. Right. Okay. Sticky Mark says, "I think that we're witnessing the rise of a legend who'll be up there with the Queen Catherine, Vladimir Vladimir Novich, to quote, "Shaman Iaruski." Sticky Mark, are you talking about Navalny, Julian Navalny? Maybe. I think that's what Sticky Mark is talking about. The rise of Navalny. Yeah. That looks Andrew. Well, okay. Go. Okay. Commander Crossfire says, "Good day, Penny, for your thoughts." Ricardo Offanta says, "You as a elite were raised watching movies boasting of American superiority. Propaganda's not to be consumed by the side pushing it. Now they're stuck." I'm trying to get it's true. Dots. McDots says, "Can Galloway become the Prime Minister?" I don't think he wants it, to be honest. I know him a little, and I've never got the sense that that's really what he's about. I think what he's about is basically explaining to people the realities of the world as George understands it and trying to push, trying to open up debate in Britain and discussion and to challenge some of the terrible decisions that we have seen. I've never got the sense that he's a politically ambitious man in that sense. As Eshan, thank you for this super-sticker. Latimero says, "It feels like the Western politicians just run their mouths talking rubbish just to say something. You cannot expect logical thinking from such people." I think there's something even worse about it, which I think that they speak an awful lot, they say an awful lot, to impress each other. And I'm afraid that creates a kind of cascade effect, because each one wants to appear tough. And the result is that you sort of start getting each one competing with the other to appear tougher, weird against Iran, or against Russia, or against China, or whoever. And speaking out against that, saying, "No, hold back, this isn't right. We've got to think about this in a different way." That gets you expelled from the club. That's part of the trouble. Yeah, a tag, D-I-R-B says, "Can we please get Brian, Melodic New Atlas, and Daniel Davis deep dive together for a discussion. Davis's audience would benefit from Brian's excellent analysis of which path to Persia." Thanks. That is very interesting. I would also add, by the way, that a lot of the say from a military point of view complements it. I mean, I don't, by the way, have any idea of what Brian's rank in the military was, but I get the sense that he was not as a tenant colonel, obviously, and he didn't have the command functions that Daniel Davis had. But look at how they both say the same thing about training, for example, that the Ukrainian military is disastrously under-trained. Brian says it from his perspective in the Marines, "Daniel Davis and the command perspective in the army, but essentially their analysis is the same." Swinami Baum says, "With Trump running on a platform, at Jeffrey Brown, with Trump running on a platform of ending wars on day one, sorting out Iran and China, et cetera, haven't these ships sailed? Does he not have to face reality along with the rest of the West?" Well, I think he does, but I think at least it's a good thing that he's talking about ending the wars, how he goes about it is another matter, and whether he will or whether he won't, is also another matter. But I think merely floating these possibilities, talking about this, is something that ought to be done. I mean, it's a good thing. I mean, imagine if nobody was saying it, if everybody was in competition in the United States about who would be supplying more for Ukraine, in all the presidential candidates. That would be a very dangerous situation, indeed. Elza says, "How do I say that the collective West countries are no longer colonizers because they don't build anything? They have become pirates, Ursula's famous "C" is just one example of that. I wrote the years and years and years ago, an analysis of the Libyan war, the one that was waged against Libya in 2011, and I was very, very angry when I wrote it, and I said "Pirate raid on Libya." So that was the title I gave it. I then thought back as I often do, and I watered it down, but anyway, that sums up what I think, too. Nigel says, "Both third are independent in May, November for change." No. Yeah. Is that the UK? Yeah. That's the UK. If the UK elections happens, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, local elections, local elections. Sparky says, "Iran was once a choice duty station for American military families. It was, and still is, quite modern with a young, educated, clever, and large population." Oh, absolutely. It is. In some respects, he's very important, as I understand. I've never been there, but I know many people who have any Westernness who have, and they are impressed by it. I mean, they expect what used to be called the Third World Country, and they find that it isn't in parts of Tehran, well, with affluent parts of Tehran, compared with affluent parts of Paris, for example, I mean, I've heard that kind of description. Nick, thank you for that. Super sticker, libertarian by default, says, "The West needs to learn how to take a no for an answer. What shall get along with the world? We shall get along with the world just fine when that happens, or be left behind, otherwise." Well, they can't take a no for an answer amongst themselves. Look at all the trouble all Barn is getting into. I mean, he says, "We didn't have Ukraine in NATO," for example, said, "What do they do? Do they have him? They unleash all their intelligence agencies to investigate him and threaten him in all kinds of ways of these people are not never going to take no for an answer." I think what Bryan said, that in order for things to change, they have to go away. We have to replace them with new leaders. I think he's absolutely wrong. This bunch are never going to change. Which is exactly what our bond said the other day. Exactly. We need new leaders in Europe. We need new leaders. Yeah, that's what he said. V-Dog, thank you for that. Super sticker, commander, crossfire said, "I'm really looking forward to Russia and China space program, lunar bases, manned missions to Mars and more. Maybe put a hypersonic tech to good use too." Oh, absolutely. I mean, as somebody who remembers the original space programs of the 60s, I'm looking forward very much to all of that. I mean, we'll see what comes. Sparky says, "Build a better world with bricks." Sparky says, "Any chance of getting Vanessa Bili on for a chat, she is in Damascus and well-informed. God bless you. Vanessa." Yeah. Oh my God, OMG, Puppy says, "When will they realize that from Zbeg to Newland, we wanted to dismantle Ukraine as much as Russia, their farmland sold to Monsanto, all their young men gone?" Well, I think probably they are starting to realize it. I suspect that over time, not very long time, you're going to see a huge swing in opinion in Ukraine. Yeah, libertarian by default says, "The West can't imagine a world in which it isn't evergreen, prosperous, powerful and self-imposing in which we're in real spiraling decline. We go all in as if playing with good with God mode on and can't lose." Oh, absolutely. I think this is completely true. I don't think we have any conception of it, and it's going to be very, very difficult for us to adjust to it when it comes. Hashem, in case, as I highly recommend watching at Jidal English interview with Dr. Max Agil on Israel, assets or liability. Thank you for that. Paul Chu says, "Great to catch you live for the first time, thinking about politicians at all. Can you give me an explanation for the avarice of the very rich for more?" That is a massively interesting topic about which there's been a vast and extraordinary literature. I mean, you know, you're now dealing with psychology. I think extreme avarice can sometimes be a sign of insecurity, especially if the original wealth has been illegitimately obtained, but ultimately, I can't explain that. It's not for me even to try. I mean, I'm not able to do that. I mean, there's great books about this. One of my favorites is by Graham Green, Dr. Fisher of Geneva. You can read that and he talks a blank there about the greed of the very rich. John Scott says, "Love Ukraine and Israel." G Howard, welcome to the Graham community. Leon, thank you for that. Super sticker. "Williams says, 'Has the West forgotten propaganda can only be used to play mind games, one on your own people and two leaders in people of enemies and vassals, but three must never be allowed to infect decision-making?" Yes, but of course that is extremely difficult to do and over time, remember your leadership class are people who are educated through the schools and universities where the propaganda is always there incessantly. So even that leadership class eventually becomes infected with the propaganda and it's very, very difficult to break away from it. Propaganda is a very dangerous thing and if it gets out of control and in the West it has done, then the consequences are disastrous. OMG Puppy says, "Alexander knew a lot about the Soviet R7 and proton. Did you know they landed on Venus 10 times?" Oh yes, absolutely. I can remember it again. I can remember seeing the pictures at the time that were coming from the Soviet space probes that landed on Venus. And of course you landed on all of a lot about Venus, the incredible temperatures and pressures and things of that kind. They were quite impressive, they were very impressive. Novostom, welcome to the Duran community. John Scott, welcome to the Duran community. One second Alexander. Igor says, "We see the situation with Iran and Israel is calming down, Ukraine is losing. That isn't the next project for the USA, keep up with the amazing work." Well, are you sure that it is calming down between Israel and Iran? I'd like to think so, but at the moment I don't sense that is the situation at all. I think on the contrary we are on the brink of something worse. I hope I'm wrong about that, but anyway, what is happening, the big story apart from Israel, Iran is continues to be Ukraine. And I think it's now coming to be understood in the West that Ukraine is losing. And the question is, how does the West adjust to what is going to be a major geopolitical defeat? I don't think they've worked it out. I think they're starting to understand that. What it leads to in terms of their conduct to the rest of the world, I mean, I simply don't know. Russell Sims says, bearing in mind what a mess the US, EU, Israel have gotten themselves into, we should never underestimate the danger of a wounded or cornered animal. They can be very aggressive and unpredictable. Absolutely. Where am I here? G1416 says, "Why do we even get readouts, et cetera, from governments? Why don't leaders just keep all their talks private? Why do they publish strategies and so on?" That's a very good question, actually. That is a very, very good question indeed. Well, they do it principally in order to give steers to their domestic media so that you have situations where the president of one country meets with the president of the other country and each of them publishes a readout which is intended to convey to the media and to the public of the country what your president said to the other president. So readouts have to be read with extreme care and there are all kinds of signals and readouts and, sorry, signals and words that you gradually come to understand in a readout that tell you an awful lot more than some of the content in the readout might suggest. So for example, if a readout tells you who it was who initiated the meeting, that is an important fact. It shows that one side wants to put the other in a position of inferiority by making it appear that the other side requested the meeting. That dealer, 1-3-4-1, says Biden is destroying his own re-election for president of the USA. Are you sure about that? I mean, I'm not sure, I mean, I sometimes wonder whether there is anything this president can do which would think conclusively, terminally, his prospects of re-election. I mean, the efforts that are still being made to get him across the finishing line and to knock out his opponent are astonishing on a scale I have never seen in American politics. If this had been America in, say, 1984, we would have, I mean, he'd have been down in flames by now. Batia says, John Mersheimer just mentioned the Dorian on a show. Oh, it's nice of him. Thank you. Libertarian by default says, "Where does one apply to found an independent country populated by the Dorian community?" Alex and Alexander as Dumvirate, how hard can it be? Well, I mean, I think we're happy with what we have, but I think it's a challenging thing. Rafael says, "What would happen if Putin read General U Grant?" How do you know that he has him? Monty, 105 says, "I remember hearing once at the Industrial Revolution was about to take place in India, but that Britain intervened that prevented it from happening. Is this true?" I don't know. I don't know enough about that to be able to say. I think what little I know about Indian history, I would have thought it is unlikely for one very simple reason that one of the reasons the British were able to establish themselves in India in the 18th century was that India was going through a period of prolonged political crisis as the monarchy, the central monarchy of the Mogul dynasty began to lose control of more and more of the country. Now, given the political crisis within India at that time, which opened the country up to foreign invasions, not just by the British, but by the French, by Persia, by Iran, other places. That doesn't seem to me to be conducive to an economic take-off. Just saying. Perhaps a more interesting question relates to China because some dynasty, China, in the 9th and 10th centuries also seems to have been, definitely seems to have been on the brink of an industrialization process. They'd developed printing, they'd developed paper currency, they'd established a banking system, they'd had accountancy systems, and they'd also sorted out and initiated modern production methods, for example, in their killed and pottery and porcelain industries. There is a very widespread view that, again, because China went through a period of political crisis and invasion at around that time, that aborted an industrial revolution that was about to happen. Whether that is true of India, I simply don't think. Commander Crossfire says, "I really love Alexander's comment. When change seems impossible, it means it's inevitable. Such great optimism from one of the great minds of our time." Thank you. Raphael says, "Is it possible to go back in history to find a more chicken war leader than a powerful army than Putin? I have never seen anything like him." He is a very, very, bear in mind, Putin is not a person with a military background, by the way. He comes from the security and intelligence services, but what he does is I think he listens to the advice of his generals, of the general staff, and that is why he wins his wars. I just make a point, he's identified many, he's not a military segment, he's identified many wars in the northern Caucasus, in Syria, now in Ukraine, and he's very experienced in being a war manager now, and he tends to win his wars. Z.C., thank you for that super sticker, Rafik Adams says, "Do you see America in power collapsing by having a civil war or breaking up within your future? How don't you see the collapsing, how do you see the collapse unfolding?" I fervently hope not. The thought of a civil war in the United States appalls me, and I still hope that America will find its way and way back rather than go through those kinds of things. There are some people in the United States who seem to be doing everything they possibly can to make that eventuality that you've just discussed possible. The abuse of the legal system, the disregard of the constitution and its many protections, the, you know, absolute, you know, ruthless approach to politics and political struggle. All of that can undermine even a political and institutional and constitutional structure, as strong as that of the United States, but I still very, very much hope that America will avoid civil war or anything of that sort. John C. says the West has been propping up the Semitic people in the Middle East, the active resistance groups at the moment are non-Arab, non-Semitic. I'm not sure I agree with that, actually. I mean, there are lots of people, lots of actors in the Middle East, the Arab, the Israelis, all kinds of people are involved. Obviously, the Iranians are different, I mean, they have a completely different language. Their language is one of the Indo-European languages, but I don't think that this is a correct characterization of the situation in the Middle East. John Scott, thank you for that, Super Sticker, Tatiana, thank you for that. Awesome. Super Sticker. John ski says, "Is the hatred the US and some of the West for Iran at all based more on they exist and we do not control them so they must be brought down mentality?" West are psychopaths. Yeah, I think that's right. I think that's exactly the problem. They are not controlled, they're not controlled, and they're not controllable, and they demand a certain degree of respect and, well, not quite equal treatment, but at least respectful treatment. Of course, that isn't what some people in Washington like. Rafik Adams asks, "So you're aware of what's happening in Sudan, can you kindly explain the players and the role of the US epidemic?" No, there is a huge amount going on in Sudan, and from what I can understand none of it good, but I've lost track of the situation there. So I'm not going to try and discuss it now in this program, because anything I say would probably be out of date, therefore wrong. Gab, formerly GEC812, who says, "See Tucker Carlson's interview with Telegram's founder." That was great. Very good interview. Matthew says, "Will protection of money in individuals' interests win out over out-and-out world destruction?" We'll have to wait and see. We all have an interest in seeing that it does, and we should work to ensure that it does. Unfortunately, those people who are in power have no reverse gear, because I said so many times. And that is a very dangerous thing, and we don't know where it will lead us. Ricardo Alfonso says, "What means of delivery does Israel for its nukes, missiles, or more likely, plane-tropped bombs? Why doesn't Israel ever use missiles but instead rely on air-launched strikes?" Well, don't assume anything. I mean, I've been hearing reports that the most likely means with which Israel will attack Iran is through submarine-launched ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, just saying. Sparky says, "Fun fact, after the 1979 Iranian revolution Iran took over the GM plan to continue to produce the late 1970s Cadillac Seville. It was the only decent U.S. vehicle of the late 1970s." Well, I didn't know. Interesting. Because if all goes well and we don't die, well, Germany join BRICS. Not for the moment. Can you see our love shorts, wanted to join BRICS? Can you see Friedrich Mouts, the leader of the CDU, wanted to join BRICS? At the moment, I mean, there are people in Germany within the IFDA and, you know, who might perhaps be interested in going in that direction, even sahavagan echlanor. I don't really think the German political establishment or political class are at all interested in that or of any understanding of it. Tabernach says, "Global South Alliance is a consequence of proxy wars." Yeah. Sure. "Libertarian by default says, "Who is financing the likes of Times radio to spew out daily homophobic propaganda, a lie in every breath of every single their expert interviewee?" Well, it is in Times radio part of the Murdoch, you know, chain of things. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I don't watch it or listen to it. Igor says, "Big thanks to the moderators." Absolutely agree. That sticky mark says, "Yolanda the Great" or, "Nulandia." Okay. Very good. "Quid," as Veritas says, "Could you guys talk to Mersheimer about his book on the Israel lobby now seems like a good time for it?" Yeah, it was a book, I remember, I've got, it's one of the books of that, by the way. Very, you know, resulted in a lot of criticism of him at the time. One day we will talk about it with him. It's a joint book, by the way, Stephen Waltz also was contributed to it. It wasn't just Mersheimer, it was a joint deal. Veritas says, "Is a Harova single?" I don't know. I have no idea. I think not actually. I don't know. Phillips, DeFriville, says, "What happened to Swiss neutrality?" Well, what did happen to Swiss neutrality? Of course, the reality is, through the Cold War, it was gradually eroding. It was always clear that Switzerland was ultimately a Western country and aligned with the West. But nonetheless, the Swiss did take their neutrality seriously. Now I'm afraid it's been eroded to the point of norm existence. I believe a lot of people in Switzerland itself are very unhappy about that. We'll see whether this referendum changes anything. Refigato, by the way. Refigato says, "Questions for all three, would you consider doing an ex-live space to discuss the same topic with the following guests? Elon Musk's Mario, David Sachs, Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Ritter, etc., and to these guests to the live stream as well, Colonel McGregor, John Mersheimer, thanks." Well, that is an incredibly ambitious process. We haven't done a Twitter space, actually, to be honest, we've never posted one. I think we have to do one, us two, just to understand how it works. ASMI-06 says, "You guys should visit the Donbass area once everything is over as you become very familiar with the geography of the place." Tell you telling me, I know the names of villages. I can even tell you where the villages with identical names on them. I would be very interested in going there, to be honest, when this is all over. It will always for me be a sad place, because of the terrible war that's happened. Mo Elie says, "Is Russia planning to take over Odessa? When and how?" Well, that's the question everybody wants the answer to. Putin has referred to Odessa as a "Russian city." I think that is indicative, when and how you must ask him. One second, Alexander, we answered that. You answered the R7, Soviet R7, proton as well. Moon Dragon, "Why is the Congress enabling all these monies for last wars?" I don't think it's difficult to understand, actually. I mean, ultimately, he's about money, he says about money. Johnson himself, he's under enormous pressure, it's from all sorts of sources. I started to think that something might happen a couple of weeks ago, when he became clear that the chairmen of the committees in the House, for all Republicans, were stacking up and demanding these appropriations bills. So there's been a huge amount of pressure on them, probably from the MIC, and I suspect they came along and said to Johnson, "Look, unless you pass these bills, we will vote with the Democrats to override your decision not to put these bills to the House, in which case you will lose your speakership, then you'll be out of politics." So he went along with it. I don't find that surprising to be frank. Moon Dragon, "Why is..." Oh no, just kidding. Oh boy, "Let us says, has manifestation trend infected the political class pathologically?" "Manifestation trend, I'm not sure I understand, to be honest. Sounds interesting." Kristoff says Olympic Games, 1980, and Moscow had a huge presentation of rockets and spaceships. Yeah, they did. Of course, we went a lot to watch much of them, on British television at the time. The Americans, of course, boycotted them, so did a number of other Western countries, because of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. The British Olympic team mostly went, there's some peeled away, and as I remember very well, the BBC massively reduced its coverage. Do you love 3, 6, 7, 9, think if that's a chat, Matthew says, "What are the odds now of the West putting boots on the ground in Ukraine?" I think this was something that was probably very actively thought about and pushed by Macron others in about two or three weeks ago, I think the excitement and desire to do it is cool, because I think that as they see the situation playing out in Ukraine, they come into realise that any Western troops that go to Ukraine are likely to get smashed. Igor says, "Living in CH, I agree most of the Swiss here don't think those in burn are thinking about Swiss neutrality or even the Swiss people, typical West." Elza says, "The Harova, the expression developing country needs to be redefined. Germany has become one. No, Maria isn't single and she's a mother." For that, the alchemist says Zelensky is rolling in his bed, seeing the Allies help defend Israel. Yeah, absolutely, but of course he's comparing Ukraine with Israel. Very different countries, very different wars, very different alliances. Sohan, thank you for that super sticker, and one final one from Tsunami Baum. What decisions can the UN General Assembly take if the Security Council has vetoed it? What authority does the General Assembly have versus the Security Council? This is a complex question. In some matters, like enforcement resolutions, it can take steps under the UN for peace formula. One thing it cannot do, as I understand it, is vote to make Palestine a member state of the United Nations. If the Security Council doesn't approve that, the General Assembly doesn't have the power to override the Security Council, so it can take many of the steps of the Security Council in terms of Chapter 7 sanctions, that sort of thing, but it cannot completely override the Security Council on all matters. From Odyssey, do you think there is hope? The Internet frees humanity, maybe for the first time in thousands of years, freed them from the lie, they now know royalty presidents, judges and celebrities went to Epstein Island to be sexted into 1,000 other truths that were hidden, think it will make a difference? Well, the Internet has made it possible for people to find out an awful lot that they didn't and weren't aware of before, but do bear in mind the vast number of voices that appear on the Internet, just echo what mainstream media is saying. There are a few independent news creators, but they're not the majority, not by any means. Sparky says Trotsky didn't have a military background either, he apparently had a natural neck. Oh, absolutely, but then not all of us are Trotsky, nor do we want to be. Christos, final one, Christos says, one last try, does Maria Zakharova have a single sister or cousin? I don't know. I mean, I really don't know anything about her background, all I can say about her is that she is a formatively effective spokesman for the foreign ministry in Moscow. And that's really all that matters, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, in terms of international politics and affairs, I mean, I hope that she can believe that she's got a happy family and all of that. But as I said, it's not my primary concern. All right, Alexander, that is everything, a fantastic live stream with Brian. Absolutely, an amazing, and amazing, always are with Brian, and we cover such immense ground with him too, by the way. Yes, we do. Let me just do a final check your final thoughts as I do a final check on everything. No, I mean, I think that, I think what I said, we're in an end of empire moment, we are, you know, it's a situation where the declining power, if you like, is, and it isn't just the United States or the political class in the United States, it's out of the whole collective West, are becoming increasingly reckless and angry as this sense of things are getting out of control, but they don't want to change the way things are done, because exactly as Brian says, that would undermine themselves. So they're doing things which are only accelerating the inevitable collapse. All right, well said, Sparky, I'll finish off the live stream I had, at least two track teammates who would have been in the 1980 Olympics for the US. The boycott was a shame. Well, that's absolutely, you know, all right, take care everybody, thank you for watching us on Rockfin Odyssey, rumble, YouTube and the dorand.locals.com and thank you to all our, also moderators, reckless abandon, Valias, Zarell, Peter, Gab, formerly known as GECA12. And I think that's everybody that joined us on this live stream that was moderating for us on this live stream, I hope I didn't miss anybody, but thank you very much for everything that you do. Moderators, Alexander, let's get some videos up, indeed, just as I was there, by the way, I think he's saying he was at the Olympics game, the big games. Wow. Okay. Okay. I mean, we weren't allowed to see the opening ceremony on British television as I remember. So I'm just, yeah, cool. Thank you. Thank you, Christos, take care, thank you.