a with welcome to worlds apart. there's a pearl of russian folk wisdom that says good fortune would never have materialized if it weren't for a misfortune. warn you, crane seems to graham and gruesome to think about anything positive coming out of it. what is this dark cloud or rather a manger geopolitical storm, also had a silver lining to discuss that i am now enjoined by steve skin and it's trailing

economist and on there a research fellow at the university college london. professor kim is great to talk to you. it's a fairly rare treat for me these days to speak to western thinkers. so i'm particularly appreciative of bad. thank you. one glad to be invited and particularly knowing this will be on it. so anybody who sees this subsequently with your western orientation, there's been no doctrine whatsoever. this conversation, i have to say that to be promised to all over if any of the western speakers want to come in on the show about more than welcome to do that. now, when it comes to the current events in your crane, i think that western party line, or the predominant western narrative, is that 1st of all, at this aggression and i have to admit that the military operation is a form of aggression. there is no way around it, but then these events, 1st of all,

are totally unprovoked. and secondly, that they are warranted. they're absolutely no strategic or geo political antecedents. rush is actions. i wonder if that according to your understanding of what is happening in, you know, it doesn't. if i go back sign off, i wrote a paper way back in the early 2, thousands like not is not, is not is i think, called the, the side of the russian defeat of economic orthodoxy. and in that i went through the history of how quickly american economists had advised, the american government and the soviet, the russian governmental study collapsed with the best way to transit from socialism to capitalism was to do it very quickly. well, they called shock therapy, and i just went through how absurdly wrong those arguments were and how they would cause a normal suffering and russia when it actually happened. and that this would set up both forces with just to fragmentation and breakdown of russian society. but also

of course, a reaction. so a was no, a surprise to me at all that you had a strong manager that the fossil wilson, which was a drunkard who was supported by the west of the absurdity of trying to go 1st of all and $500.00 and a $150.00 and really effectively also me and one day, a transition from a socialist economy to a market economy was truly absurd. and the american economist for largely responsible that including jeffrey sachs, when i say, improve his turn dramatically since then finally admitted his era. but the american government, and this is actually speaking from a conversation with jeffrey sachs, he said that he, when he got inside the state department because of his economic role. and he was talking about that transition. he realized that the side of the state and wanted to use it to destroy russia. there still is not a century attitude professor can try to unpack that later. here is

because, you know, wanted to argue that this was an unprecedented transition and nobody knows. well, i had what's going to happen. i mean, when you sort of transform a country of russia size and build up, you know, mistakes. i inevitable. but i remember that all the way until i think early thousands russians have an ambiguous lead, positive regard for the americans. i mean, i remember as a girl in the hill letting grad and dreaming about going to the united states as some sort of magical learned. and that attitude was shared not only by the ordinary folks, but also by the lead. why do you think there, there was such a drastic reverse so far? regard. not only, let's say in economic terms, but in people it's changes. yeah. well, i think it begins with the reason the soviet union filed and the best analysis of that it was done by the brilliant recently this is tom gary and economists yost,

calling our hey, we had talked about a cold supply constraint versus demand constraint results constrained versus demands constrained economies and did a bit of beautiful analysis saying go to a country which follow the social status shared where you try to call the maximum wages to workers and, and you were trying to grow the entire economy. would always be resource constrained. and that would lead to she implication of last year's goods is the easiest way to produce out for, and therefore you didn't innovation. and then that way to the, you know, people, i mean, in russia salivating, i believe i jane's for example. so you had this as aspiration for you had in the west, within the why it was given to you should have been the marshall plan. i should have been a socialist version of the marshall plan to reconstruct russia and to bring an industry up to date with the industry and the wish. instead, you had this devastation of suddenly exposure to western competition. you know, you had all this money saved up in the side of the day when you waited 15 years for a television set. so you had a bank once and that was all gone then

a matter of assist, pretty brief. old g buying western goods and industry collapse, nobody had jobs, etc, etc. so i think that's what destroyed the attitude. and at the same time, as i say from jeffrey sex, talking inside the state department, the garages and the state department there every bit as bad as i was in the k j. we're using this as a way of just drawing arrival in the 19th century. sense, so i think wants to thank him for the russian people that sense of passion, too involved with their great wish started to dissipate and now you've got a russian fraud and also equally justified anger at the west or not. i personally think that part of it, part of that disappointment is of our own making. i'm in the way through source, the leadership or economic guidance to any particular power. but when you say that americans wanted to destroy or undermine rushes arrival back in the ninety's early ninety's, russia presented absolutely no route to american hegemony. why do you think that

americans didn't set aside their attempts to you? we can rush, i mean what possible. and it's her, i really think it's sheets for peer ideology. i mean, i had a cold war and he, russian called will chops, who just could not really say, well, suddenly russia is no longer the cold war. i mean, if you look back at the aftermath of the 1st world war, the attitude of the french to the germans was to crush them through the treaty of the site. and that's what led kinds to rod economic consequences. the pace where he predicted the 2nd world war because of the way the germans were respond to that. now and you're going not in 45, the listen was lunch. and the american, that issue was the marshall plan to rebuild for europe. and of course, we see how that transform gemini made it a best and as a western capitalist at a shared, got rid of most of the nazi elements, not all that and, and that was successful. so i think in many ways unfortunately, what wasted with the collapse of the soviet union was go back to the mentality of

the frenchman, 99. same and status wise, permanently destroying arrival. and you simply can't do that in the modern world. the rivals are still there, they will build up animosity as a result. and i heard you say that a better option would be to come up with some sort of a marshal plan for russia. early $99.00 is, but when the americans came up with a regional marshal plan for europe, they didn't do that out of the goodness of their heart. they did that because it was strategically geopolitically beneficial for them. what would be possible upside for the americans in seeing rush, if not prosper, than at least you know, being a well adjust that. let's put it this way. they would have become a recipient of the american exports. american culture would have turned up as part of part of russia in the way it did in germany. so there are all these positive reasons to want to redevelop. but unfortunately, people in control the story,

all cold warriors. and they, in a way, was like, oh, them modern boxing rather than the energy declaring victory on points for their bashing your, to your opponent into submission. and that should still continue. and i still say americans talking about russia as if they're talking about the soviet union and joseph stalin. and to me it's just stunningly stupid. but that's, that's, that's seems to be the supremacy supremacist attitude of americans, which is what i say is the bad part of the background or the rise of good and, and now ultimately, unfortunately the incursion into your crime. now i think it's a very difficult to have those conversations without mentioning is big name brzezinski, and he's famous quote about your brain without your brain rushes to be an empire, but with the crane some born and then subordinated. russia automatically becomes an empire, as widely cited as it is. do you believe that it's actually true in this day and age with ukraine is the, is the agricultural food,

all of europe. and people are not only been to kind a couple of times, but i have some awareness of that the, the deepest top so possibly on the planet, incredibly, for a child and the biggest country in europe. so for that reason, it's a huge component. it's huge in its own, rod is a huge component of a block. it belongs. sure. so in russia doesn't, he's also quite an agricultural guy, but nothing on the focus of your crime. so i can say that orientation. but when it clearly what i've experienced when i've been to your crime and they were experiencing now as your grand, as a nation, well and truly apart from russia. and that does not appear to be how russians regard your crime. certainly, i think the incursion wouldn't have been on the sky a little was if there was any recognition that your crime is a separate, a separate country. and so i think that's, that's why she's missed a coming from this invasion. there's an attempt to complete the re incorporate your credit to russia. that wasn't what you currently have in mind. and i think when i was saying the consequences of that, well,

i'm not sure. i agree with that because i'm seeing a lot of russian permanent rationale is think leading those who are advising the crime and directly speaking out in favor of preserving ukrainian somewhere in the it. so that's good to hear that a but going back to that being emergencies idea of subordinate, if your brain it's not like before this all began in 2013, 2014. i mean, before it came to the average here, i should say, rather, because in far earlier than that, it wasn't like ukraine was particular subordinated by russia because it was a trade in russia was also earning a lot from its corporation with the west. it was having the best of both worlds in that sort of balance economic, political, diplomatic, wasn't sustainable. i think it was just, annabelle is nitro respected. this isn't the sensible desire for russia not to have

a hostile power on board. and this is what i propose that i source provocation by, by nature rather than, i mean, i mean, we want to stay job, or there is a recording of students saying that he actually asked for clinton whether russia could join nature. now clinton has said yes, we wouldn't be having a conversation. so now if i could have a kind of general trans your opinion on the trans european, asian, or collaborative collaboration instead it became this continuation of the cold war when you didn't have a cultural rival. so i think that provocation of saying we try to get countries on the border of russia to join and that's why or is regarding that is, this is being a provocation. america said america did not exactly enjoy having tube or honors border and in many was, this is a repeat is that even though it's unfair to were, you know, a small country to be told you can't have an independent foreign policy because you border a measure power that's real public and it's not her as are respected,

that in not try to encourage you trying to join nature than i think this incursion wouldn't have happened for 2nd. it's not about not having an independent foreign policy. they could have a full, independent foreign policy manipulating or playing russia off the west. but it's just neutral. you should have been given more thought. now i think so one of the ideologues of the american policy in your brain, francis fukuyama person to spend a lot of time if lately wrote recently that at this point there is no conceivable compromise that would be acceptable to russia. ukraine given the losses that they sustained and he went even further to foretell over sudden and catastrophic collapse. not only of the russian troops, but also of light in government. do you think that's likely? i'm sure as hard as i was going to happen inside of the kremlin, but i think in terms of the military encouragement, your crime, your stuff possible. it 1st of all the,

the ferocity with issue running into fighting back is the typical for us, or even invited people. you know, you probably remember the exchange between mcnamara and his equivalent in viet nam after the vietnam war. when mcnamara is coming up with body counts and saying that we get enough database them is when the war and he has a forgotten the name of it. as if the, his counterpart in the vietnam is administration. they say, you know, realized we said we were to fall to the last day of the m. s. i think a similar thing is happening in your crime. and of course, at the same time, the wish to supply them with weapons to enable them to continue that battle. and of course, the capturing russian weapons as well. i think this is interminable. now, if that turns up as meaning is it in the kremlin people think this is just impossible. we have to get out of this somehow and to come to it. then maybe there will be of hello school in in kremlin, but i'm not going to put any money on either of those outcomes. but what about the opposite? do you think is the last government or even the by the administration could be rattled by the way things are unfolding. e and your brain. again,

i think so. lensky surprised people as quite a few people friends on the left to push the anti. you're going in there are now season you can even those ones is jewish. that sort of line at me and, and say look, he's got a big part. he's got a house in florida. you can go to, he's got millions, billions there, etc, etc. he didn't leave and i think that was an active and incredible personal courage for somebody in that situation. and you look at it and think that is what you know people. and this is a bit like if you look in sure. sure. again, the same sort of crazy stuff. the church went through. none of this when you said we will fight them on the beaches. we will never surrender that define the british response to the nazis. and i think an essence, lensky. what did he might say about a minute criticizing the internal, the fact that he didn't leave and took the risk of being killed by russian attacks and so on. that is solidify the country around him. and again, church will didn't. right. and we'll, we'll maybe zalinski wine,

but i think we'll certainly savant the conflict. we have to take a short break for 2nd. we'll be back in just a few moments. ah ah, ah, ah . ah, with business and you will clean with shoes on your medical gray. you,

when you wrote it, you just go through it is just such an article and i certainly provide you with such a short even names off the different pseudo info with you thrown the with them the prone and you're still with us. we are both in the study, so that was the choice. it was coming to the one on the 3rd which, which in the longer it was just in your social, not political push to, to stream to become mon, because or lose new or your course or do school coast. i don't know who's got no point a don't know. is that a here because with these for us to put in for losses, come with . mm.

welcome back to wells appointment. steve came in this trailing economist and other research fellow at university college london. professor came before the break, we talked about whether the survival of the putin or as lensky government could be threatened by the conflict in ukraine. but i heard you propose an even more radical idea that this conflict could also lead to the end of the us dollar. as the main reserve currency for international trade, what makes you believe that that is possible and why would that be a good thing? well, i mean, this is one, the many mistakes america's made internationally. it should never have made it so the reserve currency. one of the claims was very explicit about this when you drafted his proposals for the bretton woods agreement. he wanted to have an international currency called the bank or formed the audio the bank,

or was that every country would get issue bank cause relative to the size of their economies. and then trade would have to occur in bank calls. and of course, if you're running a trade deficit long enough, you could run out of band cause and that we didn't force you to day value equally. i would for if you were accumulating them, you'd be forced to reevaluate and there would be a tax as well, which would then be paid to developing countries. this was all intended to breach the pre war experience of to fall festival, huge trade deficits, huge trade surfaces. and secondly, because the british pound was the priest, 2nd world war global currency, the british pound was valued well above the value of its own exports, united power, not just to buy a british cause, but also to buy it to be able to do tried because tribes and british pounds, now the americans replicated that mistake. this was harvey dexter watch. who push that and bretton woods. and that was american triumphalism. and so frequently as they say, a pro prod come up before a fall. that was

a stupid move. so what it meant was the american dollar, after the 2nd world war, became the i valued currency, the financial sector america became extremely strong and dominant. i think it's a major reason for the, the 3rd excited global economy. now, american manufacturing start manufacturing stuff that we have to make sure that being outsource to, to 3rd world and globalization and so on. if we had an international currency, a lot of these symptoms, the post formalized, would not have occurred. so i've been in favor for a long time of the, a global currency, which russia and china were working towards. i just want to stress this point because i find it very surprising, but also very well educated that you know, most, most of people around it believe that the u. s. dollar is a major source of american power, but it comes at a cost to the american society, the american manufacturing, and out how to make it to the american way of life. now,

do you think those imbalances that have been created because of that fateful decision back in the and 940? do you think there is a strong enough impetus to, you know, to try to balance them out? do you think that americans would ultimately agree? you know, relinquishing that power because it's not only a source of a major geopolitical and economics trends, but also, you know, a source of that self perception of themselves as the lead the world is. there is a huge psychological factor there as well. and i think that's unfortunately, if you actually said to call this passionate analysis as kind, did you say it would be stupid to make yourself the international currency? it comes with those huge cost. your financial sector becomes very powerful, which will weaken your manufacturing sector. you awaken your work in class and so on. and ultimately it is will cause a cave from the outside, which is what happened to britain. britain is now a dig industrialized country america as good as not gone so bad badly because of so much bigger with the same basic trend is there so just passionately. yes,

she's good. with the extent to which americans want to be the m. r. that has trapped them into that mindset and they would, they would feel like, you know, like that had a lot for totally frank. like i had the bulls cut off because i had to let the american dollars say being the national currency. in fact, that would be giving them symbols because then they could actually the manufacturing power. they could start competing once more. but as you mentioned, the, you know, those and balances are so huge that i would suppose that correcting them would be impossible without major. so she urban says, are even perhaps upheavals, you, you have to restructure not only the economy, but also the american away of live the american away of consumption, et cetera. what do you think is more potential dangerous living things as they are actually trying to change them? living things that they are because what we haven't spoken about severance, climate change. and what we're saying is the beginning, the climate breakdown. and the scale of this is going to be far greater than watch

politicians expect, because they have been just like the russians were misled by american economists at the transition. the globe is being misled by american economist about climate change mans. so for example, in the most recent or 2022 working group to report by the i page they say on page chapter 16 page 65, you'll find the economist saying that afford a green christian temperature will reduce global j k by between 10 and 2023 percent compared to what it would be in the absence of climate change. that's trivial, that's less than a 1 point one percent for an annual growth rate between now and $2100.00 climate scientists are telling us they expect to break down the climate. they will jeopardize the possibility for century him and civilization at less than 2 degrees . so that is going to be the crunch which is coming out. why? and we'll close all those things to change. a major part of it will be what production does occur will have to me much more racially and domestically based globalization is dead. so that is a catechism coming out. why?

and the real issue for me is where the human society can hold, hold together through. oh, hi jim, it's almost either the way i take it is that, you know, the ball is still in the american court. americans are constrained by that for your election cycles and very political polarization. do you think there is enough political foresight or even strategic or humanistic? foresight to actually, you know, embark on some of those changes that you're talking about. because, you know, for a person who is there in office for 4 years serving the party line. that seems like a no just the monumental challenge. i mean, that's a superhuman challenge to some of them. it is super him and, and i think the american political system is completely inappropriate for that sort of change the extent to which americans of this were to freedom. i mean, i went to

a tennis match a lecture in philadelphia some years ago when the same of john mcenroe and, and billy during kings times. and during between every point they chatted out the word freedom. it is ludicrous how brainwashed, by on taking the refresh. saudi, so that means fragmentation to made, i think the only side is to have a chance to hold together under these pressures or ones which have a sense of national causation. an agreement to a national principle. that's countries like china, frankly, rather than churches like america or indeed now russia now going back to the status of the dollar for the time being, it remains and it allows the americans to use our currency as essentially a bullying tool and sanctions ward, which i think we would both agree are rich that apple g of, with the sanctions against russian. not only because they are unprecedented scale, but they are also unprecedented in terms of that effect on 3rd countries. how long do you think that americans will be able to sustain that?

not that these are the russian, but these are the, the, the price that the rest of the world is paying for the american decision. unfortunately going, i'd like sure. like what tends to happen is a seems lost of that longer than you expect. and then fall apart all at once. so i think that has your money will be very, very dominant until we start saying serious climate breakdowns. and then in that situation, the countries that are going to be able to survive those that have their production domestically saw it. that means china. and i hate to say this with the solar exception of the capacity to produce integrated circuits, which is done by taiwan song, worried that that particular issue in china will decide to integrate taiwan, which will even scarier than what's happening with your crime. but only only when you can operate all your manufacturing capabilities domestically to have a chance of survival. and, and that means america will continue down this trade of trying to use the financial power to exploit the rest of the world. and then have it fall apart. and not have the local manufacturing capabilities. china, on the other hand,

we'll have those type of abilities. you know, one of the upsides um, western speakers, boy quoting russian media and our team particularly that i get a chance to speak to a lot of people from around the world and many of them on not just critical. they're receiving with anger at the american disregard of how american policies affected them. and as many, you know, the most vulnerable societies in africa, quite genuinely facing the threat of not only must hunger but also unemployment, social, upheavals, etc. you know, it may be a way to have a lot of problems get prior to that and they seem to be multiplying very fast. right now. when you think about that, do you think that americans failed to prize that in their fact on the rest of the world, or did they consciously decide that you know, the world can deal with it? no, i think that's a head expression ever since. i've been a change that america suffers from the parochial event. and that is,

if you're an em paul, you tend to regard the rest of the world as your backyard. and you decide is wage, grow in the backyard, you're going to want to go on, pull them out. now frankly, that's what's putin as during your crime. but america does it on the global scale light simply do not appreciate how the rest of the world has a legitimate rod to think differently about the house to the back out. so it being an australian is actually give me a very interesting perspective there. and i've seen it in comparison to left wing are academics i know in america who believe stuff that i think is just delusional. because largely they can see the rest of the world except through an american lens . and finally, i heard you describe this, this current events as a classic 19th century, grave power, a conflict for more or less influence. and i wonder if you could possibly suggest any a solution to that the rivalry in the 21st century. oh god, i mean i think what has to be said is, is simply a decision to say we won when pull out and then and then try to negotiate some sort

of split of the racial which are peripheral to both countries. the don bass ration and things like that. perhaps even concede, crimea to get good at bon bass. i'm on. no. crimea was given by i think by christian to your crime, the some ridiculous gesture on the 60s. and that was nonsense. a should a side pot of russia, but some sort of tro horse trading because otherwise, if you dont do it the animosity and the capacity for retaliation between these 2 countries will last indefinitely. so something which involves a loss by both countries. ok, well professor, can we have to leave it here? i thank you very much for your time. it's been great pleasure talking to you and thank you for you know, not only your calendar, but also you know, your ability to speak to us. thank you. i sure enjoyed being asked, it's been a pleasure to talk to you and thank you for watching hope to hear again next week, but i will depart. ah

ah, ah ah, for the 1st time in history, an entire country's culture has been cancelled. the very modern weapon cancel culture, daily data with us with the phrase now particularly for us to counseling russian culture. yet them know what to create the few orders that i give to william i with.