ah, ah mm with welcome to world to part. there is a pearl of russian folk with him that says good fortune would never have materialized if it weren't for him. misfortune warn you, crane seems to graham and gruesome to think about anything positive coming out of it. but what is this dark cloud, or rather a major geopolitical storm, also had a silver lining. to discuss that i am now joined by 15 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 that. thank you. one glad to be invited and particularly knowing this will be on it. so anybody who sees that subsequently with your western orientation, there's been no doctrine whatsoever. there's come to, sorry, i have to say that to me, promise about all over there. if any of the western speakers, once you come in on the show about more than welcome to do that, now 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 that they're absolutely no strategic or political

antecedents. russia's actions, i wonder if that according to your understanding of what is happening in, you know, it doesn't. and 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, call the, the side of the russian defeat of economic orthodoxy. and in that i went through the history of how it typically american economists had advised, the american government and the soviet, the russian government, a savvy union 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 a fragmentation 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 manage out of that. the foster, the old son, which was a drunkard who was supported by the west of the absurdity of trying to go 1st of all and $500.00 than 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 economists, philosophy responsible that including jeffrey sachs, why not say there's improve? she's turned dramatically since then fundamentally 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. they realized that the side of the states and why did she use it to destroy russia? they were still is not in century attitude for a few years because a, you know, one could argue that this was an unprecedented condition and nobody knows, well, i had what's going to happen. i mean, when you, so transform

a country precious size and build up. you know, mistakes 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 changed not only by the ordinary folks, but also by the lead. why do you think there, there was such a drastic reverse of our re guide? not only, let's say in economic terms, but in people to people it 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 corner here, talked about the cold supply constraint versus demand constraint resource constrained versus demands constrained economies and did

a bit of beautiful analysis saying go to a country which followed a social status shared where you try to call a maximum wages to workers and, and you were trying to grow the entire economy. would always be resource constrained. and that would lead to cheap location of last year's goods is the easiest way to produce out for, and therefore you didn't innovation. and that go to the, you know, people, i mean, in russia salivating, i believe, are james, 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 should have been a socialist version of the marshall plan to reconstruct russia and to bring an industry up to date with the industry in the wish. instead you had this devastation suddenly exposure to western competition. you know, you had all this money saved up in the side of the dice when you waited 15 years for a television said she had a bank balance and that was all gone. then a matter of us just pretty brief orgy of buying western goods and industry collapse, nobody had jobs, etc, etc. so i think that's what destroyed the out of it. and it's the same time as i

say, from jeffrey sex, talking inside the state department, the garages and the state department, they're every bit as bad as i was in the country. we're using this as a way of just throwing arrival in the 19th century sense. so i think wants to sign in with the russian people that sense of passion too, involved with the west side to dissipate and now you've got a russian fraud and also equally justified anger at the west. now i personally think that part of it is part of that disappointment is of our own making. i mean, 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 the americans didn't set aside their attempts to you? we can rush, i mean, what possible. and it's her, i don't really think it's,

it's pure ideology. i mean, i had a cold war and he, russian caldwell chops who just could not really say, well, suddenly russia is no longer the cold war. i mean, if you look back at the, there's 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 place 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 launch. 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 out of 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 the wasted with the collapse of the soviet union was, go back to the mentality of the french and 99 same state as life, permanently destroying arrival. you simply can't do that in the modern world. the

rivals are still there, they will goes, i panama city. as a result. and i heard you say that i better option would be if you come up with some sort of a martial plan for russian early 9 tonight 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 and geopolitically beneficial for them. what would be possible upside for the americans in seeing rush? it's 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 show the all cold warriors, and they know why it was like a modern boxing you rather than the energy declaring a victory on points for their bashing your,

to your opponent into submission and that i 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 of the rise of truth in the now ultimately, unfortunately, the incursion into your crime. now i think it's very difficult to have those conversations without mentioning big name, bridge, and scam his 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, it's actually true in this day and age? so the, a crane is the, is the agricultural food ball in europe and people, i'm not only been kind of couple of times what i have some awareness of that the, the deepest top. so possibly on the planet. incredibly,

it's all good. 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, is also quite an agricultural power, 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 you're going 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 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 directly,

speaking out in favor of preserving ukrainian somewhere in the it. so that's good to hear that a prominent 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 the far, earlier than that, it wasn't like ukraine was particularly subordinated by russia because it was a trade in russia was also earning a lot from its cooperation with the west. it was having the best of both worlds. why that sort of balance economic, political, diplomatic, wasn't sustainable. i think it was just, annabelle is nitro respected. and the central does offer russia not to have a hostile power on florida. and this is what i posit i source provocation. bye bye night. rather than, i mean, i mean, once i shopped, there was

a recording of students saying that he actually asked for clinton whether russia could join nature now, clinton and said yes, we wouldn't be having a conversation. so now if i could have a kind of general trans your plan on the trans european nation 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 that 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, florida. 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 politic and you know, as a respected that and not try to encourage your crime to join nature. then 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, a person who spent a lot of time if lately wrote recently that at this point there is no conceivable compromise that would be acceptable to russia and ukraine, given the losses that they sustained. and he went even further to foretell of a sudden and catastrophic collapse. not only of the russian troops, but also of lighting the government. do you think that's likely i'm sure how to say i was going to happen inside the kremlin. but i think in terms of the military encouragement to your crime, yes, that's quite possible for 1st of all the, the ferocity with issue credits to fighting back to the typical ferocity. 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 an update of a of them is where, when the war and he has a forgotten the name of it as if the, his kind of part in the vietnam is administration. but he said, 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 that people think this is just impossible? we have to get out of this somehow and truth and can't do it. then maybe there will be of hello school in the, in the 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 in you know, around your brain. and 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

susan, you're going to 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 act of an incredible person or 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, whatever you might say about a minute criticizing the internal, the fact that he didn't leave and for the risk of being killed by russian attacks and so on. that is solidify the country around him. and again, church will, didn't for the 2nd will, will maybe zalinski one, but i think will certainly support the conflict. we have to take a short break for a 2nd and we'll be back in just a few moments. thank you. i ah,

a look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence at the point, obviously is to create trust rather than a take on various jobs with artificial intelligence we'll summoning, with a robot must protect its own existence with

what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy foundation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical of time. time to sit down and talk with her walking back to worlds at boards with steve keen and his trailing economist and other research fellow at university college london. professor can, 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 rad

idea that this conflict could also lead to the end of the u. s. 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 of the many mistakes americans might internationally. it should never have made it so the reserve currency. one of the claims was very explicit about this. when you did drafted his proposals for the bretton woods graham and he wanted to have an international courtesy call the bank or formed the audio. the bank all was that every country would get you should bank calls 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 for long and i think it run out of band cause and i wouldn't for sure today value equally i would for you if you were accumulating them, you'd be forced to re value. and there would be a tax as well, which would then be paid to developing countries. this was all the temperature to break the pre war experience of to fall festival huge trade deficits,

trade surpluses. and secondly, because the british pound was the craze, 2nd world war global currency, the british pound was valued well above the value of its own exports. united pound, not just to buy british cause, but also to buy it to be able to do tried because tribe is in british pounds. now the americans replicated that mistake. this was harvey dexter. watch the push that and bretton woods and that was american triumphalism. and so frequently as they say, pro prod, comments 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 pathetic side of the global economy. now, american manufacturer asap manufacturing suffered wheels may sort of being out source to, to 3rd world and globalization and so on. if we had an international currency,

a lot of these symptoms as opposed to normalize 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 articulated that you know, most, most of people around it will believe that the u. s. dollar is a major source of american power, but it comes at a cost to the american society to the american manufacturing in our commitment to the american way of life. now, do you think those imbalances that have been created because of that fateful decision back in the 1940? do you think there is a strong enough impetus to, you know, to try to balance them out? do you think the americans would ultimately agreed, you know, relinquishing that power because it's not only a source of a major, political and economic strength, but also, you know, a source of the self perception of themselves as the lead the world. there is

a huge psychological factor there as well. and i think that's dominant. unfortunately, if you actually said to call this passionate analysis as change, did you'd say it'd be stupid to make yourself the international currency. it comes of those huge cost. your financial sector becomes very powerful, but you'll weaken your manufacturing sector. you're weak and you're working 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 big industrialized country america as good as not gone so bad badly because of so much bigger with the same basic trend. is it so just passionately? yes. good. but 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 totally frank like that had the bulls cut off. they had to let the american dollars say spinning the national currency. in fact, that would be giving them symbols because then they could actually the manufacturing power. they could stop competing one small. as you mentioned there,

you know, those and balances are so huge that i would suppose that correcting them would be impossible without major social services or even perhaps upheavals. you would have to restructure not only the economy but also the american way of life. the american way of consumption, et cetera. what do you think is more potentially dangerous living things as they are actually trying to change them, leaving things going on because what we haven't spoken about as climate change, and what we're saying is the beginning of 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, a 2022 working group to report by the i p. so say on page chapter 16, page $65.00, you'll find the economist saying that a for the green christian temperature will reduce global j paid by between 10 and

323 percent compared to what it could be in the absence of climate change. that's trivial, that's less than a 1 point one percent fall in annual growth right between now and $2100.00 climate scientists is telling us to expect a breakdown of the climate they will jeopardize the possibility for should entry him and civilization at less than 2 degrees. so that is going to be the crunch which is coming out, wine will force all those things to change. a major part of it will be what production does occur, will have to be much more regionally, and domestically by globalization is dead. so that is that indicated prison coming out. why? and the, the real issue for me is whether human society can hold told to go through. i, kim, it's almost it, you know, 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 a 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, a serving the party line that seems like a no just a monumental challenge. i mean, that's a superhuman challenge to some of it is super him and, and i think the american political system is completely inappropriate for that sort of change the extent which americans of focus were to freedom. i mean, i went to a tennis match in philadelphia some years ago, but 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 bryan more spent on taking the refresh. saudi, so that means fragmentation to made, i think the only suicide is to have a chance to hold together under those pressures are ones which have a sense of national causation. an agreement to a national principle. that's countries like china, frankly,

rather than structures 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 in the sanctions ward, which i think we would both agree reach that apogee of with the sanctions against ration not only because they are unprecedented scale, but they are also unprecedented in terms of their effects on 3rd countries. how long do you think that americans will be able to sustain that? not that these are the rational, but these are the, the, the price that the rest of the world is paying for the american decision. unfortunately, gonna lock sure. 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 the head, your money will be very, very dominant until we start seeing serious climate breakdowns. and then in that situation, that 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 this all

exception of the capacity to produce integrated circuits, which is done by taiwan. so i'm worried that that particular one in china was assigned to integrate, tie one, 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 capabilities, you know, one of the outside of 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 sort of seething with anger at the american disregard of how american policies affected them. and, you know, the most vulnerable societies in africa. we quite genuinely facing the threat of

not only must hunger but also unemployment, social upheavals, etc. you know, and they already had a lot of problems 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 teenager, that america suffers from the perky ality of empire. 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 pull them out. now frankly, that's what's putin as during your crime. but america does it on the global skylight, simply do not appreciate how the rest of the world has a legitimate rod to think differently about the house, to the back. out of 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 for an american lens. and finally, i heard you describe this, this current events as a classic 19th century, great power 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 was, 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 raisins, which are peripheral to both countries. the don best region and things like that, perhaps even concede, crimea to get good at bon bass. i'm. i know crimea was given by i think by christians to your crime, the summer ticklish gesture on the 60s. and that was nonsense. a should a side pot of russia, but some sort of troll striding. because otherwise, if you dont do it the animosity and the capacity for retaliation between his 2

countries will last indefinitely. so something which involves a loss by both countries. ok, well professor, can we have to leave it here. 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. sure. thank you. roger 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 ah

ah ah russia releases footage of over 250 ukranian soldiers, mostly from the ultra nationalist elf battalion who surrendered in the city of morrow you bolt after a long siege. kiev, however, is betraying the event as an evacuation. also i had on the program, western media outlets are a market for a re laying the normative coming out of key by releasing a doctorate videos without proper fact checks. we'll take a look at a number of examples. italian journalist questions, the west coverage of the ukraine conflict, but also claiming division is widening between his government's actions and how that kind of free citizens feel about.