ah ah i'm african or tansy and welcome back to going underground, nay. donations are in crisis. that is clear. an era of 20th century globalism, guided by powerful corporations and institutions like nature, the i m f, the w cio and blocks like the u is accompanied one catastrophe after another. and so today we see the threat of armageddon from climate change disease and perhaps a war in europe to really and all was this, while a minuscule global elite gets richer and richer, the new book argues that crises can lead to salvation by so called public private partnerships in bremo, president of eurasia groups,

the power of crisis had 3 threats, and our response will change the world joins me now from new york city. thank you so much. and from about coming on, i better ask before i even get into the book, what the reaction is because the world is arguably in a more imminent crisis than when you are perhaps writing the book. and given that you're saying crisis can harold, the salvation. who's been reading this? oh look, i had so quite well and i wonder if i consider myself of the person. but most of my books have been a little depressing because the world has been geopolitically, at least heading in a much more challenging direction. this is a more hopeful book and i think in port a strong reaction has been in part because policy makers are looking for that, especially as the grappling with different crises. we've seen that from the un secretary general, we saw that just the other day i saw the president. ready war bank said this was his favorite book from 2022. that was, that was that certainly nice and startling to see. i'm so pretty much across the

political while. it's so pretty good so far. and of course, i presume you'll then be persuading them of some of the action that needs to be taken, which you do talk about in, in the book one, the one paragraph, i think the did the shock me a little is when you said the u. s. remains the only nation that can protect or project political, economic, cultural, and military power into every region of the world. do you think that's still true in the light of what's been happening since the publication of the book and what is seen in the global south as a realignment and less so arguably in media, in nato nations? oh no, i think it's more true today. it's more true oh, with the russian war and the europeans getting more on nato because they understand they can't protect themselves. it's more true. in the aftermath of a failed 0 copay policy, the in china and the likelihood that hundreds of thousands,

not millions of chinese are going to die as they let coven rip there. but that doesn't mean that america's power translates into other countries wanting to follow the united states doesn't translate into alignment, and it doesn't translate into willingness on the part of the united states to play that leadership role. so those are, i mean, the fact that the americans remain the one global superpower in terms of the role of the u. s. dollar. the. ready role of the american military, the tech companies, and all the rest that, that doesn't get you resolution of the world's crises, not at all. and i should just add those china would deny that. so many people are going to die. in fact, they would probably draw attention to the fact 25000 people having died from cove it. and what is it a 1000000 dead in where you're speaking to me? and i suppose i should remind our audiences that the crisis, essentially 3 strands in the book of climate crisis, the pandemic crisis, and,

and war. and she's been paying a said russia and china of the top responsible global powers. that's what he said last february. what do you, what do you make of the alliance between russia and china and bricks? the semiconductor shang, i cooperation, organization meeting and the fact that most of the world is not supporting sanctions on russia. well, you're right. first of all, the developing world is not supporting sanctions on russia. and that's because there's a lot of hypocrisy, the americans and europeans are doing an enormous amount to defend the ukrainians to punish the russians. but how much would they care if this was a country outside of europe? there was in sub saharan africa was in south asia. and certainly if you're india, if you remember the breaks, if you're in the global south, you feel like the americans, europeans are very hypocritical in which human rights abuses and which abuses of

self determination sovereignty. they choose to make a top priority at the same invasion that happen in sub saharan africa. immediately the west, like we call for cease fire. they wouldn't be saying that the ukrainians get to make the decision of when they should negotiate and get as much support as possible . of course, when it comes to china, the chinese do not have an alliance with russia. they have a strategic partnership back in february, 3rd, or 4th. of course, several weeks before the war started. the chinese did say publicly, she should paint it on the global stage. that his relationship with russia was a global friendship without limits. he's not repeated that. since the war has started and he wouldn't, and the idea that their best friends on a global stage, well, certainly the chinese have backed away from that. and what that shows you is that good and has made an enormous misjudgement. it is precisely that crisis that has the power of strengthening nato, of aligning the g 7 of building american military leadership with its allies all

over the world. and has made effectively made russia and made, put it into a pariah on the international stage. that's why i didn't even show up at the g 20 summit in bali is why he decided to cancel his annual press conference that goes on for hours and hours. we don't, we don't know the reasons for that. and in june, only change in being reiterated his support or mutual support for russia, and where do you think, or who's buying the russian energy resources a discounted prices, presumably to fund the war? i'm not sure. i know just china, india as well, a friend of the united states and acquired by even more russian oil right now, the chinese are, there's no question when it comes to their economic well being. the developing countries are going to do what they think is in their own interest, much as the americans have been seen to do that over the past decades. what do you think? i mean, i suppose i should ask why, for a star as your intimating,

they want to attack russia through through ukraine in this way. they would have called, as you say, a cease fire if it was in some african country why they want to do this. and also whether it is notable that in the think tanks of washington, amongst policy one that they want to split russia and china up here. but again, in the game, there is evidence to show that that, that they are, are binding together and increasing their alliances. i know you don't want to call in alliance, but of course again, no forbidden areas of cooperation and other synonym would arguably be alliance. they seem to be cementing even closer ties with the middle east, where i'm speaking to you from let alone in africa and of course in latin america and southeast asia. i don't call it alliance because the chinese are very clear that they don't want it to be called in alliance, that they, they don't want to be called upon to defend the russians from ukrainian attack from

nato. attack your right that in washington, of course, there's a strong desire to try to divide russia from china. and the chinese have told she's in thing is told by it and he's told the european leaders as well. but that's not going to happen. that's not going to work because the chinese feel like they've been contained to a degree by the united states and their allies in asia, in the same way that russia has felt contained by the americans and europeans in their backyard in your asia and in europe. so the world views are actually aligned from a strategic perspective. the problem is that bruton has made this really horrible mistake and you know, when you talk about, well, who's so interested in defending the ukrainians are trying to attack the russians of the fact is that the russians invaded ukraine back in 2014 with their little green men, and for 8 years they largely got away with european heads of state. we're happy to travel to moscow and celebrate the russian world cup. back when the russians were

occupying ukraine, the sanctions were limited. there were lots of, there were lots of signals that were being delivered to put in directly from the west. that nato was getting weaker and more divided that ukraine wasn't a priority. and if they could kind of do what they want, then when, when biting pulled out of afghanistan. and that was such a disaster for all sides after 20 years of war. you know, who was clearly thinking when the americans don't want any part of this. so, so if we attack ukraine, no one's going to care, was it bad or since 2014 huge domestic pressure in russia to do something about the killing of thousands of people in don't best buy nato armed ukrainian troops. and what do you make of angular merkel? the former german chancellor saying that the minsky chords ratified you insecure council resolution to, to 02000000 attempt to give you crane time. and that always, the idea was to force a will with russia through ukraine. seem to be the implication of what i go to

merkel was saying was all alive the means because the un resolution, the thousands, of course, the 13000 people that have died in the don boss are not russians. they are russians, and ukrainians, and numerous crimes were being committed on the ground as that war was going on. that's ukrainian territory has been ukrainian territory since 991. it was voted on, of course it was sovereignty. the russian signs of budapest man memorandum with the americans in the u. k. that promised to defend ukrainian territorial integrity, the russians than chose to unilaterally abrogate that. now, you are absolutely correct that there were a lot of signals that were being provided to the russians over the months and the lead up to the war that no one would do very much. if the russians invaded, that was an enormous judgment on the part of it. and now he is stuck with a military that's functioning very badly,

a war that's enormously costly and unpopular. a nato that has expanded a ukraine that has been invited to join the european union. and of course, the russia that has been completely decoupled from the advanced industrial economies of the world. the danger here is that there's no way back to putting there's no way to bring the russians back to business as usual. that's just inconceivable in this environment. so it does make life much more dangerous. indeed, especially for the europeans who are going to have to pay the additional defense expenditures are going to have to pay for the higher cost of energy and other inputs that the industrialization. and of course, we're going to have to deal with russia that feels humiliated and will be engaged in asymmetric proxy wars against nato, from one state or another of you could be using your book and idea of crisis catalyzed thing, new in a very diverse solutions that europe is a dying continent now, and that in fact, most of the world does not see brookins invasion in quite that light and actually

sees it as a catalyst for a new world order. one in which we see nations across the global south scrambling to join bricks, bricks, banks. i know you mentioned in the book, bricks, banks, the shanghai cooperation organisation, or variously described as a new type of nato. although they don't like to say it themselves. in fact, what putin has done is to speed up history and show that europe, especially given its now total reliance on a l. n. g, frack gas from the united states. it's an opening of coal fired stations in stock contrast to go put $26.00 environmental obligations. europe is finished because it will proven is done. and the united states, if anything, we'll seek to make alliances depending on what happens in washington. with these new global south entities, i'm very glad that you raise the point of winners and losers from the war because

of course, it is very significant. the biggest losers on the back of the russian invasion of ukraine is of course, the developing world. because the europeans have the money to buy the energy from other places to buy the food by the fertilizer. who are the countries that are hit hardest by the supply chain disruptions. again, russia, ukraine, of some of the largest food producers and exports, fertilizer produces exports in the world. of course, it's not the europeans, it's the poor countries that always take it in the teeth on the back of the christ . so after the pandemic with interest rates going up, and now the russia ukraine war, meaning that you're going to have so much more global starvation in the poorest countries of the world. because the russians invaded ukraine and the americans near p and should do a lot more to provide aid to these countries. and yet what we've seen is that they're searching in their pockets, and they're finding mostly lent they're not doing enough for these countries. and the developing world is very angry about it, so there is going to be a growing gap between the west and the south. as a consequence of that,

just as you saw on the aftermath of the cop 27 climate summit and sharma shake. just as you saw when the indians beg the americans for even one plane load of vaccines, their friends, the americans, when the americans already had a booster shots and the american said no, sorry, we're not going to provide that. so very understandable disappointment on the part of the south, but to say that the europeans of the big losers know it's the poor countries in the world that are getting the short end of the stick that's happening from climate. it's happening from the financial crises and of course it's happening from the rush crane war. that is the true tragedy of what this war has meant for the world and grammar. i'll stop you there. more from the president of your age, your group, an author of the power of crisis have 3 threats, and our response will change the world after this break. ah. for

what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have crazy confrontation. let it be an arms race is on offense. very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very political time. time to sit down and talk ah, welcome back to going undergrad. i'm still here with the in bremond, the president of eurasia group, an author of the power of crisis. you're claiming that the ukraine war is capitalizing starvation in the developing world. so might argue that actually it is the international monetary fund, many of the organizations that you see as part of the salvation in your book, out of this, these crises, whether be the w t o, the world bank,

you mentioned that, that, that of the world bank presently, i know their policies have changed over decades. it is they that have starved the global south. i'm sure you read confessions of an economic hit man explaining how they do it. the 40 coups in 50 years by the united states. in fact, in countries that you mentioned, you write about climate problems. syria wasn't at the united kingdom in the united states funding al kinder and i, sister. el salvador wasn't at the united states wanting death squads, guatemala, was me, the legacy of the las ku, in 1993 in on doris, to see i to 2009 against delay. why do you not mention the fact that so much of this is to do with u. s. policy not simply to do with climate change or to do with her? well, you're saying the starvation is suddenly going to be appearing, or exacerbated in the global. so what are they just thing, of course, of course, like we know the united states has been responsible for cruise historically. i

can't even reach that. no, some of the ones you mentioned weren't right, really. frankly, but, but nonetheless, 1993 for guatemala, 2009. and i mentioned venezuela in the book. they were trying to middle row. i'm very happy to go. i'm not trying, i'm not sure. i mean, i don't find confessions of economic hit meant to be very compelling. but i do find the history of american and european colonialism and the o colonialism to be very compelling and not not a history that anyone should be proud of. and not one that should be obscured, but we need to understand that over the last 50 years, there has been the creation of a global middle class that emerging markets around the world have economically outperformed. that, that you've created more educated elites in these countries, more urban ization, life expectancy has increased dramatically well beyond anything they've ever seen in history. that's largely been successful. but if you look at the human

development index from the united nations in the last 3 years, they've actually turned around. but now you're not seeing a strengthening of a global middle class. you're seeing a weakening of the global middle class. you're seeing more poverty, you see more refuge, i'm sorry, and most of those figures are hugely distorted by the fact the chinese communist party would 800000000 out of poverty. and that's why overall you see that average increasing surely. i mean it's, it's, i know there is increase just that. i mean, of course, that chinese or what have been the single largest beneficiary of globalization because of the size of their economy. and now 1400000000 people. but if you look at our world and data, the work done by max roser and at oxford, if you look at fac fullness by hands, rosley, and you look at the trajectories of all of those developing countries over the last 50 years, you look at them on a scatter plot. it's not just a china storage has been the most extraordinary piece of it. no question. but it's

been all over the developing world. no offense enough as to the scholars, but daily. they won't be counting the what? 40000, some people estimate killed by us sanctions on venezuela. let alone what's when i'm looking at the numbers across the world, of course they're looking at it now. 8000000000 people on aggregate. i mean, i, i can find horrible anecdotes for you, but if you're talking about development in the world, you're of course, talking about a global middle class. you're talking about humanity as a whole. now, of course, climate change got vastly worse over the course of that. so there's short termism in, in the benefits of economic development is also meant encroachment and a lack of biodiversity. it's meant more pandemic because human beings are coming into greater contact with wildlife. it's now $1.00 degrees centigrade of warming. that's going to head for 2.5, that's also going to be on the back of the poorest, not on the back of the wealthy. so there are big trade offs that come from short termism of industrialization and exploitation of the economy. that's true. but if

you just want to look at human development in the world over the last 50 years, it's not principally a story of imperialism. and war is principally a story of fewer wars and a much greater education of much greater innovation. and of course, of much greater explosion of wealth of the average person on the planet. but some of those countries would say that they was, in spite of that the increase in increase in the middle class. and of course, in terms of innovations, i've been saying basic innovation is on the decline over the past 50 years, no, to be professor that he dwelling at the oxford university. i suppose one question here is that you do seem to privilege in the book, the narratives that have been propagated by media in nature, nations, on and on. you seem to be buying into a sort of quasi nazi like we go massacre narrative in jin chang, do you really believe that the china, china is massacring or putting into concentration camps muslims in china?

oh, only about a 1000000. and you believe that because we've, we've invest, if you can't, you know, we see we've seen, of course, we've seen the documents that have been leaked from the chinese communist party. we've seen very significant work done by the b, b, c. and the guardian in the new york times and many others, of course, the chinese don't have a free press. and so you're not going to get that level of political scrutiny internally. and just on the, on the we're point on the weak point. yes, it's not so much the circus on movement is the fact that they've been exposed as lying about evidence that there were a 1000000 people. and in fact un recognizes that, let alone. obviously the chinese are saying foreign minister wang either has never been circle genocide, forest label. i saw the report that was delivered by michelle boshoway on the last day of her being the united nations human rights envoy commissioner. and of course, that was done specifically because everyone understood how upset the chinese would

be about the release. but it was a courageous thing for the united nations to do i, i understand a intervention. and arguably that's been over by further you in remarks by spokespeople. but the guardian, the b, b, c, these outlets, the ones famously of course that said that there was w m d in iraq. what is the role of media i w, m, d, in iraq. and in fact, the, the war, the, me, the interesting in the, in, can i work with a, b, b, c, today, pro, around, sorry, i should you like, well, i do, i'm really, i'm glad to hear that. but i mean, i'm not going to stand here and justify american warren to iraq over faith intelligence. and indeed, i heard from many times, from people that have been, you know, from the kremlin, right. you, you, one of the justifications for the ukraine war is that there, well,

if the americans are going to lie about w. m d rocket country, it doesn't even matter to them then. who cares if we lie about genocide being committed against what we're going to call the nazi regime in ukraine? i think that when putting says there's no such thing as truth. there's no such thing is true, that's what we make of it. i mean, that is, you know, this philosophical re, our policy that is put in is trying to use to justify that his behaviors are no worse and have no more, right to be judged by the international community than those that the americans. i fundamentally reject that. but i understand that many acts in american history have gone a significant way to allow authoritarian dictators with no interest in human rights to use those arguments for their own purposes. it's certainly true. now the thing is true that don rumsfeld i thought or is about to be approved on the on fine. no, no, that's exactly what a obviously no, no, no, no, i'm happy to hear the quote that would be useful. no, no, i'm joking of the fact because donald rumsfeld famously equivocated over answering

questions about the iraq war, the yeah, i like this quote on the things that you don't know, you don't know. i mean that's, that is close to philosophical. it's kind of existential. there isn't, nobody truly knows what's going on, but it's not quite. busy what puts it on the i haven't actually had that bridge and quote on the climate change crisis, which you clearly in the book say, is the existential threat. why is it no one ever talks about the fact that the u. s . military is the largest emitter of fossil fuel, fossil fuel emissions. why does the one talk about the largest military on earth and it's emissions? i think people talk about the united states as a country. this goes back to what i described in looking at globalization and how different economies and middle classes have done the united states for a long period of time, including the military,

has been the largest emitter of carbon on the planet. and, and, oh, is a lion's share of the responsibility for fixing the issue right now. the chinese government including their military today and miss moore, the chinese economy amends more than 2. and then i tried to separate out the u. s. military war. i'm trying to separate the one, i don't know the tree because a country on its own. why does no one ever talk about the u. s. military emissions? because it's integrated with the u. s. economy. i mean, it's fundamentally part of the united states. g d p, i mean it's not like people are spending an enormous amount of time talking about the u. s. tech sector. i mean, you do break these things down and people talk about how much comes from hard infrastructure as opposed to soft transportation infrastructure again, which includes civil military as part of it. it's both it is, i mean i think what, what people tend to do when they look at climate is the trying to get their arms

around something they've been ignoring for a long time. the world understands how bad this problem presently is. they understand it for decades. economic development, including military development, has ignored the long term consequences for the climate. i mean, my god, i was born in 1969. and in 50 years, over 50 percent of all of the animals on the planet were gone. i mean, the biodiversity just gone staggering. the worst piece of data i've seen, it might be higher like species as well. it should be said, i'm not being applied with extinction. i just got a feeling i've just got to finish here by asking you about public private solutions to this. because as we said earlier, the greatest humanity development as being the communist party of china is a feeding of those 800000000 people, bringing them out of poverty centrally managed no matter what dang, shopping reforms were. they were so central management elements in large regions. why, again and again in your book, do you want private oligarchs, corporations,

why do you want them involved? why not just make them all democratically accountable and have them owned by the state? like i know amtrak isn't doing that well in the united states right now, but the us post office. why not do that? instead of always try and help please all a god and big corporations trends. or if they will make it more of a big part of your problem is that the united states and china, which are the number one and number 2 most powerful government in the world are increasingly inward focused in their solutions. they're talking about national solutions. america 1st in china, 1st national champions, china's investments and dual circulation and the chinese supply chain. in chinese domestic consumption, the americans, whether it's trumps, american 1st or biden's, u. s. foreign policy. if the american middle class is not global solutions. and yet every challenge you talked about over your show as a global challenge,

whether it's a pandemic, whether it's a climate crisis, whether you are right. and so if you ask me the kind of responses you're going to get to the global, you have to go beyond just the united states and china, by the way, a lot of these solutions are public, private, but they are bigger if they're public, they're much bigger than the u. s. and china. so on climate, the, you, the european union is doing far more to set standards and to move toward sustainable renewable energy than the americans or chinese are on a global state that handle before before ukraine, arguably. but we'll have to ask you on again to talk more about that. in bye bye. thank you. and that's it for the show will be back next week with another brand new episode. but until then you can still keep in touch my role as social media. if it's not centered in your country, but you can always had to our channel going on the grantee on rumble dot com to watch new and old episodes of going undergrad to say, ah,

ah, ah, with a

ah, ah ah, a report from television west, tens of thousands flood the street, the pro democracy protest, and the government pushes to allow parliament to overrule the supreme court and disruptions an infrastructure across ukraine, cities, including the country's capital here a pension plan between a ron and the u. k. off that to ron, execute this.