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 over what's been happening since the publication of the book and what is, are seen in the global south as a realignment and less so arguably in media, in ne donations. 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 cove it 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 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 audience that the crisis. so essentially, 3 strands in the book of climate crisis, the pandemic crisis, and, and war. and she's in 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 shanghai cooperation organization meeting and the fact that most of the world is not supporting sanctions on russia. well, you're right. first of all, that 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? it 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 a 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 it 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. it's 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 on the change in being reiterated his support or mutual support for russia and where do you think, who's buying the russian energy resources a discounted prices, presumably to fund the war? i'm not sure. it's not just china, india as well. a friend of the united states in the quad is buying even more russian oil right now than the chinese. sorry. 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 of the americans have been seen to do that over the past decades. but 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 cool, do 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 rusher and china up here. but again, in the game, there is evidence to show that that, that, that they are binding together and increasing their alliances. i know you don't want to call in the lines, but of course again, no forbidden areas of cooperation and other synonym with dog lines. 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 an alliance because the chinese are very clear that they don't want it to be called in alliance, that they don't want to be called upon to defend the russians from you training attack from nato a tab. you're 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 who has made this really horrible mistake and you know, when you talk about well, who 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. ringback lots of signals that were being delivered to 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 biden 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 ukrainian troops. and what do you make of, i'm going to michael, the former german chancellor saying that the minsky chords ratified un security council resolution to 2021 1000000 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 or so the sovereignty, the russians signed, the 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 mis 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 and 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 expenditure, they're gonna have to pay for the higher cost of energy and other inputs that the industrialization and of course, they'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 catalyzing, new innovative solutions that europe is a dying continent now. and that in fact, most of the world does not see booting 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 corporation organization will variously describe 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 it's now total reliance on l n. g for act gas, where the united states. it's an opening of coal fired stations in stock contrast to cope, but $26.00 environmental obligations. europe is finished because of what bruton has done and the united states. if anything, we'll seek to make alliances depending on what happens in washington. with these new global south industries, i'm very glad that you raised 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 these supply chain disruptions?

again, russia, ukraine, of some of the largest food producers and exports, fertilizer pushes 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 and they did 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 land, 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 in 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 are 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 russia crane war. that is the true tragedy of what this war has meant to the world. in bremar, 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, ah. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms. race is often very dramatic. development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful,

very difficult time to sit down and talk ah, [000:00:00;00] in lieu. 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 self. i'm sure you read conventions of an economic hickman 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 qaeda 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 a coo,

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 think, 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 very recent, frankly, but, but nonetheless, 1993 for guatemala, 2009. i mentioned venezuela in the book. they would try with roma. doro, i'm very happy to go. i'm not trying. i'm not sure. i mean, i don't find confessions of an economic hit man to be very compelling. but i do find the history of american and european colonialism and your colonialism to be very compelling and not not a story 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 leads 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 that. 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 refugees and 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 truly. i mean it's, it's, i know in there is increased, it's not just, i mean, of course, that chinese or this 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 bashfulness 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 story tries the most extraordinary piece of it. no question, but it's been all over the developing war. no offense enough as the scholars, but clearly they won't be counting the what? 40000, some people estimate killed by us sanctions or venezuela, let alone what we know 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 and so is 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 1.2 degrees centigrade 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 of the 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 innovation, somebody was saying basic innovation is on the decline over the past 50 years now to be professor that he dwelling at 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 investigation can, 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 that we start this on movement. it's a 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 the intervention and you believe that's been over written by further you in remarks by spokespeople. but to 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 audience recorded the war. the really interesting and i was going to be today, probably around, sorry, i shit 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 the 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 pollutants 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 of 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. no such thing is true. that is donald rumsfeld. i thought or is about to be approved on the on klein. oh no, that's exactly what a obviously oh 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 i'd like to 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 put 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 lie. and share of the responsibility for fixing the issue right now, the chinese government, including their military today and miss more the chinese economy. and it's more than 2. and then i tried to separate out the u. s. military war. i'm trying to separate the military 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 that 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 to 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 in china, which are the number one and number 2 most powerful government in the world are increasingly in would focused in their solutions. they're talking about national solutions. america 1st and china, 1st national champions,

china's investment 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 for the u. s. 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. we'll 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 underground to say, ah, ah, ah, the joggers archipelago mother chose the and garcia, the largest island in the archipelago is now the location of a very large u. s. military base. you get mad. a u. s. government to make a military base and just devoted all of the people from their country. so they call it returned back on the island. no, but we are fighting that's why i'm fight real fighting for the right. so

i. c we do not consider that the right of self determination actually applies to the trickle. since i know the question of self determination, the legal advice we've received is actually the trickle. since we're not and are not a people for me, it's time to move on and see what we can do for the jungle. said community to return back home. knowledge support from the united nation i for mission african united nish. i don't care about chug restaurant people ah, you stuck with the quote issue, just a good asshole sheet with torrey coming up with bush bush, which manually would you go along with a sip of denial for you, maria. a pool echo

just yeah. i was on august a lesson yet when you pull the fluids lidiam was you know what i'm actually stuck up. did it when do i so visual with just a quick to mr. she was genius. wish him lou lou due to his rascal boy at the tone, please. sure it's no, it's not a router, but as little food you can with the lose this money still to with i'm to right now. she's there. can i those now with national, with that slow, i'll make them the looking for teacher to me. i can say a share,

especially with in elementary school. the teachers called me that problem. and so i was labeled early, i ended up getting kicked out of school. 1617, and 18 though. she'll be my graduation high school years. but instead i'm on the streets, selling crap, gang, bang and bacon that i was going to make to see 21.