little played. you have to play so good on the procedure. ah, hi, i'm rick sanchez. i've been doing who's now for some 30 years and 2 different languages all over the world. and certainly here in the united states, i've interviewed for us. president side, founded a $1000000000.00 business and do all that. i believe news should be honest and direct and impactful. in fact, the show is direct impact. ah, i want to start this conversation between you and i with what may be the most counter intuitive news that i can share with you. because it's a bit of a head shake or really see while everybody is focusing on the south china sea and

the taiwan strait and the conflict in ukraine, between nato and russia and the ongoing chaos in the middle east. there's this long standing tension with real clashes that are taking place. i mean real clashes that are taking place between 2 world powers. this is a battle that could be potentially anyway, potentially catastrophic. why? why? because, well, because both india and china have nuclear weapons capabilities. and they share a border that is both disputed and fought over. and there have been many clashes between chinese and indian troops. recently in 2020 to 2021. 2020. her with think i'm good.

and as you could see, as you watch these videos the paddles seem my word here, meandered polish, the chinese and the indians are seen actually clubbing, each other, beating each other, pushing each other, trying to drown each other. and some of the videos that i've seen, this is all the way up in the himalayas, where the land belongs to india, but appears to be a part of china. and in some cases you could reverse what i just said and make it vice versa, right? so what most people in the west barely even know that these clashes are in suing. they most certainly are. and it displays an apparent sense of almost a hatred between these combatants. and i shouldn't say this too because i think this is important. let's not forget,

india and china are the most populous countries on earth. so as part of the asian continent, they are part of a group of countries that make up 60 percent 60 percent of the world's population. and for decades now, india and china had been locked in this bitter battle. this bitter dispute along 2000 mile corridor of actual control indian defense officials say that the chinese military forces have been increasingly laying claim to these territories that don't belong to them. and now china is coming out and saying that they are ready to protect, not only what they consider to be their territorial integrity, but also that it will battle to protect the territorial integrity of india's biggest rival. pakistan. by the way, this is important. there are also clashing along that disputed border leading to

the area around pakistan, which then leads one to wonder where, where is this all going to lead? when you have an india involved pakistan involved in china involved in all 3 of them. have nuclear warheads. the latest skirmish occurred in the indian state of r and charl products, which is near a $17000.00 foot mountain peak where india and china both maintain military posts. china says it was just conducting routine patrols while india says, no, you weren't. they say they were encroaching into their territory. meanwhile, some indian politicians are now saying, look enough is enough. this is indian politicians, right. example, indian members of parliament, one case in particular role gandhi, he's blasting his own government. the motor government for not taking the chinese threat seriously. he accuses china of preparing for war and he says,

the indian government needs to wake up his own government. fact here, these are the words that he uses. i'm going to read it to you. he says, i have been saying this now for the past 2 to 3 years. it is very clear. he says that china is preparing for war. the government he says, is trying to hide and ignore the obvious threat he's referring to his government right. his parliament and the prime minister. so who's right here and what is the us take, right? what is the west's take on all of this? could india be the key to the u. s. is seeming need to go after china. kid, you know, thank you so much for joining us. this is an interesting discussion. teacher, you rock, you're a political analyst, you understand this region i'm. i'm not sure why the world is not paying enough attention to this, but every time i hear about these ob skirmishes,

these battles really, between them, indian troops and chinese troops. i begin to wonder baby, why we're not paying more attention to it. first of all, what happens during these battles? what's going on? well, i think they, it varies on the specific issue. but if you recall, last year there were some skirmishes in may. and then they built up a little bit into a really kind of a man malay type of fighting. that's the one on then write them the may a big one was the one in iraq, right? yes, exactly. and then in september, it, you know, shots were actually fired. so, you know, there's a being different levels of escalating and de escalating tension. nothing that is being so serious as to involve, you know, major armaments, but people have been injured. people have been killed, we don't know the exact numbers, but yes,

this is serious stuff. and at the same time, i think the lack of attention to it in the current moment has to do with the and big you a status of india visa v ah, the, the west and visa ve the united states. one. what do you, what do you mean? what do you mean by ambiguous? well, india traditionally has been an ally of russia and before that, the u. s. sr. pakistan traditionally has been an ally of china. and dave, the 4 of them have created this up, you know, a set of players that have sometimes related, sometimes not related to each other. and it's created a varying set of relationships. but remember, india was supposed to get on board for the united states. indo pacific strategy yet that's why it's called the indo pacific strategy before we used to call it the asia pacific. then it became the indo pacific strategy because you had the quad.

this was india, australia, japan, and the united states. and india was supposed to blockade china along the left quadrant or along the western front as a cit, supp plan of encirclement around china. now, when russia and ukraine became, when this became a hot conflict, india because of its alliance with russia, refused to go along with american entreaties to get in line with its agenda. yet therefore, since then the quad formation has weakened and india of occurrences in india have been downplayed in the media, especially this kind of friction. why? because india essentially is playing more of an independent role in many of these of battle royals, if you will, between nato and russia, and turkey and russia in the united states and china and russia. and i mean,

this whole thing goes back and forth between some of these countries, by the way, that this one area iraq know, all that we talk about it, it's, i think we're going to be able to put it on a map and you're going to see that it almost looks like a peninsula that comes out of china with a very small next he down there on the south side is a very little neck that's actually part of india. and then it opens up and it becomes almost like a, like an island or peninsula in, in, in trying to preserve that and who doesn't really belong to. well, you know, i think it's, i think these borders are disputed. and they go back to british colonialism. but the british used in various differing borders at different times. they had 11 different borders that they would use. ah, for convenience, if i'm, let me just stop you there for a minute because i want our audience to know what you really mean by that. because i think you're being very polite, i think what you're really trying to say is. busy oh, almost

a 100 years ago. some white dude from a great britain. i forgot his name. was he had a name, it's actually been named atlanta, my hon. right, the right. who was the head of it? uh huh. yeah. so this guy sits down probably with a bottle of gin and a crayon or a pencil and a piece of paper and a map. and he starts drawing lines separating though to countries part of china and part of india without any cultural knowledge or understanding of either probably, and the consequences for what he did on that day sitting there with that bottle of june. foot are the ones that were seeing play out. no. did i overstate that? no, i don't think you're wrong. i think it's i think that in essence is what happened just as what happened. for example, in south korea and north korea. what happened along the burmese, florida,

et cetera, it's song, a white guy, ah, you know, with a man and a ruler, deciding where the board is go, what do you make of this comment by this member of parliament in india? his name is raul gandhi, and mr. gon be says in his opinion, and he said this for the whole world here, and i think he saying 2 things a that china is preparing to invade india. and in his mind it's about to happen any day. and, and to he seems to think that mowdy and perhaps other indian leaders are asleep and they're not paying as much attention to it as they should be paying. and i'm not quite sure what it means by that. but what do you, what do you make of those comments by mr. whole gandhi, may seek their over the top they seek, turn very extreme. china did have a border war with india in 1962,

but then it withdrew back to the original line of ah, you know, line of conflict. so there have been conflicts the last time there was actual shooting war was in 1962, but i don't think china has an expansionist or imperialist designs in that area. remember, china's 14 borders 14 land borders, and most of the time it has negotiated those orders peacefully to the satisfaction of both parties, usually with china, giving up quite a bit of territory. how concerned should the world b, when you take into consideration that we are talking about not just 2, but 3 countries in that area, all of which have nuclear warheads? i think it's, it's very, very concerning. and the piece that concerns me the most is that the united states would like nothing better than for there to be some kind of

a border war that bleeds out china. we already see that there's considerable disturbance in pakistan. emma, where the chinese are building their belt and rode the see peck corridor going down to quadra or it has been besieged with attacks in bulk is done. and so i think there is potential for further disturbance for further kinetic conflict. and i think the same thing applies all along the border. you're certainly not saying the united states would want to see some kind of nuclear engagement between these countries. are you? i'm not saying that, but i'm saying that on, if you look at where china has the belt and road and where china has borders that are conflictual, you will see larger or smaller degrees of conflict that may or may not be

supported by the united states. and i think that is a very, very dangerous situation. essentially, what we looking at is a conflict between the u. s. desire for continued una polarity versus the chinese movement towards plural polarity or multi polarity. the u. s. wants to resist this and i, it's not beyond, ah, you know, initiating kinetic war to achieve at sam's. we're going to be right back with 30 jango. by the way, i have a podcast. good. you know, where i as a journalist as a latino, as an entrepreneur, tell my stories of where i've failed and where i've learned and we talk about success when we talk about growth. it's called the rick sanchez podcast. and i invite you to check it out and i'll see you there. so when we come back, we're going to take a look at the chinese indian conflict from a u. s. perspective. is this something the us will capitalize on and,

and how ah ah ah ah so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy

confrontation, let it be in 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 critical time time to sit down and talk with ah, welcome back, i'm i'm, i'm just sitting here thinking and, and i'm thinking about what it would be like to only get your news from one place or one type of place, so i'm thinking if you only been listening to western media, right? china is a pariah. the u. s. is number one,

military based approach to those types of things. so what's the key? what's the key to the west's um, desire to counter even defeat china? many around the world who study this geo political battle would say, the answer is in a word india, india. if the us could get india to willing join forces with it, in essence taking sides against china, against russia, and against all the other job us proposals, it could change the global dynamic altogether. and that may be why that border clash is more worthy of attention than what it's actually getting. which is why we are focusing on it. we're back now with k j no, to continue this. so part of the conversation and kj. you mention that

previously that the united states would probably like to see nothing more than some kind of a dispute ah, in that border that involves countries like pakistan and india and china. and while that's unsettling to anybody listening to you thinking, oh my god, these countries are very powerful. they have nuclear warheads. we wouldn't want to see that happen. you suggest there's several reasons why the united states would, would, would, would almost take some pleasure out of it. you mentioned belton road, which obviously as an economic play. but then we've been watching what's been going on between russia and ukraine and seeing how the united states is just played into that full bore with the help of the u. s. media. and it seems like every week we send another $11000000000.00 and armaments to ukraine. i'm thinking this sounds to me like a money making venture. would that offer another money making venture,

whether to be that skirmish for the u. s. and might that be another reason for them to want to go a lot with well, this certainly the aspect of a military boon dog involved. i mean, no war is good business if you are an honest manufacturer or if you're sink tank related to an honest manufacturer, or if you're a politician who's funded by a think tank or an honest manufacturer. so definitely there's the aspect to, to put it kindly, military canes, units and where you're stoking up the economy by pouring funding into the military industrial complex. but on the other hand, geopolitically it serves the u. s. is design in the fact that the u. s. is looking for unipolar, a gemini wants to control the world. it said this since 1992, and it has been working its plan and planning its work. since that period,

we're talking about project for an mc american century, which became the bush doctrine, which became the obama doctrine, which became the trump doctrine, which is now the bide and doctrine, otherwise known as the end of pacific strategy. so there's a strong continuity, and there are a lot of invest at players that want to see this escalation, not simply because it serves them from the economic standpoint. but from a geopolitical standpoint, anything that bleeds out the 2 center countries that they see as the greatest challenges are greatest enemies than, namely russia or china. they see as being to their advantage. sure, i've been doing a lot of reading lately about the vietnam war and coming out of the korean war. and it seems like at the time our, our fathers, i guess on our moms were told that this had to be done. because you know, my goodness there's, there's domino fury and these folks are about to take over the world and their communists. and if we don't stop them,

they'll eventually be in your backyard. and we bought into that theory until the media wised up. and you know, great journalism institutions like cbs news and the new york times and started writing that this was all bullshit. and that it wasn't true. and that we were being lied to by l. b, j, and by president nixon. and ah, eventually the truth caught up with us and we stopped on to a certain extent. we did the same thing after 911 and we used instead of the domino theory, the fact that although the hottest were coming and soon they would be in our back yard, ripping our daughters, et cetera, et cetera. and now that's kind of waning, and it looks like we need a new argument, but there's a sameness to the story, isn't there? yes is exactly, you know, it's a template. they keep on repeating the same formula, the same tropes and the same strategies. so this time brown, china is the great enemy, the great satan,

and they are using the same kind of information warfare in order to deal legitimize and to attack it. and then having done that, then what you do is you create as of you know, her, you know, the leadership has said you create, quote unquote, a binding strategy of other countries against china. and currently the thinking is that what you do is you provoke a conflict over taiwan under the pretext of preventing conflict, anti one, this all highly forgiven, a tory and then once having done that, then you're going to rally other countries against china. primarily, japan will be on the front lines. it will tie one island itself will serve the role of ukraine. a japan will be the kind of big attack dog and south korea because it has the largest conscription capacity will also be involved in units. i go, the south korean prison is already, you know,

hinted that he's on board for this. she, she has also said that he's up for this. so really, you know, this goes back to what you were talking about earlier. and i think this kind of puts this whole conversation together now, which is fascinating thinking about how we started this conversation. we've got chinese troops fighting on the border with in these disputed areas with india. we've got pakistan looking along and saying which side am i going to take? most likely, i'm going to go along with china because i hate the indians. ah, and what's the cause and what's the root cause of all this? and as you're explaining the rest of the end to mind, the rest of the story and putting all the jess pieces together, oh, i think we lost you for their 2nd. no, you're good. you're good. as we put, so as we put this chess pieces and all of this for the u. s. if we're going to talk a gemini, if we're going to consider the end, the mind that you're making now for what the u. s. needs it's india is india doesn't go along with this. the u. s. is in a bad place to try and av um,

meet its goal. no. i think its very important india's in fairy very important part of this. once again, as i said, this is why we're using the 19th century terminology of the indo pacific beforehand . it was always the asia pacific. this, the bismarck enter, that the ursus brought back because they want india to be the left flank of this encirclement. so they need so they need india um to be in a conflict with china. so therefore, that situation, speaking of the west, they would like to see more badly royals, as we said earlier, conflicts that they would like to not see india take russia side in the situation with ukraine. they're disappointed with india for buying rushes oil when they sanctioned it. and now they're probably disappointed that india is not coming out. ah, perhaps so more fervently against us sending trips or partnerships

along that dog, taiwan straits. correct? yes, and you're absolutely correct. and remember, india traditionally has been non align. it's tried to steer a path between the soviet union and the united states. but it has a long and close history with russia. and remember that russia or u. s. a sock. and remember, russia has close relations with china now they are in, you know, they say they're, you know, they're closer than an alliance. my, thanks to you. thanks for sharing your wisdom with us. we very much appreciate it. thank you. pleasure to be with you. before we go, i want to remind you of our mission. it's simple really. we kind of want to de silo the world. we've got to stop living in these little boxes, right, where we never look outside of those boxes to see what else there may be truths.

don't live in boxes, truth as everywhere. how much sanchez? i'm going to be looking for you again, right here. or i hope to provide a direction ah ah ah, at the end of the 18th century, great britain began to conquer and colonize australia. from the very beginning of the british penetration to the continent, natives were subjected to severe violence and deliberate extra patient. according to modern historians. in the 1st 140 years, there were at least 270 massacres of local

b. both any resistance to the british was answered with doubled cruelty. hundreds of natives were killed for the murder of one settler. indigenous australians were not considered complete people. no wild beast of the forest was ever hunted down with such unsparing perseverance as they are. men, women, and children are shot whenever they can be met with squatter. henry myrick wrote in a letter to his family in england, in 1846. australia's past is rightly described as blood soaked and races. if at the beginning of colonization, there were one and a half 1000000 indigenous people living on the continent, then by the beginning of the 20th century, their number had decreased till 100000 people. despite the indisputable historical facts, the problem of full recognition of the crimes of white australians against the aborigines has not been resolved so far. ah, ah,

ah ah ah ah, with

no leave the style of the study of columbia, you steal mama will follow you use a. 2 2 2 2 with .