a mistake, this is a complete blunder. there's no reason for this war. there is no reason for the breakdown of relations. and i think the guy, what donald trump is said as he came into office was he doesn't want to hold the losing hand. the bible was right, right. so to my mind things can change. you are the oh, it is got trapped by following the united states getting a blind to kind of way. just trying to would be the great cheer leader of us a gemini. i obviously, the whole us approach, the unit polar approach was delusional. it's ended. now you're a pass to get attacked together. is it possible it is not a way possible. i it, it. i even think it's going to happen because what else is you're going to do just be $27.00 bickering divided. the countries in a world today were actual scale and cooperation means

a tremendous amount for one's economy for one's politics. and one for one is geo politics. and security, i think they'll get their act together meantime, and by the way, i appreciate your optimism i do admire at jeffrey, but you know, we've got this new administration back in the white house now and you know, let's not forget that the us find on the might on cool of 2014 and so as you say, you know, your typical european laptops became the cheerleaders for what was the us administration, but now the mazda has changed, and someone saying that laptops don't know who to, why that tails for any more. meantime, it looks like trump is all but done with you, craig, and he's looking for peace. he's looking to make a quick buck on the mineral resources as you are. looks pleased to try and continue with the will of jeffrey. can you just help me get my head around that please? a while it's hard to get one's head around because europe cannot continue the war ukraine. you cannot continue the war in the bottom line. that what happened

during the last 30 years, i've been a part of because this is a 30 year us project is that the united states said were you in a polar, we do what we want. we expand militarily, where we want, we expand our influence, where we want i, in 2008 the us said, now we move made over to ukraine to georgia. i and a, this is a replay, by the way of the pry me and more of 185321856, almost at the blueprint. and of russia's said, no, i, that's not going to happen. i. the point is, europe got into line with it. the u. s. i. strategy is if i could call them added. so it's the exaggeration in my view, but the us strategist said will win because we're all powerful. one can boot do what kind of russia do? nothing, and they thought up until the end and i know what they thought because i talked

with them i heard from them. i watched the what they were saying. they thought in 2020 ones that i've been in the and the rush or well resist it in 2022. well, if russia does resist, are push into ukraine. our sanctions will bring the russian autonomy to its knees. well up, the sanctions don't work. our high myers and our attack them, so we'll do so all with that doesn't work. russia well mobilized to continue the fight. in other words, this was a group in, in essence playing a game i would say on the american side, which is we can do what we want, right? that isn't the case. they, they lost that damage. the ukrainians, tragically followed that line i called the ukrainians. of course everyone knows kissinger's famous line that to be anatomy of america is dangerous to be

a friend of america is fatal. i explain that to them. you're going to be like afghanistan. well, here we are. you know, they followed the us euro followed the us. now they don't know quite what to do. yeah. but you know, so i'm still coming to washington in this kind of pathetic way to sign over in it, almost a meaningless document, the mineral half the mineral rights. this is just sad, desperate, confused behavior. this is not strategy, this is not national policy. this is not continuing award, this is not, not big. i was just going to say what reckless policy, whether you go back to the, by the administration or the pre to assessor obama and so on and so forth. what a reckless policy to pick a fight with the world's biggest nuclear power you called. i mean, i con, you know what you said? how do we get our heads around this foreign policy that's being enacted over the past decade? and as you say, even 30 years now, you mentioned

a moment ago about expanding influence. we all, we all know united states. so maybe we don't all know, but it's been meddling. and what 70 or 80 elections in the past century, it is the number one full most med lot when it comes to saying its teeth and sticking his fingers into other countries. democratic processes. meantime, we're essentially watching a washington dismantling the old god and real time usa i. d being the funded, it's covert. i'm used to overthrow governments around the world as being chopped off. jeffrey, i don't want to be a and irrational optimist here, but is it possible we're going to see a new era of, of america perhaps, respecting other countries in that political processes? it's possible this is far from a short head. believe me, it's far from the short american, still behaves a with, with a lot of, into unity. i, frankly, even though this so shaped down to minerals, which i don't think will come to anything, by the way. i don't,

i don't think this is more than a piece of paper on the adjuster on a photo op, but that means nothing. that's my own view. i may be wrong, but that's my own view that this is meaningless. but it still is a kinder shake down, and that is a absolutely strange. uh president trump. but he talks about canada city for state . he talks about panama talks about breeland. we're kind of the end of a prop occasions. and so one by any means, but what i would say, and i mean is with the deepest seriousness, the major powers, the great powers, the united states, russia, china, india, if europe got attacked together, should stop putting their noses right up against the other side and stop the prob, occasions that could lead us to open war. this is the most important point going to ukraine, was such a complication and blunder of the united states. similarly,

be the way vu wes acts. these would be taiwan, is the same thing that's bad if i could say is the ukraine a beast, asia, you know, don't provoke between the nuclear super powers. for heaven's sake. this is the most basic point for our survival. meantime, we've seen essentially the g 7 economies almost entirely being swapped out by the bricks economies. when you look at the top 10 economies nowadays, you know, you mentioned china and india and, and russia, but some of the traditional european economies at the bottom. now all the top 10 list would you, you mentioned publications a moment ago. let's just bring it back to us idea for a 2nd. i mean, this whole scandal, it continues to shock the world. i mean, who would have thought jeffrey, honestly, who would have folded usa id was financing all kinds of terror groups like isis folk ahead. i'll tie the h t as in syria, this is the country of the world. the tell us all of us. it's fighting terrorism, jeffrey, the usa. i, the very, sadly combined

a 2 completely different things. one was actually saving lives, actually finding malaria, actually fighting tuberculosis, doing important things. and then it got it. of course, it was used as a tool of u. s. foreign policy. and not saving lives, not doing development, not doing you mandatory and things, but as a tool of us manipulation. and they put the tone statements together, which is so sad because we actually need the 1st and the 2nd was disgusting, provocative, causing war. uh, you mentioned that the, the interference in elections, i would say more generally the us interferes west parts. democracies down democracies, the u. s. foreign policy for the post war period. and by doub more, i mean world war 2 was that if you don't like the other side,

you try to change the regime. most countries have a different form policy, which is indeed all like the other side. you negotiate with everybody to try to bind to modus vivendi, but the united states was nu metal. you interfere you over throw you destabilize, you cause a cool. this has to stop. there have been dozens and dozens and dozens of these regime change operations and they, and very, very badly. yeah, indeed. well, i mean, you know, you know, you look at this are russo phobic agenda and the agenda against russia. and of course, they've been trying to get rid of food in for such a long time, trying to foment discontent and using the, the propaganda of the west, immediate, a sale, all these narratives know these catchphrases. he's a dictator, he's this, he's that and yet do you know jeffery, on a personal level, i lived in america many, many years. i grew up in the u. k. i've been here in russia now nearly 20 years. i've never experi and such a level of freedoms in my life. i spent

a number of years working for a major american news network. i wouldn't mention that name is 3 letters, i wouldn't mention it, but there, i couldn't say certain things here in russia. i can actually say what needs to be set on you by the way, you should be here with all the international on a problem. one of those is jeffrey, because you are brave enough to push back on these mainstream legacy media. narrow which is, i guess, you know, some people say you're making friends everywhere. you go tongue in cheek, mr. sacks. well let, let me just say, since you are, you started your life. i guess in, in britain i, i feel the united states. but i'm sorry to say, i hope you won't take offense, but we learned everything we learned from britain and, and one of the fascinating points of our modern history is how it relates. as i said to the 19th century, the crimean war was award led by britain to try to push russia out of the black sea

region. this was the purpose of lord palmerston. he got the napoleon the 3rd to join him, and that was the outcome. but again, after the fall of the sub stobel, a dead for about 17 years, i think it was. i, russia's play was out of the black sea. that's what they're trying to do. again. yes. and one of the fascinating thing and it's, it's not going to work, but it is a, an echo of this 19th century. and one of the fascinating things with the roots of phobia is his british, russo phobia which the storm are carries till today to the white house. and where does that roots and phobia come from? there's a marvelous study from more than 50 years ago by a great historian who asked the question, where did british bruce phobia arrives? because after all, you, the napoleonic wars, britain and russia were allies. that was it in 181-5518. 40 britain

regarded russia as an enemy. and this is the story and asked the question, why in 25 years did that change. and when he started, there was no reason for the change in mother that russia was a big, powerful country. and britain resented that. as the british empire, britain simply resented russia. it concocted all sorts of tables that russia was going with, bade india through the khyber pass and all the rest. but this is the new west situation as well. both bees, it'd be russia, which i hope is now past, but also china, which is hate the other one simply for being big and successful. that's not a reason for russo phobia or sign up for be a. it's actually a reason for respect for dialogue for diplomacy, not for hatred, but we get the hatred started up and it's not hard to store a paid for it. yeah,

you know, there, there are some people who go back even further than 50 years that go back to the great game is that like to coordinate going back of what over a 100 years, some people say and gets queen victoria being alive around the time of world war one, world war one, she wouldn't allow that to happen because of the bloodlines between the role and office and the british role timely. they've old, essentially related at the end of the day is fascinating. you said to me that the person is still going for odessa. still going for the black sea. is that why london keeps talking about this 100 year contract with ukraine? yeah, it's interesting. i'm sorry to say, i don't mean to insult anybody, but the british position is on believably weird because brandon talks like it is the 19th century ruler of the world and the word pox bartolic car and that they're going to call the shots. it's all or please stop, come down to pay, take a break. we don't need this non stop more. we don't need to stammer

flying around the world to say we continue the war, no matter what the united states does. he said in the white house, we'll put boots on the ground. come on on down, please. yeah, it's amazing. we don't need this. yeah. you don't need this. yeah. yeah, this guy kissed um and he will. he was just in the white house. he got no love from chum just now, and then of course in your macro. and he was there about 24 hours prior. he got no love from drum either. i was going to turn it to watch it just for the entertainment value, frankly. but i wanted to bring it, bring you up to speed now that the latest totes and assemble following the discussions and react between the russian and american officials. we are witnessing, as you said, moments ago, a reproach monkey. do you really think there's a chance that a true piece can be arranged between bruton and trump, regardless all the noisy chihuahuas in your? well, 1st of all, a true peace can be arranged for

a fundamental reason. there is no fundamental conflict between the united states and russia, so there is no fundamental reason for conflict. if the us had not asserted unit polarity after 1991, there would be no conflict if in december 19, 2021 is i begged to divide white house to negotiate with president pulling on the draft us russian security arrangement that to the table on december 15th 2021. negotiate there would be no war. there is no direct reason for conflict. there is reason for trade. there is reason out, they'll be competition and other things. but conflict, of course, not the same is true with europe. if europe would open its eyes, it's hard with europe is 27 independent countries. they can't think

clearly as a major power in a unified way. but if they could, they would have just a direct counterpart relationship with russia. and ukraine would be so much safer as the neutral state that it was that would have protected ukraine. because neutrality is not a danger. neutrality is a protection asked. we fell into austria during the decades that it had neutrality. not the nato period of the last year. this is ridiculous, they were safe with neutrality. oscar is safe with neutrality, but they chose the block approach that's on the safe. nothing just didn't come in right? that jeffrey told to me, if you will, we've had these that we've had these negotiations up central piece told happening and assemble now 6 and a half hours of talks jeffrey before that of course re add well what, what was interesting to me was, you know, um who shackle viewed, it will shut off,

who was the presidential envoy of those who know he's an old friend of mine and my food ends and he was down there with so get off or off and re out. and he had, he had a few pages of list, so so called economic initiatives. and it almost gave the impression that off to these years of being the most sanction country in the world. the russo for big data to the trying to pummel the ruble. it almost seemed like it's now time to get back to business. you want to start making some money again. let's do a joint ventures in the arctic. there's a whole list of economic initiatives. how do you read into that jeffrey? well, i am an economist, so i believe in trade and investment and hopefully you think that this is mutually beneficial ethic or a beacon. omics is the idea that when you trade with other countries, it's mutual gain. it's not one wins and one loses. so this is the right approach, it happens that western europe and russia are really complimentary economies

and an important weight. they share some things. russia has a very sophisticated technological class. so leading engineers, leading mathematicians, but rush also has vast natural resources, vast territory. i. and so forth, and that's why the economic links between germany and russia are very strong at a natural level. and by the way, one of the projects of the united states was to make sure that germany and russia wouldn't get to close to each other economically. the u. s. heated the north stream pipeline in my view and blew it up. yeah. but did in any event, it hated it. ended hated it because that was the linking in germany and russia, by the way, the rhetoric we see that the us says, is it made germany dependent on russia know it? it may germany benefit and russia benefit that's called mutual benefit. that's what

trade does. that's not dependency, that's crazy. yeah. and that that should be re established. yeah, i mean, you think about it. and as you will know, jeffrey, you know, as being cheap russian energy but for so many decades as, as created the, the energy backbone of europe. they created the industrial backbone with germany, of course. so the cheap russian energy it's, it's, it's now gone. there are hoops, perhaps north stream could be turned back on. but when you talk about the, the sabotage of north stream and, you know, and clearly, i mean, obviously it is going to be in, you know, the us intelligence services with the guys involved in this. but, but uh, i just, um, who's throwing who on the bus. the north stream wasn't just a russian pipeline is a multi european russian consortium. a lot of european countries and companies involve that by destroying the north stream. it almost seems like america was throwing europe under the bus. you know, i, i think that it, it was part of the americas, you know, kohler strategy. i,

that i is also part of its commercial strategy. let's add because the american liquefied natural gas company scrambled to sell l. n g to the western europe. and roughly 6 times the price that europe was paying for. russia's low cost, the pipeline, a gas. so there were some commercial interest, but there was a long standing opposition in the united states to north stream. partly because there was a long standing view that russia and germany should not get too close to each other . and in a, in an american flag world. but more fundamentally, in the american leg world, the main target was not europe. the main target was russia. and i, and a, this was stated repeatedly to the us goal was to surround russia with nato. the us goal was to make sure that russia was the 2nd rate or 3rd rate power

it all invidious. we had a remarkable rand corporation paper in 2019, which had find one of the most disgusting works. a coming out of a, out of a us official them. that said, you know, basically how do we extend rush, how do we annoy russia? how do we undermine russia? that's a, a national goal. how about, how do we cooperate with russian? how do we make peace with rush? how do we find security arrangements if, if rand was working on that, it would be good. yeah. but that paper in 2019 is literally a list of ways to annoy aggravate and weak and russia. that's yeah, hassles for us policy i'm, i'm sorry to say, and these are supposed to be the adults in the room. you know, it's, it's just astonishing and it's just me so depressing watching this for to many years. now jeffrey, just quickly that there was a link to pull published in the west of mastery media suggesting that trump, when it comes to talking to russia, trump might be willing to pull the american troops out of nato basic as an eastern

europe. did you hear about that? did you read it? your thoughts on it? well i, i read it, i, i think what is key is the europe really needs a security arrangement. and it was heading towards one with the organization of security and cooperation in europe with o. s. c, e o. s. c is very different from nato. a. nato is your security comes through the us military alliance. o. s. c, e is your security, comes through collective security that we can't be safe if the other side is on safe. so let's work together on assurances on the militarization on a neutral spaces on other ways to protect everybody's security. we are at a stage now where europe and russia really need to sit down in

a serious way because there are serious issues on security, on both sides. and they need to be discussed by serious people on both sides. and it wasn't the work just a couple of months ago, a few months ago cuz on beautiful cultural city of cars on had the enormous bricks summit. many people calling it like literally the most important brick stomach to date. when the western political, the media establishment shows rather as being isolated on the world stage pollutants got no friends. here we have this amazing show of unity in cars on covered members of bricks, hotness, states joining and so many waiting in the wings. tom says brooks is dead, trusting and almost tyrus for countries who want to veer away from the dollar and trade or might potentially hurt the dollar. but jeffrey, we are witnessing this multi polar world for its place on the global stage today. is it possible that the g 7 countries or should i say the european countries of america and canada, all they too late to get on this train?

they always going to be left on the platform or will they perhaps get the census together and try and cooperate with a new multi potable i think the main point you just said is right. the world's actually multi polar. it's been multi polar for quite a while. i'm an economist, so i look at the production capacity. i look at g d p. i look at the trade, i look at the industrial capacity in various sectors. we've been multi polar for quite a while. in fact, the advanced technologies are everywhere. the idea that i well advance technology is only in silicon valley, is he'd be comfortable for people in silicon valley or washington, but it's just not right. because if you go to india, if you go to russia to go to china in advance technologies, or are part of it's a global scene right now. and so this is the reality. the mindset in the united states up until a few weeks ago was no i, this is a,

a us led world that was the vitamin ministration mindset. obviously wrong and, and rather dangerous. because it says we can push around anyone that we want to push around. obviously, if we just have enough, will, the british mindset remains, not only is it unit polar, it seems that the mindset is, it's british, i don't know that, but it's, i think, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a little weird. you know, the us is a friendly hand of the british empire. i'm not sure what the mindset is, but it still doesn't get it quite right. but as you say, look, the, the brooks had 36 countries in cars on the countries were about half the world population. the membership of the bricks today is around 40 percent of g, d, p, measured in purchasing power parity. a china is industrial pilot and capacity like it or not, that is bigger than a mirror coast. china is g d. p,

of course, is bigger than america's if measured at the purchasing power adjusted prices. we're in a multi polar world and we need 1st to be peaceful in that world, avoid confrontation between the great powers that could take us to, to nuclear armageddon. and we need to keep an, an open trading system. it's not going to be a us dollar dominated system. it's going to be a multi currency system alongside a multi polar system. my hope is that we stayed within international law, very fragile. but i'm a believer in the un charter, and i want to make it work in a multi polar world. and a multi lateral legal system at the global level is what we need for our safety, security, and prosperity. if you could have a face to face, sit down with donald trump. what would you tell him about russia bricks and the

multi poto world? what would your advice be? you know, my advice is to find the track with making peace with russia. make peace in the middle east based on 2 states because peace could come to the middle east. the same way with the 2 states, the state of palestine established alongside the state of israel, made peace with china just as you've done with russia. and then we have the chance truly for a golden age because we're the age of phenomenal technological advance. and our biggest threat is that continuing conflicts, the the, the people please

then please let me put you through the, the window to pick those up. just good. so let me know if those are right and the order showing that we're in good shape, as i mentioned that enough for the 3 with a maybe even the 2. even though i still have an order for no reason to tell or should i just click on the news list, any slide was over on that is on key out of my breath mistress to ask you to a phone number or the sure. and then can you hear me to get the patients that what is the the

stuff for the machine for the picture such as you the show this vehicle, is it the economic model have us for this problem next time and see if it doesn't fix it. so we came up august, even though is the new model of the old server. there's a compliance i'm doing which comes up developing bio, the weather's inside. you guys got to watch the news. well, i'm assuming should, you know, wasn't cheap. but the reason why the white gloves the customer, i think it's quite easy because of the same as just

the zip codes, the big trouble. no, no. okay, not a lot of your country is in big trouble. i know you're not, you're not winning this live and worldwide. that's a small town right there in dc team. trouble putting zalinski in his place, telling him to leave the white house and his dreams for a deal with washington. and as the lensky exit stage, right. his resource mineral deal with trump is left on him sign, ultimately leaving the main goal and of his trip to america unfulfilled. before all the developments in washington, we spoke about what's on the table for the entity was ronald economist from jefferson. i mean to washington in this kind of pathetic way to sign over in almost a meaningless document, the minerals have.