if 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 fide was right, right, so to my mind things can change europe, but 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 have gemini, 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 google 2014. and so as you say, you know, your typical european laptops became the cheerleaders for what was then 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 ukraine. 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. well, 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 reported 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 or 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 gold rushes 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 a to exaggeration in my view, but the us strategist said will win because we're all powerful. what can do, 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 did in the and the rush or well resist in 2022. well if russia does resist our push into ukraine, our sanctions will bring the russian autonomy to its knees. well up, the sanctions don't work. our high admirers 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 down, but 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. yeah. they followed the us. europe 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 previous tests or 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, like 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 in was 70 or 80 elections in the past century. it is the number one full most med lot of when it comes to thinking 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 fund, it, it's covert. i'm used to overthrow governments around the world as being chopped off. jeffrey, i don't want to be uh, an irrational optimist here. but is it possible we're going to see a new era of, of america perhaps, respecting other countries and that political processes. it's possible. this is far from a short believe me, it's far from the short american still behaved. so the with, with a lot of, into unity. i, frankly, even though this is shaped down and 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 a bit. 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 on 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 prob, occasion, and blunder of the united states. similarly,

be the way vu wes acts needs to be taiwan. is the same thing that's bad if i could say use 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, when you, you mentioned publications a moment ago. let's just bring it back to us idea for a 2nd. i mean, this whole scandal that continues to shop the world. i mean, who would have thought jeffrey, honestly, who would have sold the usa id was financing all kinds of tara groups like i spoke with her, i'll kind of 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 i, one was actually saving lives. i actually finding the larry, i actually finding 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, developing, 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 meet the 1st and the 2nd was disgusting, provocative, causing more. uh, you mentioned that the, the interference in elections, i would say more generally, the us interferes west parts. democracy is non 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 foreign policy, which is if you don't like the other side, you negotiate with companies to try to find a modus vivendi. but the united states was, you metal, you interfere, you over throw you the stabilize you cause a cool. this has to stop. there had 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 look at this uh, 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 catch phrases. he's a dictator, he's this, he's that and yeah, 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. what advice 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 a, your life. i guess in, in britain i, i feel the united states. i'm sorry to say, i hope you won't take offense, but we learned everything we learned from britain. 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, that for about 17 years, i think it was i, i, russia's play was out of the black. see, 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, it is a, an echo of this 19th century. and one of the fascinating things with the roots of o. b, a is, is british roots of phobia which the star me or kerry still 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 pollyanna 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 them other than 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 to would bade india through the khyber pass and all the rest. but this is the new west situation as well. both these it'd be russia, which i hope is now passed, 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 or 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. they go back to the great game, is that like to coordinate going back of what over a 100 years. some people say i get queen victoria, i 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 will all 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 or 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 take, take a break. we don't need this non stop more. we don't need to stem are

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 in sound the ground. come on on down, please. yeah, it's amazing. you don't need this. yeah. you don't need this. yeah. yeah, this guy kissed um and he will. he was dressed in the white house. he got no love from chum just now. and then of course, and i go macro and he was there about 24 hours prior. he got no love from, from either. i was kind of tied into what you just for the entertainment value, frankly, but i wanted to bring it bring you up to speed. now that the latest talks in a stumble, 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 trumpet? 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 beg 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 sweden, finland 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 side. just didn't come into that jeffrey told to me if you will, we've had these that we've had these negotiations up central piece towards happening in assemble now, 6 and a half hours of talks jeffrey before that of course re add. well, what was interesting to me was, you know, um who, shackleford, what it was,

shut off, who was the presidential envoy of those who know he's an old friend of not him a food ends and he was down there with. so get off or off and re add and he had 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 back out of 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 joint ventures and 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 simple things like that. uh, this is mutually beneficial, epic or a beacon. amex 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 russia also has vast natural resources, vast territory, 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 too close to each other economically. the us hated the nord 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 and go 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 patch 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 has 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 no 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 have been, you know, the us intelligence services with a guys involved in this. but, but 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 and also part of it is commercials driving cheap. let's add because the american liquefied natural gas company scrambled to sell l. n g to western europe. and roughly 6 times the price that europe was paying for. russia's low cost a 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 led world, the main target was not europe, the main target was russia. and i, and this was stated repeatedly that 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, i would of a us official them. and 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 too many years. now jeffrey, just quickly that there was a link for 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 that 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 u. s. 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 the 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. so he have cars on had the enormous bricks summit, many people calling it like literally the most important brick stomach to date, to win the western political. the media establishment shows rosters 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. trump 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 are always going to be left on the platform or will they perhaps give us

census together and try and cooperate with the new multi potable i think the main point you just said is right. the world's actually multi polar expend, 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 looked 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 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 is 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 bridge. i'm probably your, i'm not sure what the mindset is, but it still doesn't get it quite right. but as you say, well, the, the brooks had 36 countries in cars on the countries were about half the world population. i, the membership of the bricks today is around 40 percent of g, d, p, measured in purchasing power parity. i, i, a, china is industrial pilot and capacity like it or not. this 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 were 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 stay 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 keep on 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 of the state of palestine established the long side, 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 in an age of phenomenal technological advance. and our biggest threat is the continuing conflicts. the the release of russia in states never as tight as one of the most sense community

best. most, i'll send some of the polls question about this, even though we will then in the european union, the kremlin media mission, the state on rochester day and split the ortiz full. even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube, the payment services for the question, did you say stephen twist, which is the, [000:00:00;00] the

stuff for the summer shift for the picture. so should the shield economic model have new with these kinds of what it means? different this next time and see if it's doesn't figured tested by this thing. and so with the concept, even though is the new much so i was unable to read through. it's a company which comes up developing bio chemical weapons inside of the guns. good to watch the news. all right, no, wasn't cheaper to use my best to put the white glove service cost,

but he's because of the center state because the big trouble getting a little bit so no, no, not a lot of talking. your country is in big trouble. i know you're not. i mean, i know you're not winning this time zones. a run the high and washington is to from soft down valencia's hope through the funding him away from the white house. he has had the lens, he makes his exit is middle refills. i believe i live in the front remains on the side. there's mission to the us in the back driving. he's in the garage for ladies. take us in the streets and support from the front run of the legs and no reply. the