Dr. David Oualaalou Live Q & A: Geopolitical Trends

Hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Excited to be with you as always. Hope you had a relaxing weekend. You just did nothing, you just chill out. Sometimes it's nice to just do nothing, you know. Anyway, anyway, very, very excited. Uh, as I, uh, uh, mentioned to you last week, uh, that I had the plan or the idea of doing a Q&A session for the community and for all our viewers from around the world. So this way, uh, get a chance to ask your most, uh, geopolitical pressing questions given what's going on around the world. I know I've been covering a lot of stuff for the last few weeks, and, and, and I can always tell when there is an overwhelming amount of information, and not everything gets to be covered because I only have like an hour or so and I don't want to drag this too long. Yes, conversation can take hours, but also it can be overwhelming. So I figured because I was thinking about it a few days ago as to how much does the community really sort of understand everything, or are there questions there that needs to have some answers? And that's the reason why I wanted to do this for you guys. So anyway, let's say, let's see who's here in the community first, then, then I'll just jump in into the questions. I already have 2 questions that 2 of you post them on the community, so I'm gonna pull them out and just ask that question. Willie Holman, good to see you. As always, Leanne, good to see you. Adam Rocco, salam to you as well. Uh, Uh, you gotta help me out with this. Uh, Mokwanazi, good to see you. Uh, OBD, good to see you. Taiwan Steel, as always. Timeline Dunkley, here you are. Haven't seen you for, uh, for a while now. I know you've been busy, uh, but thanks for being here. Tom Sires, good to see you as always. Uh, Me for President, that's an interesting screen name. Farid Amel, good to see you as always. Caracola, good to see you. Jamie Dodger, And, uh, yeah, all right, I say let's, uh, see, uh, Wong KC, good to see you from Malaysia, uh, and Arsenal, good to see you. So, all right, as I mentioned the last— before I'll do this, guys, by the way, I have some housekeeping, uh, stuff to mention to you, which I have one particular aspect, and this one has to do with my upcoming conversation with the my friend Einar Tengen. So it's going to be tomorrow at 2100 hours, which will be 10:00 AM the next day in Beijing. So, so I look forward to this conversation with Einar. It always adds to the conversation. There's a lot to learn from Einar, and I learn a lot from himself. So I look forward to that conversation tomorrow. So, all right, let me start with the first question from Darlene Kington. You said, and I quote here, hi Dr. O, I had a question on South Africa and the strange narrative going on. Do you think the US will intervene as a means of disrupting global trade after the failed tariffs? Thanks for the information you provide. Well, it's, it's first of all what's going on in South Africa. I'm sure you know with the bill that they just passed regarding the, uh, has to do with the white individuals living there. There is some issues, racially tensions per se, but as far as what the US intervening into that, I— it's not going to work because Trump made some comment about it. No, it's not going to intervene. The US has so many problems right now, we don't even know where to turn our heads to. It's because we have no strategy whatsoever. So why would we go all the way to South Africa to get involved in something like this? Of course, that's usually what we do, what the government does. It's like almost, I feel comfortable saying, like what took place last week between India and Pakistan. And I'm going to address this one later on. It's just, no, no, the short answer is that the US will not intervene there, given that As far as Donald Trump's, uh, tariffs and so forth, he's learning the hard way now. He's backtracking, especially with China, you know, because now he's just lost face because he had to cut down on tariffs. And the Chinese are saying, yeah, we'll cut down 10% too. But the Chinese saying, if you want to direct negotiations, that means on the highest level, Chinese are saying you need to lift all the tariffs. It's because the Chinese understand that the ball sort of in the US court, not on the Chinese. Chinese have moved on. And this is one thing about when Donald Trump launched this particular sanction tariffs, it just had no idea, no idea. And I kind of was just shaking my head when that happen. And speaking of that, guys, while I'm thinking about it, I, uh, I got a picture, uh, not a picture, that's Donald Trump of course, but the, uh, I had a chance to read the, uh, result of a poll that was conducted recently, which by the way shows that the US image has deteriorated very badly, very, very bad. Of course, what the report from this particular entity, and I'm gonna tell you, uh, the name of the entity and who, who's the founder, uh, what I found very disturbing about it. Yes, one part of the, of the survey is correct as far as the, the negative image of the US, but the second part of the, uh, survey was misleading, and here is why. Take a listen here, or I'm gonna share quote with you rather. A new annual study published today, Monday, today, this morning, I pulled it up this morning, shows that the global perception of the United States have deteriorated significantly over the past year, with perceptions of the country now worse than those of China. End of quote. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. First of all, what does China has to do with the negative image of the US? And since when China had a negative image? And this is where you have to always be careful with surveys, with studies, and so forth. They can be very, very manipulative. And there is a reason why it was worded this way. It was worded because the study was conducted by the— here is the title of the foundation. It's a foundation called the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, and this one was in collaboration with the polling firm called NERA Data. So now this particular Alliance of Democracies Foundation was founded by none other than Andreas Fogh Rasmussen. Now, if you know who Andreas Fogh Rasmussen is, he was the former Secretary of NATO. So you can just see why the narrative has to be worded that way, as far as now the perception of the US is worse than what it was for China. No, no, No, no, no, no, no, no. They just wanted to keep pushing the narrative. The image of the US is very bad because of our own policies, but to drag in China into this had nothing to do with the reality of what's going on. This, this, this is a simple, uh, that's a simple fact as it was. Uh, let me take a second question from American Citizen that was posted on the community. Question is Do you still say the IDF will not stay in Gaza? The IDF, the Israeli Defense Force. Uh, the answer is most likely they will stay because of what's going on right now between the US and Hamas. The US has negotiated with Hamas the release of an American, uh, uh, uh, his name is Aidan Alexander. It was just released today. Now, first of all, what the heck is this guy doing in Gaza to begin with? You know, are you fighting for the Americans or are you fighting for the Israelis? Which is which? You know, that's usually the norm, you ask. And second, it highlighted now the frustration of Netanyahu because he is very concerned that now the U.S., Donald Trump, is negotiating with Hamas, which means what? The Israeli hostages have not been released, and that's bad news for Netanyahu. So it's just a highlight to you that the— but as far as what Netanyahu is planning on doing in Gaza, as a matter of fact, there is now, uh, I, I've read, uh, some reports over the weekend that what Netanyahu is thinking of is that the idea of wanting to take over the Gaza and with it will be West Bank, which is wishful thinking. That ain't gonna happen. So that's so far where I see it going, that direction. So, all right, let me see from the chat box. I'm gonna see if there's a question from you guys because this session is about you. So, and then I wanted to answer your questions first, then I'll elaborate on, uh, on certain the question, uh, uh, on certain topics that's going on. Oh, oh, Matty, good to see you, Matty. Uh, salute to Dr. O and this well-informed chat from Maine, US. Good to have you here, man. Good to have you here. So, uh, Let me see again. If you're really— just type in Q so I know it's a question and I can read it quickly and answer that one. Uh, Timeline Dunkley, you said, Dr. O, I heard that Trump asked China for $1 trillion bailout, that bill for the American trade loss. I'm not aware of that one. The one thing that I am aware of, what I am aware of is that there are about $2.1 $1 trillion. That's usually what we used to get when other countries buy our debt. Those countries are not buying our debt anymore. There is a serious problem that is going on in America, not because of Trump came to power. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. This one has to go all the way back to 1995. And if you know the history of what was going on in 1995, that was when the negotiations regarding the budget here in the US fail. And what led to after that? 1997, specifically on October 1997, which was the Asia financial crisis. Because remember, for the US, the fiscal year starts in October. It's not December, it's October for the next year. And from that financial crisis, uh, that, that basically, that's what pushed Asia to start to think for a rainy day. Do you know? You can tell the way Asia is today, it's because of what happened back in 1995, and they learned the lesson and they buckled up. That means they put a strategy in place. This is why Mr. Trump did not understand when he went on this berserk policy of imposing tariffs on the rest of the world, but mainly China. Didn't understand that China has learned the hard way from what took place with the financial crisis of Asia, financial crisis. Then what comes after it is the GFC, the Global Financial Crisis. And if you know one thing about that, and I'm going to share it with you, there were a lot of capital that has left the US government. What do I mean by this? And this is a conversation for another day, guys, because that's a topic by itself. But nonetheless, I'm gonna provide you some information just for you to be aware of what's going on. There were trillions of dollars that have moved out of the US government. So of course nobody knows what it is. As a matter of fact, the, the, the global financial crisis which was triggered by the mortgage— you all remember, to those who are familiar with this, you know, that was, that was By design, by the way, just to, just to put things in perspective. So, and, and, and again, I'm not saying something that is, uh, classified or that is just on the top of my head. These are the facts if you know where to look for information, you know. And all this has to do with a much bigger picture, and the much bigger picture has to do with the BIS, the Bank of International Settlements. Now, if you know the history— once again, I will do this for you some other time because it is a lengthy conversation. There is a lot of moving parts to it. All I wanted to share with you right now is just some basic information for you to start to think outside the box as to what's going on. So the BIS, the Bank of International Settlements, is a central bank of central banks. It has about 63 to 64 member central banks in it, with the Bank of New York, the Central Bank of New York, as being a member of the board. And if there are two things you need to understand about the BIS is this. I, I know we're not dealing with finance here, guys. I'm just providing you information that will be of use to you to understand what is going on around the world from a financial perspective. That has been for the last few decades, and where are we headed? So here's the two things that you need to know about the BIS, the Bank of International Settlements. One, it has the sovereign immunity. What does it mean, sovereign immunity? That means that, uh, it has its own force It's like a standalone entity, okay? It is above the law. No entity around the world can bring it to court. You can't take the BIS to court because there is no entity that can do that, okay? That's one. So it's called sovereign immunity. So, uh, which, by the way, that gives you an idea of the likes of the Vatican of the likes of the Catholics for the last 2,000 years that they have not been paying taxes. You know, you put the two and two together and figure out. Second thing is that the BIS, the Bank of International Settlements, has the means and the possibility and the determination to move money secretly. And I'm going to give you a quick example. Let's say hypothetically, and this is just a hypothetical, You, you, the BIS, wanted to move $10 trillion out of the US government, uh, finances. You can do it, and you move it secretly, and you put it on some sort of a balance sheet because nobody has access to that stuff without anybody knowing what's going on. And this is why I'm talking about the big picture that you need to understand what's going on with the dynamics that's taking place around the world. When you see, when you hear these tariffs and so forth, that's just part of the much bigger picture. Once again, BIS, the Bank of International Settlement. There is a, there is a, if you ever get a chance to, uh, let me, let me get a picture for you here. Because I know the book. Okay, I'm gonna share picture with you. If you ever get a chance to read this book, you know, and again, it's just if you want to learn. It's all about learning. It's written by a Hungarian author. Uh, I can't pronounce you. Adam Lebor, that's, that's the name. Adam Lebor. So here is the picture, guys. It's called the book, it's called— and again, I'm not promoting stuff, it's for knowledge because you need to know. Uh, here is the book, it's called The Tower of Basel because Basel, that's where the headquarters of the BIS, the Bank of International Settlement. So, and again, it's— you're not gonna understand all this over— if you read the book, whatever, you have to understand the history. And to understand history, you have to go all the way back to 1913 when all this started to set the motion, till World War II when the settlement was done between the reparations between the Germans you know, after the defeat of the Nazis. And who was managing those reparations? The Americans. It was Dulles who was overseeing the transfer of the reparations of money. And this is where the Bank of England plays a role into all this. As I said, guys, that's another conversation, and I'm gonna do it for you because I gave you my word, uh, but I need you to understand at least the basics. As to where things are and why they are moving the way they are. So, uh, Matt Becky, you wrote, Dr. Oh, I think, or Doc, I think the narrative of a negative image for China was due to MSM narrative for the pandemic and at the same time, uh, non-challenged and non-strong Chinese soft power. You're absolutely correct. You're absolutely correct, Matt, because things have changed now. It's, it's, it's— and this is when, once again, and I've been following what's going on with China since early '90s, you know, like I always say, the mistake that I made is I didn't embark on learning the Chinese language when the Pentagon reached out to me to join the military. So this is how, you know, and again, I don't blame anybody, I blame myself. So, uh, so of course that negative image Had always, because you have to, you have to keep the narrative going. China is bad one. While at the same time, Chinese were working on developing their country. I was aware now of their recent surplus. They just had almost $856 or $870 billion. Don't quote me on this exactly. Let's say trillion dollar surplus. Do you know what they end up doing with that trillion dollars? Do you think they want to head and expand their military stuff? No, no, no, no, no, no. They reinvested into the infrastructure of the country because they also have learned the hard lesson from Trump's first term when he went ahead and surprisingly imposed the tariffs on the Chinese. Well, where China is today versus what it was 10 years ago, whatever that was, it's very different. And that's something I intend to address tomorrow with my friend Einar Tengen. But you're absolutely correct, Matt, is the idea of we wanted to maintain that negative image about China is because also we don't want the American people to see the truth and the reality about where China is. I was there. I went to the mainland. I went to Taiwan. I went to Hong Kong. Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shanghai, where I stayed. And I saw with my own eyes the developments. And again, you know, I've been around the world. I traveled around the world in all continents except for Down Under. I never made it to Australia. And I, and I can tell where the, the condition of a country is. It's like here, for my country here, if you only see the level of poverty in San Francisco, certain corners in New York City, in Chicago, in Detroit, in LA. And it gives you an idea where the country is headed. And this again is tied back to what I talked about earlier regarding the financial aspects, is because those who are interested in moving this money in and out and so forth have made that decision back in late '90s. They lost faith in the system. It's because the system is not working anymore. And here is where— what the US wants. Do you guys understand what the United States wants? The United States wants to maintain a unipolar system. But guess what? We don't want to be part of it. We just want to maintain it but we don't want to be part of it. In other words, we can operate outside the parameters of that unipolar system. That— because that's what we want. Because with the unipolar system, we have the control from the financial aspect. Now don't get me wrong, the multipolar system is going to be very complicated, and I'm not saying it wouldn't work. It will. It's just you have to understand the countries who are agreement capable. Another word, if the countries are capable of reaching agreements and for example, to see this in a multipolar order, I don't see it happening with the likes of India. That will undermine BRICS because if BRICS is undermined, that progress towards this multipolarity, it's not going to manifest or progresses. You guys see what I'm referring to? Think of it like a chain. If it's, it's interconnected, and this is where the problem that I foresee moving forward. So that, that's how, that's how I, uh, that's how I see it. Okay, uh, oh, Jack Robert, good to see you, Jack. Well, I haven't seen Jack for long. Jack's been an avid supporter for a long time, uh, and he didn't show up for a long time. Also, we had— he had some other things to deal with, uh, and, and, and it's always nice to see you, Jack. Good to see you as always. So, all right, let me see, uh, and again, I am gonna be, uh, okay, Jamie Dodger, what happened in the last Iranian talks? They are really very quiet. The talks took place, and as a matter of fact, of course, what do you expect the media is going to say, or both parties for that matter? Well, we are hoping, uh, the, the, the short white paper that I read, it says that they are moving in the right direction. But all this to me, just flowery speech, because they haven't get to the details yet, because it's a long road. And again, to me, it's a long road because Iranians have to move very, very methodically because you can't trust the Americans. Today they tell you this, tomorrow they'll turn on you. So they're not gonna, they're not gonna— the talks will progress, the talks will move forward, except that now you don't hear much about, well, the Americans were asking the Iranians for a complete halt of the uranium processing. Good luck with that. Iran's not going to do that. And as a matter of fact, as you all know, the Saudis now, they are the one who wanted to now have an, uh, uh, sort of, uh, access to the US nuclear technology. Uh, I will say you might want to think twice about that. That's just my opinion, knowing what I know. That, that's just the way, the way I see it. So, uh, let me take, uh, uh, so just a short answer is they are moving, but nothing of substance. That's the way I see it. Uh, Jack Roberts, let me take this question from you. You post on, on, uh, FM, Foreign Minister of Israel, going to Ethiopia. What will do that for the Houthis war or even the war in Somalia? Very, very interesting question. To those who have not seen, uh, my post on— this is where I post stuff in the community, guys. And again, because I want you to understand what this channel is all about, I want you to be armed with knowledge because that's where you're gonna have a leg up. Average Joe, Average Jane doesn't think in these terms. So, and this is where you need to understand. And when I asked the question, I did a survey. As a matter of fact, the question was, do you believe Israel will succeed in dragging Ethiopia into a confrontation with the Houthis? 16% of you said yes. 74% said no, and 11% said I don't know. And by the way, thank you guys for taking part in the surveys that I post for you. So, so yeah, I don't see, I don't see Ethiopia being dragged into a, a fight against the Houthis for one reason. First of all, Ethiopia is dealing with another issue regarding, uh, uh, Eritrea and Somalia and And second thing, Ethiopia understand the strength of the Houthis. So they're not gonna run a risk on confronting the Houthis. Houthis are, or Ansarullah that is, are fierce fighters. I mean, look at us. Basically, we have been defeated. And I remember, and again, I'm not bragging here, guys. I remember the moment we started on March 15th and I did a livestream and I said to you, mark my word, there are only two outcomes. Either we withdraw, we withdraw from the raids and so forth, or we're gonna enter into some negotiations behind closed doors with the Houthis. And that's exactly what happens. So when Donald Trump lied about what the Houthis are begging, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, Houthis do not beg. Those, those individuals do not bend. They will fight till the end. And that the thing is, we couldn't— despite the bombardments, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, not even military— they were still able to launch missiles at Israel. So, so Eritrea, to go back to your question, uh, Jack, Eritrea is going to have to think strategically about it. But also you have to understand what the Israelis have done to the Eritrean Jews. If you know the history, some of them didn't forget. So, so the bottom line is I don't see Eritrea being dragged into a fight with the Houthis because, you know, Israel of course wanted to see that because that will give them a breather. Because Israel now on the edge dealing with two things now. As I said, the surprise negotiations between the US and Hamas, that's on one end. And second, they don't know when the next missile is going to land that will be launched from the Houthis. They have no idea. Did you guys see the— I don't know if I still have it. Did you guys see the picture of the beach at Tel Aviv that, uh, that was deserted the moment the sirens went on because the Houthis launched a missile. Yeah, I don't have it. I thought I did, but I don't have it anymore. So this is where I, I don't see the Eritrean getting involved into all this. So, uh, Rafael, good to see you as always, man. Question: Trump is thinking about stopping in Turkey if Putin will be in Turkey also. What say you? I think these two will close the deal. Yeah, I, I am keeping an eye on that, whether even, uh, uh, uh, the Russian president will want to sit on the same negotiating table with, with the comedian Z. Optics of it is not good. And hypothetically, should this move forward It is my belief that it will be maybe Lavrov, maybe someone else, but the Russian president himself sitting with the— because if he does sit, if he does attend the, this so-called negotiating, uh, uh, with the Zelensky, that means he gives legitimacy to a comedian. And Putin is smart enough to know. Second thing, by asking For Zelensky, comedian Z, to say, well, we are ready, we are ready to sit down with the Russians, that means they have not studied the Russian proposal in detail. That's what it tells me about Ukrainian side. So of course, to Mr., to, uh, Mr. Trump is going to look at it from the optics. Why? Because he wants to save his face on two fronts. One, about backing down on the tariffs against the Chinese, and second is stopping the raids on the Houthis because he couldn't defeat them. So it will basically be a political win should this happen. I don't foresee him doing that, but the possibility is there. So, but the one thing that I am certain of is that the Russians will not give back the four provinces, the Luhansk, Donetsk, and Zaporizhzhia, and I forgot the fourth one. They're not gonna give that back. That's a fait accompli. But again, Trump will have to save his face one way or another. So I'm gonna keep an eye open on this and see., what might happen after that one. So, uh, let me see next question from you guys if there is one. Oh, Amanda, great question. Great, great question. Uh, as a matter of fact, uh, let me— what was I gonna think of? I was thinking of something. I drew a blank on it. Oh yeah, is the picture. The picture of the Shahbaz Sharif, you know, as corrupted as it gets, that he declared victory. You know, it's easier said than done, one. Second is the optics of it. Remember, it was the rush who will declare victory first, and the Pakistanis beat the Indian into that. Itself. But there's a lot to unpack onto, onto this one, uh, and I'm going to address it from a military aspect, then from a geopolitical point. From the military, the downing of the Indian fighter jets using the Chinese weapons highlight to you the superiority of the Chinese versus those of India. And by the way, The plane, the fighter just that went down, it was a Rafale, which is from France. That's one. So even though India has more fighter jets, has more air force, Pakistan has more strategic approach to all this. Second thing is that Pakistan deployed the MF-15, I believe. Those are the drone chasers from China. In addition to using, I believe, the J-10 fighter jets. So that highlights to you the advantages that it's not in size, but rather in a strategy. That's one. Second thing from geopolitical aspects of it is that it looked bad on India that wanted to start something and realize might not be in a position to continue. Despite its size, you know, don't let the size fool you. That's the way I always look at it. Don't let the size fool you, because strategically, Pakistan is far ahead, strategically speaking, than the Indians. Of course, for India, and to go back to your question, Amanda, who will be benefiting from this? Well, they are, first of all, the Prime Minister himself, Modi. You know, like I always say, and I have nothing against Modi. I need you guys, especially for, uh, the viewers that in India that sometimes watch, watch this channel and kind of get on high horse as far as I don't like Modi, I don't like India. I disagree with you. Modi and Indian people are other human beings like you and I. What I do not like is the manipulation that Modi is using while keeping Indian citizens at the bottom. And that will be the benefit— the beneficiary of this conflict is Prime Minister Modi because of the upcoming elections. Remember what Modi have always advocated for: Hinduism at the expense of the minorities inside India. I mean, you look at just— and I did post this for you guys, uh, on the community when Facebook went ahead and shut down or blocked an Islamic page in India. And I asked the question, on whose orders? And it became clear, you know, you're smart enough to read between the lines. And because that's what they did. Yeah, that's what Facebook, Facebook and the likes, social media, they are nothing but the backdoor of governments. It used to be the US government back then when they just started. I mean, think about Google, how it started, and who sold the Google Map to Google. Does anybody know? That's a question for you. Who sold Google Map, the, the satellite images, to Google? Does anybody know? Let me see in the chat box. Okay, let me see here quickly. Uh, it's not showing up here yet. Uh-oh, Marlo, you got it! Marlo, you got it! That's what it was. That's what it was. It was in return for something else, and that something else was access the backdoor. Facebook is no different. And that's why I said when Facebook went ahead and blocked the Islamic page, which by the way, this page had about 6.7 million followers, is because the Modi's government does not want the Muslim minority to know or exchange ideas or converse about whatever. So it highlights to you as to who the benefits. The second beneficiary, in my opinion, is the US, and of course, in conjunction with Britain. Because if you think about the intelligence agencies, you know, we always— and again, as one who works in Washington, very familiar with how these things work. You know, in the days when you think about what took place in Rawalpindi, for example, in Pakistan, or what took place on a Peshawar, or what took place on a border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And all this was in conjunction with what we were doing with the intelligence services of both the Indian intelligence services and the Pakistani intelligence services. So for us, the bottom line is if we maintain tensions on a border of China— you have to understand the long game here. It's not about just India and Pakistan, it's about ensuring turmoil on China's borders. Because remember that map I shared with you guys last time? I think I kept it here, right here. Remember, this is the area Axis Chen That's on Chinese borders right there. Look at all this. If you create tensions on these borders here, it's enough because China will have to be concerned about this. So that was the whole idea of why— this is JD Vance when he went over there. So you have to understand, that's part of what the beneficiaries are. So it's more than just one entity or one individual. So, uh, Army with Harmony, thank you so much for your super— your support for the gifted membership here. So kind of you. I, I moved— I moved some questions to here because so I will lose track of this. Mr. White, question: has Russia done enough to secure peace settlement victory over Ukraine? What is the American European East perspective on peace settlement? Well, interesting question, because again, the devil is in details. And this is why when I read yesterday or the day before that Zelensky is saying, well, I'm willing to sit down with Putin, negotiate, that means he didn't read, he didn't study carefully the Russian proposal. And the Russian proposal was straightforward. First of all, they all— the four provinces, and of course, uh, uh, what's the, the name of the place? I drew a blank now because I got so many information moving around, so my brain, uh, anyway, the four locations that Russia took over, provinces that is, that, that, that's a done deal. It's not coming back. Second thing, what, what, uh, Russian proposed— what the Russian proposed— I have to hold on a second, guys. Damn. Go, go, come here, come here. My apologies, guys, I had to answer that one. So, uh, as I said, the second condition from the Russians was that, uh, uh, Ukraine will never be considered for NATO membership. That, that's a foregone conclusion. So for for Zelensky to say, I'm willing to sit down with the Russians, you know, did you think really believe in what he's saying? Or do you believe in what he's saying? I don't think so. I don't think so. Uh, the Europeans, just to go back to that part of the European, the European are saying, no, we are not going to agree till the Russians agree to unconditional ceasefire. I will say good luck for that. Good luck to the Europeans with them. Europeans also are running into a problem because the disintegration that's taking place within Europe. You look at, for example, it just happened this morning, uh, there is a city in Poland called Kraków, okay? The Polish government, and this is, uh, was announced by none other than foreign minister, Tusk, that they shut down the Russian consulate in Kraków. So makes you just wonder what's wrong with Poland. I even got a word that some people in Poland now have had enough with their governments and with the European Union. They were burning the European Union flag. Of course it's not going to be reported. And I have trusted sources there seeing it with their own eyes. And this leads me to ask one key fundamental question: will it make more sense for the European Union to disintegrate and allow each country to regain its own sovereignty? And this is why you're seeing the European pushing into this direction. And I am sure you guys heard what happened also over the weekend in Budapest with the Ukrainian diplomats who happen to be spies and were caught and deported the same day. Perfect. So, so this is how I see that peace settlement. Uh, if, if they don't agree to the Russian terms, then it will be no, the conflict will be frozen, and Russia has the upper hand. In either way. That's just how it's gonna go. So, uh, next question from, uh, uh, uh, Pichiko Ron: What is the current state of relations between China and Bangladesh following the regime change operations there? Of course, with the Sheikh Hasina, and of course, which was backed by India. This is why India is not willing to let the three countries manage their affairs. Which three countries I'm referring to? I'm referring to Bangladesh, I'm referring to Bhutan, and I am referring to Nepal. You know, India is doing whatever it can to prevent those countries from ever reaching out to China for either infrastructure, whatever, even though it will make more sense economically for them to do so. So I do know what China had. China had already conversation, diplomatic one, with Bhutan, and there might be possibility of some conversation. I am gonna be looking for interviewing someone from that country used to work in the government. I'm working on it, and hopefully he will be able to join us here and, and I'll ask those kind of key questions. But so far, Bhutan is thinking long term. As far as Nepal and in— and Bangladesh, they are controlled by India because of, for example, I'll give you a quick example, the electricity. In the case of Bangladesh, I think they get electricity from India. So, so, but so far I am not aware of any direct conversations between Bangladesh and China regarding this aspect. But of course, make more sense for China to keep an eye open on what's going on over in that part of the world. So that's my answer to that one. So let me see another question here. There's one here. Uh, Francis Tango, you know, is it really that the entrance of CIA protecting the dollar? Well, of course there will always be a way for the agency to ensure the dominance of the dollar. And this again, it goes back to, uh, this, uh, and again, I am going to do this for you guys because you need to know, and it will shock you to find— to know about this because it's not reported. It's stuff like that doesn't get reported. Uh, as I said, you have to go back to the 1995 budget, uh, uh, negotiations here in the US that failed. And of course, what came after that, 1997, then 1998, the GFC, and of course 9/11. All right, all this, what do they have in common? Is the financial aspects of it. Because what happened— and again, from 1997 forward, there were a lot of capitals that had moved, money that is funding, moved from the US. It gone. So which means moved what? That means nobody knows where it is. And as a matter of fact, it's on a record there. Go, go guys, check it out. If you remember, after 9/11 What did Donald Rumsfeld— you all remember who he was, he was the, it was the Secretary of Defense— what did he say in one of his briefings? He's, and I'm paraphrasing here, he said we have about $2.4 trillion missing, missing. There are certain sources that have disclosed that there were about $21 trillion that have moved out of the financial system in the US government, and nobody knows what it is. And this is again where you have to understand the concerns. At least I have that, I've been wondering about it with this digital stuff, the digital money that controls by the government. You know what it means? They can shut you off anytime they want to. I mean, we all know what happened with the pandemic. That's an example. So, and all it is the purpose. And, and the other question is, how you gonna maintain this? How are you gonna do that with the digital? What would you need? You need to have a system by which you have an absolute control. How would you do that? Satellites, energy. Transactions. This is why Donald Rumsfeld, when he made that statement after 9/11 about the $4.2 trillion missing, or $2.4, somewhere around that, it was more than that. And this is why, if you notice, to those— I was in the thick of it, you know, and again It— I'll admit it, I didn't see it at that time. Do I beat myself over it? No, I don't. What you gonna end up doing? You just have to forgive yourself and move on. That's to me the way I did it was when the decision was made for me, 2013, I'm out. Can't. I start to know more. I didn't want to be part of that. In clear conscious, you know, it wasn't about just money. Yes, we're making good money and so forth. No, no, no, because in life is not about just that. Because here's the thing, after 9/11, what was one of the things where the funding has been shifted to? The security state, war on terrorism. Funding was unlimited, unrestricted. It was for a reason, because you have to move money from one location to another if you want to ensure complete control. And to do that, and if you want to move into that direction of the digital aspect, you have to have a mechanism by which you ensure that control that is done through satellites. And the satellite part has nothing to do just with the control of that. It has to do also with the BIS. The Bank of International Settlements' ability to move money secretly anywhere in the world, whatever you want, because you control that aspect. And this is, again, you have to understand the big picture into this. So when Francis Tango, when you mention about the agency being part into ensuring the, the protection of the dollar, you're absolutely correct. Absolutely correct. Okay, let me see another question here. Oh, oh, Kara Kolak, you're right. I drew a blank on that. Crimea. You're absolutely correct. Thank you for that. Thank you for that. Thank you, Matt. He also said Crimea. Yeah, and a lot, a lot of people, a lot of us here in the West do not understand the history of Crimea. Crimea has always been Russia. Ukraine has always been Russia. So, and, uh, Kirk's— that's the other one, Multitown. Thank you guys, truly, truly appreciate you for that. And, uh, and, and this is why you have to understand if— and again, my, my keyword to you guys, if you understand the financial aspects, it will make perfect sense for you as to why you are seeing the changes that's taking place around the world, especially for us here Americans, which— that is correct, Athenuel, the chickens were out because I left the door open because I had to go and close the door for them. So that is where the challenge that I'm concerned. I'm concerned as to what lies ahead. So, uh, and, and for me, it's kind of, you know, I'm getting into almost 60 years old, and, you know, I'm, I'm— as long as I take good care of my health, I always fall back to that point. Your health is your key asset. This is why there is the, there is the, uh, the, uh, what you call the financial wealth, and there is the living Well, living well consists of ensuring your health, taking good care of your health, because what good money will do you if you couldn't move? That, that just had, uh, have, you know, it's just the way I see it. So, uh, Sanktan, I saw this question. Dr. O, know what's coming for the price of eggs in the US? Yeah. Yeah, it was a fraud, simple as that. You know, there were no shortages. They would know— they basically— what it was, it was just for companies to make a profit. And this is once again, you have to understand the big, big picture. Now you are, meaning you consumer, bombarded with so many companies competing for you, for your attention. Do you want to know what your preference, your favorite this, that, and that. This is part of that big picture of control. That's what— so the egg issue turns out to be nothing. So now price is going down slightly, but still it was no— it was just hypes about it. And I don't know what about that because I have eggs at home, so I don't, I don't worry about that one. Uh, let me see. Francis Tango for chat box: can you still buy eggs in US? I don't know. I, I don't, I don't because I don't— I, I have them here. So, uh, that is a good observation, Don. It's a very, very good observation. Who will buy American goods if Americans have no jobs? You know, you raised an interesting point, and this one also has to do with the idea of the supply chain. And I intend to address this one with my friend Dr. Warwick Powell. He knows an inside out regarding supply chain. He's well versed into understanding these dynamics. And I remember my conversation with him last time, understanding that when this movement of the supply chain, which what Asia is doing— this is why I've argued for years and years and years that the future is Asia, not Western Europe, because the conversation has already started back then regarding the supply chain. I mean, look now where they are. So you're absolutely correct. If there are no jobs here, you know, what will Americans buy? Because we don't produce anything, everything is imported. We produce weapons, but will people buy weapons to eat? I don't think so. So you're absolutely correct in, in this aspect. I mean, it makes perfect sense. And this is one miscalculation. Either Donald Trump— and I am sure The guy doesn't understand. He just follow blindly whoever give him an advice. And I know two individuals have benefits in going the wrong direction. The Treasury Secretary, that's it. And also the economic advisor, Navarro. And those are Chinese hawks. So, but Donald Trump is, you know, in terms of, you know, he Wait until August. August is coming. And why am I saying August? Because Americans will find out. We're already starting to see the shelves right here. I go to places and I see have less and less than what it used to be. Why August? Because that's when you start getting the merchandise for the holidays. Well, now it's going to be pricey. American families are very squeezed to the end. But again, you have to go back in history to understand the policies that was implemented by the central banks, the BIS, and the central banks around the country here and in Europe. And you move forward with the, the, the GFC, the Global Financial Crisis. Then you move forward with the digitized financial system. All this will have to make sense to you. What is the end game? What is the objective? So you're absolutely correct. And, and by the way, uh, uh, uh, the whole Global South is going to move the other direction with Asia, not— the US is done for. It's a harsh reality. Sadly, it's my country, but I have to state the facts. It's because we can't be pretending that everything is okay. I happen to be in the know, in understanding. I worry about an average citizen, an average one who works 40, 50 hours a week to just ensure there are food at home and squeeze to the end with massive amount of taxes. And so forth. I mean, you think about those entities, they don't pay taxes. I'll give you guys a quick example here which will shock you. You all know about Harvard University, right? But there is more than that. There is something called Harvard Corporation. And again, it's not classified information, it's not. It's just you have to understand who's behind the Harvard Corporation. And this Harvard Corporation has an endowment that is over $50 billion. And from that endowment, it gives 4% of that to the university. Why is this, you may ask? Well, because it's— because the endowment is tax-free. So it is cheaper for the Harvard Corporation to give 4% of its revenues to the university and not pay taxes. It falls back with the line of the Vatican. You know, the Vatican doesn't pay taxes. The, the whole Catholic entities don't pay taxes. The churches here don't pay taxes. You know, who's end up being squeezed is the average citizen. And out of that 4%, guys, and that endowment, it has also an investment entity within that with some return of about, to my knowledge, between 34 to 39%, which makes it perfect platform to invest. And who's gonna control or that endowment. This is why the fight between Donald Trump and Harvard took a legal pattern. And that's why Donald Trump mentioned, oh, Harvard will have to pay taxes because we give them also millions out of tax dollars for research. Heck, it's a private entity, why will I give them money? And that leads me to the much bigger question Here in the US, as an educator, do I want to invest money for, let's say, sending my son to, to, or, or my daughter to Harvard to study? With all that investment, with that investments will be useless. It, it doesn't make any sense because institutions in America don't have anything to teach anymore. We don't know about the world. We don't understand. And once again, guys, I need you to understand the big picture. Look at the big picture. That is what's going to help you. That is what's going to help you be aware. And of course, once you become aware, you gain an understanding. Let me see, uh I am so sorry, I don't speak this language, the Chinese here. So if anybody can translate, that would be great. Let me see another question here. Oh, oh, Jean, good to see you, Jean, and thank you very much for being here. So question, China built a $750 million bridge to North Korea and installed factories there a few years ago. Are these factories working? Not to my knowledge, yeah, not to my knowledge. So what I'm aware of is the bridge that I got on personally, and that bridge was from mainland to Macau. Very, very, very piece of the art regarding infrastructure. So because there is a lot, of course, as you know, the sanctions on North Korea in any products whatsoever. You know, actually, China is the lifeline for North Korea. Russia to a degree, but mainly is China. So I am not aware of those factories, the capacity, the output capacity, or the capacity output for those factories. So I don't want to just assume because it won't be right of me to just do so. Thank you for your question and good to see you as always. Uh, Alice Talokin, the Pentagon Files. That just reminded me of the budget for— did you know, guys, that now the Trump administration and his Secretary of Defense wants to push the budget to over a trillion dollars? It just shows you. So it just shows you where things are headed and, and, uh It's unfortunate. Okay, question, Orwellian: what's your opinion on the, of the US-China meeting in Switzerland? I'm going to answer it briefly because I finally, I have the same question for my, my friend Ayana Tengen tomorrow, so, and I'm going to ask him. But, uh, to me it's just, uh Actually believe it or not, there is my belief that the Chinese were kind enough to give an opportunity for Donald Trump to save face but Donald Trump lied at the way he articulated about oh we have now the Chinese negotiating— wait, wait, wait! No no no no no doesn't work that way so because if it— Trump is exposed now. And that's usually the problem with, with when you lose your credibility, it's gonna be very hard to reclaim that. So, so the negotiations so far, which were in so-called neutral country— Switzerland is no neutral, by the way. I, I, uh, after what I found out, uh, the role of Switzerland in certain, uh, dynamics— and again, I'm not gonna get into it right now, uh, I, I kind of I used to think about Switzerland being neutral, but not anymore anyway, uh, because Switzerland went ahead and sanctioned Russia too. So why will the heck would a neutral country enter into this? And that's no different than what Singapore did anyway. Uh, what was I going to say? I, I, I lost my Oh yeah, the meeting that now Trump's gonna drop, uh, uh, by 30%, 10% on one aspect and 20% on the other. The Chinese reciprocated by dropping 10%. So I think now the tariffs moves from 145 to 150, somewhere around that. All I know is that 30%, but, but this doesn't— it's, it's Chinese understand that the ball is in US court. If they want to have direct negotiations, they will have to lift the sanctions, the tariffs in their entirety. Because China is moving forward with the US or without the US. As a matter of fact, the rest of the world is moving forward whether the US is in or not. It's almost, I feel comfortable saying, are we looking at a new globalized world? Without the US? Some might agree with me. So the way I see it, it's, you know, it's just the beginning. There could be more talks. I don't know yet. But again, Chinese now understand, and they always knew how the Americans operate, and I am sure they have a strategy in place for that. So let me see another question here. I'll, I'll do— we are at the top of the hour. I'll do 2 more questions here, guys, then I'll sign off. Uh, Ripples 01, can you invite Catherine? Uh, sure, I will reach out. I mean, I don't know if she will want to come on this channel or not, but I'll reach out to her. That would be great. I mean, given her position— for those who do not know, she served as the acting, the assistant to Secretary of HUD. HUD is the Housing Development, and HUD at that time, they were moving a lot of money with, with the Treasury and so forth. So, so she's in the know. She's very, very savvy, very informative lady. So, so I'll reach out to her. And just extend an invitation. Uh, stop censorship. Dr. O, you look 50. I was a decade ago. So now, no, it just matter— on a serious note, it's just a matter of health, guys. It's just a matter of health, you know. I prioritize that. It's because, first of all, I don't want to depend on anybody, you know. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm I'm very, very independent. I don't like to depend on people. And second, I've always think in terms of health. In case of a worst scenario, if things go wrong, if you are physically able to move, then you will remove yourself from the dangerous areas or the risky areas or whatever, versus if you are sick or unhealthy or whatever. So, so that's always been my priorities, and I intend to keep it that way. And I watch what I eat, and there's a lot, a lot of, a lot of stuff involved. So thank you for that. Uh, uh, okay, let me see one more here, then, uh, Well, actually, actually, Seymour, things are changing. China did dump part of the, the, the, the treasuries they hold. To my knowledge, the last time they dropped about $600 million, something like that, or $700 million. I don't remember the exact number, which is an indication, but also they blocked the transfer of any rare earth special rare earth minerals that the US needs. As a matter of fact, I did read, and that I know for a fact, I did read the statement by the head of the Strategic Command we have in the, in the Pentagon, beside the Central Command, uh, and the Northern Command, so forth. Pardon me, we have what we call Strategic Command, and this one deals with the really the key strategic aspect, like ensuring access to rare earth minerals. And this is why you are noticing now what Donald Trump is saying about, for example, Burkina Faso. All of a sudden, since when the United States have cared about Burkina Faso or Africa as a whole? No, it's because it was always the, the, the division of the wealth among the Western colonialism, you know, France, Germany, Germany back then, but France, England, the US to a degree, and even, even Germany and Netherlands and so forth. But, and this is why now you're seeing that change coming to Africa, and the West is not okay with it. So because the presence of the rare earth minerals and so forth. So, so yeah, to Chinese, they're looking at it like We can decide for ourselves we're gonna block because we did block, we did block, for example, ASML, which provides the equipments for the very, very small chip, the nano stuff. And, and, and guess what China end up doing? They just developed something. I just read it yesterday. Huawei developed now the almost like the, the, the replacement for ASML. And of course, why a company like ASML will go that route? Because the US asked them to. They shot themselves in the foot. And now China, because we forced China now to be self-reliant and they move forward. And I don't know if any of you know this or not, and please, please share with the community if you know, whether China is able now to produce the 2-nanometer chips. I'm aware of they were working on 3 nano. I don't know about 2 because that's one company, the, the one in Taiwan produces the 2 nanometers. So this is where I see, yeah, the Chinese, Chinese have moved on. It just matter for us now to decide how we want to deal with China. Simple as that. Either cooperate, or we're gonna be butting heads with the Chinese. But the Chinese not gonna care. They're gonna move forward. They're gonna move forward. So that's the way I see it. Uh, Uh, oh, Francis Tango. Dr. O, when I hear you speak, is there still an American dream? Oh, I see what you mean. Oh, basically what Francis Tango referring to is we always used to hear about the American dream. It used to be. I'll, I'll say it used to be, you know. I know nobody is denying that, you know. It could be again. But again, our system is so corrupted because there is no respect for the law anymore. When I say no respect for the law, I am referring at the highest level. We overlook now the Constitution. We don't care. When I say we, I'm referring to the politicians because there is no accountability. And that's usually your sign to degradation of a nation. Once again, use history as your guide and go back to the Roman time. And how did, by the way, the Roman, uh, manage their people being, being distracted? By throwing the games in the Colosseum. What was that all about? You don't want— you want them to look over here while you doing whatever here. It's no different than what we're doing. And look how it end up for the Roman Empire, because the Roman Empire didn't disintegrated because of a foreign invasion or a foreign war. It disintegrated from within because of the social corrup— the corruption within its ranks, the social breakdown. It was never— they were never working for, for the, their constituents. The, those who were, uh, elected to represent the constituents stopped working for the people. We are witness— we have been witnessing this. I've been saying this since 1993 became evident to me. We go in, in reverse. So this is why you start having now people thinking in terms of option B, and option B might not be here in the US, it might be elsewhere. So that's the way I see it. So to me, there is no— no, uh, American dream is done for. Till you fix the, the problem has to be fixed. Okay, let me see if there's, uh, all right. Okay, I'm just looking, guys, see if there is one more question here. And, and once again, uh, truly appreciate you being here. And, and I've figured, uh, I will be doing this once a while. It's not going to be on a regular basis, but once a while I'll be doing this because there, there is a lot of, lot of, lot of information that I somehow I feel you guys not getting everything, because I can only cover so much. And, and this, uh, uh, will be one way of, of, uh, uh, Ripples 01, you said Dr. O posted two questions on your post. I didn't see them there. Let me, let me go back here because I have the, I have the window open here, and let me see Uh, okay, let me see here. I'm, I'm opening, uh, comments. Yeah, your question is not here, Rampo01, and I'm going to share the screen with you. So, because I need you to see, you see for yourself here. So I don't know if you can, you can read this one here. So, so that's the only ones I have. I have about 4, last one being Morris 4083, and it's, uh, it's, uh, it's not in English here. So the last one was American citizen. Can pick up the top 3 questions. Yeah, I think, I think this, uh, yeah, I didn't see whether they were removed. I, I don't know. I, I can't speculate here because I didn't see them. So, uh, and I think this is how we learn, guys. That's how we learn about things. Next time we do this, you know, prepare your question ahead of time, you know, post them, and I can pull them out of the of the, of the community tab. So, so this is how that will work then. Uh, Alex Talokin, uh, which region will most likely to escalate war tensions? Uh, in my opinion, West Asia always remain a volatile region. You know, I, I wrote about it, I worked on there, I did a lot of research extensively on it. And so if always throughout its history, there will always be, but I'm also not discounting, I am not discounting the South China Sea area also. And I wouldn't even rule out Africa, especially the Sahel region, could, could see some tensions there as well. But if I am to do the priority, the West Asia will be the one to focus on. That's the one I see. Where the most tension is going to be. All right guys, I am going to sign off here. And, uh, and once again, we, we're going to do this again. I am going to, uh, uh, uh, I'll do Carlos Ventura. I saw one here quickly. Question: was it going to be the Duterte effect on Philippines, this midterm elections on May 12th? Yeah, there's the Philippines, and I am waiting Till see what the results, and I'm gonna reach out to Professor Anna Malindog and have her share some of her insights. Philippines is another country that is— I was hoping when Marcos took over, was hoping he's gonna lead the Philippines into the right direction. You know, I misjudged that one. But again, at the beginning, he showed the sign. That's what led me to my conclusion conclusion, but in the middle of the road end up being forced to flip. And that's to me where I start to realize, you know, did I jump quickly to the conclusion here? Did I rush into this? And, and once I start to see at the moment he signed that agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense, then I say, that's it, that's it, there is no developments for Philippines. He's going the wrong direction under the US orders. All right guys, I thank you for being here. I'm very, very grateful that you were able to join us here. Remember to join me tomorrow, uh, at 2100, uh, for my conversation with Einar Tengen. We're gonna be having a fascinating conversation. I have some very, very specific questions, uh, for Einar, so we'll be discuss them tomorrow. So, uh, this is the link to if you want to support my upcoming Asia trip, that would be great. I would greatly appreciate that one. And here is the, uh, for the channel, uh, I want to say quickly thank you to Paul for buying me coffee, uh, for in support of the channel here. So thank you very much, Paul. I appreciate you guys. All right guys, I hope you all enjoyed this and we look forward to doing it Again, as always, remember, geopolitics impact your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, guys. Bye-bye.