Tony Blinken’s Stern Warning to China| More Hubris!

Hi everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Very excited to be with you on this April 29th. Hope you, you are off to a good week and you enjoyed the weekend and so forth. And by the way guys, I did enjoy yesterday our community conversation, so thanks to all of those who joined me yesterday. It was, it was nice, it was nice to talk about just everything else but geopolitics. I haven't had a chance to share with you my chickens, pictures of the chickens. So anyway, so now we are back to serious matters this week. I have a lot of stuff for you guys this week because there's a lot of developments, including what I'm going to be talking about today, the topic. And by the way, I did mention, uh, like, for example, Hamad Siti mentioned that I can talk about both topics I made a decision not to. I am not going to be talking on two topics today. I'm only going to talk about what the one— the reason being, if I do that, then I'll cut short the— in the analysis that I'm supposed to share with you for you to understand the ramification of whatever the issue is. So that said, I decided to do one topic today and I do another one tomorrow. Since Elizabeth is out of town, we won't be doing the live stream on the big channel. So that said, I'm gonna go ahead and do the second topic here tomorrow, which will be about the, the meeting between the Russian and the Chinese defense ministers. It's a big deal, guys. It's not reported in detail here. I have some information to put it in perspective for you. So, uh, before I'll do all this, let me say hi quickly to, uh, some of you guys here. Can Paklo, good to see you as always. Jackson Wong, Uh, uh, uh, Fongi 401, good to see you. Sam Yap, good to see you. Farhad, as always. Alan Seen, as always, from Ontario, Canada. Coach Ohoi, uh, Marcian Dorcier from Chicago. Wong KC, good to see you. Ram Bataray, good to see you, uh, uh, from Ohio. Good to see you, man. Hamed City, here you are. Chanel, as always. Amiral Uh, uh, Asirah from Malaysia, Mike Long, Yon Haw Kor, good to see you. Rampal Singh 01, good to see you. Hong Wan, uh, Master 2000, Master K 2000, uh, Alice Lokin, good to see you. And Matt Becky, as always, Taiwan still as always here. All right guys, great, great to be with you. I got a lot to cover, and by the way make sure to stay till the end of this livestream. I have something very important to share with you as to why my country is no longer the greatest nation on Earth. Yeah, it pains me to say it, but the truth, truth matters, as you all know. So make sure you stick to the end and I'm share that with you soon. All right, what I'm going to be talking about today, as I mentioned before I forget, Tomorrow I will be talking about the defense ministers of Russia and China meeting that just took place in Astana, Kazakhstan. So we— I have enough information about it. Uh, today's topic, as I said, I'm gonna do a follow-up on Tony Blinken. Should we say failed mission? Should we say, uh, uh, uh, I mean, what— how else would we categorize it? If you only see, guys, who met him at the airport Who fare him goodbye at the airport? No Chinese official went with him to the airport to say bye. No, the official Chinese that met him was on a lower ranking. Not to put the guy down, it's just the hierarchy of the structure within the governments. He was on a lower end, which is a signal in itself. No red carpet, nothing. But I am not here going to be talking about this. I'm going to talk about what's substantive of substance, because you need to understand what Blinken said the moment he left the Chinese territory. This is what I'm going to be focused on and put it in a big picture for you. So, so here are some key questions we need to ask about and, and, and, and put in perspective right here. The first one is, what did Tony achieve? Tony Blinken, that is. What did he achieve in his, uh, visit to China? Second question: is it a complete failure or just posturing? Because all that bravado, the hypes before he left, the statement from the State Department— and I remember I shared this with you guys— we're gonna— I'm gonna go to China and I'm gonna talk to the Chinese about stopping their support for the Russians, about opioids, about peace in the Middle East, and all that hypes. Okay, third question, which I asked before, I'm finding myself asking again because I'm gonna share an image with you, uh, of President Xi. So the question is, why did President Xi grant audience to Tony Blinken? Because again, and, and I'm wondering, you know, was it— what was China's geopolitical or strategic angle by doing so? You could have let him just meet with Mr. Wang Yi and he ends there. And I am still wondering what prompted the Chinese government or in this case President Xi, to go ahead and grant that audience, uh, to Tony Blinken. And here, before I'll do this one here, uh, uh, I'm gonna share one quick, uh, video before I forget, because I tend— I have a lot of stuff here, and I put things in order because I need to, uh, uh, share it with you. Let me see this one here. Okay, uh, not this one, not this one. Okay, not this one. Yeah, it's right here. So I'm gonna share this screen with you briefly here, guys, because I want you to listen to what President Xi said. Of course, for those who speak Chinese. Um, so here is the— uh, let me remove this one. Uh, here's the screen. Share screen. There we go. So Please tell me if you guys can hear what President Zelensky said. Oh, I need to plug in my computer. There we go. All right, let me play it again. Which was very, by the way, embarrassing for Tony to let— good afternoon— stayed waiting like that. All right, I'm gonna stop right here, guys. I hope you guys heard what President Xi said. So, uh, yeah, it was embarrassing. You know, you don't let a head of state waiting like this. You know, come early, whatever. The optics of it, it was so bad to begin with. And that is where I personally had to question even the whole success of— it was no success. It was a failure to begin with. So, uh, let me do briefly some headlines for you, and I'm gonna delve deeper into the topic here because I want you to know certain— again, the reason I do headlines for you guys is the things that are not reported in detail right here in the West, mainly in my country here. So I read them in a foreign language, I translate them, and especially the ones in Arabic because I can read the language and I'm going to share it with you right here. Here's the first one, guys. What are you looking at? This is the group in Yemen that shows a video of downing a US drone. This is the, uh, US MQ-9, uh, uh, drone that was down, uh, on Friday actually, or Saturday. Yeah, Saturday. And how did he down that one? They downed it with a surface-to-air missile. So, so, and that's— and this because the drone made it to the north part of Yemen, it's called Saada, and that's where the headquarters of the, of the H group, that is. So, so they shot it down, wasn't reported right here. Here's the second one. This one here is an old picture, this goes back to the, uh, during this, during the, uh the '60s, '70s in the US. But it's not about the picture in itself, it's about what someone has called— you know, this is, this is a historian in the US by the name Brian Vandermark. You know, he called now on the use of US Armed Forces by US authorities, like we did before in the '60s to explain the best to deal with the current student protest in American universities against the Israel aggression on the Gaza Strip. So yeah, it's shocking. You know, there is now a historian calling for the use of, what happened to the freedom of speech? What happened to the freedom of demonstrations? What happened to the expressions? And this is why I want you guys to stick to the end of this live stream because I have something important to share with you about why, again, my country is no longer the greatest nation on Earth. So, and when you see someone advocating for this— and by the way, this call was published on Washington Post by, uh, the article that this historian Brian Vandermark wrote— in other words, deploying the military. Now, how do you think we will react if we see this in another country? You know, let's say China, let's say Russia, let's say whatever country comes to your mind, Egypt, Jordan, you name it, you know, we will have a different conversation. And this is where I quite don't get it. And here is my third one and the last one here, uh, briefly here. This one has to do with a US military saying— now listen carefully— China plans to invade Taiwan in 2027. Didn't we hear a few years ago that it's going to be in 2025? So, and this just shows you right there, you know. Well, of course the Chinese forces are on a permanent readiness, but has nothing to do with Taiwan. It has to do with the dynamics that's going on on the global stage. You know, uh, US officials are overlapping the information here. Nobody's denying that the Chinese military is building up. Yeah, because it's building up for the changes that lies ahead, and they need to be prepared. So, and this is, by the way, came from the head of the US Indo-Pacific or Asia-Pacific Command. His name is Admiral John Aquilino, who told reporters on Tuesday that China was working on occupying Taiwan by 2027. It's just the, the, the hyperbole, as always. We all know where this is going. But this is where I want you to understand, whatever is happening is not happening in a vacuum. Think about the meeting between the two defense ministers of China and Russia, okay? Think about North Korea's trip to Iran, okay? Think about Tony Blinken's failed the trip to China and the statements he issued after he left when he returned to Washington. And that's the importance of why I want you guys to, uh, have an understanding of what this stuff is all about, because that puts you in a different, uh, uh, uh, level of understanding the dynamics of the global geopolitical landscape and how you can interpret them accurately. So All right, let's get in into our analysis here because there's a lot to cover. And by the way, the way I'm going to do this, first of all, I'm going to react to an article was written by none other than this individual. Can you tell me who this person is? I'm going to share a picture with you. You guys should know. Can anybody please type that in in the chat box if you know who that is? I'm gonna wait to see, uh, what shows up here. All right, let me see, uh, if you guys— oh, you got it! Slipper Cell, you got it! Gold Gordon Chung, uh, tamputra, you guys got it, you guys got it right away. Well, it wrote an article, and by the way, if— and I'm gonna put the link for you, uh, to know about the background of, uh, Gordon Chang. And, and again, we're not judging here. I don't judge because it's not right thing to do. What I do is put the facts on the table for my viewers, and I let my viewers decide for themselves. Now, I cannot shy away. And by the way, I challenged his assertion in one of my books, I think, when I wrote about Iran and talked about the, uh, or Russia, that is the, uh, the relationship between, uh, uh, both Russia and China, uh, when I, I devoted both section in both the— in the Russian book and in the China— in, in the Iran book. I— both of them. So I put a section there about the China-Russia relations. So, and in it I challenged what Gordon said back then when he published his book in 2001 when he said that the Chinese economy is gonna collapse. Here is what he wrote, and I, and I, uh, put it in quote here. Published the book in 2001 in which he argued, and I put this in quote, that the Chinese Communist Party, CCP, which by the way instead of putting CPC, and I'm gonna tell you the difference for you to know why in the West we use CCP but normally is CPC. A lot of people do not know the difference. Uh, uh, the— his statement continued— was the root cause of many of China's problems and would cause the country to collapse by 2011. When 2011 was almost over, Chang admitted that his prediction was wrong, but he said he was off by only a year. Asserting in a Foreign Policy article, because he wrote another article in Foreign Policy saying that the CCP would fall in 2012. Consequently, uh, it was one of the worst predictions of the year. So, and this is one thing I need you to understand, uh, as to why I made decision to— I read the article to react to it. Again, we're not judging here, we put in the facts where they belong, because I can personally can't let something just go like this. I'll challenge that, but I have my own assessments that I will share with you. So let me first, uh, provide a brief, uh, distinctions between the difference why people do not get it. As far— when I say people, I'm referring to the West here— why they don't get the difference between CCP and CPC, okay? There are differences in the usage, of course, of the, uh, the Chinese and the Chinas of China. That's what a lot of people do not understand here in the West. So the ruling party, okay, of the PRC called itself the Communist Party of China. That's CPC, because it would like the Chinese people and the rest of the world to believe and understand that even though it's a Communist Party, it belongs to China first. In other words, to the people. So as to the Chinese Communist Party, this will reverse. And this is why the Western media calls it as the Chinese Communist Party. Even Mr. Chung himself Who knows better? Because his dad was a Chinese, his mom was an American, I believe. That's the— or vice versa, I couldn't remember. Uh, to me, he would know better. So, so when you hear some Westerners mentioning CCP, it's because they don't understand, because that's the narrative that's been given here. That's like what we're hearing right now about what this admiral saying, that China is going to invade Taiwan in 2027. Or by 2027. The same argument. So, so, so what I'm gonna do in this is I'm gonna react to his article because there are some things there that I was just shaking my head. I mean, come on, where is the pragmatism? Where is the rationality for you to come up with such thing? So idiocy at the highest level. So, well, let's start first with the idea of, uh, actually, you know, uh that, uh, uh, here is what the opinion was stated as soon as Tony Blinken landed back in, in, in Washington. All right, here is the thing. As, as Tony Blinken wrapped up his, uh, his, uh, 3-day trip, you know, despite the hopeful— okay, because it was no lack of success anyway. You know, and, and now this is according to Gordon blaming China to a degree because he said, uh, uh, uh, uh, Gordon said that Beijing has signaled that talks will be difficult. Beijing never signaled that. You know why? You know why? It's because if Beijing would have signaled that, first of all, Tony Blinken wasn't invited. That's one. Second, you are saying one thing prior to landing in China. Once you had your meeting, the photo op with President Xi, all of a sudden you reverted into your conversation. That's what the statement said. But here is what's important for you guys to understand, which again, I know Mr. Chan, uh, Gordon mentioned it, but wasn't reported much. And I think here is the reason why he mentioned that. He wanted to highlight the negative aspects of it. It's not in a good light, it's in a negative way. What am I talking about here? I am talking about prior to Tony's arrival, earlier in the week, what did the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy did? He launched a JL-2 ICBM missile. I have pictures of them, I looked into that. All right, Lisa, it's their country, they can launch whatever. Of course, you and I know it's a message as clear as daylight. And why not? Because how do you— how, how, how do you think Chinese feel when they find out that the US is about to, uh, uh, place medium-range missiles on the Philippines. So what makes Gordon think that when Chinese do something like this is provocative, but when the US does it is right? You know, I, I can't— I just, I just don't see the logic of it, rationally speaking. So what the Chinese end up doing, they went ahead and did a launch to put, as we say, uh, uh, to those who speak French, mettre les points sur les i, put the dots on the letter. That's a subtle diplomatic message to the US. Why? It's because those JL-2 ICBMs will launch from a nuclear power submarine. So, and again, it's just the idea of it. And, and by the way, we give, uh, credit of the picture to, uh, uh, Shin, uh, Chi Hu. I'm sorry, I can't pronounce it. Uh, if, um, you know, the person understand that, that's what I give credit to. Of course, this launch marks the 75th anniversary of the celebration of, of the Army, or the Navy, that is. But beside all this, the message that China was sending is a warning to the US. Straightforward. So if Mr. Gordon saying that China said that, uh, they are not willing to talk, well, it's nonsense. It's nonsense because they could have said to Tony, hey, don't come in. It's their country, they can decide. And this is why the lunch was 2 days prior to Blinken touch— touching down in Shanghai for his trip to Beijing as well. So, but all this aside, we're gonna have to get into one of the key aspects of it. And the key aspect is that according to, uh, Gordon Chang, again, he's saying that Beijing does not— and I quote here— Beijing does not appear to be in any mood to have meaningful conversation with Washington, even America's top diplomat. Well, hold on a second, hold on a second, man. What are you saying all of a sudden? Because here is what I want you to understand: all this is reversed. It's a tactic when it comes down to— when writing about foreign policy, whatever, you reverse the order of events, you reverse the order of the explanations. Who is not, uh, who is not— who does not have a good faith in negotiations? Is it the US or is it China? You know, I'll ask you guys, and please just put the answer on the chat box. I know what the answer is, but I still would like to have your input. But you can see the tactics that what Gordon did is to reverse the role by saying, and I quote again, Beijing does not appear to be in any mood to have meaningful conversation with Washington, even top American diplomats. Well, come on, man. Come on, man. You know, Gordon goes on and say the Chinese regime is exceedingly full of itself. Xi Jinping for years has been promoting the notion that the East is rising, the West is declining, end of quote. Well, he's right on. It's the truth. But if you see how— and I'm gonna put the link for you guys, make sure to read it because it's very important to see how they flip. He flipped. And when I say he, it's Gordon, but there is the push from behind the scenes by the administration. Gordon doesn't do it on his own. This is what one does to climb the ladder of power per se. You start to manipulate the masses. So an average person— this is not going to fool you guys, you've been around long enough to know now how to read— but when you read something like that, it says, for years Xi Jinping has been promoting the notion that the East is rising and the West is declining. What is the truth? The, the West is declining. Look around. I don't know why he's saying something that is trying to flip it. That just doesn't make sense. So, but what makes me agitated, because it's a lie and I usually don't hold back against liars, whatever. So what agitated me was because I see the manipulation when he added, meaning Gordon, saying about President Xi that He, meaning President Xi, has been propagating the line, meaning East is rising, West is declining. Uh, he has been propagating the line that he's already in charge of the world, end of quote. President Xi never said he was in charge of the world. President Xi has no interest in being in charge of the world. And again, the purpose for Gordon to do this is to manipulate. I'd be happy to bring Gordon on this show. As a matter of fact, I'm gonna extend an invitation, bring him on here, and we'll have an open and honest conversation. Would you guys want me to do so? Please, please just answer in the chat box yes or no. Would you like me to reach out to Gordon Chang and bring him over to the show here? Just put yes or no so I know, and I'll, I'll follow through with that. So Now, what bothers, uh, uh, uh, uh, Gordon and what bothered the whole US administration, what bothered Tony Blinken for issuing the statements after he left, that now he issued a stern warning to China that he's going to go sanctioning China. All this is about what President Xi mentioned way back. And you know what he said? President Xi said, and I quote, change is coming that hasn't happened in 100 years. I don't know if you guys remember, I mentioned this couple times. It's there. And President Xi did— did— he did say this, but not for the context, or within the context that Tony Blinken is talking about and Bolton is writing about. So, and, and I am not starting to see the manipulation of how Certain words are being used to justify the end. For example, when Gordon wrote this, he added a part that it says in quote, 'And we are driving this change together.' Well, it depends how he meant it. Of course China and Russia are driving the world towards a different path, a multipolar one. So why did Gordon Chang didn't mention that if he's to put the words like that, he could have at least add that we are driving this change together towards a multipolar world because that's where we are going. That's where China and Russia aiming at. So it is just, uh, so of course Mr. Gordon admits that the shortcomings of the Biden administration policies that have reinforced now the perception of the Chinese strength. Well, wait a minute, what failed policies? It wasn't the failed policies of the US that made China strong. It's their perseverance, it's their determination, it's their work. What do you think Chinese were doing in the last 35, 40 years while we were sleeping? The Chinese were working. And I am not speaking on behalf of China's government here. I I don't do that, like the idiot person who said that I work for the Chinese government, which is pathetic. It's the idea that the work, they moved their society, the Chinese, that from an agricultural one into a technological advanced. So when Chung is talking about, you know, the perception that the US failed policies is what drive the— is what drove the Chinese, uh, uh, uh, empowerment and No, they put in the work, they put in the time, they put in the efforts. Stop pretending, Gordon. Stop making nonsense. So, and here is what again got under my skin because of what Gordon's saying. It's because America's repeated attempt to promote dialogue Feed Benjy already inflated sense of self-importance. I mean, come on, how idiotic one can get? To average Joe, average Jane here in the US, the moment they read this, they consume it. You know, I ain't gonna pass by me because I can see the manipulation in the wording. It's the reverse. What's the reality is? Here is the fact, and I'm gonna tell you the fact that I think— it's not I think, I believe, I strongly believe that Gordon and the likes, Tony and, and the administration, all of the politicians in Washington, they don't want to admit the fact and the reality. And you know what it is? Is that what the US is unable to solve, either domestic or global affairs, without cooperation with China. That's the way I see it. I mean, you think about the Ukraine conflict. Why did we oppose China's initiative to resolve the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? We're the one who prevented it. All of a sudden we are reversing the wording. Oh, because China doesn't want to cooperate. It's a lie, it's a lie, and it's been exposed. This is one thing I'm going to talk towards at the end of why my country is no longer the greatest nation on Earth. It's the truth, is the reality. So all this gestures by the US, they are not in good faith because, like I said before, it's already preconceived notion here in Washington prior to any, any official going to China. They going with that notion that, oh, we are here, the Chinese are here. They still operating under the old mindset. They are not seeing eye to eye with China. They are not sitting on an equal footing. This is where the problem is. I bet you this, China will be willing to reciprocate if there is a good faith gesture from the US, but China is not seeing this. And this is why, again, I keep going back to the Question: why did President Xi grant audience for Tony? And again, I, I don't have specific answer for that, and I don't want just be guessing. That, that just, uh, that just— I don't know, I'm still, I'm still wondering. Now, there is one reality that the Chinese see And it has nothing to do just with China. Anyone with a basic understanding of global affairs, of geopolitics, of international relations will be able to see this. Doesn't matter you're from here or there, it's as clear. It just— I found it again very specific how the article— Gordon in this case, because he's the author of the article— you bear the responsibility for what you write. When I wrote my books, I bear full responsibility for what I wrote. But for him to be saying, oh, it's because China is seeing how the Western democracies are going down, China is seeing how the West is divided over Ukraine— the West has been divided. It doesn't take genius to see this. Ask any citizen in Europe. Ask any citizen right here in the US. Tell them— one day I was thinking about just going out in, in the street and, and do live, live streaming for questioning people, average American. Hey man, what do you think of this ongoing war between US and Ukraine? But the fact, the fact that it's now been highlighted, that is the key as to why sort of, uh, uh, uh, uh, the Europeans, uh, sort of thinking differently about China. The division exists because they start to realize where things are headed. They don't want to be left behind. So, and that is the reason why, because here is what, uh, Tony Blinken said in one of his statements in when he was in Italy, uh, recently, he said, and I quote, we see China— listen to this carefully, I mean, it's just, uh, I'm, uh, because to me it's, uh, what's the word? I can, I, I can't have an exact word for— I get not agitated, but it's the manipulation. I just see the manipulation. Of what Tony is trying to say. Of course, he's the mouthpiece for whomever pushing the policy from Washington. And by the way, guys, it's not the Biden administration. US government has nothing to do with all this. It's the hidden hand behind. So what surprised me the most is the statements. And he said, Tony Blinken said, and I quote, we see China sharing machine tools, semiconductors other dual-use items that have helped Russia rebuild the defense industrial base that, that sanctions and export controls had done so much to degrade, Blinken said when he was in Italy. Well, my counterargument to that: then what are we doing when we send weapons to Ukraine, when we send weapons to Israel? What are we doing? Did we hear the Chinese or any other country came over and said, hey, US, you need to stop sending weapons to Israel? China didn't never said that. I don't think so China would ever say that. What China said is that time for the recognition of the Palestinian state as an entity. So of course we kind of not— we're not going to like that, but the fact that Secretary of State Tony Blinken, which I don't perceive as a good diplomat, is not qualified for the position. I, I, uh, so when you read something like this, we see China sharing, uh, it just doesn't make sense. Does not make sense. So, uh, and he's saying what, again, surprising to me, was like saying that China can have it both ways. Well, who said that China wants to have it both way. China goes after its own strategic interest, which any country will do. You look at in Europe, I give you the example of Hungary, for example, and Turkey, two NATO members, but they are not, they are not in line with what NATO is doing. It's because they are realizing that the failure and the exposure of the failed policies of NATO, let alone its equipment Did you guys know that NATO has reached out to Russia to ask the Russians please to stop not sharing the pictures of the weapons from NATO that's been destroyed? Yeah, NATO, there is communication behind closed doors, that's always been the case. But NATO is asking Russia to not put— I saw the pictures of the Abram tanks I saw the pictures of the Leopard, the tanks in Germany. I saw now the Patriot system, everything. It was one train that I saw that the Russians targeted with missiles, destroyed. So, and this is where I see some writers, or I don't even know what to call them, here in the US, they cherry-picking the information. You, you got somebody like— his name is Yates, Steve Yates. He's the chair of the America First Policy Institute, you know. And that's when he said to German Chancellor, he said, and I quote, following the Chancellor's visit, uh, it's— he said, and I quote, it's gravely undermined any notion Blinken hopes to sell that the West will stand unified in imposing sanctions should China continue to aid the Russian military, uh, assault on Ukraine. End of quote. Well, wait a minute, that's manipulation. It's because Germany just went to China asking for economic incentives, especially after China dumped The auto deal, which shut down the auto markets. So when, when they write something like this, they are manipulating the masses, because a lot of people are not trained to read between the lines here. So, and this is where that, that, uh, uh, uh, uh, difference is that exists. So here's the thing, Blinken said Uh, because based on what I read, what did Tony say? He said we're gonna sanction, we're gonna sanction China now. Well, guess what the administration just did? They undermined him. So because why? The US just today said that there are no plan on rolling out sanctions on China's banks in in the near term, because it was some, some conversation about sanctioning some banks in China. Also, this makes you realize why China is dumping US dollar, one, why China is not buying bonds. This is why Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State, Labor Secretary, what's her name, or Gina, whatever her last name is, they're all going to, to China because they want to— they want China to buy more US bonds. Why will China do that? Just doesn't make sense. And it gives you an idea right there. Here is the administration undermining the guy himself. So, so, and, uh, it's because US cannot afford to sanction China. Simple as that. Are they going to write about it? No, they won't, because they know if China retaliates— and China will retaliate Why? Because China is in a different position today than it was 30 years ago. Hey, this is not a— you need to be a genius to figure it's simple. The era where— when China was being quiet— being quiet doesn't mean it was weak, it doesn't mean intimidated, it does— it just— that's a reflection of how the culture is. If you notice, China doesn't, uh, inflate what it's doing on all that stuff. No, they doing it quietly. Smart strategy, that is. So, so when you read what Gordon saying that, oh, now the Biden is warning, uh, Beijing about providing little aid to Russia, uh, this is the quote, since almost the beginning of the conflict Uh, that, that just because, because the counterargument to that is, what are we doing to both Ukraine and Israel? We're providing the same thing. So it is wrong for China to help Russia, but it is right for us to do so? That's to me double standard. I don't know what else would you call it. So, and this is where, uh, I see, uh, uh sort of, uh, Gordon, uh, specifically choose not to use the right words to convey the right message. Because when you manipulate the writing, uh, those with some deep understanding, we know the manipulation and said no, because you changed the wording on this particular content You trying to divert it from this path to this path, and it doesn't work that way. So once again, when, uh, Gordon says, and I quote, that's not realistic, the administration official and other Americans have not wanted to acknowledge that China and Russia are acting together to destabilize the international system, you know, end of quote. No, no, no, no, I'm gonna have to push back against this narrative because it defies logic. Because neither Beijing nor Moscow have an interest in destabilizing the global order. What they are after is creating a level playing field where everybody has a share of whatever that might be. That is what it is. So And yet what Gordon focused on, you know, again, part of that manipulation is the idea that you'll remember when, uh, President Xi and President Putin met, uh, the last time, uh, and I remember, uh, uh, in Moscow, I think that's what it was, that President Xi, uh, declare, uh, not President Xi, I take this back, a joint statement that there is, and I put this in quote, no limit to their partnership. That was actually— that was way before, uh, the Ukraine conflict. The point that there is no limit to the partnership. Well, wait a minute, so if Gordon thinking about it in terms of destabilizing the world, how come he's not addressing the economic aspects that many countries in the Global South want to move into that direction? How come he's not mentioning about the fast, uh, speed by which countries are de-dollarizing, get rid of the dollar? How come he's not talking about what the— so the guy, uh, what's his name, Trump, that's running for president now, he's already mentioned he has intentions to sanction countries that will not be using a dollar. How come he's not talking about this one? So if the countries Russia and China wants to destabilize the the global order. No, that's not true. It's because the world is moving into multipolar. Yes, it will be headed by those two countries because they are major powers, you know. And this is where my conversation tomorrow with you about the military aspect, and I put it into context with the North Korea and Iran, and I see something on the horizon. I'll share it with you tomorrow, so make sure join me tomorrow. Then it becomes to me, when I push back against something, I will just ask simple question: who are we to dictate to other countries whom they can have, uh, friendship with, whom they can, uh, trade with, whom they can do whatever they want to do? Because those countries are not telling the US why you need to stop sending weapons to Israel or Ukraine. And this is where I see that double standard. So, so when Blinken go into China And as soon as he leaves, issue the statement that, what, we're gonna— I issue the stern warning to China. Come on, man, come on. That, that's manipulation. This playing with words ain't gonna cut it. And that's a reflection of, uh, uh, the amateurish diplomats we have in Washington. There are no well-qualified politicians, ones who can understand truly how to deal with foreign countries. It's not about coming with this, uh, macho mentality, you know, I am this, and no, no, no, no, no, that era is gone. That era is gone. Let me, let me share, uh, some, some, some, uh, uh, pictures with you that I need you to see, because I need you to see this kind of stuff, guys. Very, very important. And to put all this in perspective for you, all right, this one I got it through my Twitter. And the idea is, uh, let me share this. And I did find the logical on it. And again, I'm not promoting this or that because I don't do that kind of stuff, you know that. But what's right, it's what's right. I'm I don't know if you guys can see this clearly, but anyway, it says it is Antony Blinken's requests in Beijing. One, do not do business with Russia. By the way, I get this through, uh, DayWW, uh, on my Twitter account. So, uh, you can follow me on Twitter. Usually I post comments on all this stuff. So, uh, one, do not do business with Russia. Two, Agreed to sell TikTok to the US, which by the way, China has no interest and they won't. They rather ban it than sell it. And I intend— it's not I think, it's a foregone conclusion. China is not going to do that. They will not sell it. 3, promise not to change the current situation in the Taiwan Strait. 4, recognizing that sovereignty over Renee Reef belongs to the Philippines. You can see where this narrative is going. 5, continue to purchase US bonds. 6, reduce overcapacity. 7, stop exporting, uh, exporting fentanyl raw material to Mexico. 8, stop oil trade with Iran. And 9, release US violators in China. You know what China's, uh, response was? Is the F-word. Yeah, because that's, that's what it will be. Get lost. Straightforward. There is another one I want to share with you, uh, this one, uh This one I got it from, uh, Juliano. I follow, uh, Juliano on, uh, on Twitter here, and I want to show you the picture of Tony Blinken's arrival and departure. Take a look. All right. Right there, that's an official, but on a low end in the Chinese, on the left, meeting him at the airport. That's the US Ambassador, uh, uh, uh, what's his name, uh, Nicholas, Nicholas Burns, uh, which by the way, by the way, I had some talks with some people inside Uh, he's very isolated in China. Usually that's not a good position to be in when you are an ambassador. Uh, third one I want to share, this one. Now this one is hilarious, literally. It's really exposed that we have nothing to show for as far as substance when it comes down to foreign policy. That's, to me, degrading, and, and it's, it's exposing our failure. I don't shy away from saying this. Yeah, yeah, check this out, guys, and take a listen. Let me share it. And again, I get all this through my, my tweet feed, or my X. It's called X, as you know. All right, can you hear? Just please give me a thumbs up if you can hear. Once again, you got the idea. So, because that's the narrative that's coming soon, and, and, and here is, here is where the problem is. When statements that's not based on facts is issued by a high-ranking official in the government, it shows you the failure how proportionate, how extensive that failure is. So it just highlights, uh, there is another statement here, uh, from— again, I got it from very, very— it's from Twitter, uh, or X, that is, uh, very, very important to to— and I'll share the screen, but I read it to you guys because you can't, you can't see that one clear. It says Secretary of State, Secretary of State for US-Israel, say China is providing tools to Russia to kill innocent women and children. He has even heard of Gaza where all the dead women and children are bombed, shelled, and shot with US weapons. And US approval. So, and again, the list is long, on and on and on and on. So this is to me where I just want to highlight this to you as far as to understand that we have no, uh, no— what's the word— no substance when it comes down to foreign policy. There are no qualified individuals to even held this kind of position of power that can reflect, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, really how we think about engaging other foreign nations. You know, at this time of this live stream, Elon Musk is in China. You know, you know why? Because he's realizing that now Tesla shares dropped. People are dropping Tesla. As a matter of fact, he fired his marketing team. So, but also realize that the, uh, uh, BYD cars are making a stride. Now, I did read from someone who lives in that part of the world, not China but Asia, that is, he said purchased a car from BYD on a lower end and it did not perform well. So we state the fact as they are. Well, sometimes cheap doesn't mean it's good. Maybe this person, if it would have purchased the higher end of the electric car, might end up having a different, uh, uh, uh, experience. And I'm just sharing this out there because I did read the comments on this, and I said, yeah, of course we'll share this just to highlight. But to me, it's the timing of it that Elon Musk is over there because he's saying where things are headed with the BYD. So instead of for the US to think in terms of cooperation That will be a win-win for both countries, you know. And this is why this idea of sanctioning China is ludicrous, you know, unless we start seeing items that cost, let's say, $5, $10 will end up costing $100. Already American families are stretched to the limit. There are some issues, serious economic issues in this country. And we pretend like— because we're living beyond our means. This, this debt that is accumulating, it can't sustain itself. There is no way. And how much China can buy of our US bonds? And why will even China buy our bonds to begin with? You badmouth in a system, you stabbing the country in the back, and you begging for money. It just doesn't work that way. But again, we don't have qualified individuals who can articulate the issues to the Chinese or to the whatever country that is. I'm giving the example of China because China matters on the global stage, simple as that. Europeans are thinking about it. Europeans are stuck under the thumb of the US, and this is why the guy who, who, who criticized Olaf Scholz for going. We don't want the Europeans to start to think for themselves economically. And China will think twice about entering into any joint ventures with European because you can trust them, meaning the Europeans. I mean, I look at where tanks are headed right now in my country. With demonstrations and what the law enforcement is doing. You know, those are barbarics. Shame on you, law enforcement. If you— I respect you, but shame on you. You know you are following unlawful order. Those people, including professors, are demonstrating for something they believe in. You handcuff them and, and throw them on the ground Shame. But again, who are we hiring to be cops? Some might not even have a high school degree. What do you expect? And that in itself gives me an idea of where the country is headed. And this is what I wanted to share with you, my last thing before I'll take a question or two, you know. I say and I ask why my country is losing its status on the world stage. As an American, it is my country, and I ask, is my country still the greatest nation on Earth? And my answer is no, a strong no, a capital letter no. And for those who say, well, we have freedom, Yeah, get lost with their freedom. We have freedom far better than other countries. Look what's taking place right now in the US. I'll tell them, think again. I'll tell them, look around. And to those who say, how will I support my evidence why my country is no longer the greatest nation on Earth? I'm gonna share it with you. As a faculty, I used to take a look at what's called PISA. PISA is Program for International Student Assessments. That's where you classify the countries in a ranking. Okay, get this, guys. The US, my country, ranked 30th in math around the world, 19th in science, 64th in life expectancy, and literacy, we are about 125th among other countries. We only lead in two main categories, only two. One is the number of prisons, those in prison, the, the ones that's been in jail. Imprisoned citizens, that is. And number 2 is the defense spending, where we spend between, like, more than 20 or 30 countries. And by the way, about 22 or 23 countries of those are allies of the US. America used to be— my country used to be a great nation. Why? Because we used to believe in something. We know we stood for something that was called right. We differentiate between right and wrong. We don't do that anymore. And because we used to act rationally, at least, and justly, unlike what we are witnessing right now taking place in Gaza, you know, in, in any place on Earth. Where is the justice? Why are we silent? Why are we contributing to that, you know? To the point that for us to say we have acted laws in support of that end, and all of a sudden we taking a bow face. That is why my country is no longer the greatest on Earth. We used to fight poverty, like waging war on poverty, not on poor people. We saw what China did Elevating half a billion people from poverty, we couldn't do. We used to work on that right after the '50s, in the '60s, and we certainly never ever, at least back then, never identified ourselves with whom we voted for. And this is why I always say the system is controlled by two main parties. On both ends. There is nothing in between. And yet one thing we are not willing to accept— and I challenge whomever here in the US that's saying, oh, our country is still great— I challenge that. Because the first thing is to, uh, the first thing to solve into any problem is to acknowledge and admit there is one. We do have a problem. With our system. We do have a problem with our foreign policy. We do have a problem with sanctioning countries. It pains me to say this, but I can't shy away from it: my country is no longer the greatest nation on Earth. And I know I'll be labeled as one who does not like America and all that. You have no idea what I've done for this country. But when it comes down to something right, you can't be cherry-picking. Can't. Because at what point Americans will wake up. What does it have to happen for Americans to wake up? And again, there are peaceful means if we are to say we live in so-called democracy. Well, where is it when you're seeing now the cops, those law enforcement, whatever, you know, tackling faculties from universities because they are demonstrating for something they believe in? You know what would have happened if we saw the images of that which we saw in some other countries? All of a sudden, right away, you can't, you can't be saying one thing and doing another. That's hypocrisy of the highest order. There are now calls in Washington about sanctioning the ICJ, International Criminal Court, yeah, of Justice. Why? Because he's going to issue an order of arrest. They need to include the UK, Canada, Germany, France, the US, and Australia, the leaders that is. So it just, uh, it's just the way it is. And like I always say, truth matters. If you remember me for one thing You remember me for speaking truth. That's the way it is. All right, let me take a question or two from you guys. Uh, by the way, I need to say thank you to a new member on the Buy Me Coffee. Uh, and there is no names there except that some letters, uh, QMag. So thank you very much for becoming, uh, uh, uh, a member of Buy Me a Coffee. I truly appreciate it. I, I, I say thanks to also to all those who buys me coffee on a regular basis. That includes, uh, uh, Casey Kwan. Let me get to it here, right, guys, because I need the, uh, Drag88, TC Kwan, uh, Peng Yu, uh, Chilling from Australia, I believe. On. So thank you all for your continued support. And to those who, uh, sent me, uh, or supported the channel through PayPal, here is the link should you decide to do that. It's your decision after all. So, uh, remember, tomorrow I am going to do another live, but I'm going to tackle the meeting between, uh— and there is a third topic I'm thinking about, uh, I might do it in a recorded video for you. And, and we just go from there. So, all right, let me see a question or two here. Yeah, it's, it's sad to see where, where US is headed. Uh, question for Hamad Sidi: should China walk away from CDBT and NPT to destabilize the world for US? Yeah, yes, he could, but it would not bode well for the Chinese because the optics matters. That means what? That's like, think of it this way, Hamed, and to all of you guys, think of it this way. When you have a bully, okay, what do you usually do? You, you are not going to behave the same way the bully is. You push back once, and once the dust settles, that's it. That's the same way I look at it. If China would have go that route, that's going to be saying, oh, see, not even China couldn't honor its commitments. But instead, let— the world is watching. The world is watching how we can hold our end of the bargain regarding our commitments. You know, you look at it, for example, with the GCPOA, we pulled out of that unilaterally. You look at it with the international standards regarding human rights. We are not, you know, we kind of cherry-picking. So, so my answer will be no, it will not be a smart thing. Because here's the thing, between Russia and China, when NPT— in, uh, NFL— not NFL, uh, NFT— the, uh, medium range— I forgot the acronym— medium range missiles, whatever— the US withdrew from it first and Russia didn't. Even though we were blaming the Russians for violating that. But even with that, Russia didn't, uh, but Russia said we are not going to renew it because they can't trust now anymore. That's the same thing I'll say. All right, let me see one more, another question. Uh, what's this one here? Sir, please investigate the now President Marcos oppression in freedom of speech in Philip— I'm not aware of what— I'm aware of what he's doing, but not, uh, I might have to reach out to some people there, uh, to ask those people I know and trust. So, so I'll, I'll, I'll check it out. But I remember I have a lot on my list, a lot of topics that I need to, uh, uh Uh, by the way guys, I am looking for someone who can help me out with, uh, moderating the, the chat. If anybody, uh, has the time to do it, uh, if you can reach out and we can coordinate offline. And, and, uh, because yesterday it was someone, uh, wasn't, you know, and I, I like to protect our community from those kind of individuals. So, uh, uh, it, it just— if you, if you, if you can think about it, uh, Dr. O, are you going to Kazan BRICS Summit? No, I can't afford that kind of stuff. No, no, if I'm invited, I'll go, but I can't afford that kind of stuff. So, and, and for now, I'm still focusing on my Asia trip. Because that's what I need to do. Uh, but oh, that will be, that will be, that will be a lifetime experience to go to BRICS to attend, and I'll ask questions, you know. I'll, uh, I'll ask questions. All right, let me see. Uh, Harry, uh, with, uh, we all know our politics is controlled by money, dark money, that is. And dark money is coming from some, uh, outsiders, believe it or not. I attended one private, uh, event, uh, uh, and the person is a lawyer who talked about this. And, and I still have even some pictures of the slides. I know, very, very— I kind of was aware of some when I was working in DC. But, uh, so your question, we all know about our politics is controlled by money, mainly by one group of of rich people. Yeah. What can we do about policemen who arrested that female professor violently for standing by? Yeah, that's to me, uh, you know, that, you know, it was in Ohio, I believe, right? Uh, one in Ohio. They even now— hey guys, they even now, uh, the administration allow snipers on the roof of the university. Snipers. I mean, where is— you know, that's to me the end is here. Those are telltale signs. That's why I said last time, mark my word, 5 or 10 years from now, US will look different. This is why people— I don't know, the one thing that at least those people were protesting peacefully. And peaceful demonstrations is protected under the Constitution. So this is what I'm wondering. Those police, are they aware of the Constitution? Are they following orders blindly? So that's a— it's a challenging one. It's a challenging one. So I don't know. And then very hard to see that is taking place right now. In our country. We saying we the beacon of democracy. Where is democracy into this? You know, I'm not saying, yeah, of course you have to have law enforcement if people start breaking property, whatever, which is to me, that's, that's an, that's, it's no-brainer. But if they are demonstrating peacefully against injustice, so All right, Matt Becky, uh, do you see administration, uh, putting William Burns in the position of Secretary of State and moving Blinken to some other position for the optics of it? No, it won't. First of all, because the way it happens, uh, anytime the new administration comes in, that depends the new whomever president is, if he wants to nominate someone else, uh, to the positions, like in the case of CIA director. Yeah, whomever is going to be president next. So, uh, I mean, I'm— there is no pre— there's no qualified president in America, I tell you, because Trump himself is just flipped and now taking position on supporting Israel and supporting, uh, uh, uh, the pandemic, whatever that was, and, and all that. You know, it can't— you know, Trump is for Trump. So, uh No, I don't see that happening. Uh, uh, William Burns, it's— no, no, he was the former ambassador to the US, of US to Russia. No, and it— to me, he's not into that. You know, we don't have qualified people. I don't see that happening. All right, let me see one last question here. And thank you all for being here, guys. Truly appreciate you being here. Uh, let me see. I'm gonna scroll all the way up. Uh, okay, Muse. Yeah. David, it's called freedom of selective speech. Francis Tango, indeed, too much corruption to the point— I mean, you will think we learn from history, you know. You all know, you all know, guys, how the Roman Empire disintegrated. You all know how the French, uh, uh, uh, end up, uh, with the French Revolution. So you all know how it is, and, and a similar, similar outcome that awaits my country here. So fight back. Correction, Dr. Oualaalou, the US was never a great nation. They were and are the great bullies on Earth. Well, at least I'm talking after the, the independence, and there, there were some periods of time where the US moved at least in the right direction. There is no such thing as a perfect democracy. There is no such thing as a perfect government. So I see your point, and, and it just— I'm talking about a brief period here. So at least when government will be advocating for what's right, so in comparison to what we are witnessing, uh, today. So, but, but I see your point, I see your point. Okay, one more question. I don't see any here, um, and I'm gonna have to sign off here, guys. Okay, I shall see you guys next time. I look forward to tomorrow. I'm gonna go prepare. Actually, I have the information for tomorrow, and I'll see you tomorrow. As always, remember, geopolitics impact your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, bye-bye.