What! A Proxy War with China? Conversation w/Garland Nixon & Brian Berlitic | Geopolitical Trends

does during his inaugural address when he said that, well, my second presidency, it will be judged by the, the wars we never go into. Now this is where we are realizing what Trump is doing around right now in the Middle East, or West Asia that is, and shifting now the resources into that part of the world in South, South China Sea, because the aim is about fermenting tensions regarding the Taiwan Strait. That's the overall objective.

You know, what's interesting about this is for the horrors that we saw with the Biden administration, I mean, literally, I recall the Biden administration sending nuclear-armed submarines to South Korea for the first time in decades. And when Tony Blinken was asked about the use of, first use of nuclear weapons, he said, We will use nuclear weapons to address our, our interests. I mean, he was very reckless. Pete Hegseth says this in the Philippines. He blamed the previous Biden administration for insufficient actions that emboldened aggressors like China over the years. He said the US military was being rebuilt under President Donald Trump, Japan was reestablishing its warrior ethos in the region. So for all of the horrors that we saw under the Biden administration, Pete Hegseth goes there and says, ah, they were a bunch of softies, they don't know what the— they don't even know the meaning of the word war, but we're coming, you know, we're coming strong. Your thoughts on Hegseth's, uh, comments and if they mean anything?

Uh, well, I mean, I, I— again, picking Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense should have been another warning sign for all the Trump supporters. Uh, first of all, he's not qualified for the job. He, he's, uh, an empty vessel when it comes to the, the intellectual power required for the job. But then, does it require any intellectual power? Because really all you do is read the policy papers put in front of you, uh, or this— the speeches they're transformed into at a podium. So that's what Pete Hegseth is good for, and that's, that's what he does. And he has no, uh, moral hesitation at all to repeat all of this. And the more the merrier when it comes to militarism, especially towards China. And if, you know, you just look at the Trump support base, these are people who already have prejudice against China, who have a, a deep fear and insecurity regarding China. It is an— it's a non-white nation that is surpassing the collective West, and that for a lot of Trump supporters, not all Trump supporters, but a lot of Trump supporters, that is a topic that they, for some reason, really deeply care about and worry about. And so this is President Trump pandering to that fear. It's an irrational fear, but they're using it, they're exploiting it, and they're going to use it to steer us directly into war with China. And this is, again, this isn't President Trump himself doing this independently. This is continuity of agenda. This is what the Biden what the administration did for 4 straight years. A lot of Republicans, uh, as you say, Garland, they, they accused him of being soft on China. They called, uh, President Biden Beijing Biden. But what he was doing for 4 years was re-engineering the entire U.S. military specifically for war with China. The U.S. Marine Corps was completely reorganized. It was a, as a fighting force that had air power, land power, sea power, and they were told, give up all of your tanks, reorganize all of your military units into a fighting force specifically for anti-shipping missions and specifically for the Asia-Pacific region vis-à-vis China. And that is what they— that's what they did. They have no more tanks now. They have long-range missiles that they're going to use to interdict, to stop Chinese shipping. They say military naval power, but also maritime shipping, almost certainly. And you can see the Trump administration, one of the first things they did and started talking about is seizing the Panama Canal, seizing Greenland. And they have specifically mentioned Chinese shipping and Russian shipping.

So this—

the whole, the whole idea that the Trump administration ever wanted peace— again, pandering to the desires of the American voter, but with no intention at all of fulfilling, fulfilling these promises. They, they, from the very beginning picked up exactly where the Biden administration left off, and they're accelerating it. And they're not accelerating it because the Trump administration is more aggressive, because the US has less and less time. China's— its rise is not just going up linear, it is rising exponentially. So the US is running out of time, running out of options, becoming more and more desperate and more and more dangerous. That, that is what we are seeing take shape right now under the Trump administration.

Dr. Oualaalou, another thing that he— and this is an issue that would need to be discussed. Um, uh, uh, Pete Heggesus was talking to Bongbong Marcos, the, uh, uh, uh, the, the current ostensible leader of the, um, Philippines, and he said friends need to stand shoulder to shoulder to deter conflict to ensure that there is— and this is the one they say— free Navigation, whether you call it the South China Sea or the West Philippine Sea, he told Marcos. What about this idea of navigation, freedom of navigation, and that the US is in the South China Sea of all places to ensure that— what are your thoughts about this whole South China Sea business?

Well, basically we are using so-called the rule of law, but we end up contradicting ourselves. We're saying one thing and doing the opposite. And I just want your listeners to be aware of something. In mid-March, it was a classified document that was circulating at the time in the Pentagon. And mid-March because this document was classified at the time of its inception. And this one during, was during the former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. And basically the, the title of that was The National Defense Strategic Guidance. And this one specifically, just to highlight to your audience how this was already pre-planned as far as what the next administration— because it became clear back then when this document was drafted that Trump's going to win the, the, the elections. So the concept of Donald Trump's preparation, and I'm even going to use the term prevailing That's how arrogant and confident they were thinking when it comes down to a war with China and defending the US threats in the near abroad. So basically what are we looking at is the idea that there is this preconceived notion in the administration currently, which they don't, they don't seem, in my opinion, they don't seem to think strategically or pragmatically as to the consequences of certain decisions. China is no small matter, and we cannot even fight. We couldn't even defeat the— we were in Afghanistan against the Taliban or in Iraq, and now we are finding out with the Houthis or Ansarullah that we couldn't even lift the blockade. What makes us think that we will be able to defeat the Chinese? And let alone, if I may add quickly here, let alone that if you take, for example, an aircraft carrier, You know, usually it will be manned by sailors for about between 4,000 to 6,000, right? Now just think about the consequences of something like that. If an aircraft carrier is sent, will we have the resources to even rescue those sailors? You know, the ones that they've been sort of taken to the slaughter without their own— they don't even understand what we are fighting for. And this is where the shortcomings in Washington comes in, in realizing that we have no strategy, we have no foreign policy structured, we just go in as the wind, with the wind, as the saying goes.

You know, one of the things I heard, I forgot who it was, but I heard an expert talking about the US's plans to arrest, shall we say, the rise of China. Right? They're going to stop China from rising. And, and what the expert Cameron McCaul always says, he said, was the sad thing about it is— and I'm paraphrasing— is they don't even have a strategy. They have no real strategy. They're just saying we have to stop the rise of China, and they're putting missiles in and they're doing this and that, but they don't have some kind of a coherent strategy for doing it other than using, um, rhetoric about deterring China or putting missiles in the sea or whatever. But there's no real strategy, it seems. Incoherent, right?

Yes. Well, one other thing to add about the South China Sea, the US says the US is there to maintain freedom of navigation. There's so much essential maritime shipping passing through these waters. But if you look at the US government's own think tanks like CSIS, for example, they, they have, have a whole page on their website about the South China Sea, and they have a, a map, and they have, a representation of each nation's shipping going through the South China Sea. The, the vast majority of it is Chinese exports. And then all of these other countries using the South China Sea, they're trading with China. So it is China's shipping. So the United States is saying we're in the South China Sea to protect China's maritime shipping from China. It makes absolutely no sense. But when you realize that fact, you realize what the US is actually doing in the South China Sea. It's there to disrupt Chinese maritime shipping. So you're talking about a plan. Their plan is to create chaos for China, undermine China, to destroy everything China is working on everywhere in every way possible. That is their strategy. That is their plan. This is what they have been doing for now decades, actually, from the Obama administration to the first Trump administration, Biden, and now Trump. You can see the pieces of the puzzle they're putting together. They are trying to control maritime shipping worldwide. Again, the Panama Canal, Greenland, specifically to interdict Chinese shipping. They also cultivate a number of extremist organizations all across Eurasia meant to target and physically attack and destroy China's Belt and Road Initiative. I've been covering this for years and years in Pakistan. The US has supported for many years now these separatists in Balochistan. This is southwest Pakistan, and they, they literally attack and try to destroy the, the projects themselves that China is building with Pakistan. They kill Chinese engineers, the Pakistani security forces protecting them. They even attempted to assassinate the Chinese ambassador to Pakistan. And there is a war raging right now in Myanmar. People call it a civil war. It's not a civil war, it's another US-sponsored, engineered, dirty war against Myanmar. Borders China. It is a Belt and Road Initiative partner. And again, these militants and terrorists directly target the infrastructure and investments China has made in Myanmar. And there was just this terrible earthquake just this week. I felt it here in Thailand. It has caused immense devastation across Myanmar. And the—

it—

yes, the epicenter was there, but the, the whole reason the, the infrastructure there in Myanmar is unprepared for an earthquake and their, their response is incoherent is because the US for decades has mired the country in this, this violent conflict, has divided the country. It is at constantly at war. They do not have the resources to prepare for a disaster like this or respond to it. So What the US is doing is so devastating, and it has been ongoing for so many years. And a lot of people just gloss over it. They take it for granted. They say, well, Myanmar, that's just their internal problem. Maybe the US is involved a little bit, or taking advantage of it. But no, the US is engineering these— that is their strategy, is engineering chaos, subversion all along China's periphery. And they're doing the exact same thing all along Russia's periphery. You zoom out and you look at all of these conflicts from Europe to the Middle East to here in Asia, it is just one arc of chaos the US is using to encircle and contain the rising powers in Eurasia, primarily Russia, Iran, and China.

Dr. Oualaalou, if you had comments on that. Also, I wanted to ask you about a term that we haven't heard in a while, but we heard a lot during the Biden administration, and that was AUKUS.

Oh yeah, it's just, it's laughable. But also, just to make, to add to what Brian mentioned regarding what the US intentions with all this, and I'll go back to the Philippines because you all remember when Marcos Jr. won the elections, where was his first trip? It was to China. And right after he returned, what did he do? He signed an agreement with Lloyd Austin. Right away. Because in my, in my opinion, the trip to China was nothing but a lip service to the Chinese. Of course, the Chinese understood what he is up to. And right as soon as he came back, signed that agreement with Lloyd Austin regarding the expansion of the military presence to about 9 bases, to my knowledge. Of course, they're only disclosing that there are 5, but the other 4 The other 4 are for usually specific type of US weapons. And this takes me to talk about AUKUS. When we think about AUKUS, we think about, for example, the nuclear submarine deal for the Aussies and all that. The Aussies will have no operational functions into operating the sub, the nuclear submarines that the US will have. For example, there are certain technologies including the F-35s, including even certain types of, drones and so forth. The US controls— and I use the term carefully here— the US controls the encryption keys for all those weapons, per se. So, so for the Philippines, just to go back to the Philippines because I'm thinking about it, you will think that the Filipino administration will be thinking in terms of economic prosperity instead of aligning with the US. Because here is the thing, and Brian mentioned this earlier at the beginning regarding ASEAN countries, If you look what they have in common right now, what do they have? They all share that economic prosperity with China. They're not sharing it with the US. Look at Vietnam, look at Thailand. I look at Thailand, and please correct me, Brian, if I'm wrong on this, uh, Thailand has signed a deal with China regarding the speed train, the high-speed train that's going to be linking Bangkok all the way to, I, I think Vietnam, somewhere like that. All the way, it's go all the way far. So that, that just gives you— look at Malaysia, you look at Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, all this. While Vietnam, as I— and I start to believe in this, that Vietnam now is the weak— I'm sorry, Philippines is the weak link inside ASEAN. And this is where the US is trying also, in addition to the Taiwan issue, is trying to create a wedge between China and ASEAN countries.

You know, Brian, I don't know if you're familiar with it, but the former Philippine leader, his last name was Duterte, and recently he showed up at The Hague and they arrested him. And I had been following him, and what I found was that, you know, notwithstanding he has some weaknesses that we could, we could point out, but recently he had been one of the loudest voices pushing back against the Philippines being used as a proxy for the US. And, um, I think his sister or daughter or someone is involved, but his other half family members. But he was a very loud voice in the Philippines pushing back against the US. Um, and suddenly he gets grabbed at The Hague and he's arrested and he's charged with God only knows whatever they charge him with, you know, mopri on the high seas. It doesn't really matter, but it certainly seems as though that was a political act taken to stop the opposition in, um, in the Philippines, right?

It was done under the International Criminal Court, which the Philippines doesn't even recognize. So they just carted him off because Washington told them to. There's no legal framework or any sort of legal justification for doing this. It literally was the US told us to do it, so we did it. So we carted him off to The Hague. And the ICC really always was— it was just the police and jailer of of what the US refers to as the Third World. This is not for actual international crime. The US is the kingpin of international crime, and you'll never see an American anywhere near the ICC unless it's telling people who to round up and send there. So very, very unfortunate. And what David was talking about regarding Southeast Asia and AUKUS, I think it's really important to look at the components of AUKUS. These are— this is a coalition, anti-China coalition. And when you look at a map, they're, they're all located almost as far away as humanly possible from actual China and Asia because none of the countries in Asia want any part of an anti-China coalition. They are all benefiting from the rise of China. Uh, I, I have lived in Thailand almost my entire adult life, or, or in Asia almost my entire adult life. I, I watched the transformation from a U.S. Dominated region to a region where China has now displaced that dominance. They haven't replaced it, they have displaced it. There's a huge difference. The way China comes here to Thailand, for example, to do business— the US wasn't building, uh, huge infrastructure projects that, that benefited both parties. They were just taking. It was a process of extraction. China is helping Thailand build this high-speed rail line, which It'll connect to China directly through Laos, which already has a functioning high-speed railway, which had no railway before China came. Just to give you an idea of what Asia looked like before China began its rise. And he met— David Oualaalou also mentioned Vietnam there. It'll all be interconnected when this is all done, if it is done. But he's right. The Philippines is a huge weak link, and it is because it is still a de facto US colony. Myanmar is the other weak link because of the ongoing conflict and the amount of reach the US has in there covertly. I would say mostly covertly. And just something else for the Trump supporters to keep in mind, we hear all about USAID, the NED, Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, all being dismantled. They were not dismantled. They were streamlined. They were consolidated under the State Department. They're more dangerous now. Than they were before. The fact that the war in Myanmar continues right now is a testament that none of this was actually ended. It was just repackaged, streamlined, sharpened, and it is continuing right now as we speak. There are people killing each other in Myanmar, which is essentially a U.S. dirty war against Myanmar sovereignty and ultimately against China.

You know, um, one of the things I thought interesting, Dr. Oualaalou, was I recalled a while back the US was talking with Cambodia, asking them why they were signing deals with China to build ports or something. But meanwhile, China again was putting up high-speed rail. Your thoughts about China's approach, economical approach in the region, how that differs from the US approach and the success, what China's been able to do economically in the region.

Well, I'll admit, when I was in China recently, I mean, it was a few months ago I visited, I was literally, I was floored seeing the, the, the much advanced. It was my first trip to China. That's the reason why I wanted to go, and thanks to the community for that. So what I saw was, was, was mind-boggling as far as the, the, the tremendous advancement that China and progress has made. And the key to all this, Garland, It's the time frame for all this. We're looking at about 35 years. They were able to reach— I mean, I was just, I was wondering why we don't even have a speed train here in the US that connects New York to LA. Well, we call ourselves the wealthy nations and so forth, and we couldn't even afford something like that. And the idea, when we think in the big picture of why countries in Asia will do better if they go with China instead of the US, because China focuses more on economic developments rather than military hardware, military conflict, military, uh, upgrades and so forth. We look at the same thing that's going on in Africa, you know, the reason why you're seeing the changes that's going on in Africa right now and the geopolitical tensions that exist behind the scenes between the US and China. As a matter of fact, I'm aware of a delegation is going to be heading out to Africa very, very soon because of the presence of China that is building sort of the infrastructure. I always used to joke about this when somebody from State Department or an official go into Africa and say, do you know that airport you are landing on? Who built it? Do you know that highway you are riding on? Who built it? Do you know that bridge you are crossing? Who built it? And the same development we are seeing in Asia. And this is why you notice the likes of Vietnam That's why when, uh, I remember this because I followed it closely and I talked about it when G20 Summit took place last time. The first trip that the former president, uh, uh, Biden made, he made it to Vietnam right after that. Why? Because the US was very concerned about the rapprochement between Vietnam and China, economically speaking. The same argument I could make about the Prime Minister of Thailand when she agreed with the Chinese regarding the deal to build the high-speed rail. And the bottom line to all this is that economic incentives is where the progress is, is where the developments is. If you want a nation to move forward economically, you build a good infrastructure for it, and the Chinese happens to be good at that.

Uh, let me— uh, a Washington Post, which is, let's face it, it's a CIA trade rag as far as I'm concerned, but here we go with their latest, uh, Washington Post. Taiwan reassured and surprised by Pentagon focus, and it's always deterring China. Taiwan is reassured that the Trump administration has made deterring a Chinese seizure of the island, which is, I might add, is a province of China, a military, a military priority. After months of mounting concern that the president would abandon US support. So what we have is the blob now saying, "Whoo! We were worried with Trump that the war against China might be off, but good news for Taiwan, take a look at Ukraine, that is your future." If I'm in Taiwan, I'm probably not real happy about that.

Well, I mean, unfortunately, the way US political capture works is they, they co-opt the, the government, the special interests in a targeted country, or in Taiwan's case, region, and then they begin brainwashing the population. So it's very, it's very hard to— a lot of people say, what are the, what are the people in Taiwan want? This doesn't matter if they're being brainwashed 24 hours a day by U.S.-funded propaganda to jump off a cliff, and then they say, we all want to jump off a cliff. You could objectively look at that and say, that's not in their best interest. They don't know what is in their best interests. And look at Ukraine, you just You mentioned Ukraine is a perfect example of how the US politically captured a nation, poisoned the people against their own best interests, and convinced them to collectively commit national suicide. That's what we are watching take place in Ukraine. That is, like you say, that is Taiwan's fate now. The most insane thing about the Trump administration and people singing President Trump's praises and still clinging to hope He's sitting there openly talking about seizing Greenland one way or another, which means we either coerce them into doing it or we will force them militarily into doing it. That is what he is saying. And Greenland is in no conceivable way— it's not even debatable whether or not it's part of the US or not. It is foreign territory the US wants to seize. And incorporate into its own territory. Taiwan, as you mentioned, Garland, is part of China. It is recognized under international law as part of China. It is recognized by the U.S. State Department as part of China. If you go to their official website, they say they adhere to the One China policy, which means there is only one China. Taiwan is part of China. There's only one Chinese government, that is the People's Republic of China in Beijing. And so the, the U.S. is talking about deterring China from what? From exercising sovereignty over their own territory, which on America's part is an act of war against China just in and of itself. And so people who, who constantly say China really is a threat to the United States, look at the, the patience that China is exercising when by, by rights they could go to war with the United States right now. There are U.S. troops on Taiwan right now training the, the administration's separatist military right now. By right, China could go to war with the US right now over that, but they're not because they're being patient. They're being rational, reasonable. They want peace. They want to exercise full sovereignty over, over Taiwan. They don't want to, uh, rule over a bunch of ashes, which is, which is the US goal. And yes, look at Ukraine. That was deliberate, and that is exactly what they have planned for Ukraine. The policy papers that drive every single administration's policies, regardless of Democrat or Republican, have said, you know, we could go to war with China over Taiwan. All life, infrastructure, industry will be scoured from its surface, but we could probably prevent China from successfully fully reuniting Taiwan with the rest of China. That's their plan is to scour all life, industry, and infrastructure off the surface of Taiwan.

If I may add to this one, Garvin, if you allow me. Just Brian mentioned one particular keyword there. It's being, being the population being fed in Taiwan, the propaganda and so forth. He's absolutely correct because when I was in Taiwan, I asked some young generation there because I was just a tourist, you know, just asking normal conversation. They speak English and so forth, and they had no clue as to what's going on. So they have no clue what's going on. And I said, do you guys understand that the implications of a conflict in your region here, whatever? It's like, what conflict? They have no idea. And to my surprise, it was during the same time when I was there that the US was sending its naval assets into Taiwan. And just to tie it to today, recently there were two individuals that remain anonymous here in the US government, so they had some official negotiations with Taiwan, okay? This one regarding for Taiwan to upgrade its defense budget. And guess what? I don't call him President of Taiwan. I call him the Governor of Taiwan because Taiwan is a part of China. I mean, like Brian mentioned, it's under international law recognized. We had 3 communiqués with the Chinese recognizing its sovereignty over that. So let's just, let's call it what it is. So it's a part of China. But here is what that governor of Taiwan is saying, Lee Chan-chieh. He just announced that part of some sort of a major overhaul of the Taiwan infrastructure, including the defense, that Taiwan now is going to increase its defense from 2.5% to 3%. We're talking about major upgrade that instead of focusing on infrastructure, they're going to allocate that into military hardware. Why? Because we are dictating the terms to them. Here is what you need to do. And by the way, we give them the narrative that we will support you. Same argument we made to the Philippines, the same argument we made to Ukraine. As a matter of fact, they are the US presence in Ukraine, and we all see what the outcome is. So it behooves, uh, uh, uh, the, the, the Taiwanese people to understand what's at stake here, because a war with China is no small matter. I am aware of when the Pentagon run about 18 scenario war games. Those are simulated war games. We lost 17 out of 18 to China. There was only one scenario we could win the war, and that one itself was unlikely to even happen.

Oh, you know, Dr. Oualaalou, I did want to ask you about this. You know, um, we're— we've been talking about the propaganda used against the people of Philippines, against the people of Taiwan. But when I read this article that says, like Ukraine— Washington Post article— Taiwan lives, quote, in the shadow of its much larger, larger neighbor and has long depended on U.S. support to check Beijing's territorial ambitions. So we're the good guys, right? Beijing claims Taiwan home to 23 million people and the world's most advanced chip manufacturers, is part of China and has, uh, promised to use force to take control of it, while the U.S. has pledged to protect Taiwan. Now, if you listen to that, it's kind of the archetypes, you know what I mean? The poor little, little victim of Taiwan is its larger evil neighbor, and the hero U.S. is protection. We hear this And here's what I think: that is propaganda and lies being used as a weapon against the American people to get us to support something that is in no way in our best interest. Dr. Oualaalou.

Well, this is now— you got the American population that is already now questioning the judgment of the current president that, that is now embarking us on wars. I mean, aren't you the one who said, we— I'm gonna pull the US from all the foreign wars, and all of a sudden You got us into conflict and now you're thinking about getting in a fight with the Chinese? I mean, how, how insane this kind of thinking that exists right now. So American people are now questioning the judgment of this president. The idea of when we say to Taiwan, we're gonna support you, we're not gonna support anybody. It's just, it has been the norm. You look at the history of American involvement in conflicts, I'll take you back to 1952. When that decision was made regarding the Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Afghanistan. Then you have now Ukraine and soon to be the South China Sea. I mean, to me it's a big problem. What— where my concern is, and I'm looking over the horizon here using history as my guide, I am going back to World War I. If you— if only people know what happened a year and a half prior to 1914. There were massive killing in the Balkans at that time. So only later on, one year after that, which is almost a reflection of what we are seeing today. You look at the Middle East or West Asia, the tensions that's going on. You look at now the Philippines that's being pushed over the cliff to do this. You look at South Korea, you look at Japan, you look at even Latin America, and you got the idea where this is going. So when we say to Taiwanese Oh, we will help you. We will support you. Don't worry. Just take stand. It's the same argument we made to the former president of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, when we told him, just go and fight the Russians. We will support you. The first time the first shot was fired, he reached out and said, hey guys, aren't you coming to help me? And we told him like, what are you, out of your mind? You want us to fight the nuclear Russia? It's the same arguments I will make. You will thank those leaders in Philippines and South Korea and Japan and Australia and all that. They will learn from history. Sadly, they're not.

You know, one of the things that I think, Brian, if you look at the threats against Iran— Iran is a critical node in the Belt and Road projects. It's extremely important to Russia. I mean, if you— if the U.S. was able to get a compliant government there, that's kind of the back door to Eurasia they could get in. It seems to me that even the threats against— and of course It's critical to BRICS, the BRICS Union. It seems to me that even these current, what seems like mad threats to Iran, it's like, why in the world threaten Iran? Saying they'll work with you, they're saying they'll go through, right, maybe Russia or whoever. Why? It seems to me that the threats even against Iran are part of this mad push for world domination and these recognize— recognition of the rise not just of China but of Eurasia, period. This need to dominate Eurasia. Your thoughts, Brian?

Absolutely. Iran is a pillar of emerging multipolarism, and so this is why the US wants to knock it out. I think they, they always dream of having a compliant government, a, a productive proxy regime that they could use, but they will also settle for just complete destruction, just completely destroying Iran creating a dysfunctional, uh, crater where a state used to be. They're quite okay with that also. That is what they have just done to Syria just in December. That's what they did to Libya back in 2011 onward. This is what it remains to this day. This is what they do to so many countries because they are, they are incapable of competing constructively with China. We're talking about two completely different paradigms. China and multipolarism represents this move from profit-driven to purpose-driven. They're not indifferent to profit. They want profit. They understand for a nation to be sustainable, for profit to be sustainable, you have to be driven by some sort of actual purpose. And if you do that, then you have a sustainable society, a sustainable civilization. So Yes, the Trump administration threatening Iran is again just continuity of agenda. It's what every single administration has done for decades, and since the 1950s, since before the 1950s, the US, uh, before that the British Empire, were obsessed with controlling Iran. They still are. A lot of people interpret this as the US doing Israeli— Israel's bidding, but no, the US is using Israel just like it is using Ukraine Taiwan, the Philippines is one of many proxies, a successful proxy, uh, but just one of many proxies the US is using, uh, specifically to knock out this, this, this pillar, uh, in, in the region, which is Iran. If you look at a map again, just look at it, there's Russia, there's Iran, there's China. It's, it's almost like a triangle. And this is— these are the pillars of multipolarism. Everything else is rising up around. And so knocking that out is a top priority. And at this point, the US doesn't even care if it makes sense or not. What President Trump is saying regarding Iran makes zero sense. The, the US surrounded Iran on two sides, knocked out two countries on either side of its western eastern border, has ravaged the Middle East, it has waged war and proxy war against Iran itself for years and years. If Iran wasn't trying to get nuclear weapons, I would think that they were irrational and insane. So this, this whole notion that the US is going to impose this nonproliferation treaty on Iran when the US is the only country in human history to use nuclear weapons against other human beings, it's insane. And for people to say, well, Iran signed the deal, so they have to adhere to it. You know, like if I put a gun to your head and made you sign a deal at a moment of weakness, are you beholden to that deal when it obviously makes no sense to adhere to it? So it doesn't make any sense. People who are trying to rationalize what the Trump administration is doing, they are either dishonest or delusional at this point. As we all can see, the Trump administration has not lived up to any of its promises. It had no intention of doing it. It shouldn't be a surprise. If it is a surprise, we just have to accept it. Accept it and, and go on. And we, we have to speak up against this. Iran is not, is not an isolated case. If the US goes to war with Iran, if it is successful in destabilizing or destroying Iran, it's going to have a chain reaction across the rest of the world. And none of this is going to benefit the American people or the people of Europe. The Western world as we know it, they're not going to benefit from this either. So nobody benefits from this except for a tiny percentage of people, and maybe it doesn't even benefit them in the long run. So we have to speak up against this, not try to rationalize or defend it.

Yeah, Dr. Oualaalou, your thoughts on where Iran fits in in this international picture?

Well, it's a key player in a reason. I mean, my— remember, like Brian mentioned about Euro-Asia, the whole idea for why we went into Afghanistan, why did we go to Afghanistan? Afghanistan. The whole idea was about access to Eurasia because of the expansion of the trade and economic aspects of it. Iran, of course, with its massive population— Iran is about 90, if I'm not mistaken, 95 million people— so a big, large market plays a major role in West Asia. You know, Iran is not your small average country either. Iran is very wired in, in, in the Middle East. I remember my days in, uh, in Kurdistan looking over the borders, uh, of Iran. I mean, just a massive, massive land. So, and the idea now, to our surprise, we are finding out, uh, given their recent statements as far as targeting Diego Garcia, that in itself should make us think and pause for a minute thinking about what led Iran to issue a statement like this if it does not have something to back it up with. And this is something we do not know. We have no idea about its capabilities. As a matter of fact, I'm aware of two war games that's been around regarding Iran, and we lost in both of them. The, the computer simulations suggested that we will lose both, uh, wars, uh, in, in both scenarios, uh, uh, that, that's been around into that. Suffice it to understand now the dynamics that's taking place, for example, in Syria. And we all know Syria's client of Iran. But despite all that, you seeing those moving parts, you know, the moment the Assad regime fell, who was in Syria right away? The French and the Germans. You look at now the, the Americans, the Israelis behind the scenes, all of the, you, the dynamics inside the Middle East, but it's headed by Iran, not for example, Saudi Arabia or Qatar or even Turkey to a degree. So the idea that for us to think, we're gonna just threaten or scare, trying to scare Iran. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's an illusion because we don't understand the history of the Persian Empire. And if we don't understand that history, we're not going to understand modern-day Iran. The same arguments I will make about Russia today is the same arguments I made about the former Russian Empire and its history. That's why we We are poor readers of history, as I always say. We never learn from history, and you will think politicians will have to educate themselves about the lessons from history. Unfortunately, they're not.

You know, Brian, one of the things I think is interesting is this discussion about the Russia-China relationship, you know, that there are people in the Trump administration who may be stupid enough to think they can separate the two. That it appears to me if I can figure it out, the Russians can figure it out. They said, okay, we'll take Russia out and we'll use that and then we'll have Russia and then we'll go after China. Oh darn, that didn't work. Well, okay, plan B, we'll go after China first and then when we get through with China, we'll then we'll circle back around and get Russia. There's an old saying about geopolitics. You can pick your allies, but you can't pick your neighbors. Russia and China have one of the longest borders on Earth and I might add They have become what Europe could have been. On one side you have a country with a massive industrial base, and this— on the other side you have a country that can supply all the raw materials for a massive industrial base. That's what Europe had, but they rejected it for the United States. And now, to me, China and Russia are not just friends and allies, they are a symbiotic field of— and I literally mean this— they are a field of economic activity. And I might add, for all of the issues that they— that China will have with the US trying to block off their, you know, uh, access to sea lanes, they're building bridges, they're building pipelines, they're building— so what Russia offers them is the, the ability to continue to get the natural resources over land and even to move their goods and services over land, and dare I say, down through Iran and the, you know, the Baltic Sea, all that kind of stuff. So Russia is a critical part of China's future and vice versa. Your thoughts of the Russia-China relationship and how that fits into this whole thing?

Absolutely. I, I agree with everything that you said. It's so important for people to actually understand this and, and also understand that Russia and China weren't just pushed together under circumstances. Russia and China throughout their entire history have— more times than not, they have been close allies, partners, friends, cooperating across a wide range of fields, everything from, from military to economic matters. And the Sino-Soviet split during the Cold War, that was, that was an anomaly. That was, that was not, uh, because of some fundamental difference between Russia and China. That was a very specific anomaly that, that no longer applies. So the idea that this can somehow be recreated is, is almost insane. And when you listen to a lot of people, they try to say, well, Russia, they're Westerners, and China, China is not Westerners, and so it's not an— it's not a natural alliance, there's no way for them to really cooperate. They are cooperating. They have been cooperating. If you talk to Russian people, and that— I don't think they have this, this like racial hang-up that you see so prevalent across the United States and Europe, where it's us versus them just, just based on physical characteristics. I don't, I don't see— I'm not going to say that there aren't Russians who think this way, but the prevailing mentality is, uh, practical cooperation, not, not the— not these, um, these, these other factors that are superficial and I would say ultimately irrelevant. About— you were talking about Europe could have had this, and if you think about what was going on right up until 2014 when the US overthrew the government of Ukraine, that is what was going on. The Europe was cooperating more and more with both Russia and also China, and they were slowly working their way out from under the shadow of American hegemony cast over them since the end of World War II. And the US used this conflict in Ukraine against Russia— it is a US war against Russia through Ukraine— they use that to pry Europe permanently away from both Russia and China. And you could see how deep and, and vast and growing the disparity is now between Europe, Russia, China, the rest of Eurasia. You can see it, and you can see how a lot of people think Europe is a, is a player in all this. They are also an American proxy. And they are also suffering the consequences to the benefit of the United States and its hegemony, just like Ukraine is, just like Taiwan and the Philippines are. It's very important to understand that. It's also important to understand that, yes, Russia understands this. So many people are still convinced that the US and Russia, they're engaged in peace talks and everyone's trying to derail it, but America and Russia, they're really sticking to it? No, Russia is going through the motions. If they could end this in a peaceful manner, they would. They know that that's not going to happen. They just watched what happened in Syria. They know that if there's a freeze or a ceasefire, the US and Europe are going to use that time to rebuild everything and start all over again. President Trump literally had his Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, give directives to Europe to do exactly this, to freeze the conflict, put European troops into Ukraine, rebuild their military industrial base, pump Ukraine full of weapons, and do it all over again. That is the plan. They publicly stated it. All of this other nonsense about peace and ceasefire, this is a failed proxy war they are trying to salvage, and they're doing it the same way they always do it. And they're— I don't think they think they're going to trick Russia, but I think they, they believe they can create the circumstances economically, militarily, politically to coerce Russia into a ceasefire that ultimately doesn't serve Russia's interests. So that is something we have to keep an eye on. I don't think they will ever trick Russia into joining the West just to get their throat slit later, but they'll try to coerce it into doing this against their will. So there's always the danger of that that we have to keep an eye out for.

Dr. Oualaalou, I will say this. President Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov have been absolutely incredible in their ability to navigate this conflict. Your thoughts on the relationship between Russia and China and how that affects the US's attempt to, I guess, undermine both? Oh, you're muted. Yes. Sorry. There we go.

I remember when I wrote my Russia book, I argue back then that I will not be surprised the time will come for when Russia and China's rapprochement will evolve or develop into some strategic sort of relationship. I didn't go as far as saying maybe in a form of treaty like you and I know what a treaty means, but at least it will move to a level where that strategic interest, because both of them have a common enemy, that's one. Both of them wanted to play a role into the new global order, not to control it. This is where the difference is, because China has no interest in that. Russia has no interest in that. But the idea of that, if they can help in creating a new multipolar order, the— where every country has an opportunity, and of course countries around the world will kind of, uh, uh, get themselves free of the shackles of the US hegemony. Europe, of course, like I always say, Europe is like a child that never grows up and is always in constant need of discipline and direction. And that's where they found themselves in regarding the Ukraine conflict. I mean, if you go back prior to the— just go back about 15, 15 years or so when Gerhard Schröder used to be the chancellor, When Angela Merkel came in, and how was the economy of Germany? It was performing the best in Europe because Germany has always been considered the engine of the European economy. Why is that? It's because it was having access to cheap energy from Russia. Didn't come from the US. So all of a sudden now things turned upside down. So the relationship between— when you think about what the Europeans now are thinking in terms of economic aspects. They are looking east, they are not looking west. They are not coming to the US and ask for economic opportunities or investments or whatever. They going to China to ask for that. So that tells you right there as to where things are headed regarding the bilateral relations between Russia and China. They are moving forward. They have paved that relationship for them to be even stronger. And it will evolve on many aspects or many sectors, including the tech sectors. I just read an article yesterday regarding China and Russia moving into this sector with some major developments that we're gonna— the world's gonna be seeing soon, uh, including the nuclear technology aspects of it. So where things are moving forward, it's too late for the US because the US was always saying We're gonna have to contain China. I used to hear this when I was in Washington, still working there, and I will shake my head. What are you guys talking about? You want to contain China? It's too late for that because the economy of China is not the same as it was for the Soviet Union back then. We might have succeeded in doing that with the Soviet Union, but you won't be able to do it with, with, with the Chinese. So the Russians and the Chinese are realizing now, and it's became clear to everybody who is following what's going on in the world of geopolitics that the world has already shifted from that unipolar into a multipolar. It's affaire accomplie, as they say in French. There is no going back. There is no going back. It's just now a matter of how other countries will want to realign their priorities, going back to the drawing board and decide what their strategies are going to be.

You know, Brian, one of the things I think that indicates Russia's understanding of the importance of being strong in the Pacific is their relationship with North Korea. I, I saw an article recently within the last week that North Korea now has these AWACS-type planes, right? These powerful AWACS planes, and I think it may be built on the IL-76 frame. But the bottom line is they're constantly meeting with Russian military experts. They're putting satellites in the air. And I also recall when the president of, um, the leader of North Korea went to Russia, one of his first visits, they took him to the Roscosmos Space Center, and it seems obvious that Russia understands the importance of having North Korea in a position to defend itself and, dare I say, significantly deter Japan. Your thoughts on the Russia-North Korea relationship?

Yeah, well, yes, to all of that, Russia and North Korea, China and North Korea. I mean, it is very obvious what is going on there. Why, why is the U.S. in South Korea? Are they really in South Korea to defend South Korea? Do they really think that South Korea is in any sort of danger?

If you—

if especially in, in recent decades, if you look at what is going on in it, you know, right on North Korea's border, and the, the U.S. Is, is holding South Korea, Japan hostage. These are nations that are not benefiting from this, this alliance with the United States, the security guarantees against what, their largest trading partner China, or, or cooperating with Russia with all these natural resources that it has to offer and, and to do business with. And so North, North Korea has been on the front line of this attempt by the U.S. to because, because really they're, they're not there to defend against North Korea. They're there to encircle and contain China, and North Korea is the excuse that they use. But of course, they have had plans to overthrow, destabilize, overthrow North Korea and expand their control over the peninsula in a, in a bid to encircle and contain China, but, but also Russia. And so all of this is the reason why both Russia and China have this alliance with North Korea.

It doesn't—

it wouldn't make sense for them not to have an alliance with, with a country that is, uh, in, in, in kind of a, a stalemate or a, a frozen conflict with the United States.

It—

all of their interests align. There's nothing that North Korea wants to do or, or has ambitions towards that is incompatible with Russia and China. They They value their sovereignty. They do not want to succumb to US aggression, containment, regime change, and so does Russia and China. This attempt to make North Korea or any of these nations, Iran also, make them look like irrational, dangerous actors, and, "Ooh, look at Russia. They have to align with these madmen." They're not mad. They're not irrational. It's all about self-preservation. It's something the US would do if the roles were reversed. And a lot of what people think they know about North Korea is just a product of relentless propaganda, which, which also goes for Russia and China. Also, a lot, a lot of people, their understanding of these nations comes through propaganda, not, not reality, not a real understanding of what's going on. So when you understand the true nature of North Korea, China, and Russia. It makes perfect sense for them to all be working together. That's the whole point of multipolarism, is it's, uh, as David said, it's not about control, it's about cooperation. And it's so obvious that this is a much better system, that everyone benefits from this, uh, but for, for whatever reason, the special interests controlling the, the collective West are in a parasitic mindset rather than a mindset of cooperation. They don't understand, apparently, that what they're doing is unsustainable, and cooperation is the only sustainable way to do business. But they have this supremacist mindset that prevents them from seeing that.

Dr. Oualaalou, additionally, a month or so before President Trump took office, the then-president of South Korea attempted literally a military coup to install a dick dictatorship. That seems to have been thwarted. But what's interesting about that, for all of the talk that we get in our newspapers about dictators and standing up against dictators, that hasn't been covered at all. And what little coverage it has, it's been kind of bland. Well, something happened, but perhaps they had some— it's interesting. Your thoughts on the Korean, you know, what's going on on the Korean Peninsula?

Well, it's because at that time, Tony Blinken, uh, uh, had a trip to South Korea at that time. I remember that one. It's the idea how we kind of cherry-picking which issue we're gonna be addressing and which one we're not gonna be addressing. I mean, you look at it just right now in the US, how crazy that now Trump is considering third term in violation of every aspect you and I know about the Constitution, but it just makes us a laughingstock. Around the world. So, so the idea of thinking about the Korean Peninsula— here is the thing that I've always, uh, was concerned about since my days back in the military. And when I moved to Washington, I start to think in this terms. So could a major global conflict erupt from the Korean Peninsula? And I always never ruled that out, that possibility. That option is always there. But that is also why we have never ever, ever pressured North Korea in, in the way we do, for example, with Iran? Have we ever threatened to bomb North Korea? No, because we know that North Korea doesn't bluff and they will respond. And regarding the developments they have, militarily speaking, we, we understand with everything is within range to the 35,000 US troops in South Korea. And like Brian said, what are we doing there in South Korea to begin with? Why do we have over 30,000 troops in, in South Korea for? So bring back home the soldiers here at home and let us deal with our own issues. The only thing that I see moving forward, if we are to converge the conversation regarding Russia, China, and North Korea, and I'm gonna add Iran into the mix, can you imagine those four now forming so-called an alliance, whatever term you want to use, the firepower they're going to bring to the table. You know, how would dare the US to, to, to threaten any of them for that matter? Of course, to highlight the reason I'm saying this is to highlight to you, to you, the changing of the global landscape from a security perspective, because Russia and China understood this way back, and that's why they moved forward. Uh, this is why there is now a conversation going on uh, just, uh, for your audience to know. And the conversation in form of a question: should China establish a base in Iran? So I remember writing— I wrote an article back in 2014. I argued during a visit of a high-ranking general from China into Iran, and I said the possibility we might see a presence of the Chinese on the Iranian soil. Of course, whomever read the article rolled their eyes as like, no, it ain't gonna happen. And I said, I didn't say it will. All I'm saying is the possibility is there. And this is where now you're gonna have to think in terms of whether Russia and China will come to the aid of Iran in case if it's attacked. And I want to rule that option out. Of course, they have their ways of how they're going to do this. But moving forward, regarding the, the Korean Peninsula, is the whole idea of what we are trying to create as far as tensions in that part of the world, using of course the Philippines, like Brian mentioned, which is absolutely correct, using the Taiwan Strait, and of course fomenting any more tensions if we could through, for example, uh, using Australia's background, or Japan for that matter. This is why the Secretary of Defense, uh, Pete Hegseth, made it only to two key countries. There's key countries that we can control and we are controlling: the Philippines and Japan.

You know, one of the things, Brian, I think that's of great consequence now is— I'll put it like this— I watched a video the other day where, um, uh, President Putin of, uh, what was, was you know, kind of christening, whatever you call it, breaking a bottle on this submarine, the new submarine. They're going to have a number of them, and this submarine carries the Zircon, the 1,700-kilometer-range missiles that fly at like 10,000 or 15,000 miles an hour. And they're basically— the United States has no counter for them. One of those submarines can literally cover a couple of million square kilometers, several million square kilometers, you know, kilometers of sea surface around it. The reason I say this, that is this: one of the things that the US seems to be trying to do is go old school, what the British would do. You know, the British ruled the seas, the Spanish Armada for years. International power was about having a giant navy and controlling the international shipping lanes, the international lanes of commerce. And that's what the US submarine fleet and all this is about. We can— the choke points with China. I'm sure you've heard all of that kind of stuff. However, if you look at what's happening with Yemen and the Houthis, it's clear now that with the availability of technology, a country that has an advantageous geopolitical position now can thwart these kinds of things. That in— I mean, it is absurd that the US is like living in a technological past. Anytime they can't defeat the Houthis, the Houthis can dig their stuff up under— out underground, come out, fire some missiles, go back. There's nothing you can do. Heaven knows the US has no chance. If you can't stop the Houthis in the Red Sea, you have no chance of stopping the Ukrainian— I mean, excuse me, the Iranians from blocking off the Straits of Hormuz if they want to. And certainly worldwide with some of the Russian and Chinese technology, particularly Russian technology. The other part of it is The US seems to be living in this dream world where they still have the technological advances that clearly they have lost, dare I say, to the Houthis in Yemen.

Yeah, you're bringing up a really key point. This, this, uh, illusion that the US still clings to, that it is inherently superior to every other nation on Earth. We, we still hear— and this wasn't just This wasn't just President Trump. This was President Biden. This was also President Obama, American leadership, global leadership of, of the United States. And they, they are, they're stuck in this paradigm where they are the preeminent power on planet Earth. Doesn't, it doesn't matter how many people are in China. It doesn't matter how, uh, much larger their industrial base is. Doesn't matter that they produce millions more, uh, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates every single year. And the universities— doesn't matter that they have world-class infrastructure the US isn't even capable of building, let alone competing with. It doesn't matter. None of that matters. They're still inherently superior. And you hear in these think tanks— and these are the people who are driving US, uh, foreign and domestic policy— is not President Trump and his cabinet. All they do is repeat and parrot these policy papers. Policy papers like Project 2025 from the Heritage Foundation, which is funded by the, the Fortune 100. They still think that somehow, no matter what happens, America is capable of leveling the playing field with just sheer ingenuity and willpower. And this is delusional. They are stuck in a, in a, because, because the West for centuries has dominated planet Earth. They cannot grasp a reality where they don't. And right now, uh, there is this shift in power, the balance of power from West to the rest of the world, and they cannot wrap their minds around it. And there's— they're still stuck in this mindset that somehow their, their military, their, their technology, their innovation— we, we hear about the US pouring all this money into AI as if China and Russia aren't, aren't also working on AI. They're talking about, we're going to overwhelm the Chinese with drones. Yes, okay, they have more surface vessels than us, but we can make more drones. And it's as if they don't understand that if China can make more surface vessels, which are vastly more difficult to produce than drones, surely they can drown you in drones. And it just seems as if none of this has ever occurred to them. It's because it requires them to flip a switch in their head that opens their eyes to see the world as it actually is rather than as they wish it was or they think it is. And that is so dangerous. And if we look all throughout human history, this is the hubris of empire, and this is the cliff it always runs over itself. It always runs over the cliff on its own because of this hubris. The danger now is that the US has nuclear weapons. And AI is becoming increasingly capable and dangerous. And all the other weapon systems that exist around the globe, the fact that countries are going to react to what the US does, they're not going to just roll over for the United States. This is leading us to a very dangerous juncture. I mean, I've heard people say, well, if Kamala Harris was president, we'd be in nuclear war. I hear people talking about Trump nuking Iran right now. I mean, so how—

what bullet have we dodged?

I just see, I just see in American politics in Washington, I just see a firing squad. Doesn't matter who you pick, they have a rifle, a loaded rifle, and they're ready to fire no matter which one you pick. So this is the problem that we face. And I believe that hubris, that inability to see reality, is the greatest danger to Americans. It's ironic that they say China, Russia, Iran, they're, they're all dangerous to America. It's Washington and Wall Street that is the greatest danger to America.

Dr. Oualaalou, I know that's an area you're familiar with, military and military technology. And looking at the missile technology, particularly, you know, Russia with its hypersonic missiles and the Oreshchonok and these, this other missile technology, air defense technology, the US is falling, has fallen significantly behind in a number of these critical— I hate to use the word defense when it comes to military technological areas, but it's yet still pretending as though they're the one part. If you get into a military conflict with a peer power that has significantly greater technology in missiles and air defense, you don't have a chance. If you are struggling against the Houthis, You need to rethink your strategies against everyone else. You just— well, anyway, your thoughts on all of this, Dr. Oualaalou, military technology and where that is today.

Well, you hit the nail on the head, Garland, because the idea that we think we have this mighty power, uh, weapons that is, and now it became evident. For example, what you mentioned earlier about zircon, you know, the head of the Strategic Command did disclose this. I, I know the media didn't want to talk openly about it, but he did disclosed in a meeting that he will have nothing to defend against Zelensky. As of today, there is nothing we, we, we can defend on. Now here is where the two key things that have now— it's making the US to think twice. Despite what you hear, the rhetoric coming out of Washington, whatever, despite what you hear, Donald Trump has realized that he made a mistake. And the mistake is thinking that Oh, I'm gonna just walk all over the Houthis, for example. This is just on a smaller scale. Houthis just down an MQ-9. If you know a little bit about an MQ-9 and its technology, how high that needs to be, makes you just question how were the Houthis able to down an MQ-9? They must have something that we were not aware of. You know, even there is unconfirmed, there is unconfirmed that they might have even targeted an F-16. And I am not certain, and I'm intend to reach out to someone I know, I can give me straight answer regarding this. But my point is, when you think about this rhetoric regarding attacking Iran, because we are forcing Iran into negotiation table or military— well, wait a minute, that doesn't— it's not how it works. If a country doesn't want to negotiate with you because you have no credibility left on the global stage. You are the one who pulled out of the JCPOA in 2018 to begin with, unilaterally, against all the international rules and all. What makes you think that they're going to agree into sitting and negotiating with you? And threatening this language of war, Iran does not, because it's a part of the culture in Iran. They are not going to play their cards, they are not going to show their cards, they are not going to disclose everything they have. It was till these statements that they announced yesterday regarding the targeting of Diego Garcia, it became clear and evident that they have something in their possession, in their arsenal, that will be able to target. And we are talking about the Khaibar, uh, uh, uh, Khorramshahr-4 type. This is a ballistic that goes about 4,000 kilometers, in addition to some specific highly advanced drones that can go up to another 4,000 kilometers, which means where they are within range to target even Diego Garcia, let alone any other US military installations in the Middle East. So my warning to the Arab countries that host the US bases: Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey to a degree. Even Turkey is not an Arab country, is a Turk. But it still makes you just wonder, is the administration realizing that bluffing doesn't cut it anymore? Because like Brian mentioned, the world has moved on into now a different setting, a different order, if I may use the term. Gone that era where the US used to be the sole superpower of the world. And the problem we have is we are not willing to accept this reality. That the world has changed and we need to change with it.

Ryan Buletic, tell everyone where they can find you online.

Uh, again, just search on YouTube for The New Atlas, and then in the video description of every video are other places you can find and follow my work, including on Telegram, X, and Rumble.

And Dr.

Oualaalou, uh, just type in Geo Geopolitical Trends, you'll find that channel and type in geopolitics and money or geopolitics in conflict and, and you will be able to, uh, put the link there.

Thank you very much. I'd like to thank— we currently have 1,943 viewers on my channel alone, so I'd like to, uh, invite everyone, if you are not a member, if you are not a subscriber to Brian's channel, or if you're not a subscriber to Dr. Oualaalou's channel, go over there make sure you subscribe, make sure you become a part of their channels. They do great work. And likewise, if you're on the other channels and you're not mine, uh, a member of mine, come over and subscribe to mine. Oh, by the way, Brian, if they will— do you— or is yours monetized? Is there a way for people to contribute to your channel?

Uh, no, but in the video description there are, uh, options like Patreon and Buy Me a Coffee. I don't monetize YouTube for a wide range of reasons.

Dr. Oualaalou, if people wanted to contribute to your channel, how could they do that.

Oh, just buy me coffee.

All right, thank you very much. And of course, you can see everything going across the bottom. Don't forget, follow me on Rockfin, on Rumble. I've had a number of videos that I've done that, to my surprise, I got up the next morning and YouTube had taken them down. But you can still find them on Rockfin and Rumble. So thank you very much. Follow me on those. Follow me on— I'm also on Facebook and Instagram, but you know, not much there. But I'm on, uh, Telegram also. Gentlemen, thank you very much. This has been very enlightening, and hopefully we can get back again every week or two and do another one of these shows. And, and, uh, well, I'll find out tomorrow. I think there are a couple of other, um, channels that may be running this also. This is— these are— I think in this day and age when people are confused, the Trump administration's only been in 2 or 3 months, I think it's important to have these kinds of discussions so people can get various perspectives. There are those who feel that the Trump administration may be going in the right direction. There are those who feel they aren't, but we need these kinds of discussions to ensure that we get a well-rounded view of what's going on. So thank you very much, and I look, I look forward to talking to you again soon.

Thank you, Garland, and thank you, David Oualaalou.

You're welcome.