Why the US Stands No Chance Against this Alliance?

All right, hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Excited to be with you, uh, on this December 2nd, you know, this glorious day. So anyway, got an interesting topic, uh, for you. Of course, I read the, uh, the article, which was by the way in a Foreign Affairs magazine which was translated, uh, into a foreign language, into Arabic language, uh, and, and the concern for me wasn't about all that. It was about the content of, of course, where the article came from and who wrote it originally. So, and this is what I intended to share with you, my insights, because I wrote about this particular topic previously when I used to write for certain magazines and so forth back then. And I even in my books, both the Russian book and the Iran book, I addressed this particular— so when I read this translation by author by the name Muhammad Al-Saeed, that's the one from Al Jazeera, Uh, of course it's a translation, so what I'm gonna be sharing with you is my own analysis about the content of it, and that's exactly what I intend to share with you in this particular topic. So, uh, but first let me just some housekeeping quickly. Thanks. Here, remember to join me for part 2 conversation with the, uh, Anna Malindog. You all remember her, right? She was here last time. So she's gracious enough, she accepted the invitation to come for second part. We're going to be talking about Philippines. You all know what's going on inside Philippines. This is now even more serious, and that's why I reached out to her, because she's a voice of reason, logic. And I know I read all the comments from— and I know some kind of, uh, were lashing at her for speaking the truth. But hey, when you speak truth, you stand your ground. So I, I trust that lady. She speaks from a sort of conviction for her, the love for her country. So anyway, she's going to be here on December 5th at 8 AM my time, which will be about 22:00, meaning 10 PM Manila and Beijing time. So just tune into that if you can. So otherwise you can listen to that later on. All right, let's see who's here in the community quickly here. Uh, um, good to see you. Uh, oh, are they going to censor me again? Well, don't be surprised because I just got a word from YouTube about one of my videos that I did 2 weeks ago, and I was like, come on guys, we thought we beyond this. But always keep it positive. So what else you do? We all know how the system is. Hang in, G, good to see you as always. Muslim Revert, Willie Holman, Muhammad Mazar, good to see you. Uh, Leen, good to see you. Timeline Dunkley, 1KC Thunderbolts, good to see you. Uh, Chosu, good to see you. Karakulak, as always. Uh, Matt Becky, Sam Stone, uh, Radiant Gonzalez, salam, good to see you. See you, good to see you. And Truth Seeker, Xiao Yang, good to see you. Army with Harmony, And Taiwan still. And more of you are coming over here on the chat room, so good to see you guys. All right, let's get into our topic. And as I mentioned, uh, uh, I'm going to be talking, providing you the analysis as to why I am convinced, as to why I put the title in the thumbnail— in the, in the video description. If you look at it, and the title, it says— what I wrote was, why the US stands no chance against this alliance. And the alliance I'm referring to is China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. So, uh, I'm not surprised, uh, because I'm gonna share with you an excerpt from my book, uh, where I addressed the first three, uh, the, uh, China, Russia, and Iran. And even back then, I argued about this upcoming alliance, and here we are. Of course, North Korea wasn't in the picture back then, and now it's becoming clear as to— so this is what I'm gonna be addressing for you to put it within the context of the, uh, the structural changes that's taking place on the global stage. Uh, because you and I know by now the world has shifted to a multipolar— that's a fait accompli. I know Washington lives in denial thinking that we still rule the world. You all saw the post that I, uh, that I posted for the community regarding what Trump just said regarding punishing BRICS countries if they, uh, use other currency beside the dollar. Well, hold on a second, Mr. Trump, you know, aren't those countries sovereign states and independent states? So which means they can choose whatever currency they want to use. Who are we to dictate to them? And this is why I believe this kind of bullying— yeah, I'll use the term bullying, uh, from an international relations perspective, that is It's not going to work anymore. The world has moved on, and it behooves the United States to move with it, to change with that, whether they want to play part and thrive in this new multi-order, multipolar order, or even just create chaos, which is going to end up by itself. Even Europe now, there are voices inside are moving into the direction of it is about time to cut off this ties with the transatlantic relations. So, so this is why I'm going to argue. And the interesting thing that the United States has never had to think about this since the end of the, uh, uh, Cold War. Why? Because it was perceived that the unipolar, which was the United States— no denial about that— but that era has come to an end. And now the US is faced with the reality of Do we have— do we have any strategy in place? Which we don't, despite what so-called strategists in Washington are saying. What the US needs to do this and that, it's not going to work. And I'm going to share with you as to why that is. So, so first, let's ask the questions. And the key questions we're going to have to ask here is, uh, let me, let me share the screen with you here. Uh, can the US address this challenge? The challenge of facing an alliance of those four countries: China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Second, will the US accept the new global order? Well, apparently only Washington now still think that we still rule the world globally. No, we don't. The global hegemony of the US is coming to an end, whether we like it or not, because the world has changed., and we need to change with it. And the third question is, what lies ahead geopolitically? Because if you are to go back into the history, which I will share with you one part, especially after World War II, uh, how to— once the world was set into the East versus West, in other words, you had these two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States at the time, and the tone, the geopolitical tone was set because it was bipolar at that time. Now the setting is different. You got a multipolar. This is not about Russia wanted to become the superpower, or even as the original author of the article here in the United States wrote, that is China wanted to dominate the world, which I don't buy that argument. Never did, never will, because China is not intended or its intentions is not for that. China's intentions are for expanding the economic opportunities. This is why the Global South is moving in a different direction. And when you hear statement by the president-elect that is going to punish BRICS countries if they move, what are you talking about, man? You know, who are you to begin with to dictate to other countries which currency they can use? So I And this is why I put the question, what lies ahead geopolitically? So, so I'm going to delve deeper into this. As I said, the, the article was written by, uh, uh, what's his name, uh, Muhammad Al-Saeed is the one wrote it in Arabic. So I had a chance to read the entire article in Arabic. Of course, I tracked it, uh, down as to where its original came from, and it says right there, translated Uh, so my reaction to the article will be in the form of my own analysis because of what I wrote before, and, and you guys make up your mind at the end. I will answer any Super Sticker questions towards the end, and, and we just go from there. So, so let us start with the idea of— actually, I thought I had, uh, uh Yeah, before I'll get to this, I'll go back to it later. So as I said, the article has been translated and, uh, it was written by none other than Oriana Skyler Mastro. Let me, let me show you first of all her picture. Oh, I'm, I'm aware of her. I was aware of her, still aware of her because she's still in reserves in the Air Force. Uh, now why is this important? Is this important because you need to understand where she's at and where sometimes when you read an article, especially coming in Washington, you have to know who is behind the institution behind that. And this is why I'm going to decipher, uh, this, uh, stuff for you. But her background, uh, she is a fellow at Stanford University. So, and this is for the Institute for International Studies, and is also— she is also a non-resident at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Now, if you know the business of the Carnegie Endowment, you'll put the two and two together and figure out why certain statements would have to be mentioned. Like, for example, China— and I put this in quotes because it's her words, I'm paraphrasing here— China is challenging the US because he wants to dominate the world. You can see where the arguments going. And I'm going to share both sides of the argument with you, and you reach your arguments for that. So, and this is where the argument has been made that the US will be— alliance is losing, uh, uh, uh, US is losing the strategic advantage to this alliance for the first time in decades. But more importantly, Washington has yet to find an effective strategy, which I don't think so it will be one, because We haven't had a strategy when it comes down to global affairs for the last 30, 40 years. All we were successful at is creating, fomenting tensions and so forth. That we were good at. So as far as what the author Oriana stated, that the US will have to have flexibility of engagements, I won't count on that because we can't trust us. We don't have credibility anymore. So, and this is what I'm gonna be uh, uh, uh, sharing a little bit as I move forward. So, so now let me start from the beginning by the first sentence that the— this author wrote was, this alliance led by China. It's wrong. This alliance, meaning Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea, is not led by China to begin with. So let's put, uh, the dots on the letter, as we say. Because if you don't understand this, then the, the reason why this was mentioned this way, so to mislead the readers into the thinking from the get-go, oh, this is all China's doing, and it is not. This is a cooperation among those, uh, uh, uh, four country. It used to be three: Russia, Iran, and China. Now you add North Korea into the mix for that. So now when you look at those three, those, those alli— this alliance, if I may, the four countries, what do they have in common? What do they have in common, guys? If you look at three main countries in this alliance— Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea— what do they have? Three of them have something in common. Can you type in, in the chat box what that is? It's literally two words, or even one. Just think, uh, once again, Russia, China. Oh, oh, oh, P, you got it, you got it. Nukes, nukes, that's what it is. Yes. So as a matter of fact, uh, Karakulak, you got it. Nuclear power, uh, uh, multi-alternate communism. Well, yeah, to a degree, but Iran is not So, but it depends if you look in communism as an ideology or as a, a system of government. Yeah, some of them do. Truth Seeker, they are against the US. That is correct. So, but the key I was looking for is the nukes, which is the correct answer for this one here. Why? It's because 3 of them have nukes and one of them is on the threshold. Now here is a question for you guys, because like I always like to engage you. Do you believe, in your opinion, that Iran already possess nuclear weapon? Now don't jump to conclusions, just think. In your opinion, do you believe Iran has already acquired a nuclear device, yes or no? That's all I need to see here, guys. Uh, uh, Karakulak, you say yes. YT, you say yes. Uh, Rampus, yes they do. Grace de Joseph, you say yes. Seymour, you say close to. Brad Parts, you say yes. Zahra Fatimi, you say no. Hang, you say yes, Iran has nukes. Okay, most of you say yes, you know, and I can see that argument for why that could be the possibility. At least, and again, to my knowledge, as one who was aware, aware of the development of what's going on, they are on the threshold. Now, when I say threshold, what am I referring to here? That means they can acquire it in no time. That's the way. But I cannot conclusively, unlike in the case of both Israel and North Korea I do know for a fact they do possess nukes. Each one of them has about 110 to 121, to be exact. So in the case of Iran, on the threshold. But nonetheless, if you think about this picture of those 4 countries, even with Iran on the threshold, this is going to create or is already creating a major challenge, a dilemma, if we may use the term, for the Washington establishment. Why? Because the US cannot deal with all four. They cannot deal even with one, let alone all four. And that's why, again, I used the word specifically, will the US, can the US stand this alliance? So we all know because, and this is where you start to think in terms of Uh, if you have to go back to— I take you back to 2020, to June, uh, of this year, 2024, of course, which was only a few months ago. So, and I think I did made a video about this one here, uh, when NATO was thinking about expanding into Asia, into Japan, to open an office there. So, so what happened in June, uh, 2024? Antony Blinken, the, our incompetent Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, along with the warmonger at that time, used to be Secretary of NATO, General Stoltenberg. What did they say? They expressed in their joint statement, expressed their concern about the strengthening of ties between Russia and China. Well, hold on a second. You know, you know, why all of a sudden you are concerned? If you only look at history, that if you go some 30 years ago, Russia, Soviet Union back then, and China signed an agreement regarding this cooperation. So this is nothing new. It's just the development, the upscale of this friendship or partnership or whatever you want to call it. However, the concern for NATO was more aimed at those four countries because they said Washington is concerned about the strengthening of ties between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. So, and this is why sort of, uh, why the word came out, uh, uh, in, in Western circle. You all know the new word, right? The new Axis of Evil, in quote, because that was the term used by a majority of think tanks, analysts in the West, whatever, because they were pushed to use the terminology. Remember, the way it works in the West, most of the West, uh, uh, uh, think tanks will push the narrative that the government wants. So when you start to see the word Axis of Evil, new Axis of Evil, that was just to foment a sort of, uh, uh, uh, doubt in the mind of the readers, because readers will be misled. That's why from the get-go of this article, the author stated— not the article Muhammad Asaid, because Muhammad Asaid, he translated it The original one, uh, uh, what's her name, the, uh, uh, this one, the original one for, uh, Oriana, when she started by this alliance is led by China, misleading right from the get-go. So, and this is why you have now, uh, uh, uh analysts, okay? You have now analysts in the West pointing out that these countries will coordinate their military and diplomatic activity. What? Duh, is no-brainer. Why do you think they're gonna get together for? So to sing kumbaya or just hang out? It's for specific reason, a specific reason, and that is to meet the new demands of the new geopolitical order because it's a multipolar order. So that is the reason why. So what they're saying is— what the analysts wanted to put the doubt is that, oh, this is nothing but rhetoric, it's an empty bravado, they're not going to amount to nothing. Yeah, right. Have the US test any of them and see what the response is going to be. Even though the analysts arguing that, oh, the only main objective of this alliance is to weaken the United States. No, no, no, no, it's not about weakening. They don't care. It's about realigning with the new global order. Simple as that. And with the new global order comes the rearrangement of the geopolitical table as to where everybody sits No more the United States dictating the terms to all countries. You either take a seat at the table like everybody else on an equal footing or get out. Simple as that. This is why you're seeing BRICS going that direction, and also why the statement of President-elect Trump moving into threatening to punish through tariffs those BRICS countries that use other currencies. So So now, of course, I am not denying that China plays the major role in this alliance. Why? China is economically powerful, militarily very strong, and had the capability and capacity to do so. So I'm not denying that. But to go as far as saying it's the one leading— no. As a matter of fact, China wants to stay behind the scenes. Yes, they are part of the alliance, but keep it quiet. Because if you only know about the culture of the Chinese— Chinese never brag about stuff. It's not like us here, we brag about what we do. I mean, just look at the deal they reached, or they brokered the deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Whoever thought? Whoever thought? And they've been working on it for years. Not a word. It was quietly done till it was presented to the world. The same arguments I will make on this. Of course, if we look at Chinese economy and you look at the ties between, for example, Iran and China or North Korea and China, well, North Korea depends greatly, it's on China because North Korea's, uh, uh, Beijing is North Korea's main trading, uh, ally. Also regarding Iran, because China bring or, or purchase a lot of energy from Iran. It makes perfect sense. On the other hand, when you look at China and Russia together, no less important. Why is this? Is because China provides, or has almost provided, uh, Russia with about $9 billion in dual-use goods. So we're talking about commercial and military applications. So, and that's how it's been, and this is just since, uh, 2022. Since the Russian military operations that started. So of course, uh, there is— it's common knowledge, guys. It's not a secret, it's common knowledge. If it weren't for the support or the assistance economically of the Chinese, Russians— Russia could have stumbled economically. It turns out to be not the case. But again, when you consider about Chinese goods that are currently account for about 38% of Russian air imports. So however, China— as an analyst, I am thinking in terms— China doesn't want to be this, I am the one leading. No, China does not want to be seen as the leader in this alliance. So, so they just— that's how, that's how China conducts its operation. China, to my knowledge, based on what I've learned over the years, and China does not just talk. When they say they're gonna build something, they build it. They don't just talk about it. So, so, I mean, if I am to go even back at 2023, and I remember the statement by Li Qiang You know, when he claimed, and I put this in quote, Sino-Russian relations adhere to the principle of non-alignment, non-confrontation, and avoidance of targeting a third party, end of quote. That was Mr. Li Qiang's statement. And if I am to go even further back to 2016, so it was used to be the, the China's Xi's foreign minister. His name was Fu Ying, Y-I-N-G. So, and he's the one who stated, and I quote, because I kept the quote here, Beijing has no interest in forming an anti-American or anti-Western bloc of any kind, end of quote. So when you hear an article written here by Orsana saying Oh, China is leading the block, you know it's misleading right there. So here is the other statement that Oriana stated: China wants to replace the United States as the world dominant power. How many times we heard this? So again, I am not seeing the signs. Now, if China wants to replace the world— the United States economically, why not? Because things gets done You know what I mean? You know, and why this, I want to be at the top, you at the bottom? Why not cooperate? And this is one of the problems we have when we sit down across from the Chinese. We coming up with this arrogance, with this attitude of we are better, we are higher, we are superior. No need for that. Chinese look at it like, well, if you couldn't even talk to us on an equal footing knowing that we are economically strong as well and militarily, then what's the point? So, and this is why when, when the article stating that, oh, China wants to replace the United States, uh, as the world dominant power— no, no, no, it's because the partnership with Iran, with North Korea, and Russia, it paved the way for ensuring the different direction of the new multipolar order. That's what it is. That's something we are not willing to accept, as I mentioned earlier. So, so when you hear statements— because I'm gonna post the link for you guys, for you to read it yourself and reach out to your, uh, uh, uh, conclusion for that matter. So, so, and, and this is why, uh, uh, On one hand, those three countries, you know, when you think about Iran, North Korea, Russia, on one hand they are with China, of course. The United States is thinking about it in terms of, okay, how can we create more tensions, especially in the neighborhood of Russia, of China, because we already fomented tensions in the neighborhood of Russia, Ukraine, in a neighborhood of Iran, Gaza, and now we pushing for the enmities or tensions in the neighborhood of China. And as a matter of fact, I feel comfortable saying we already started that. Which country, in your opinion, that is now experiencing domestic turmoil, politically speaking? Can you type in Which country in Asia that is experiencing political turmoil right as we speak? Domestic. Uh, not Indonesia, no, not Myanmar, no, no, no, no, no, no, not Georgia. In Asia, in Asia. Oh, oh, Jesus Aguilar, you got it. Philippines. That's why I reached out to Anna, bring her back, because you guys need to know this. All of a sudden, turmoil inside Philippines is no coincidence. It is no coincidence. And that's what I'm saying. So you create, you ferment deep enmities within the neighboring of whatever country you want to do. And we are famous for doing that. So this is where the Carnegie Endowments comes in. That's what I'm saying. You always have to go back to the source of where the article is coming from for you to understand. So, uh, and that's why, uh, those now Western thinkers are saying, well, in this case, China has to walk fine line. No, China doesn't need to walk fine line because it doesn't care. Why would he walk a fine line? If he wants to develop a relationship with other countries, then be it. So, you know, and even, even now, like the, like the, like of, uh, uh, uh, uh, what's her name? I always keep forgetting her name here. Uh, Oriana. Yeah, Oriana. The likes of Oriana now saying that, uh, For China— for the US, oh, it is the US that is allowing China to get the best of both worlds, develop and also build an alliance. Well, wait a minute, what can the US do to prevent that? Anyway, there are only one option, to create tensions. But even with that, China won't be able to take the heat by itself. And that's what I'm gonna lead into talking about this one here. Now we ought to ask a question: are this— is this alliance going to be sort of, uh, uh, uh, be the way like you and I know about conventional military alliance, the equivalency of NATO? We're not going to compare to NATO, but the equivalency. So far I didn't see any of that because there is no treaty that for— that all of them have signed that says we are, uh, in the case one is attacked, we will defend them. No, I didn't see all that. What I do see is the close cooperation on both economics and military among them. So, and, and that's remained to be seen. I am not saying that it won't happen, but the possibility of it. So, so let me take you back to the '50s, and especially if we are to talk about China and Russia in this case, because those are also the two main players in this alliance, if I may use the term. So if you are to go back to the 1950s, uh, uh, right after the outbreak of the Cold War, so, so what happened at that time with the CPC, the Communist Party of China, uh, and the Soviet Union? This is again where when you go back to the June 2024 statements of, uh, Tony Blinken and the former Secretary of NATO, Stoltenberg, about China is our main concern because of its strengthening its alliance with Russia. They, they refrained from mentioning this because people will say, well, wait a minute, what are you talking about? They already concluded a 30-year, 30-year treaty of friendship, alliance, and mutual assistance. That was back in the '50s, right during the Cold War. So, and this, this treaty concluded in the way, in the wake of the victory of the, of the Communists over the Nationalists in the Civil War in China. So, and that is why we be ensured, because this is why we ensured the support at that time of the, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, not, not just there, anywhere with the revolutionary socialist states everywhere. So, so here's the thing, and I'm going to share this with you in quote, because the treaty that they signed called on both Beijing and Moscow to defend each other and consult— here is the quote— on all important international issues affecting the common interests of the Soviet Union and China. End of quote. Once again, I always want you guys— once— because now I feel comfortable saying, uh, you, you know how to read between the lines, especially when it comes down to do geopolitics. So, so you always— my advice, always try, try to go back 30, 40, 50, 60 years and see if there's anything out there that has established this relationship or this friendship or this partnership, whatever term, because that will give you an idea. And here is an example here. So we go all the way back to the '50s in the break, uh, uh, breakout of the Cold War. Beijing and Moscow already signed this one. So, so of course we can't deny the history, and I wrote about it in my Russia book. We can't deny Russian— Chinese never forget the, the war with the, with the Soviet Union back then, because relations between the two countries sort of, uh, became, if I may use the term, entangled, complicated of sort. So sometimes they are cooperating and notably supporting North Korea at the time from Kim Il-sung, the founder of the, of the, of North Korea. So, and not only in there, because there were also was a support in the, uh, China's southern neighbors. So, so the two countries, Russia and China, disagreed on certain aspects, and you all know this, you know the history. Vietnam, you know the history of Cambodia, and you know who should lead, because that was what's at the core disagreement between China and Soviet Union at the time. Who will lead the Communist bloc? That's what was at the heart of it. We took advantage of that. So, and this is where we noticed the, the changes in history regarding, uh, who's going to be arming North Vietnam at the time. The resistance against the Soviet efforts to make some sort of a breakthrough with the United States. That's what I'm saying. You, you have to go back in history. You can assume— and this is where I, I get a little, uh, uh, not upset, it's just I get a little, you know, when I know that the authors are intentionally misleading through the wording. So, and this is one thing that, uh, the West— there are many Western think tanks using one specific terminology. I'm going to share it with you. As far as how China approached this, it is known in the West— when you see the West, I'm referring to Berlin, Brussels, London, Washington, Paris— to a degree, uh, it's called one foot at home and one foot abroad. This is China's strategy or approach. So, well, there is some conviction or truth in it, for a good reason, not a bad reason. For a good reason, because China doesn't want to intervene in internal affairs of other countries, but China wants to get involved in economics. You know, you remember the example, uh, I, I— another example, the video I did for you about, uh, President Xi Jinping's stopover in Morocco and how Morocco flipped from 2 years ago all of a sudden because Morocco saw also what Algeria is doing with China. Yeah, what Egypt is doing with China becoming a part of BRICS. You know, Morocco also has to think in the strategy. So, so China didn't kind of snubbed Morocco because they refused before. It's like, sure, you want to do business, we'll do business. That is So, and this is where I need you to understand this dynamic. So, uh, I have a picture here I need to share with you, and this is why you're seeing this cooperation, uh, moving forward in, in a way that US cannot influence. So they just can't. So, and, uh, it's just the way it works, especially between those three countries. And by the way, I give credit to this picture to Al Jazeera because that's their— so, so it became clear to me that this cooperation, it's, it's kind of, uh, uh, uh, it's, it's a, uh, what's the, what's the word? It's a foregone conclusion that is going to challenge the US global hegemony. Simple as that. It's because more and more countries are trusting us less because we go back on our commitments, we go back on our words, we go back on what we say we stand for this and that. Look at it just with the ICC now decision that the US is saying they want to veto that decision. Why? Isn't that an international institution that everybody is under the same law? And how come that ICC rule applies to, for example, the Russian president Myanmar in this case, or some other countries, but not Israel or the US or whatever. So, so, and this is why the Global South, the, the world for that matter, is kind of wants to move on from this particular thing. So now when you think about both Russia and China, of course you are aware of the joint military drills they've been conducting together. Little longer now, you add Iran to the mix of all this. So, uh, but what's interesting, and I found it very interesting, uh, is that, uh, they are even with the, the arguments that Washington's been making, that China has been the one providing support, uh, for Russia in the Ukraine conflict. So sometimes Western think tanks will have to soften the language. So here is one example. China— that's what it says— China did not support the inv— and I'm putting a quote here— China did not support the invasion of Ukraine and did not provide Russia with direct military assistance in this regard, end of quote. How come only a year ago You are, you are, you are, uh, vociferously, uh, uh, uh, uh, saying, oh, China is supporting Russia by providing weapons and this and then that. All of a sudden you are turning it down. So that's just, uh, but also you have to consider also the visit of the a, a, a, a, or the meeting rather between Vladimir Putin, President Putin, and Kim Jong-un. So that, that just said, why am I saying this is because that's where China start to try to take step back, let things be, even though you and I know North Korea is a client of China, not Russia. But there is cooperation going on between North Korea and Russia in some technological aspects. So, so, and this is why last June the Russian president and the North Korean president signed the treaty that includes supporting each other, meaning Russia and North Korea, if either of them is attacked. A bilateral matter between Moscow and Pyongyang. What did China do about it? Nothing, because he's like, hey, that's what they want to do, that's what they're going to sign. So as a matter of fact, I am aware of one case where China took, took the, the, the neutral position, and this one has to do when the United Arab Emirates clashed with Iran over maritime sovereignty areas. That was, that was, uh, uh, back then a little bit. And what did Beijing do? Beijing issued joint statements with the United Arab Emirates declaring its support for which country? None. Declaring its support for peaceful resolution. That shows you right there. So that's why when, uh, when, uh, Orzak saying— the author of the article saying, oh, this alliance is led by China— it's nonsense. So, so even during the Cold War, I'll take you back then, guys. China paid the price for sending mixed signals at that time, uh, or, or messages to the Soviet Union, because this is what prompted Moscow to move away from Beijing. So, and that's what led, uh, to the divide between Soviet Union and China back then. So However, what the argument saying now is that this time is different because Beijing is making the best use of its dual positions. Well, no, no, I'll consider this a lie. What Beijing is doing is thinking about its own strategic interests, where the strategic interest lies. In this case, with Iran, for example, regarding energy, In this case with Russia regarding the military technology exchange and ideas and, and, and exports and import and support with North Korea, it's because it's on closer to the border of China because China is concerned that if there is a war in the Korean Peninsula, massive immigration is gonna get into China. There's always a strategic reason, uh, for, for that one. So in addition to that, You think about the energy. Besides the energy from Iran that China is getting, China is also getting discounted energy from Russia at a 44% discount compared to what the Europeans pay. So, and that's even when Russia launched its operation. China didn't even get involved by either issuing statements or whatever. Ain't its business. No, the same thing Iran did when the lies about the Xinjiang and Uyghurs— you remember those human rights atrocities and all that against Muslims, which turns out to be a lie. You all know this, uh, even back then Iran didn't say a word, didn't issue condemnation, didn't, because they knew first of all it was a lie, and second, it's China's internal issue. Even if it was the case is China's internal affairs. So, so, and the idea of— and this is why in the case of, uh, I'll give the example of Iran because I'm familiar with it. I wrote about it, so I kind of disclosed this kind of stuff. Even Iran had to ensure the support of China regarding— even at that time when the conversation was about Hong Kong, okay, And of course, it was always about Taiwan. So Iran supported Beijing's political support for Hong Kong and Taiwan as being part of the mainland China. So, and this is where I see this difference that is going on. And that's why when you think about where the cooperation is moving forward regarding China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, it's, it's, uh, it's just going in a direction that the US cannot influence and will not be able to influence because the US cannot fight all four. So, I mean, you think about it, even, uh, uh, for, for China itself is maintaining a good relationship with the, with the, uh, sort of the closest allies of the United States. So I'll give you a good example: South Korea and Japan. We all know those two states, right? So they are under the— will it be fair to say this, guys? They are under the authority of the United States of Washington. Just please type in, in the chat box, yes or no. In your opinion, do you believe North Korea, uh, South Korea and Japan are under the authority— that's a keyword— under the authority of Washington. Yes or no? Let me just see what you guys type in. Q78, you say yes. Okay, I believe so. I believe so. So, but even with that, so Uh, here's the thing. Both countries, South Korea and Japan, so to some extent support the US deterrence efforts against China, you know, even though China remains the largest trading partner of both countries. That's why— let— pardon me— that's why let me to ask you that question. And if we are to move away from Asia to Europe, even the— pardon me, even Europe, Europe still feel comfortable. Some EU countries, as a matter of fact, maybe all of them, still feel comfortable enough to trade more than $800 billion in goods with China. And that was the stats that goes in, in 2023, just as of last year. All this, it gives you an idea It gives you an idea, and this is like a total trade of about 15%. So what, what Washington trying to project versus what the reality are completely different. So no, now let's think about this scenario. What if hypothetically, hypothetically that, uh, uh, uh, China's approach to Iran, China's approach to North Korea, China's approach to Russia, even if we go with the hypothetical that is acceptable to the US, because as it stands, Russia— China does not provide Russia with explicit military assistance. So, but it continues its diplomatic solutions to stop Iran's nuclear program. That's one. And at the same time, the EU-Beijing relationship could modify or, or impact Iran's long-term trajectory. So, so the status quo, if we are to think about the status quo, you know, uh, it is preferable for it to stay the way it is, in which Beijing provides full support for these countries. However, US, USC, it's not reassured, as the author said. The US should not be reassured, so, of, of, of this fact, because China's support with its partners, uh, uh, it, it's, it's gonna limit the US ability to maneuver. Well, how can the US maneuver against those four? US will stand no chance if a war breaks out and all four comes in. We can't even fight one war. So, so, so here's the thing. When you think about the United States losing its military advantage for the first time in decades since the Cold War, since, uh, since the end of World War II. Because that's, that's what to me became clear, is as clear as daylight. So, you know, and here is why, because we have to put the, uh, the, the numbers, or, or just the idea of where things are, uh, uh, militarily. China alone, just China by itself, China by itself has more active soldiers than the United States. Okay, now if you put the two, China and Russia, together, they have more active soldiers, they have more tanks, and they have more warships. That's one. So if those countries, just these two, cooperate, they will overtake US forces in any circumstances or under any conditions. So if they fight together, even if they fight one-to-one, let's say the US will face Russia or the US will face China, we stand no chance. We stand no chance. So, so, because, uh, uh, here's the scenario that the US is thinking about. So because the US— I tell you this, guys, it's, it's no-brainer. We will struggle to, uh, win simultaneous wars. I've argued this before. We are not in possession to fight two-front wars. We couldn't even fight one. You know, you, you, you all remember, see the history of the US. So, uh, because our military is only structured to deal with one conflict at a time with someone less advanced than ours or even comparable. So, and even with that, we couldn't defeat, for example, in Afghanistan or Iraq or even Yemen. As it stands right now in the Red Sea, we couldn't lift that blockade. So where is this mighty military might and so forth? So now what we are able to do is we will be able to deter small entities, small countries, small whatever you want to call it. So now that we can do this, so now hypothetically there is a conflict, and this is just hypothetical, guys. I want you just think outside the box. Hypothetically, there is a conflict in West Asia, Middle East, that is, there is a conflict in the Korean Peninsula, and there is a conflict in Taiwan Strait. Okay, where do we go? Which one do we fight? Which one can we fight? Because we're gonna have to give up two fronts to be focusing only on one. Which one's gonna be? When you consider— and I'll give you just a quick example— when you consider, uh, uh, the North Koreans just few months ago tested the ICBM that can reach the US in no time. So when you consider Iran is developing, which is on threshold, which means when they are in threshold, that means here is in a simple language, guys, just for you to understand. That means all they need to do is to test the detonators and that's it. That's what it means. And if you think about the Chinese developments of the hypersonic missiles and so forth, Or even they're now— they're fire just J-20. And if you think about the Russians, what they have. So I'm just give you one example. If there were to be those three scenarios, one in West Asia, one in Korean Peninsula, and one in Taiwan Strait, that's why we won't be able to— we will not be able to So, and, uh, this, uh, uh, fighter jets, by the way, right here, guys, because I gotta give credit because it's, it's a require— it's, it's the right thing to do, uh, give credit to the Reuters for this, uh, uh, and that those are the J-15, not J-20. Those are J-15, uh, uh, taken off from a Chinese aircraft carrier, uh, the aircraft carrier is, is named or called Leonin, Leonin, Leonin, Leonin. Uh, and those, uh, those were, uh, maneuvers in the South China Sea. So that's what it is. So now let me share something with you from my book that I wrote about back then, which put this in perspective, uh, just for you to understand And I addressed them both in my Iran book and in my Russia book, but I'm going to address this one, I think, from the Iran book. That's where I talked about it. And by the way, to those who might be interested in buying my books, it's right here. If you guys interested, you might want to make it as a Christmas gift for someone who likes reading. Don't, don't give, don't give it a gift for someone who does not like to read. Because they're going to just waste it. And don't waste your money on that. So if you're— if they're not going to use it. All right, let me read this to you. So, and this is what I wrote back then, uh, uh, on my Iran book. Yeah. Make no mistake, the alliance of Russia and China will alone change the rules of the global political game that has been played for over a half century. Now imagine adding Iran to the mix. That's what I wrote back then. At least in the Middle East, you know, one ends up with an ideological and political showdown between the East and the West. Russia and China can justify their involvement in this geopolitical shift as a response to the United States undermining their strategic interest. The US efforts to encroach on China and Russia's strategic room has rendered and independence between Beijing and Moscow over some core interest issues. I continue. I see Russia and China are strengthening their bilateral ties to achieve global strategic stability. I didn't say global dominance, as the author of the article from the Foreign Affairs stated. So, uh, I see that Russia and China are strengthening their bilateral ties to achieve global strategic stability. That goal is evidenced by both Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia visiting Iran in a show of support for Tehran while sending a message to the United States, challenging its hegemony in what is considered its own turf, the Middle East. That is, among the three nations, Iran, Russia, and China, one finds, one finds a political flavor for everyone. As I argued in my previous writing, though it may seem odd that bilateral ties between these three countries continue to grow and converge on the global— of— on the goal of undermining the United States' global leadership, each one has its own agenda and goals. At least for China and Russia, it is clear why their relationship have thought lightly. However, the alliance between Iran and its nuclear agreement backers, Russia and China, is one of necessity that eventually will manifest itself beyond the political sphere. So that's, that's a— I am certain, I continue, I am certain countries in the Middle East and elsewhere wonder what this newly formed triangle of Iran, Russia, and China is capable of achieving. So that's, that's, that's, uh, time is the essence. Time is of the essence for the West to have its strategy in place to deal with the inevitable shift. It goes beyond diplomatic rhetoric, meetings, and political optics. It needs to get to the heart of the matter to understand the ramification of the shifts meaning for global order as we know it. It is fair to state that at least with Iran, the West has, has, uh, has a grasp, no matter how limited, of how political decisions are made. So it is different, uh, ball game with China and Russia. Uh, much of the Chinese military and political decision-making process occur beyond the sight of the outside world. So as of Russia, I am reminded of what Winston once said, uh, it is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. It was right, even though we all know the history of Winston Churchill wasn't as bright as we might have us believe. So, so, uh, and this is why I wanted to, uh, think in terms of, uh, I also wrote in the Russia book, I believe that's what it was, uh, let me see. Yeah, on this one here, guys. Yeah, I wrote, it is short-sighted in my opinion to limit the dialogue about what plague— what plagues the current US-Russian relations to differences about key strategic interests. What lies ahead concerns me greatly because US-Russian relations are sitting on the edge of outright conflict, especially in the aftermath of the death of the INF Treaty. I see no reason why Russia will change course regarding what lies ahead. The West, including the United States, needs to stop pretending that it knows what, what Russia was or is or or up to lack of debate about Russia prevent analysts and foreign policy establishments from fully understanding that the strategy, scale, and scope of activities Russia embarks on, especially after 2014, go beyond its periphery, both geographically and operationally. That's what I argued back then, and here we are. So, and this takes us to the tip of the hour, so that's where I will conclude. My analysis for you. I hope I provided you some insight, guys, that will at least broaden your horizon and further your knowledge regarding this particular complicated and convoluted topics that I'm trying to simplify them for you in the language that you and I can understand and everybody else, so it makes more sense to you. So, so once again, I want to say thank you to those who have been supporting the channel. Uh, let me see where we are. Here is the— if you want to support the channel, you can buy me some coffee here. Uh, I would greatly appreciate your support. You all know, uh, the, the, the time and energy that I devote for this. Uh, I thought I had my, uh, uh, let me get it for you guys quickly here while I have you. Uh, I, I just, uh, posted a link to my, uh, my new website for my speaking engagements. It's, it's uploading here, so, all right, let me get it for you guys and you can, uh, check it out. All right, let me share it with you guys. Bear with me here, please. Add banner and, and show. Here it is. This is the link to my, uh, speaking engagement if you want to check it out. So feel free to do so. So, all right, uh, remember once again, join me on the 5th for my conversation with Anna Moundog, about to really the turmoil, political, the internal political turmoil in Philippines and what it means for the future of that country. I am very concerned where Philippines is headed. I hope we're not going to see a repeat of a civil war. Yeah, I feel comfortable saying this. I hope I am wrong. I hope I'm wrong. So, so remember to join me that, but I'm gonna work on some other topics for you uh, between now and then. I might do another one tomorrow or Wednesday. We'll see how it goes. So, uh, let me see if there is any, uh, super sticker question here that I can answer for you. Uh, if not, I'm just gonna move on and go work on the topic for the next topic that, uh, I know some of you have been mentioning about Syria. I'm aware of what's going on in there. I'll be happy to do an update about that one. As a matter of fact, the head of the, uh, the opposition leader just been taken out. Russia took him out. So, uh, and that's just how it's gonna be. So, all right guys, uh, I don't see any here, so I'm gonna sign off. Hope you, hope you find this very interesting. And as always, remember, geopolitics impacts your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, guys. Bye-bye.