Will Trump Succeed in Dividing Russia & China? | Geopolitical Trends

All right, hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Excited to be with you as always. Excited also because of the topic I am going to be, uh, providing you my analysis on, uh, something I wrote extensively on, uh, regarding Russia-China relations, the US, of course, Iran, and so forth. All of them comes to play an interesting, uh, uh, uh, uh role, if I may say, in really shaping what the new trajectory of the global order is going to be. So this is why I'm very, very excited. I'll be sharing some excerpts from my— one of my books regarding that. But before I'll do this, let me say quickly hi to our wonderful community. John Wong, good to see you as always. John Lay, uh, good to see you. Uh, who else is here? Uh, Ener Eddie, Good to see you. Uh, Hang and G, good to see you. Interesting comment, Hang and G. Who forced Russia and China into bed together? You're absolutely correct. I addressed this in the book. So good to see you. Uh, uh, Tom Sires, good to see you. Phil, as always. Willie Holman, Lee Yang, uh, Truth Seeker, Harry Lo Cal, good to see you as always. Uh, Thunderbolts, good to see you. Marco W, good to see you. A, good to see you. That's what its screen name is, interesting. And Farid Amel, good to see you as always. Marco 1KC, Athene Wu, I haven't seen you for a while. I think, I know you were here last time, but I, I haven't seen you for a while. So, so, uh, Ninja, uh, Seaborg, good to see you. And I did see Amanda here somewhere. Oh, he was here already. Uh, Doggy 5, good to see you as always. All right guys, let's, let's get into this because I have a lot to cover. Before I'll do this, I need to just give you a heads up on what's coming up, uh, as far as some housekeeping stuff. Remember to join me on February 28th, last day of the month, for my conversation with, uh, none other than Carl Zhao. We're gonna be— I have the thumbnail right here. So Carl and I will be talking about a host of issues. Uh, usually we do We talk about 4 or 5 main topics regarding, uh, not only what's going on in Asia and so forth, but also around the world. So I look forward to that conversation, uh, uh, with Carl on, uh, the 28th. On, uh, March 2nd, it's not confirmed yet. I'm waiting, still waiting to hear from Professor Anna Malinov. So once, once she confirms, I'll, I'll, I'll let you guys know and we'll move on with that's all. All right, what I decide to do, guys, today is I'm going to do some headlines for you, headlines that falls within the context of what I'm talking about. And this way, before I'll jump into my own analysis, well, the first picture I'm going to share with you, it has to do with Mr. Lavrov, uh, Lavrov, the foreign minister of Russia. Of course, he is in Iran. As a matter of fact, before I'll detail something, would— I'm going to ask you a question. Would you guys like me to do a live stream for you on this visit and what it's sort of the, the, uh, the objective, uh, of, of Mr. Lavrov being in, in Iran? Just please answer yes or no. This way I know, because even though I'm very familiar with both countries, given I wrote two books on each, or one book on each rather, uh, I'd like to have your input into whether you would like me to do, uh, a live stream tomorrow, uh, on the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visit to Iran. So, so just in the chat box, please just say yes or no. This way I would know, and I don't want to waste your time, and I don't want to waste mine either. So, uh, and I'm gonna take a look later on, uh, well, actually, let me, let me look at it right now. Uh, oh, Gordon Carleon, you say yes, Rampos won. You say yes. Athene Wu, yes. Amanda, yes. Lee Yang, yes. Wong KC, yes. Then that's it, it's a done deal. So the community voted for this. And, uh, Sunday B, you say yes. Fred Paul, you say yes. Then that's it, it's a done deal. So I'll work on it, uh, and, and, and present something for you guys tomorrow with my own analysis about it. As I said, I wrote on both countries and I advocated for some stuff back then that it turns out to be accurate. Not bragging here, but it's just that's part of my, uh, being a geopolitical analyst. You have to look very, very far down the road. So, so now let's go back to this one here and highlight to you a few key things. So, so the question again, and I'm not going to say much here except to highlight to you what will it be, uh, Lavrov's visit to Tehran, what kind of, what does it What does it carry in it? You can't just go randomly. And why is this important? It is important. It comes only one week after his meeting with his counterpart, Marco Rubio, in, in Riyadh. So that tells me right there, with the changing, uh, the rapid one, that is, changes that's going on in the region. And not only that, it's in the tensions that exist between United States and Iran, and Iran and Israel. So you can look at it both sides here. And this is why I think you will be, uh, uh, better off with, uh, at least providing you my own analysis about this one here, and, and we just go from there. So, so be on a lookout tomorrow, and I'll set it up and we'll do it tomorrow. Here is what's interesting also about this, the timing of it. It comes at a time when the Russian president Vladimir Putin said that he, he is open— listen carefully, guys— he is open to economic cooperation with the United States on rare earth minerals. Very interesting dynamics. I'm gonna show another picture here, and I give credit to Rebecca Noble. From Getty Images. That's her picture, and I give credit where credit is due. So very, very interesting, because if you only know what, uh, President Trump just said regarding this deal— and I'm going to share a clip with you that highlights to you this point. So, uh, my second headline here is going to be about Emmanuel Macron, the French president, who is currently in Washington, DC. Well, the idiot Macron is here. Why is he here for? Makes you just wonder. But don't be surprised, and it's not a laughing matter. I laugh out of the stupidity that exists with this Western leaders. So here is the thing, you all know yesterday I did the, uh, the live stream for you regarding, uh, uh, what's his name, Frederick Mers, right? He won. Well, guess what? He just flipped this morning. He just flipped on one of the key policies he ran on, and this one has to do with anti-immigration. Now, what is he saying? Oh, the border will be open. And that gives you an idea why he made the statement, meaning he, Frederick Merz, made the statements about not allowing AfD to be part of a government or the coalition. Because AfD saying no immigration, no aid to Ukraine, and even they don't want to be part of NATO. So now the question we're going to ask within the context of Macron visit to, uh, uh, uh, Washington is that for Germany, are we meaning this, make the new boss as the old boss, except that this one is even worse? Because here, remember BlackRock, which he represents and works for, and so forth. Because who is pushing now the limitation of the freedom of speech in Europe? The European Union. Under whose authority? The liar von der Leyen. And Macron is taking part of that. And this is where that visit, his visit to, uh, uh, Washington came about. So, so basically, uh, and I'm gonna play a clip for you guys here because you need to take a listen here, and I'll, I'll comment on it. Yeah, take a listen here, guys.

President has a long relationship with Donald Trump, a man who could have influence as the world contemplates peace in Ukraine.

President Macron was a very special man in my book.

It's clear Donald Trump wants the US to get something out of its support for Kyiv during its 3-year-long battle. A deal on rare earth minerals, the ability to access and exploit He believes a deal is close and it would help Ukraine too.

The deal's being worked on. We're, I think, getting very close to getting an agreement beneficial to their economy, to them as a country. But, you know, we're in for $350 billion. How we got there, I don't know, but that's a lot of money, a lot of money invested, and we had nothing, nothing to show for it.

Trump tried to claim Europe had not given as much as the US, only But here is what's interesting, guys.

I just want to elaborate briefly, quickly. Here is what's interesting. First of all, Trump still makes the case for why we have wasted $350 billion with nothing to show for it. I, I couldn't agree more with his assertion on this. As I always say, you give credit where credit is due, you know. For something like this, what are we— do we have to show for it, you know? What did we get in return, us as taxpayers? That we sending money to a corrupted government. And this is where you can start to understand the, the, uh, the objective of what geopolitics is all about. And the objective is what is a national interest. You know, in geopolitics you can't be thinking about, oh, he's my buddy, or he's my friend, or he's someone I collaborated for a long time with, because what determined that relationship is the national interest, strategic interest to be exact. This is exactly why the Russian president said we are open to collaborating with the US on the rare earth, uh, uh, minerals in Ukraine, or Eastern Ukraine there, because most of it is in Eastern Ukraine. What's interesting, and I'm gonna, uh, complete— I'm gonna let you guys listen to the rest of the video very shortly here, uh, to the clip rather. What's interesting is what Donald Trump has pointed out as to what the Europeans are doing. Because Europeans, do you think they're helping Ukraine because they want to? No, they are giving them a loan. Do you think Ukraine is going to be able to repay its loan? Why do you think, uh, BlackRock was given already the contract for rebuilding Ukraine? Are they going to rebuild Ukraine? You know, all those are questions that we ought to ask. So, so let's, uh, let's continue this listening here.

To be surprisingly corrected with a hand on the arm.

No, in fact, to be, to be frank, uh, we paid, we paid 60%.

It's possible President Zelensky could be at the White House in the next 2 weeks, but he's rejected the—

Once again, take a look at the gesture of Macron right here when, when he cut off Trump as he was speaking. Take a listen again.

Only to be surprisingly corrected with a hand on the arm.

No, in fact, to be, to be frank, we paid, we paid 60%.

It's possible President Zelensky could be at the White House in the next 2 weeks.

Stop sharing. Okay, now let's get back to our— yeah, yeah, the idea. So he's saying they're paying 60%. Well, yeah, we are paying the bulk of it. I mean, Europeans do. They put $100 billion. That's what they put so far. At the expense of their own citizens. I mean, now Germany as an example, why they were been pushing for— now with this guy, this new chancellor, he might even be worse than Olaf Scholz. But again, do you blame him or do you blame the young people in Germany, the majority who voted for him? You know, you can't, because we got to be— same thing for us, same thing in so-called democratic countries. You get what you vote for. On the other hand, it should be a way, I believe, and this is my opinion, it should be a mechanism by which if a leader is elected and go back on his promises that he or she campaign on, should be ejected from office. Get out, get him out of the office. Simple as that. No, you don't serve your full term. That's to me what democracy is all about. But on the other hand, this kind of referendum is not given to the people. You only allow the elections, of course, but referendum, which is slightly different, is let people decide for, for themselves. And that's to me where the, the key is. So the, the question we're going to ask ourselves is what is Macron doing in Washington? That's the bottom line to it. So, all right guys, and I'll, uh, as I said, tomorrow I will be work— I'll be presenting you with the, my analysis about, uh, uh Lavrov's visit to Iran. But let's, let's, uh, let me share the questions with you about our topic today, then, then I'll launch into, uh, into our, uh, analysis, or my analysis here, uh, for you guys. All right, where are the questions? Right here. All right, now the key question I'm gonna ask straightforward is, will Trump succeed in creating this wedge between Russia and China? Now don't, don't jump, don't jump to conclusions, guys. Don't say, uh, no, he will not. You'll be surprised, and I'm gonna share in my analysis why the possibility of it might be there on the table. So don't, don't, don't, don't overrule it. So a second thing is, is this a reflection of the decline of US dominance to the point that we are so concerned about this rapprochement, this friendship between Russia and China, to the point that it's going to impact our global hegemony or influence or dominance? Is this now a reflection of that dominance that is going down? Third question is, what is the next step? How all three countries gonna move forward with this? Because like what, uh, Rafael Legand put in one comments on Reddit, he said— his comment basically says, moving forward, we're gonna be seeing the G3 summit every year, in reference to what? Russia, China, and the United States. So And the last question, the last question is, what role can the US play in the new global order? Because all this centers around the new multipolar order, and we are asking ourselves what role we're going to play on it. We are not the dominant anymore, because that's a fact, that is a reality. So becomes question, what kind of role we want or anticipate to play in this new global order. Very, very interesting dynamics, uh, to say the least. So now, as I said, I'm gonna explore the possibility of Donald Trump, President Trump, uh, potentials, uh, potential strategy rather, uh, to create or drive a wedge between Russia and China, the two world other powers. So because here is the thing, as the geopolitical landscape that is continuing to shift before our own eyes, you know, somebody will have to be blind not to see that happening, you know, uh, could Trump divisive tactics— because this is to aim at one thing and one thing only— is to draw in, to allure in, or to woo the Russians so they can start to stay away from the Chinese. It is no different than what we did back in the '70s when we tried to woo the Chinese away from the, uh, the Soviet Union back then. I'm, I'm seeing history going back in a circle here. So, so could this tactic be successful in creating, uh, this sort of, uh, rift, if I may use the term, or division between these two nations? And, and my analysis is gonna try to answer this one. I don't want to get ahead of it, uh, uh, right now. But before I move forward, please, if this is your first time joining us on this channel here, I will greatly appreciate if you could subscribe. Because here is the thing, the analysis you are hearing on this platform is unique to this channel. That is, I am talking based on my academic background, on my professional experience and boots on the ground. I've been around most of the, most of the world, uh, that I talk about right now. And this is why I will greatly appreciate your support in, uh, in, in subscribing to this channel. So let me put the link for you guys in the chat box for those who, who are new here for the first time, uh, so this way you can share the channel with other people so they, like you, can have an opportunity to hear the truth. And thank you very much for your support. All right, let's, let's get in into our analysis. I had a chance to read an article by Yaroslav Trofimov. Now, I liked some of the content of it. I don't agree with the entire article, and the reason being, once you know the source of the article, where it's coming from, and the entity Mr. Yaroslav, uh, Trofimov works for. So, but nonetheless, we got to be fair, the content is— I, I, I liked it because it's factual and makes sense to me. Do I disagree with some other parts? Yes, I do. And this is what I'm going to be reacting part of this, but also adding my own, uh, own analysis to this topic. So, well, the bottom line to it, guys, is that here is this sudden change in American foreign policy. You all know, if you are to think about how, uh, the incompetent Biden— the guy doesn't know day from night— was behaving, now you're seeing the reverse, complete reverse. And, and you can use the term abrupt for embracing Russia. What, embracing Russia because Donald Trump cares about Russia? Or is, is it embracing Russia because He wanted to create that wedge. So, and this is where I disagree with the author when he said, and I quote, uh, uh, Donald Trump's abrupt and enthusiastic embrace of Russia and its authoritarian leader Vladimir Putin. Well, hold on a second, you know, what makes you think we don't have the same here, just in a different format? So you look at, you know, if we are to start censoring speech here and limiting freedom of speech, what do you call that? And this is where sometimes I get very, uh, very poignant when it comes down to how authors— I'm an author, I write, I will know if somebody's trying to manipulate the masses. But again, not the entire, the entire article is that way. But here is the thing, the idea is that Donald Trump moving into this direction is for strategic objective, and that objective is the division, to create division between Moscow and Beijing. Why? It's because US dominance on the global stage is going down. It's the beginning of the end. This is the harsh reality that some in Washington are not willing to accept. They, they play in this, actually it's a psychological, not trick, but rather not trick, what the word— what is the word I'm looking for? Strategy is to manipulate the masses by— if you keep saying, oh, the global dominance of the United States, and repeatedly, people will, will sort of will absorb that kind of thinking. And this is the reason why the idea of why Mr. Trump is moving into this particular aspect, as I mentioned earlier. You all know what happened in the '70s regarding China, okay, with the visit of Nixon. And what was it for? Is to pull China to our camp, right? Now looks like we are seeing the reverse. So, and that was exactly what Nixon did, wanted to try to create the deep division between Mao Zedong and the Soviet Union at that time. And that's of course because of that particular aspect is what set the war, uh, the sort of the Cold War, that is the geopolitics of what the Cold War was all about. Except we didn't calculate it right because the thinking was, oh, if we're gonna pull in China that's it, China is going to just follow what we say. They— by the time China did that, it end up embarking on an economic development. That is where the difference that we misunderstood. So, and this is not what we are trying to do, uh, uh, like what the author said something, and I disagree with him on this because I know something about, and I'm going to share it with you. The author, uh, uh, what's it's a Russian name, I think, or, uh, no, I don't assume it's Russian. Pardon me, I take this back. Uh, Yaroslav, what he said, and I quote, 'Praying Russia and China apart now. The two autocracies declared in 2022 that they have a no-limit friendship will be difficult.' I agree with him on that. The two nations have deepened the military and intelligence cooperation and aligned their foreign policies. I have to push back against the latter part regarding the intelligence cooperation. There is no— at least to my knowledge, and as one who works in the intelligence community— there is no— I would have seen signs. You will tell me, well, how would you say that, Dr. O? There are ways of knowing. I do not see, as of today, any signs that the Ministry of State Security in China or the Ministry of Public Security, the MSS or the MPS, were cooperating with the, uh, FSB. There, I, I just didn't see that. Could it be in some— possibly. But for the author to go ahead and, and state something like this, because— and the comparison that I'm going to give you guys, you think about the United States and, uh, uh, uh, Britain or the UK. You think about the intelligence agency CIA and the MI6. Yeah, now those, they cooperate together. Most of the ops that's going on around the world is a collaboration between the two. I don't see the same thing regarding the FSB and the Ministry of State Security in China or the Ministry of Public Security, which all of them have their own directorates, including the military intelligence and so forth. And I'm not gonna tackle this one here at this point. So now the idea is that, uh, on the foreign policy, yes, they do have cooperation. And I agree with the author that Russia and China cooperates economically, from even the energy trades to the Arctic investments. This is— and the foreign policies regarding even, the votes at the UN Security Council. They collaborate their, uh, both, uh, votes regarding that. So because here's the thing, China provides, as you know, provides economic, uh, support for, uh, for Russia. But this economic support is not limited only to energy. It include also technology, machine tools, And of course, when you think about where those tools are used, yeah, they are used in military industrial industry, rather. So, uh, let me just quickly— I saw, uh, Rafael put in a super sticker here. Thank you so much, Rafael, and thank you, by the way, for your comments regarding the G3 summit. So thank you for that. Russia is the Knight of Columbus of of China. So thank you for sharing that one, appreciate you. Army with Harmony, appreciate you, uh, gifting a, a membership here to— I, I don't know who you give it to. Yeah, whomever got that one. So thank you so much for, uh, for, for gifting your, your, uh, the membership to this individual. So Appreciate it. So, all right, let me continue here, guys. So here is now where we're gonna have to think, why is Donald Trump doing all this? As I mentioned, yes, to create a wedge water. But how so? Is by pivoting. Now, you all remember the support was towards Kiev, the previous administration, and the all vassal states in Europe except for Hungary to my knowledge, and Serbia, of course. The rest of them, they are following like, like sheep. Yeah, because they can't take stand anyway. Now what Donald Trump is doing is pivoting to support Russia and backing away from Ukraine. As a matter of fact, today, guys, I think today or yesterday, please correct me if I'm wrong, it was a vote at the UN, and the United States supported the vote with Russia regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Whoever thought? I wonder, if Trump was in power, will he support what took place in Gaza, or will he join the rest of the world in condemning the atrocities that were committed? Makes me just wonder. And I have my doubts that Trump will do it. So in any event, we are focusing right now on, uh, uh, Russia and China. So now it's, it's a foregone conclusion. The moment Donald Trump announced his running and so forth, Europeans started to think about, well, what are we going to do if he ends up winning? I mean, all the indications were there because of the policies, the failed policies of the previous administration, we're taking the country into some direction that is like what's going on right now in Europe— Germany, France, Italy, UK, Poland, uh, uh, and some other, uh, and some other countries in, in, in, in the region. So, so basically it became a foregone conclusion that Washington is going to pivot from the policies that Biden was, was, uh, was, uh, uh, pursuing. So Despite Europe being the largest trading partners for the US and a top foreign investor— is the United States that is the top foreign investors in Europe— despite all this, this U-turn in itself within the American foreign policy also raised the concern. And I agree with the author of the article on this one, raised concern in Asia now. Because here is the thing, the thinking— I don't, I don't agree with what the author concluded with this shift of the American foreign policy, uh, that spooked the partners. But if the, the partners in Asia— but if the partners in Asia think that we're gonna come to their defense or support them in case of a hot war with China, they are mistaken. So Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, they better think twice about this. And even Taiwan, I will include that into the conversation here. Taiwan as, as a province, not as a state. So, so because if they thinking, they are thinking that they're gonna we, we will want to be on their side, or they're going to be on our side, they will be wiped out. And this is where that division, I believe, it exists. But who will be, who will be on the side of the US if there is a hot war? Because do you know what it means? I mean, tell me, guys, and correct me once again if I'm wrong. Do you see Do you see South Korea now telling the US, oh, we'll fight the Chinese, you don't have to do it? Do you see the Japanese doing it? Do you see the Aussies doing it? Do you see the Philippines doing it? Do they have the means to fight China? When you realize China is already moving into now working on its fourth aircraft carrier— here is one thing about aircraft carriers. Usually when you think about aircraft carriers, you think about the military dimensions of a country. So that is what's important to understand for where China is moving forward into this realm. So those countries will have to be thinking twice about engaging China. That will be, that will be a fatal strategic mistake. And that is why when the author mentioned about the idea that all the partners in Asia are spooked now by what Trump is doing, they shouldn't be. It's because they shouldn't be on the wrong side of history to begin with. This is why we are concerned about why we needed to create this division between China and Russia, because how it's going to reshape the global order. So now I do have to disagree with the author by saying that Trump echo— and I quote here— Trump echoes Russian propaganda, end of quote. Yeah, I don't see it that way. I don't see it that way. Trump is thinking about it in terms of transaction. Simple as that. He's not a politician, you know. He's not a statesman. He doesn't weigh his words because his background is into getting a deal by any means. Now the question, is it an honorable deal? I let you decide on that. You know what you know about Trump, so that's how I, I will leave it at that. But Why I disagree with the author, with the author rather, because he didn't like it when Donald Trump called Zelensky a dictator. Well, how come he didn't compare this to what president, former president, the idiot incompetent Biden called President Xi a dictator? He was no comment on it. This is where I see the double standard. But again, you need to know who this author works for. That's why you need to understand the role of the media in really influencing and say the trajectory of the arguments. So you end up consuming something that is wrong. And this is where I get concerned, at least for our community, to those who listen to others claiming to be geopolitical analyst and so forth and just spewing whatever. That is where my concern is, is because, again, do they have the background for it? I'll let you guys decide. You are smart enough to know how to read between the lines. That's what I say about this particular author. So now, they are— and just to continue in this by saying that, uh, Trump calling Zelensky a dictator, which he is a dictator. When you cancel the elections, when you control the proper— what do you call that? So what, what surprised me is the how the sentence goes, and I quote here, calling him a dictator and blaming Kiev for starting the war that began when Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of his small neighbor in 2022. But he didn't say why. He didn't say— the author didn't say why a Russian president end up doing what he doing after he submitted a 12-point plan for security for Russia. After, when you go back to 2007, yeah, you go back to 2007 when the Russian president gave a speech at the— actually, I have a picture of it right here, guys, if you allow me. If I do— uh, no, I don't have it. I thought I did. When he gave a speech in, uh, 2007 at the Munich Security Conference and warning about you guys getting closer to Russia's doorsteps. And this is what I found, uh, uh, it's not I just, I just don't, don't, don't appreciate the manipulation. I will leave it at that. So now when we think about the history of why China and Russia are moving forward, but also they have to be very careful as to what President Trump is trying to do. And I did, uh, I, I did, uh, a video for you guys to those— I'm going to put it in the chat box, just the link to it, for those who have not seen it yet. And I address this particular aspect as to the, the confrontation moving forward because of the changes of the dynamics of global order between the US and China. It's almost like a flashback in history. Now we are doing it in reverse. We want to divide this friend— uh, we want to split this partnership between Russia and China. So, because here is the thing, and even for Trump himself, if I am to be straightforward, and I am straightforward, if Donald Trump's thinking in terms of doing this, why didn't he pull out of NATO altogether? You know, because when the author is saying, well, this is the transatlantic and the— on all the— no, no, no, no, all this is nothing but hypes. Like Marcus Aurelius, the emperor for Rome, used to say, watch what a man does, not what he says. Why doesn't, uh, uh, uh, uh, what— watch what a man does, not what he says. Uh, for Donald Trump, pull out of NATO altogether and let the European decide for themselves. But again, Trump is thinking in terms of wanted to close the door on the Ukraine conflict, not because he cares. No, no, no, no, no, no. It's because he wants to reallocate the resources towards China, towards Asia. That is what's at the heart of it. And Mike, my word on it, what you're going to be seeing in the next few months— major posturing in South China Sea. This is how it's going to start. So, so, because this is exactly— and again, I am a student of history. I look at what Richard Nixon did with his National Security Advisor at that time, the, the, the butcher, uh, Henry Kissinger, with a reverse course on China policy in the early '70s. Why? Because the, uh, they, meaning Henry Kissinger and Nixon, wanted to exploit what happened between, uh, in 1969. Guys, does anybody know? I want you to type in, in the chat box, to those who know history. What happened in 1969 when it comes down to China? It was a war. A war with whom? 1969, to be exact. Oh, oh, oh, Doggy Five! The Sino-Soviet split. Yeah, uh, Zayan The Sino-Soviet War. You got it, you got it. A tin woo, Soviet Union. You guys got it, it's the war. And this is where Nixon and Kissinger took advantage of that clash between Moscow and Beijing. So we are now going in reverse. You all remember the border war in 1969, and it was very interesting to understand now the dynamics of how we are moving forward into this. But the fundamental question is, will Trump succeed in splitting up these two powers, Russia and China? It's not an easy task, but I do foresee a danger into that. And this is where my analysis comes in, and this my opinion. Again, it's not— has to do nothing with the author that I'm reacting to his, uh, uh, article. The danger that I see if— and this is a big if, and I'm just playing hypothetical— I don't see Russia doing this. Russians are smart enough to know. But if Russia decide to go with what the US is saying, saying by cutting the deal regarding the rare earth in Ukraine, by giving up land, meaning Ukraine will have to see that land to Russians They're gonna corner themselves. Why is this? Because in 3 years from now, we're gonna have a new administration. And what do you think China is gonna feel or going to do if Russia backtrack? You know, that's why I don't see the Russians moving into the direction, knowing that Russians are already processed this in their head. They're saying you can't trust the Americans. We'll talk to Trump and see what we can get. That's about it. So let's, let's just for the sake of argument think about what will China do hypothetically. Will China sort of pull back? It will not be a smart thing either. Why is this? Because China will be isolated. Yes, it is economically powerful. Yes, it is technologically powerful. Yes, it is militarily powerful. But if it is isolated on the global stage, that is not a good idea. Think about it like Israel right now, isolated on the global stage. Think about it about the United States. We're not as isolated as you might think, but I mean, ask any country, do you trust to deal with the Americans? And the answer would be quick, no. And this is where I see that what Donald Trump is trying to do is beyond his ability. And I'll say it straightforward, because he is not a politician to understand the dynamics of what geopolitics is all about. Later on, as Hang Enji mentioned at the beginning, who brought Russia and China together? And I argue this few years ago. I even warned Washington at that time. I was still in DC, and I say, you guys need to pay attention.

You are—

you, administration, by embarking on failed foreign policies, you are drawing Russia and China closer. It's going to come time when you won't be able to split them up no matter what you do. And here we are. So we were thinking we're gonna impose sanctions on Russia and, and, and, and destroy their economy. As a matter of fact, their economy did better because also of China. Of course, India is taking advantage of the energy from Russia and selling it to Europe, but that's India. You know what India does. So, uh, as a matter of fact, I am thinking about inviting the head of Kalinistan in Canada for an interview here. So you all know Kaliningrad, right? You all know the issue there, right? So I intend to reach out to the head of Kaliningrad and invite him on the channel if he likes to come over. So it becomes the idea of, uh, uh, it's like what I argued back then. If the US is going to go into this direction, it's a lose-lose. First of all, if we are to think because we want to reallocate our resources to Southeast Asia, to the South China Sea, because we want to confront the Chinese and we want to pull all the so-called vassal, not allies, those are vassal states, into dealing with that, you know. And even I argued back then, as a matter of fact, I do have a video that I did back in 2022 in which I argue the United States can't fight two simultaneous wars and win. I'm gonna put the link for you guys in the chat box here, so for those— that was 2022, you can check it out later on. Oh, Harry Lukel, thank you so much for your, uh, super sticker. Dream on! Uh, thank you so much, I appreciate it. Let me just say, guys, thank you, because it's just me here, I don't mind interrupting myself. So Rafael, once again, thank you very much for your super sticker. You wrote, Donald Trump is trying to negotiate a soft landing for US when BRICS take place. He wants a peaceful coexistence, preferably a merger or coexistence. Very interesting point, Rafael, because you brought up an interesting point. And the point is, is Trump very concerned about Europe moving into the direction of BRICS? So his hype about, I'm gonna sanction the countries in BRICS if they end up transacting in other currency besides the dollar, might end up being nothing but a bravado. So you got an interesting point. I mean, I will go as far as saying maybe the US will consider joining BRICS. I'm joking, you know. So, so thank you very much, Rafael, and I appreciate you sharing this very, very informative— that's, that's quite an insight. Because, and, and this is why I really love you all, guys, all the community. It's because you contribute to the conversation, and that's what's important about learning, you know. It's not about speaking loud, it's not about barking, it's not It's about contributing ideas. That's what's important. Thank you so much, Rafael. Truly appreciate you. Army with Harmony, you put Native American trusted white Christian, why not China? You're absolutely correct. If we think about the land here, you know, I am an immigrant. There is no, you know, doesn't matter where you come from, born here or not, we all came from somewhere. So ancestors from somewhere. But we never, never came to deal with the harsh reality of how the government treated the natives here in the United States. Yeah, and I, I used to teach government, and I will touch on this dark history. And of course, my students at that time, they will be like just staring at me like I am speaking some foreign language. Of course they don't know. They were still young, you know, even their mental development, their brain hasn't developed fully. As you know, our brain develops till about 24 or 25, I think 24 based on my research. So what do you expect a 19, 20, or 21 years old to know? So they were just shocked looking at me saying what I'm saying about the atrocities the government did against the Native Indians here. So So that is part of this reality, and I, I, I just need you guys to understand, uh, this one here. Rafael, once again, thank you once again for your super sticker. May 9th, you all know what's May 9th, guys. Does anybody know what's May 9th for Russians? So, and that's what Rafael is referring to, the G3, meaning the three great powers: Russia, China and the US. As a matter of fact, Putin extended an invitation to Trump to attend the May 9th parade. Very, very historical event. So thank you so much all for you guys, your super stickers in support of the channel. I'm very grateful. So, and this is again to go back to my point, uh, as I said, I talked about this in 2022 in a video that the US will not be able to fight And who's going to end up doing the fighting? Is the other countries, the vassal state, because we're not going to be up front. We'll be just sharing intelligence, we'll be doing that. And we can't fight, we just can't fight. The US military is demoralized, gone. The era, at least when I was there, it was slightly different. So, and, and this is where I see, for example, what the author mentioned about, uh, US envoy, or Trump's envoy to Ukraine. Well, if you know who the envoy is, is none other than a retired general, Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg. Well, Keith Kellogg is a warmonger. If you think about all his comments on Fox, you'll get the idea. Funny how those generals, the moment they're done with the military, they become analyst all of a sudden, geopolitical analyst. You know, I, I just, I just don't get it. I just don't get it. So what I found very interesting is that the position of none other than the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio— well, as I always say, Marco Rubio is a hawk regarding both Russia and China. But if you noticed— what did you guys notice? I don't know if you did or not. He toned down his language towards Russia but maintained the one towards China. You don't hear him saying much about, oh, the Russians, the communists, not anymore. But you still hear him talking about China. And, and my point in this conversation here is that Marco Rubio also remarked during his talks with Lavrov in Ariad by saying, and I quote, the incredible opportunities that exist to partner with the Russians geopolitically on issues of common interest, end of quote. And this is once again, again, and it's as clear as daylight for me to see the language that is being used. And that in itself gives me an idea as to what Trump is aiming at. The objective is to split up this partnership between Russia and China, but it's not going to succeed. There is no way. This is why I can't stress enough for both Russia and China to be careful moving forward. Yeah, I can't stress this enough. So the interesting thing is that, uh, uh, what the, uh, what the author mentioned is that, uh, a brief memo that was prepared for the Kremlin by a think tank. You know what, if it is prepared by a think tank for the Kremlin, that you got just the soft version of it. Knowing how tanks work, you know, they're not gonna disclose, uh, the substance of it. They're gonna give the public version of it, the soft version. We call the soft version that is for consumption media, whatever. Anyway, the author stated that the— this think tank that is affiliated with the Russian government ahead of the talk, and this memo was obtained by Western government. And right there it gives me an idea that Russia knew what it was doing as to just giving them a bone, meaning the Western world, giving them a bone to chew on. You know, the other saying that this suggests that Moscow proposed ending cooperation, and this is where the lies are. Listen carefully, guys, uh, that this memo said that Moscow is proposing to end cooperation with China on sensitive technological and military issues as part of a deal to end the war in Ukraine on terms favorable to Russia, end of quote. And I can tell you right there, guys, I can tell you again, I am talking based on experience, you know. If the government wants to disclose something, they're not going to disclose it like that. So, so this is the soft version of it. And Russia— the war in Ukraine is going to end on Russia's terms, not the US, not Ukraine, not the EU, Europe, that is. It will be on Russia's terms, simple as that. The way I foresee it, probably the conflict will freeze, will enter, uh, sort of it will become a frozen conflict for a period of time. It can't last forever. But on the other hand, we've seen in history— where is another frozen conflict, guys, that still exists till today? Does anybody know what part of the world? Let me just see the chat box if you can tell me what other part of the world where they have a frozen conflict. Yeah, you guys should know this one. Oh, oh, Zhaoyan, you got it! I'm gonna show it right here. Oh, not this one, I'm sorry. Uh, Zhaoyan, right there. YT, where is Zhaoyan, man? He moves so fast. I am determined to get to it right there. Yeah, you, you guys got it, you got my point. And that's exactly how I see it moving forward. The idea that, uh, this author saying, well, the government's got a memo— no, no, no, that was just the soft version of it. So, no, because what the— he keeps going about, which to me became clear that that has nothing to do with substance. When you know who this author works for. Here is when— what again triggered my attention about this— when he says, and I quote, Moscow could also offer to limit Chinese participation in infrastructure projects that would strengthen China's strategic capabilities, the memo said, end of quote. No, no, actually Russia will prefer to have major infrastructure with the Chinese. And this is exactly what they're doing in the Arctic. When I wrote my Russia book, I detailed— I wrote like 5 or 10 pages regarding this aspect thing, as to how much money the Chinese put in into the investments into the pipeline.

Why?

Because you're looking at a $35 trillion worth of untapped natural resources under the ice. So, and this is why I kind of have to push back against, uh, authors that saying whatever. No, you can— yeah, you can get— you can get away with it with the people who do not understand the dynamics of what geopolitics is all about, but not in our community. Uh-uh, it won't pass, master, and I won't let it. I'm the gatekeeper. Jokingly here, some— because here's the thing, when you think about, uh, Uh, the author saying this, but he also suggests that a pledge by Russia to limit the resumption of natural gas export to Europe to undermine European competitiveness and to allow sales of American liquefied natural gas, as well as offers to grant US companies right to mineral deposits in occupied Ukraine, end of quote. Well, first of all, first of all, let's just put the, the dots on the letter, as we say. Europeans shot themselves in the foot. They were the one to embark on the sanctions against Russia, and Russia had to respond by just cutting off gas. Simple as that. The Europeans end up buying gas from the US at 5, 6, 7 times the price, in addition to India selling oil to— or gas, or whatever they were getting from Russia— to Europeans at 4 times the price. So why would you want to sort of insinuate that the Russians gonna limit this strategic or resumptions or limit the resumptions of natural gas to China. No, it just doesn't make sense. And this is what I'm saying, the idea of driving this wedge, it's not gonna work. Donald Trump at the end Sorry guys, I— hey Michael. Yes sir, I am doing live stream. I'll talk with you later. Thank you. That was my son calling anyway. And that is the whole idea, guys. And to me, it's like, it really frustrates me because, you know, 6, 7, 8 years ago, I, I talked about this exact thing and tell Washington, you need to pay attention to the changing dynamics on the global stage. Because it will not be to your favor. On the other hand, is the cycle of history. Empires rise and fall. Now it's our time to go down and a new one to rise, and it's already rising, and that is China. Of course, when I mentioned back then, you know what, I had some colleagues that they get upset because I said, you guys realize that the future is in Asia? Oh, what are you saying, Mr. O? I didn't have the PhD at that time, so they won't call me Dr. O. Um, and the kind of like, uh, no, no, this is where it's gonna be. And of course I see, well, we shall see. And here we are. They just don't like the reality. Here is what I wrote in my book, and I remember I wrote it back then. And again, I always like to write into the future, thinking in terms of what might happen. And I'm going to just share this excerpt with you. Similarly, the possibility of a China-Russia alliance could provide both countries the right platform on which to further their cooperation on all fronts, including the military. There is no certainty about what the global geopolitical landscape might look like in the next decade or so. With certainty, however, one can conclude that the Russia-China alliance will further contribute to a precipitous shift in the global order and further decline of the United States' share of global power. Alas, the shift in the global balance of power is already underway. That's what I wrote back then. And now we are seeing, you know, these things taking place before our own eyes. So, because we need to understand how Trump is approaching this wish of creating this wedge, it's a transactional, no more, no less. No more, no less. One thing for sure is that Mr. Trump wanted to really reduce our attention or focus on Ukraine and shift it to Asia, because his long-term objective is China, not Europe. Yeah, the, the, the, uh, what you call the tariffs on Europeans, whatever. And let along now that you have Canada and the EU joining hands in pushing back against the US by issuing their own tariffs. As a matter of fact, Canada Canada stopped delivering gas to the United States and shipped it, and ship it to the EU. So, yeah, and when we think about this idea of, you know, Russia and China have achieved some very, very advancement in their relationship, that is. But when you take China by itself, you think in terms of the significant military technologies, uh, that possess. Yeah, because China and Russia are working together on certain military technologies, you know. Are they sharing, for example, the Russians will be sharing with the Chinese, uh, the Su-57, which is, uh, it outperformed the F-35 by much. I looked at a documentary regarding this. And I am not an aerodynamic stuff, that's not my area, but I can just understand, you know, based on the reading that I did, how, how significant that is. You know, you have to realize the reality as is. When I say you, I'm referring to Mr. Trump, is that the Chinese are far more advanced technologically in all kind. And speaking of that, I will be talking with Elizabeth on Thursday about some major development here in the US, some $500 billion investments in technology. You and I know it's nothing but hot air. That's all it is. That's all it is. So, so there is, there is nothing, uh, uh, now there is one individual here by the name Elena, Elena Polyakova. She's the chief executive of the Center for European Policy Analysis. A think tank in Washington. You need to understand the role of think tanks in Washington. So, which I disagree with her assessments completely, completely. Here is what she said. This— she said that, uh, China already has most of the significant military technologies that Russia possess. Yes, to a degree, but on the other hand, uh, the, the Chinese are technologically in all kinds sector that the Russians are. This is true to a degree, but when you think about the push for why she's advocating for more hawkish approach toward the Russians and less towards the Chinese for now, so, so I disagree with her assessment, you know, because here's the thing, she's warning, warning Washington were to abandon Ukraine. I quote, she warned that if Washington were to abandon Ukraine, it would legitimize Russia's aggression against Ukraine and signal to Beijing that they have a much more open hand when it comes to their own potential military aggression against Taiwan, end of quote. You can just see what this— what Elena is pushing towards. As a matter of fact, I am going to extend an invitation for her and invite her on the channel here and her and I will have a conversation if she's willing to come over on the channel, and we'll discuss it. I can just see the argument where it's headed. Just pay attention, I'm going to repeat it. She warned that, and I quote, if Washington were to abandon Ukraine, it would legitimize Russia's aggression against Ukraine and signal to Beijing that they have a more— a much more open hand when it comes to their own potential military aggression against Taiwan.

End of quote.

Well, like I always said, China has no intentions of using military, uh, in, in, in to take over Taiwan. What China wants is a peaceful mainland, because Taiwan is part of China. What Beijing wants is a reunification with Taiwan in a peaceful manner. It's also that concept of win-win. So to me, and I was in Taipei and I didn't see any signs of like, usually you know what to look for if a country is about to be invaded or attacked, whatever term you want to use. And I asked people there, I talked, they speak English there more so than the mainland, but it's like, yeah, mainland is there, we are here, and and they letting us live our life and, and that's it. But for a think tank to be pushing the narrative, you can just see where this is headed. So, and, uh, and that's again takes me to the idea of that, uh, this rapprochement, uh, uh, Washington is thinking about this rapprochement between Russia and China as a temporary. I don't think so. It is not a temporary one. This is for a long haul.

Why?

Because the two countries, Russia and China, intend to play a role in this multipolar order. They're not gonna be the dominant ones. What they are— economic, especially China economically. What I mean by the dominant, the way the United States did after World War II. They have no intention of doing that. They don't want it anyway. So, so the idea that for Putin— Putin is going to be— he's, he's a smart guy, let's just give him credit. He's very shrewd. He understands the games of geopolitics. He's been around long enough to know. I mean, tell me, uh, if, if there is someone else can replace him. I don't see, even when I wrote in my book as to who potentially, uh, could replace, uh, Putin, I didn't come up with any because I didn't find any. So, so the thing is, a Russian president, uh, uh, Vladimir Putin, is seeing the relationship from the strategic aspect. He understand this dynamics, his relationship with President Xi goes beyond. This is why Trump is not going to stand no chance, no chance. It's because the dynamics of the global order have changed. That is why the two are gonna just be laughing at America. It's a harsh reality. That's what it is. Because as I said, Uh, as I argued in my book, once again I'm going to share a quick excerpt if you allow me, guys. Once again, just to highlight to you the importance of, of seeing down the road, because that's what you do in geopolitics. You can't be thinking, uh, in the short term. So, uh, I wrote back then, the famous Cold War diplomat George Kennan wrote in the New York Times in 1990 about the danger of NATO expansion eastward, that it would be a fatal error that would inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western, and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion and restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations. And Russia reacted indeed. I am not— I wrote personally— I am not surprised at the rapprochement between China and Russia. It serves their interest to A, keep the US away from the Pacific realm, and B, further undermine US global leadership. I am growing concerned— this is back then— however, that if and when this rapprochement turns into strategic alliance with military dimensions, it will impact the global balance of power and therefore the international order as we know it. That's just the reality of it, reality that Washington is living in denial about it. They just, uh, they, they just don't see it. They just don't see it. Because here's the thing, Russia thinks already ahead of time that the China system It's gonna be there forever. Yes, there is questions right now, and I'm gonna do something for you guys about this one regarding who's gonna be replacing Xi Jinping at some point. Because at some point you have to think, it's a reality. It's like us, guys, we live, and at one day we're gonna have to deal with the reality that we're gonna check out, out of this world. It's no different for the Chinese president. And I am sure he is thinking about this because he wants to— probably if he decides to cede power or whatever he's going to do, he wants to leave it in good hands. Because what China has achieved, you know, it's remarkable. Let's just leave it at that. And the idea that Russia understands that. So because in China the system is stable. I mean, for us, this is why I see as an analyst, I see that Putin will be calculating I better be— I better have a deal with the Chinese than with the Americans. Why? Because with the Chinese is a long term, with the Americans is short term. Short term, within 3 years, because Trump is not running for office again. With the Chinese, who knows, maybe Xi will rule again for more, maybe he will replace with some— the system in itself is stable. And that's what the Russians are thinking, because they're thinking in terms of that alienating the Chinese is going to become a moral danger for Russia. That is what it's going to become. That's why the thinking has to go into that direction. So I, I had a chance to read an article by, uh, my dear friend, uh, Dr. Warwick Powell, and, uh, I'm gonna put the link for you guys I highly, highly, highly recommend you to read this article, you know. And usually, you know me, I, I would not— I don't recommend just whomever, but what Dr. Powell wrote. And, and I'm going to just share one with you, uh, share a quote. China has been a long-term advocate of a multipolar global security architecture. Its position can be traced to the principles of peaceful coexistence it first articulated 81 years ago, and to China's own commitment to the principles that continue to animate the Non-Aligned Movement some 80 years after the Bandung Conference. So yeah, yeah, the title of the article is called Circles Inside Circles. Very, very, very informative, guys, if you ever get a chance to read it. So, so now suffice it to say that, and I'm going to conclude with this, guys, as Washington now think in terms of, okay, well, we don't care what the Europeans think. But look again, everybody was hoping that the next German chancellor will do the right thing. Turns out to be just same is not worse, you know. Macron, what do you expect from him? He's not running for office again, so he'll do whatever. Italy, it's nonexistent. UK, it's useless. You know, they all under the thumb. US foreign policy dictate what's going on in Europe. Till they come to this grip with this reality, nothing's going to change. And I don't see how. I just don't see how. But again, it's their continent. I, I will be going to Europe soon, and I'm gonna be looking for— I would know what to look for and the locations that I'm gonna go to. And I will report to you from there while I have some time, because this is not a— it's a personal trip. So I'll, uh, but I intend to share this with you when I get there. So, so I'm gonna conclude my, uh, my live stream here with the last quote from my book. Once again, uh, if you're— for those, uh, by the way, uh, right, it's right here. Uh, I'm gonna just quote this one here. And so the stage is set. The meteoric rise of China, the decline in the US share of global power, the dissolution of a global order, and the possibility of joint military ties between China and Russia suggest that the shift in the global balance of power is already underway. We will not dismiss the warning signs of the return of Russia as a player that is, after all, a nuclear superpower, or certainly second to none with respect to destructive capabilities. And that's how I'm going to end my livestream. So interesting. It's because, uh, uh, I've seen this before. Tomorrow, by the way, guys, when I do the visit of Lavrov. I have— I wrote extensively on that. I even wrote something back then that, uh, I got a, a comment on it from Washington at that time that like, well, this can't be, Mr. O. There is no way that the Iranians will even allow the establishment of a naval base for either Russia or China. I said, Mike, my word on it, give it time, because things in, in, in, in geopolitical world doesn't happen overnight. Those are strategic fundamental changes to the order. And here you are, now we have both Russia and China as a major partner to Iran. Even North Korea lashed out at Donald Trump thinking that he's gonna bully himself with the North Koreans. Doesn't work that way. So, so I will be talking about this tomorrow, providing you again my own analysis and, and, uh, and, uh, analysis about this visit and what it entails as far as the message, because there is a message for that trip. Lavrov is not going to go one week after he's meeting with Marco Rubio, one week, a week and a half after President Trump and President Putin talked on the phone. And by the way, it goes only one week probably before the upcoming meeting between the Russian president and the American president. It is a major fascinating dynamic, so I look forward to conversing with you tomorrow. And to those who want to ask some questions tomorrow, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll answer some Super Sticker questions for you guys. By the way, uh, please, please hit the like button while you are here. Uh, I will greatly appreciate, as I always say, I'm very I was raised that way, guys. Uh, to show gratitude is part of my personality. So that's just— I know some gets annoyed when I say thank you, whatever. Well, if you get annoyed, get over it. Simple as that. And I don't take crap from anybody. So being grateful, it's not a sign of weakness or whatever, as some might think. So, and, and try to be one yourself to the individuals who complain. Try to be grateful for what you have. So, and for us in our community here, it, it's our community. It is my responsibility to ensure that it is, it's, it's as good as it gets, and I'm not going to shy away from that. So, uh, for those who wants to support my upcoming trip to Asia, here is the link for it, and I will greatly appreciate the support for the channel as a whole. Just go to Buy Me a Coffee. You'll find the links there, even for my, uh, for my books. If you are interested in—

in—

if you want to learn, uh, exercising the brain is very, very hard. Not a lot of people— this is our problem in America, and I'll say it, I don't shy away— we are poor readers of history. And I'll go as far as saying lazy. You know, we assume that just because we don't want to think, and thinking is hard. Yeah, thinking is hard. Well, you get what you get. If you don't put an effort, then that's how it ends up. So in any event, I hope you guys enjoy it, and I look forward to seeing you tomorrow. As always, remember, geopolitics impact your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, guys. Bye-bye.