Trump has no good option Munk debate US empire different from British empire HK overtake Switzerland

Added: 2026-06-10

[00:00:00]All right. So, let's start uh first this uh this conversation this phone conversation between Trump and Netanyahu. Um supposedly Trump is very angry with him because Israel continue to bomb Lebanon. I I guess make it very hard for Iran to continue the negotiation with with the US. Um that seems like the the context of their you know their conversation. uh what at at the same time there's also some people who are claiming that this is this whole thing this conversation is a scop what you take on this whole thing >> you know it's very difficult because last year before the attack on Iran that took place in June we were getting identical reports about a huge row between Trump and Netanyahu and Trump supposedly was very angry with Netanyahu because of uh Netanyahu's belligerance towards Iran and all that and it turned out the whole thing was a complete scope. It was a complete fake.

[00:00:58]In fact, Trump actually admitted it was and that it was all intended to lull us all the thinking that there was this tension so that the Iranians would not expect the attack from the Americans and the Israelis when it came. So, I mean, we we have to take that possibility into account. I mean, you know, when you've been lied to about this before, then it's quite likely that you're being lied to all over again.

[00:01:26]>> All I would say is this. Netanyahu told Trump back in February, attacking Iran will be easy. It will be a walk in the park. Iran will collapse in a few days. You don't need to worry about the Straight of Horse. You don't need to worry about any of these things.

[00:01:46]we will have the new the you know the son of the sh of Iran he'll be received back with enthusiasm in tan and all of that and Trump fell for it >> so you would assume that Trump having seen that every prediction that Netanyahu made has turned out to be wrong and finding himself in a very difficult position would by now be feeling differently towards Netanyahu than he was feeling in February. So that's the one thing that makes me wonder whether there might be some truth to this story. That as I said, there does seem to be some grounds this time to think that there might actually be a real row. But I I would take this one extremely skeptically. I mean, it's possible that it's true, but neither of the parties involved, neither Israel nor the United States have a good reputation for honesty in these matters.

[00:02:48]>> Well, one thing I I was thinking is like if this were true that they have this very contentious phone call, why would let the public know about that? I mean, they can certainly cover it up without letting everybody know, but they don't seem mind that everybody's talking about it, isn't it?

[00:03:06]>> That's a very that that's a very good point actually. And it does be it does make a questions. I mean, um I I have seen it suggested that it was the Israelis who leaked the fact that this call went as as badly wrong as it did. Um after all the sto the the publication that um published the information about it was Axios which is known to be very close to the Israelis and that the reason the Israelis did that was in order to get to alert their friends in Washington and to get them to mobilize to push hard harder again Trump. It's a very complicated explanation and I don't know why the Israelis wouldn't be able to just come along to all their friends. They're not not that many. They're just very powerful and tell them in private what happened.

[00:04:00]>> But anyway, that's that's the explanation that you see given.

[00:04:05]>> But o overall, I do feel like a Trump kind of run out of options regarding moving forward, what he should do, right? He kind of like doesn't know what to do, isn't it?

[00:04:16]>> You're completely right. Now can I just say this? I mean way back in February before the war even began I said that Trump was work was placing himself in tukvang. Now tukvang is a German word and it derives from chess. Chess is a in chess a tukvang situation is where whatever move you make on the chess board it puts you in a worse position.

[00:04:42]And it seems to me this is what Trump is in at the moment. He's in a situation now where he can't stand still.

[00:04:50]>> Mhm.

[00:04:50]>> Because the problems in the energy markets are deteriorating. Um he if he resumes the war that is going to lead to really ultimately catastrophic consequences. If he makes peace politically that will be very difficult for him to sell. um and he will anger Israel and its many friends. So he he is in effect in Sukvang. He got himself there. My own view and I I I said this actually in various places was that he was hoping when he went to China and met with Cining that Cining would help him out of it. that Cinping and China were going to push put pressure on the Iranians to make the big concessions to Trump that Trump was looking for. But of course, Sishin Ping said no. And there's no reason why China would exert itself in order to help Donald Trump in that kind of way.

[00:05:55]>> He doesn't give China any reason to do it. Why Why would Xinping do it? Right.

[00:06:00]What what >> Well, exactly. Well, exactly. I mean why would Cinping do it?

[00:06:05]>> Yeah.

[00:06:05]>> I mean but this is very much the American style you know you you you expect the other side to help you >> even when you are not prepared to help them. Mhm.

[00:06:17]>> I mean, Americans come to foreign policy with an enormous sense of entitlement >> and um they assume that if they ask for help um it'll be provided.

[00:06:33]>> Yeah. And they don't learn. Like when they had the trade war with China, they didn't believe China would use play the rare earth card, which China did. And then when they started war with Iran, they didn't believe Iran would use the the straight of a hormuz card which Iran did. They they just assume a lot of things that without any reason.

[00:06:57]>> That's absolutely correct. I mean they they they f they find it very difficult to understand that even as they play hard ball with others, others might also decide to play hard ball with them. This isn't something that the Americans really can imagine and they're always very shocked and angry when it happens.

[00:07:21]>> And and actually I was reading uh Iran has even more uh cars. It's not just the straight horm but also like undersea cable.

[00:07:31]>> Uh if they do something there, it certainly will hurt the US financial market for example. So there are still other things they can do to very very much hurt us. Yeah, >> of course they can. Absolutely.

[00:07:46]>> All right. So um Russia uh Ukraine war here. I read more and more articles in the western mainstream media. They are claiming Russia is kind of like being hurt uh losing the war. So like New York Times is saying Russia is showing signs of weakness in Ukraine. So it's hit harder. So explanation is that the the fact that Ukraine now is being bombed very badly is is a sign that Russian actually is is weak. And then the hill I just read that Ukraine changed the tactics and now Putin is slowly losing the the change of tactic is to uh bomb and sabotage inside Russia. So what what is your assessment of where we are in terms of the Ukraine war?

[00:08:33]>> Okay. So the first thing is that this is this is an organized campaign that has been underway in the west for some time now to say this it began around March February March um and the the reason I think it's become particularly strong at the moment is because the reality is that the United States has to a very great extent now disengaged from Ukraine. it's not involved directly in the Ukraine conflict to anything like the extent that it was. So, it's become even more important in the face of that to reassure people in the West that Ukraine is holding its own and um that the Russians aren't winning despite the Americans not being there so much anymore. So that what support for Ukraine there still is which is mostly now in Europe continues at the same level as before or even more so the reality a a and you know I follow the war in Ukraine very closely is that the exact opposite is true. I mean the the idea that more powerful Russian strikes against Kiev is a sign of weakness is already I mean that already I mean ought to beg lots of questions. I mean you know you see factories destroyed and buildings being destroyed and bunkers being destroyed and this is a sign of weakness. I mean it doesn't seem to make a a lot of obvious sense. But but if you're looking at the situation on the front lines, which notice these articles never discuss in any detail anymore, >> you're seeing exactly the the opposite situation. The Russians are advancing.

[00:10:21]Uh there is an important town, a big town called Constantinovka which is about to fall. that that battle for this city which is I think the third biggest city that the Russians have captured in the war up to now you will notice nobody is talking about at all. I mean the media in the west almost completely ignored this battle which is a strong sign that as I said we have a media operation underway. So that city is about to fall. The Ukrainian defenses in southern Ukraine seem to be breaking down and the Russian strikes against Ukraine continue. It is a grinding >> incremental war, but we are now reaching a situation where the Russians are very close to capturing the remaining Ukrainian positions in Donbass, which is, you know, the big industrial region in eastern Ukraine that the war was originally about, the region that tried to secede from Ukraine in 2014. 14 and where by far the greater biting has taken place. So it looks like the Russians are going to push the Ukrainians out of Donbass completely relatively soon. And in the south um the Russians look like in a few months they will be laying siege to the city of Zaporia which is on the re Neper river.

[00:12:00]Zaporo is one of the biggest cities in Ukraine. It's a major industrial center.

[00:12:08]It is where gas turbines and jet engines and helicopter engines in Ukraine are built. The kind of jet engines and gas turbines and helicopter engines that Ukraine used to sell to China and which were once upon a time >> one of Ukraine's major exports. It's a it's a Zaporosia is a very very big industrial center indeed.

[00:12:35]>> So it seems like a because they are the front line is not doing very well. They have to increase the volume on the propaganda war.

[00:12:44]>> The proper propaganda war indeed. Now I I forgot to mention I mean the drone attacks. Yes, the Ukrainians are conducting many drone attacks inside Russia, but there's now been a series of analyses by uh um various people who follow the war closely. And the level of drone attacks is about the same as last year. So, there's been no actual increase in the scale.

[00:13:09]What what the Ukrainians are doing is they're sending drones deeper into Russia, probably because the air defenses in western Russia are getting stronger. The trouble with sending drones deep inside Russia is that in order to increase the range of the drones, you have to put more engine fuel and that means less explosive. So when the drone impacts on a target, the damage it does is much less. And there's been an anal various analyses done which show that um Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian refineries are now usually repaired within a few hours. The damage is repaired within a few hours or days at most. So the these attacks if they hit oil storage they can cause a big fire >> Mhm.

[00:14:10]>> but but they can't do any underlying damage to the industrial facilities and they've not affected uh Russian oil exports or Russian oil production and they've not caused a fuel shortage within Russia itself. I just find it's a I I feel it should be pretty obvious that Russia is such a huge country, right? And using a few drones you think can make any difference, right?

[00:14:41]>> You know, you know, again, you have a Chinese mind if I can say so.

[00:14:46]I mean, this is this is it's a very Chinese comment. It's absolutely true.

[00:14:51]The idea that a few hundred drones, you know, carrying really very small bits of explosive are going to seriously affect a country of that size. I mean, is nonsense.

[00:15:04]>> But, you know, it makes headlines in the media. It makes big flashes and bombs and, you know, smoke goes and people talk about it a lot, but in reality, it makes absolutely no difference. Just as you said.

[00:15:19]>> Okay. So let's talk about this debate this uh monk debates which uh I find very interesting uh what is your overall feeling about this and and just for my audience so this monk debates is between two teams right so one is the moderate one is a or they call them realist right with M shimmer and Walt and the others is uh Newland and Pompeo I I just find this you know these people are kind of interesting put them into two teams to debate >> it it is now on on points I mean obviously Mirheimer and Walt sweep the board. I mean I mean I mean they have to they must do. But you see the strange thing about this is that you feel when you watch these debates that the two sides are not really debating each other or rather Mheimer and Walt are trying to de debate Nuland and Pompeo.

[00:16:20]>> Mhm.

[00:16:21]>> But Nuland and Pompeo function in an entirely different mental universe. one in which facts and realism really don't play much of a role. And you notice that Pompeo spoke about monsters and things of that kind use that kind of language.

[00:16:41]>> Uh how do you argue with that? That's the trouble. I mean uh uh in order to really win a debate against people like that, you need to be much stronger. You need to say if you're talking about monsters, >> look in a mirror, the monster is you.

[00:17:03]>> Yeah.

[00:17:04]>> Which of course they never do.

[00:17:06]>> Mhm. Yeah. That's um that's part of the frustrating part, right? So like Pompeo in particular I it's very irritating like they don't respect facts, right? So he in his opening marks he knows the audience are Canadians. So he brought up those two Michaels, you know, that he he claimed that China arrested two Michaels, you know, two Canadians, obviously trying to stir some, you know, hostile feelings towards China from the audience in Canada without mentioning it is the US asked the Canadian to kidnap first, right? That's how the whole thing started. He didn't >> absolutely >> mention any part of that.

[00:17:46]>> No.

[00:17:47]>> No.

[00:17:48]But but I guess the the audience kind of like the Canadians knowing full well what really happened this whole matter.

[00:17:55]So they didn't really, you know, applaud or anything, but it doesn't stop him from lying and and and cheating and disrespectful of the facts, right? So So it is a it's frustrating in those incident. It's very frustrating for me to watch and and in this case they don't uh waltz or mesh didn't even correct him or you know bring their own perspective.

[00:18:18]So that's I think very u frustrating.

[00:18:21]>> Well, it is immensely frustrating. Even more one reason why they didn't correct him on that particular point is of course that Missimer and Wolves and Milimer I consider my friend by the way.

[00:18:35]Um nonetheless certainly Mheimer shares some of the same perspectives about China. He too sees China as this dangerous rival to the United States. I don't I mean I I said to him straight to his face, I don't agree with you on this. So his his academic great academic friend Jeffrey Saxs.

[00:18:59]>> But uh you know this is the problem.

[00:19:03]You're not going to push back against a falsehood like the one that Pompeo made.

[00:19:09]Um if fund in the in the way that you should if you ultimately sympathize with the underlying argument which is that China is a problem when you know I mean if you come along and say instead well um Mr. Pompeo the only reason those two people were were arrested was because of you.

[00:19:34]you were directly responsible for their arrest. You orchestrated this arrest of uh this Chinese person I I in ways that you must have known would inflame relations with China. Uh you you put pressure on Canada that these two people uh suffered um you know whatever they suffered. Well, it it's entirely because of your actions. And of course, you had no grounds and reason to arrest her in the first place or to force her arrest because there wasn't a cintilla of evidence or proof to any of the allegations that you made about her. So, how dare you come to this meeting and talk in that kind of way? Well, you know, if you if you talk to them in that fashion, then you're going to achieve a different result.

[00:20:31]Yeah, that's what I think feel like there's not not enough push back from Walt and Mir Shimemer. Yeah, they're they're a little bit too friendly, I think.

[00:20:41]>> Well, here everything you see this is all all these debates. By the way, in Britain, we do this as well. We're even more addicted to debates. We're much more addicted to debates than the Americans are. Everything is conducted in this very polite way. And so, you know, if one side is utterly reckless about facts and brazenly lies, >> it puts them always in a position of advantage.

[00:21:07]>> Yeah. I I I just find it's impossible to to debate somebody like a Pompeo, right?

[00:21:12]So if if he and the other thing is they uh now in this case in terms of Iran I think there there were more push back from Mor Shimmer and Walls because they they both uh brought up the fact that there is no evidence that Iranians were involved with October 7th. There is no evidence. Uh so Newland and the Pompeo their response was oh this is so ridiculous like it doesn't even worth like a debating you know but they didn't provide any evidence right they just claimed that's not worth even talking about like >> well exactly well exactly I mean and this is where you see arguing points of evidence I is does put them in a more difficult position because they have to resort to see what I would have done in that situation. This is my training. Well, I would have said well since you're taking that stance, Mr. Pompeo, do you then accept that there is in fact no evidence that Iran was behind I mean it see because it seems to me that is what you're saying.

[00:22:17]>> If you're if you're hiding behind words like ridiculous >> think that then it means that you don't know.

[00:22:25]>> Yeah. I would also point out something else which is of course that the US intelligence and the Israeli intelligence community at the time said that there is no evidence that Iran was involved in October 7th.

[00:22:39]>> Mhm.

[00:22:40]>> And al and also I think they also said there is no evidence that Iran is close to nuclear bomb. Right. So that's another thing um that that the the US intelligence said that to the Congress I think uh something right she said that >> absolutely absolutely well they've been saying this for years I mean there's been reports of US intelligence I think going back to 2005 >> in which they have repeatedly said that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

[00:23:11]>> Yeah.

[00:23:13]um from the get-go there even the the name of this debate I find interesting it's called be resolved don't go hunting monsters so who are the one to define what which country is a monster which leader is a monster right >> yeah it will indeed well this apparently comes from a comment once made by America's second president uh John Quincy Adams >> and John Quincy Adams was a staunch non-interventionist He he he believed strongly that the United States should mind its own business and not interfere in other countries affairs. And he said that America should not go go out looking for monsters to slay it became less it become a monster itself.

[00:24:01]It's a very insightful and precient statement.

[00:24:05]>> But you're absolutely correct. I mean who who defines what is a monster?

[00:24:12]who who actually uh goes around saying this is a monster and that is not a monster. I mean it's >> like like you said Pompeo himself is should be defined it's a monster. Yeah.

[00:24:25]>> Well exactly I mean I say so yeah >> and then they also mentioned this article that uh both Watts and M Shimemer wrote uh in 2016 um it's called the offshore offshore balancing in the uh foreign affair. So I read that article also. Um one thing I find both in the debate and in the article I think there's something contradictory because their point is um let the regional balance each other. So each region have their own balance of power. Let them balance each other unless there is a rising power uh looking more like a regional hegemony then the US need to interfere. Okay.

[00:25:07]Yeah, >> but but how how can you have a balance of power when you do not have a dominant force or a regional hedgeimonyy hgemony in the region? Because if you look at World War II, right, World War I and World War II, if you look at Europe, >> as soon as there's some uh great powers, France, Britain, and Germany, >> as soon as they they kind of equal, they should be the one to balance each other, but they don't. They they all fighting for dominance, right? So that's how World War I, World War II was fought.

[00:25:39]And then if you look at Asia, um Vietnam was trying to get to Cambodia and Lao. There is no secret Vietnam wants to do that which also led to 1976 uh China interfered. Okay. So that's when they they wasn't successful. Indian also trying to defeat Pakistan and last year that's what exactly what happened.

[00:26:03]But Pakistan with the help of China, you know, resisted that. So in other words, if not for a a powerful China in the region, there would have been wars all over the place, isn't it?

[00:26:15]>> Well, indeed. You see, this is where I this is where I have an a major point of difference with Mr. because I I think that his model does actually have some relevance to Europe to Europe and to the west. Remember what I've always told you that in Europe we have never we have never moved beyond our own period of the waring states.

[00:26:38]>> So if you think about the waring states and you have a situation where there's never been a serious real attempt to achieve some kind of consolidation and an establishment of peace. Then how do you achieve peace when you have lots of states that are rivals of each other or how do you achieve peace if there is always the risk that one state will try to dominate and subjugate the others?

[00:27:05]You do so through balance of power.

[00:27:07]Balance of power concepts make complete sense in a situation such as the one which exists in Europe of continuous violent rivalries and of a quest for dominance.

[00:27:25]>> I don't think it has any relevance to Asia and the Chinese world at all. I I I I've never had the sense that China has sought to dominate its region in the kind of way that Miss Himemer and Walt imagined that it has. And if you look at history, the history of China's relations with the countries around it, overwhelmingly it has been friendly. you know, countries that have been that China has traded with, that China has sought um um cultural exchanges with.

[00:28:07]There have been tensions from time to time, >> but there has never been a Chinese drive for subjugation and dominance. So that we see in Europe. So I think that for outside an outsider like the United States which is entirely formed around an attitude about you know balance of power and um you know if you don't step in the other will the other side will become too too dominant and too powerful.

[00:28:44]The United States stepping into Asia with that type of thinking is actually inherently destabilizing. It destabilizes and injects into it American concepts of heg hegemonism and uh supremacy which are not which are alien which don't belong in this region. If the United States pulled out and left alone, then things would very quickly settle down and we would see peace. In every single case that we've we've talked about where there is conflict in East Asia, you can always see that the United States has a role to play. I mean uh relations between India and China deteriorated because the United States drew India into the quad >> and set it in conflict with Pakistan. I mean I mean the same with Vietnam um back in the um 70s. I mean that there'd been this massive American intervention in Vietnam.

[00:30:01]So that Vietnam became both dependent on China in some ways and also began to develop its own aggressive ideas and own beliefs in its own regional right to regional dominance in Indochina.

[00:30:18]>> But that would never have happened if the United States had not been there in the first place. H this is this is something that Americans in my experience never never get. They always assume that China is like them.

[00:30:35]>> Mhm. They they can't understand that actually China is different and that it has a fundamentally different foreign pol culture of foreign policy and state craft which values above all harmony and stability and peace. It's totally different.

[00:30:58]I think their assessment about Japan was the correct one because for a while Japan was the dominant uh Asian power and it was a total disaster for Asia when you have Japan >> but Japan copied everything from the west right so that's that's where that's where the problem is >> well well what you had in Japan was already a militaristic society because it was you know anything about Japan I'm not hugely well informed about Japanese history before um the modern era but to the extent that I've been able to understand it there was a very militaristic society >> and already and on top of that society you then placed on top of it uh conceptions of western militarism as well >> and the two reacted together and took an incredibly savage and violent turn. So that Japan inherited some of the racist and fear of influence ideas from the west and the imperialistic and colonialist ideas from the west grafting it as I said on its own militaristic culture.

[00:32:19]And the other thing to say about um Japan was that uh Japan late 19th century early 20th century Japan was a country that was going through a very very profound internal crisis.

[00:32:34]>> Mhm.

[00:32:35]>> And a lot of this external aggression was an expression of that internal crisis which was also caused by the impact of the west.

[00:32:49]Yep. Yeah. So in in Asia's case, I think uh Asian should be dominated by uh China because China is a responsible uh power, right? A great power.

[00:33:00]>> Well, I I I think dominated is not the right word. I think China is the is and always has been the center.

[00:33:09]>> I mean, it it has always been so. I mean, and I I I've of of all of of all of these countries, the only one I've been to myself is is Korea.

[00:33:21]>> Mhm.

[00:33:21]>> But the the level of Chinese influence in Korea is enormous.

[00:33:26]>> Yeah. Mhm. Yeah.

[00:33:28]>> I I I understand in Japan it's exactly the same.

[00:33:32]>> Yeah. I mean, so I mean it's it's impossible to to talk about dominance in that kind of way.

[00:33:42]>> What these countries belong to >> is the Chinese cultural sphere.

[00:33:48]>> Yeah.

[00:33:49]>> And left to themselves, they would be relatively friendly with each other. You know, even Japan >> Mhm. in the 18th century I believe had reasonably good rel 18th and early 19th century had good relations with uh uh China with the teen tin court at that time. So you know just just don't worry all the time just leave other people to make their own lives and they will do so.

[00:34:22]>> Yeah. So fundamentally if we're going back to this debate is that the two side they actually both believe the continuing the US dominance right the US hijgemony in the world it's just that one is more calculated you know the other is believing in the sheer power of the US they continue to believe that which means they will whoever they don't like they would just interfere whether assassination or kidnapping or invasion what have they would just right so the two sides are not that difference right >> the right they they share certain fundamental assumptions I mean they they both share perspectives about uh great powers and what great powers are and what great powers do and Mimr and Waltz say that the United States is a great power >> and as a great power must behave in a certain way. My argument is take out that word must.

[00:35:26]You don't have to you don't have to behave in that way, which is the point that the Chinese are constantly trying to get the Americans to understand.

[00:35:37]>> Um but but that but that is the difference. And um you're absolutely right that um Mheimer and Walt want the American great power to behave with much more calculation and far more restraint than it does.

[00:35:58]But then perhaps a wiser thing would be to stop thinking of the United States as a great power in that way in the first place. Great in relation to who and what.

[00:36:09]>> Yeah. just saying >> well I agree with you. I think um China M have been to China many times. So, so there must be people in China have been repeatedly telling him about the way Chinese see you know Chinese world view right how great power could coexist together you know collaborations and on the equal terms and stuff like that but do you think air shmer doesn't believe it because he simply fundamentally do not believe it does not believe it or he just do doesn't think it's realistic that it can >> right okay so I can answer that question because I had that very discussion with Mheimer himself and we had it on the Duran as well. So it's public so I I I'm not disclosing anything that uh he you know uh um that that wasn't said publicly because remember we are friends.

[00:37:04]>> So Mheim u first of all admitted that he goes to China very often. He says that he is always um incredibly wellreceived in China and is very very grateful to the Chinese people for this and that he's massive in China. He said that he has been repeatedly told by people in China the very thing that you just said. Many many people in China in fact people in China continuously tried to explain to him the difference.

[00:37:35]So you you asked me whether anybody has said this to me. He told me himself that they have done and very often >> and he said straightforwardly I don't believe it because as far as I'm concerned China is a great power and as far as I believe this is how any great power would behave and I don't believe that China is different.

[00:38:03]>> Okay. I mean he was absolutely straightforward about it.

[00:38:07]>> Well, do you think >> I I I I am different because I I have a a deeper grounding in cultural studies I think than me does. Um I mean you know I I'm much more I I mean I don't know how interested he is but I'm much more interested in the culture of a country.

[00:38:28]I think you learn an awful lot about a country from his literature for example and its music and its painting.

[00:38:35]>> Mhm.

[00:38:36]>> And it's a point I've made I made it here in these programs. I mean one of the striking things for me about Chinese painting of which I am a huge enthusiast. I love it. I mean it's I think it's one of the great artistic traditions, one of the greatest artistic traditions at least as interesting and as diverse and as enormous as the painting tradition in the west. The most interesting thing is there is never any dwelling or depiction of war.

[00:39:09]>> It is entirely focused on peace and the activities of peace. And if you go to Chinese literature, it is the same. I again the the big exception is perhaps the three kingdoms.

[00:39:26]>> Mhm.

[00:39:27]>> But the three kingdoms is about an internal conflict in China. And firstly, it's a book of great sorrow and tragedy because of the violence in China. But it's also a book that is about the aspiration of China, the Chinese people to come together again and to regain peace. I what is the famous line? The empire once uh once united must divide.

[00:39:59]>> Once divided must unite.

[00:40:03]>> You know, it's both at the beginning and at the end. a a a and that it seems to me is captures the true spirit of China and of the Chinese people.

[00:40:15]>> Yeah. Um there's some fundamental difference in terms of uh the way to look at war in general, right? So the art of war it said um the the the highest art of war form of art war is you winning without going into the war.

[00:40:30]Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely.

[00:40:32]Absolutely. Yes.

[00:40:34]>> Completely. So, >> um in But here's the thing though. Now, the Chinese view I I would say in a way right now I I think it's M Shamber probably is correct to believe it's it's not possible because the Chinese view requires collaboration from all sides.

[00:40:55]All the great powers has to buy into this view in order to make it happen.

[00:41:00]So in that sense as long as the US and the Europeans, you know, none of them believe in this, then it's very hard to have a harmonious relationship because as long as you have one side, one great power do not believe in it. It's I think it's not happening unless of course when China is so advanced that everybody else is far behind then they have to accept the Chinese way. Do you think?

[00:41:25]>> Well, I know. Yeah, absolutely. I think that's right. I'm thinking about what's happened because I remember what we said what what we were saying in our last program. I think China is on the brink of a great wave.

[00:41:36]>> I mean what one of the things again to say about China and I'm not saying this because you're Chinese and because our viewers are Chinese but it is I'm what I'm saying now is a historical fact.

[00:41:47]Throughout the vast stretch of Chinese history, China has been nearly always the richest and most technologically advanced region of the world.

[00:42:01]>> I mean, it is an innate reality of Chinese of China and I'm sure one of the reasons for this is because of China's preference for peace. So the the Chinese not the English were the first to develop mass production in porcelain.

[00:42:20]They developed printing. They developed the c the compass. They were far ahead of everybody in production of smelting of uh steel and bronze um paper.

[00:42:34]>> They developed central banking during the time that Sun did.

[00:42:38]>> Yeah.

[00:42:39]you know the modern techniques of administration and the result is we are talking about a society that is innately innately productive because it's wired to be I'm not saying that Chinese people are made from a different clay from other human beings what I am simply saying is that this is the cultural framework >> it's so I personally person ally do not find it at all surprising that China today is at the forefront of science and technology and I think that and and techniques of production because China because of its history and because of the culture that has been shaped around that history has an innate tendency to develop in that direction.

[00:43:36]One more question is um the US the US is an empire right now, right? But um when you look at those two group of people talking uh I do find that the US empire is still different from the British Empire, >> isn't it? So >> very very >> but but can you explain the difference and why is that you know the US is different? profoundly. So I mean I I think this is where um this is where the Americans conceivably have their escape route actually. Now Britain was a European state.

[00:44:14]>> Mhm.

[00:44:15]>> It is a monarchy and it was an aristocracy.

[00:44:19]An aristocracy by definition is a militaristic >> institution.

[00:44:25]So um British the British Empire was unashamedly predatory >> and unashamedly racist. I think this is a thing which many people don't grasp about it. But within the British Empire there was a hierarchy of races and a hierarchy of nations.

[00:44:48]>> Mhm. So the British conquered something like a quarter of the surface area of the world and they ran it strictly for their own benefit and they ran it for the benefit of a very small group of people at the top and there was no apology about this.

[00:45:08]>> This is considered the natural order. It was justified on racial grounds that white people are superior to >> colored people and that Amongst the white people, the inner core, there are also hierarchies so that the aristocracy who are the major beneficiaries of the empire um have a right to rule over the others. You've been reading about Churchill. Remember Churchill was an aristocrat. He comes from that small group of families >> that were at the absolute top end >> of the British imperial system. We're going to talk about Churchill a lot more later. But the way to understand his politics is that he wanted to preserve that system, >> that whole system which benefited his own class and as he would have said his own race. Mhm.

[00:46:06]>> Now the United States is not like that.

[00:46:11]It was intended to be a republic.

[00:46:13]>> It was established as a democracy.

[00:46:16]>> So for the United States to go out, subjugate countries, make them outright colonies, which is what the British did.

[00:46:26]I mean, they they actually created what they called colonies where the British ruled the what they called native population. And you had a small group of British administrators backed by the British army who would do terrible things if there was ever any rebellion.

[00:46:43]Well, the Americans cannot do that and reconcile that reconcile that with what they say they are. They say that they're a republic based on democracy in which all men are created equal.

[00:47:01]>> Okay. So the American Empire has to be disguised and it has to function with a degree of hypocrisy that the British Empire never had and there will always be more embarrassment and tension >> inside it than there ever was in Britain. So this, as I said, gives the Americans their escape route because if they put empire behind them and as some Americans say become a republic again, they revert to being something closer to what they said they were when their state began, which you can't say about Britain. But but also I do think the United States has changed a lot over the years. Mhm.

[00:47:57]>> I mean you mentioned the Quinsey uh Adams right that his view of us do not need to go to the world looking for whatever and just keep everything in in inside country right so focusing on more inside versus where in this debate I think they also brought what Obama said uh which is he said inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. So that's what Pompeo Newand is based on which is saying well we have to interfere when we see the slightest sign because then that monster will grow to a point we can no longer control. So that's clearly now in their view they call it preventative but that's much more in you know interfering with other country go looking for the monsters right versus what uh John Quincy Adams said. So the US has changed over the years too, right?

[00:48:52]>> It's it's changed profoundly.

[00:48:55]And I another example would be Lincoln who of course fought the war, the civil war within the United States, but Lincoln was also a staunch opponent of foreign in intervention. I mean he his um second inaug in inaugural address. He says he says clearly that we should seek a just and lasting peace between ourselves and all nations.

[00:49:22]>> He does not want intervention. Mhm.

[00:49:24]>> Uh what happened where it all changed was with the two world wars >> when the United States got drawn into the two world wars. And ever since then, the people who um like the fact that the United States was intervening in every place go around telling us that if the United States doesn't intervene in every single place, then a new Adolf Hitler is going to emerge somewhere and is going to threaten the peace of the world in the way that the old Adolf Hitler did.

[00:49:58]>> The problem the problem with that is twofold. Firstly, um you are in that case imagining Hitlers everywhere.

[00:50:08]>> Yeah.

[00:50:08]>> You you you you imagine them in China, you imagine them in Russia, you imagine them in Vietnam, in Libya, in Iraq, in wherever you want. You you are looking always for a Hitler. And if you look for something constantly, sooner or later you're going to find it. And then of course when you do that eventually you end up becoming Hitler yourself because what was Hitler doing after all he was intervening and involving himself and launching wars of aggression against all sorts of countries uh shaping those countries in ways that he thought were correct and how is that fundamentally different from what the United States does?

[00:50:50]>> Yep. Uh overall I do think of this debate is it's kind of revealing I do think I mean one thing it's a little bit surprising to me that John Mayheimer was very clearly that he support intervention of if there's any problem in the Taiwan street. So that one point is surprising to me.

[00:51:08]>> Well his argument his argument goes actually further than that. He he not only thinks that the United States should intervene in the Taiwan state straight, but one of the reasons he opposes interventions in other places like Iran or in Ukraine is because he sees these as diversions of American resources from where those resources really should match should be placed and where they matter which is in the Taiwan straight.

[00:51:39]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He want all the resource focusing on targeting China.

[00:51:44]Yeah.

[00:51:44]>> Remember what I always tell you at the end of the day whenever you talk about foreign policy with the Americans. They always have China at the back of their mind.

[00:51:53]>> In other words, if if if there is no powerful rising China, he probably would be more okay with you know the interference in Ukraine or Iran probably. Okay.

[00:52:05]>> I mean exactly. I mean I I if there is a powerful if a country is becoming powerful so that it rivals the United States all four of those people who were involved in that debate despite their actual real differences I mean we shouldn't we shouldn't ignore the differences despite their own differences will nonetheless agree that that country which rivals the United States is some sort of threat.

[00:52:32]>> Yeah. Yeah. I think it uh for Nuland and the Pompeo um the conflict in Ukraine they their own original plan was once you get rid of Russia then you can focusing on on on China right that was their plan they just didn't expect this war could drag so long they thought Russia would be crushed okay once you throw them out of the the swift and stuff like that right so >> yes >> okay >> exactly >> uh last thing okay so Hong Kong overtakes Switzerland now as the world the top crossber wealth hub. That's not surprising. Okay. Uh my my question is >> no it is it is massively surprising if you read the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal. After all, China taking over Hong Kong was supposed to destroy Hong Kong. So how could it now be the major hub? Just the same. Well, but uh do you think it's directly related to the fact that the Switzerland itself give up this neutrality which I do think hurt them a lot or this is something simply unavoidable that Hong Kong the fact with the China this huge market this huge economy behind it that Hong Kong would definitely just no matter what is going to be the top uh place. I I I think I think there's an element of truth in both in the sense that I think over time yes Hong Kong as a major financial hub would have overtaken Switzerland. Having said this I I I I do think that these processes have been greatly accelerated by what's happened in the west and what's happened to Switzerland too. I mean, one of the reasons people put their money in Switzerland and did business in Switzerland was that they believed in Swiss neutrality.

[00:54:22]>> Nobody believes in Swiss neutrality anymore. Nobody believes that Switzerland will honor the promise that Switzerland implicitly made that if you put your money in Switzerland, it is safe there. Mhm.

[00:54:38]>> So um given that people look for other places, >> they see Hong Kong, a very strong financial center, very wellorganized financial center. It's a a an autonomous city within what is now the world's biggest and most dynamic economy. Mhm.

[00:55:01]>> So of course and and and a country whose word is is believed. So when they say your money is safe in Hong Kong, people do believe their money is safe >> in Hong Kong.

[00:55:16]>> So people say this is where we're going to put our money.

[00:55:21]>> Um we are we are on we are on the brink of a great change. Um, I was reading a hysterical article in the Daily Telegraph today by somebody who really doesn't like China at all, but fears it fright terribly, who's a man called Ambrose Evans Pritchard, an economist, and he says that China is going to sweep the board in industries and technology.

[00:55:43]And this is terrible that they do that.

[00:55:45]And it shows how uh bad these Chinese people are that they're so good at industry and technology. It's all part of some uh evil master plan. And if they were really good people, what they would do is buy uh the far worse goods that we produce in reference to the much better and cheaper goods that they produce. I I I'm not joking, but that is what he said.

[00:56:11]>> The the other thing is I do think that this war in Iran, you know, all these things are connected, right? So uh for example Dubai I think it also scared a lots of people when they see what's happened in Dubai that is so vulnerable right it was also used to be a financial hub as well lots of wealth going through there but it was little bit surprising that how vulnerable Dubai is right and thereby thereby I think some people worry about Singapore as well don't you think >> that that that is you you've actually made a very very good point because the other thing about Hong Pong is not only that it's reliable, that you can trust it, >> but it's safe.

[00:56:51]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:56:52]>> Because uh because I it it it's part of China and China isn't just the world's biggest economy, >> but it is also an obviously extremely powerful country. So nobody's going to attack Hong Kong tomorrow.

[00:57:06]>> Bomb Hong Kong.

[00:57:07]>> Bomb Hong Kong. Yeah.

[00:57:08]>> Yeah. Yeah. So that I I I I also think that's part of it that people little bit unse you know feel unsettled with Singapore because Singapore is almost like the same situation as in Dubai right it's >> you previously people believe the US would protect Singapore but it's not so certain that's going to happen right so if something happens so >> absolutely >> but before we continue just wanted to just tell your um your Chinese audience that there's been a program um that's gone on YouTube but that's going viral and a lot of people in Britain are talking about this which is that it compares a Chinese SUV a a luxury Chinese luxury SUV with the Rolls-Royce Cullinane.

[00:57:52]>> Oh, okay.

[00:57:53]>> Now, now the Rolls-Royce Cullinane uh this the one was secondhand so it cost £250,000 around £300,000.

[00:58:04]The Chinese one cost £50,000. It was a fifth >> of the price.

[00:58:11]>> The Chinese car was better. Even Even in some of its luxury trimmings, >> it was better.

[00:58:18]>> Is much more technologically advanced.

[00:58:22]>> It was a very advanced hybrid.

[00:58:24]>> When there was a a race which could accelerate faster, the Rolls-Royce was there and the Chinese was over there. It just it was extraordinary to see.

[00:58:34]>> Yeah. And the boot was much larger.

[00:58:38]>> The space in the second row was much better.

[00:58:42]>> I mean, there was just no comparison.

[00:58:45]>> Yes. It wasn't just the technology. It was the sheer craftsmanship. I mean, the the interior in the Chinese SUV >> was, you know, the stitching and all of that was actually better >> than the Rolls-Royce. Now that that is for uh people in Britain uh uh revelatory because you know nobody can imagine a car more luxurious and better than a Rolls-Royce just to say.

[00:59:10]>> So have a good trip to Russia and let's talk if not next week and maybe after ne after that.

[00:59:15]>> Indeed. Indeed. I'll I'll keep you informed.

[00:59:17]>> Okay. Right.

[00:59:18]>> Thank you so much. Bye.

[00:59:20]>> Right. Bye.