End of unipolarity w/ Jeffrey Sachs, Alexander Mercouris and Glenn Diesen

Summary

In this discussion, economist Jeffrey Sachs addresses the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world, criticizing the U.S.'s approach to global dominance. He reflects on his advisory role post-Cold War Europe, advocating for cooperation over containment. Sachs challenges the U.S.'s adversarial stance towards Russia and China, emphasizing the importance of economic relations and mutual respect for a stable world order. He argues for a multipolar future where no single nation dominates, highlighting the futility of trying to contain countries like China due to their economic and technological advancements.

Takeaways

• 🌍 The conversation discusses the shift from a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. to a multipolar world with multiple centers of power.
• 🗣️ Jeffrey Sachs, an economist, emphasizes his role as an academic and volunteer advisor, not a representative of the U.S. government.
• 🏛️ Sachs was involved in advising Eastern European economies post-Cold War, particularly Poland, on transitioning from communism to capitalism.
• 💡 His economic advice is founded on peaceful cooperation and an open world, supporting countries in overcoming historical burdens and financial crises.
• 🚫 Sachs faced rejection from the U.S. government when proposing similar economic strategies to those he successfully implemented in Poland for the Soviet Union and Russia.
• 🛑 The U.S. pursued a policy of unipolarity, expanding NATO eastward and creating barriers, contrary to Sachs' vision of a common European home.
• 🔄 Sachs criticizes the U.S. for viewing China as an enemy and attempting to contain its growth, which he sees as immoral and unrealistic.
• 🌐 He argues for a multipolar world where the U.S. is not the sole hegemon, recognizing the rise of other economic powers like China and the BRICS countries.
• 📉 Sachs points out the U.S. is not acting in its own economic interest by pursuing a policy of dominance and containment, which is contrary to mutual gains from trade.
• ⏳ He expresses concern over the U.S.'s anachronistic approach to foreign policy, which is out of step with the current global realities and the interconnected world economy.

Q & A

What is Jeffrey Sachs' view on the shift from unipolarity to multipolarity in global politics?

Jeffrey Sachs believes in a multipolar world where countries cooperate peacefully and openly, giving space for nations to overcome historical burdens and recover from financial crises.

How does Sachs describe his role during the economic transitions of Eastern European countries post-Cold War?

Jeffrey Sachs acted as an academic and volunteer advisor, not representing the U.S. government, and helped countries like Poland transition from communism to capitalism.

What was Sachs' advice to Poland during its economic transition, and was it successful?

Sachs recommended making the currency convertible, creating stability, and reducing debt burdens inherited from the Soviet period. These measures were adopted and proved successful in stabilizing Poland's economy.

Why did the U.S. reject Sachs' recommendations for the Soviet Union during its reforms?

The U.S. rejected Sachs' recommendations due to a mindset of unipolarity and a belief that the Soviet Union was still an enemy, not supporting any measures that would aid its recovery.

What is Sachs' perspective on the current U.S. approach towards China?

Sachs views the U.S. approach as creating an enemy out of China, which he finds bewildering and contrary to the open, cooperative world he advocates for. He believes in celebrating the success of others rather than viewing it as a threat.

How does Sachs feel about the U.S. policy of trying to 'contain' China?

Sachs finds the idea of containing China to be bizarre and unachievable, given China's size, population, and economic success, and believes it's a relic of an outdated geopolitical strategy.

What does Sachs suggest as a more realistic approach to global relations?

Sachs suggests a more realistic approach is to focus on sensible trade and economic relations with other countries, leading to a more stable and cooperative global system.

Why does Sachs argue that the U.S. should not view China's rise as a threat?

Sachs argues that China's rise should be celebrated as it represents global prosperity spreading and economic growth, not feared or restricted.

What does Sachs think about the lack of direct communication between U.S. and Russian leaders?

Sachs finds it tragic and unbelievable that there has been no direct communication between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin, suggesting it's a sign of immature and dangerous international relations.

How does Sachs view the current U.S. foreign policy in comparison to his economic ideals?

Sachs sees a stark contrast between his economic ideals, which focus on mutual gain and open cooperation, and the current U.S. foreign policy, which he perceives as driven by a desire for dominance and hegemony.

Outlines

00:00

🌎 Global Shifts and Economic Transitions

In Paragraph 1, Glenn introduces the show with Alexander Mercuris and guest Jeffrey Sachs, an esteemed economist. They aim to discuss the US's conflict with China and Russia amidst a global shift from unipolarity to multi-polarity. Sachs clarifies he's an academic, not a government representative, and shares his belief in peaceful cooperation. He reflects on advising Eastern European economies post-Cold War, emphasizing Poland's transition to a market democracy and his recommendations for economic stability. He contrasts the US's receptiveness to his advice for Poland with its rejection for the Soviet Union, highlighting a strategic shift towards unipolarity and the creation of new barriers rather than a unified European vision.

05:00

🛑 US Unipolar Strategy and its Consequences

Paragraph 2 delves into the US's unipolar strategy, which Sachs criticizes for creating divisions rather than fostering a cooperative global environment. He recounts his experiences advising Poland and the Soviet Union, noting the US's refusal to support similar economic measures in Russia that had been successful in Poland. Sachs expresses his alignment with Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's visions of a common European home and their desire for Russia to be a 'normal' part of Europe. He contrasts this with the US's approach, which he views as driven by a desire for dominance rather than mutual benefit, leading to the current geopolitical tensions with China.

10:03

🌟 The Illusion of Unipolarity and the Rise of Multipolarity

Paragraph 3 discusses the inherent failure of the unipolar world order and the rise of a multipolar system. Sachs argues against the neoconservative belief in US dominance, citing the absurdity of a small percentage of the world's population attempting to control the rest. He points out the economic successes of China and the BRICS countries, which challenge the US's and G7's economic dominance. Sachs emphasizes the importance of sensible trade and economic relations over outdated power struggles, advocating for a more cooperative and realistic global system.

15:06

🌐 Multipolar World and the Future of Global Relations

In Paragraph 4, Sachs continues to elaborate on the transition to a multipolar world, driven by the development and innovation of nations like China. He criticizes the US's attempts to contain China's growth as immoral and unrealistic, given China's significant population and economic progress. Sachs argues that the world is moving towards a multipolar system where no single nation can dominate, and that this shift is a positive development as it reflects the global spread of prosperity and technological advancement.

20:07

📉 Economic Growth and the Path to Global Cooperation

Paragraph 5 focuses on the importance of economic growth and the need for global cooperation. Sachs criticizes the US's neoconservative approach to foreign policy, which he believes is outdated and detrimental to global stability. He emphasizes that the primary goal should be global well-being, not dominance, and that the US's attempts to restrict China's growth are both immoral and futile. Sachs advocates for a foreign policy based on mutual respect and cooperation, rather than power struggles, to avoid tragic conflicts in a world with nuclear capabilities.

25:07

🤝 The Need for Dialogue and Cooperation

Paragraph 6 concludes the discussion with a call for dialogue and cooperation between global leaders. Sachs expresses his disappointment in the lack of communication between US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, highlighting the importance of diplomatic engagement to resolve conflicts. He criticizes the US's approach to foreign policy as childish and dangerous, especially in the context of nuclear weapons, and reiterates the need for a more mature and cooperative mindset in global politics.

Keywords

💡Unipolarity

Unipolarity refers to a global power structure where one nation holds significant economic, political, and military dominance over others. In the video, the shift from a unipolar world, characterized by U.S. dominance post-Cold War, to a multipolar world is discussed. The script mentions the U.S.'s strategy for global primacy and how it has led to conflicts and a failure to address global issues like environmental degradation.

💡Multipolarity

Multipolarity is a geopolitical concept where multiple nations or power centers have significant influence and there is no single dominant nation. The video discusses the world's shift towards multipolarity, which is seen as a more balanced and potentially more stable global order. Multipolarity is contrasted with the U.S.'s unipolar approach, suggesting a need for cooperation among various powers.

💡Economic Transition

Economic transition in the script refers to the process of moving from a centrally planned economy to a market-oriented one, as experienced by Eastern European countries after the Cold War. Jeffrey Sachs, the guest, advised on this transition, particularly in Poland, emphasizing the importance of creating stability and reducing debt burdens inherited from the Soviet era.

💡Geopolitical Mindset

A geopolitical mindset is an approach to international relations that focuses on power dynamics, strategic positioning, and the influence of geography on politics. The video discusses how the U.S.'s geopolitical mindset, particularly its pursuit of unipolarity, has led to conflicts and a failure to adapt to a changing world order where cooperation and multipolarity are becoming more prominent.

💡Environmental Degradation

Environmental degradation refers to the deterioration of the natural environment through pollution, deforestation, and other human activities. The script highlights the failure of the current global power structure to address this critical issue, suggesting that a more cooperative and multipolar approach might be necessary to tackle global environmental challenges.

💡Hegemony

Hegemony in international relations denotes the dominance of one state over others, often through a combination of economic, political, and military power. The video critiques the U.S.'s pursuit of hegemony and suggests that it is an outdated and counterproductive approach in a world moving towards multipolarity.

💡Neoconservative

Neoconservative refers to a political ideology that advocates for assertive U.S. global leadership, often through military power and the promotion of democracy. The video criticizes neoconservative strategies, suggesting that they contribute to global tensions and conflicts, particularly in the context of U.S. relations with Russia and China.

💡NATO Enlargement

NATO enlargement refers to the process of expanding the membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include former Warsaw Pact countries and former Soviet republics. The script discusses how NATO enlargement has been a point of contention, particularly with Russia, and has contributed to the current security conflicts in Europe.

💡BRICS

BRICS is an acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The video mentions BRICS as an example of the growing economic power of countries outside the traditional Western dominance, challenging the unipolar world order and contributing to a more multipolar global economy.

💡Economic Sanctions

Economic sanctions are measures imposed on countries to coerce certain behaviors or policies, typically by restricting trade or financial transactions. The video discusses U.S. economic sanctions against Russia and the proposed strategy to contain China's technological advancements, highlighting the limitations and potential counterproductivity of such measures in a multipolar world.

💡Strategic Rivalry

Strategic rivalry refers to competition between nations for influence, power, or resources. The video touches on the strategic rivalry between the U.S. and other major powers like China and Russia, suggesting that this rivalry is a driving force behind current global tensions and the move away from unipolarity.

Highlights

Discussion on the shift from unipolarity to multi-polarity in global power structures.

Jeffrey Sachs' role in advising Eastern European economies post-Cold War.

Sachs' clarification of never representing the U.S. government, but acting as an academic volunteer.

Support for President Gorbachev's vision of a common European home stretching from Rotterdam to Vladivostok.

Sachs' advice to Poland on reconnecting with Europe and overcoming financial crisis.

Rejection of Sachs' recommendations for Soviet Union's economic reforms by the White House.

U.S. policy of unipolarity and its impact on relations with Russia and Eastern Europe.

Sachs' view on the U.S. mindset of dominance versus his belief in peaceful cooperation.

The current U.S. approach towards China and its implications for global relations.

Sachs' argument against the U.S. strategy of containing China's growth and its futility.

The importance of economics in shaping power relations and the need for a cooperative world view.

Critique of the neoconservative belief in U.S. global dominance and its dangers.

The rise of BRICS economies and their significance in the new global economic order.

Sachs' prediction of the temporary nature of U.S. unipolarity due to resource exhaustion and adversary collaboration.

The need for the U.S. to adapt to a multi-polar world and the consequences of not doing so.

Sachs' call for the U.S. to engage in dialogue and cooperation rather than conflict and containment.

The importance of addressing global challenges like environmental degradation through cooperation.

Transcripts

uh welcome

um to Today's show my name is Glenn

diesen and with me is Alexander mercuris

and the guest of today is the renowned

an insightful Economist Jeffrey Sachs

welcome

thank you good to be with you

so uh yeah we we will try today to

discuss some of this U.S conflict with

both China and Russia as the world

shifts towards from unipolarity to

multi-polarity and as many of these

decisions uh taken in the 1990s from the

U.S security strategy based on global

Primacy to

the European security architecture that

left Russia out or at a large extent

based on unipolarity with one Center of

power so as we're now shifting to

multi-polarity uh this failure I guess

to adjust to this reality so we're

seeing huge security conflicts economic

financial crash and of course a failure

to address environmental degradation

which is one of your passions but I

thought we could start first with the

development of Europe after the Cold War

ended because as an economist also

representing the US government you had a

key role in advising many governments

also Eastern European economies to

transition from communism to capitalism

so this is now an important part of

world history that shaped also Europe so

it's also a great case study when

economics meet politics I guess so I

just wanted to know if you could share

some of your experiences

of course I'm going to shift out of the

bright Sunshine so I hope uh there we go

uh hold on

I yeah basically let me be clear uh I I

never represented the US government then

or now I've always acted as an academic

I've always volunteered my time I've

never been for a hire and I've never

operated for

uh the U.S government or the IMF or

others that were claimed I I'm an

academic uh and a uh an advisor on a

volunteer basis so just to be clear

about that yes

um you know I believed in president

Gorbachev's vision of a common European

home that would stretch from Rotterdam

actually to of Vladivostok as as he put

it uh I think that was the right Vision

then I continue to believe in open

Global cooperation of course including

China including Africa including Latin

America so all of my economic

advice has been based on the idea of

peaceful cooperation and an open uh an

open world that gives space for

countries uh either to overcome

historical burdens that they faced uh to

make up for lost time to uh recover from

Financial crises and so on in 1989 I

became advisor to the Polish government

and the solidarity movement as that

country was transitioning from the

Soviet system to a market and democratic

system and I advised on how Poland could

reconnect with Europe and indeed the the

slogan of the Polar solidarity movement

was the return to Europe so I

recommended how to make the currency

convertible how to create stability how

to reduce the debt burdens that were

inherited from the Soviet period and so

forth it was quite successful and on

that basis President Gorbachev asked me

to work with his economic team led by uh

uh Gregory yavlinski at the time uh and

uh I tried to help them uh and then

after the dissolution of the Soviet

Union president Yeltsin uh asked me to

work with the jagor gaidar his economic

uh advisor and acting prime minister in

fact to help now the big point that I

would make is that when I advise Poland

I made several recommendations to help

Poland overcome a deep financial crisis

uh cancel Poland's debts create a

special fund to stabilize the currency

and so forth these proved to be uh first

they were adopted by the White House

very quickly my ideas sometimes within a

few hours second they proved to be quite

successful

in stabilizing a collapsed economy but

when I made the same recommendations

for Gorbachev's reforms they were turned

down

completely without

any any iota of support the White House

said hell no we're not supporting the

Soviet Union and then when I made

similar recommendations on how to

stabilize the Russian situation in early

1992 which was also very very difficult

financially

a complete flat rejection and I said to

senior U.S officials but it worked in

Poland they told me it doesn't matter if

it worked in Poland this is different

basically the U.S was already on the

course of unipolarity which is not my

cup of tea at all they said why should

we help these guys they're our enemies

and they drew a line

first pushing the U.S led Alliance to

the eastern border of Poland

and that was going to be their new

expanded range and that's why they

supported Poland I thought they were

supporting Poland out of the idea that

we're going to create a better

integrated world

but they drew the line basically at

wherever NATO could go so if NATO went

East okay support that country but they

were making new barriers not a common

European home I didn't get it at the

beginning because you know I was very

much in favor of both uh gorbachevs and

yeltsin's vision Yeltsin put it a

different way he said we just want to be

normal we want to be normal we don't

want to be on the outskirts we just want

to be normal and I completely agree with

that approach and it works economically

but you have to have a geopolitical

mindset to it and the U.S mindset was no

that still is the enemy on the other

side and we're going to expand NATO

we're going to create a larger U.S

Imperium we're going to help those on

our side not those on the other side and

then of course to to jump ahead to the

current uh moment

to my huge dismay of course this has

become exactly the same game plan

vis-a-vis China and this is also very

strange for me because I've been going

to China for

40 years

very frequently for the last 30 years I

have many former students who are senior

officials many colleagues many friends I

never for one moment view China as an

enemy or anything like an enemy and yet

the US is making it into an enemy by a

daily drum beat that China is the great

threat to the world and again it's the

same mentality if you believe that the

key is you have to be number one then

you look at any other success story as a

threat if you believe in an open

Cooperative world then you celebrate the

success of others I'm in I'm in the

latter camp but that's not the dominant

foreign policy of the United States

Professor sax I find this so bewildering

and difficult to understand from an

American point of view because the

United States

in the 1990s in the 2000s today still is

at the very center of the economic

system I mean it is it's still you know

the pivotal country

I would have thought that the United

States benefits most from having it open

economic trade relations with countries

like Russia China wherever and in fact

it's in its interests to have them as

friends so I mean has this never been

understood or grasped in the United

States or you know am I seeing something

completely wrong I mean it's

dividing the world into blocks in this

way which is what is happening coming

about is contrary to U.S interests it's

actually accelerating the end of U.S

Primacy well you know the question is

what what are interests here uh if you

think uh like we do as a

economists so you say interests are

better well-being uh higher living

standards uh Mutual gains from trade

that's how I think so I agree with you

that none of what the US is doing is in

the U.S interest if you think of U.S

interest as a realist

strategist or maybe not even a realist

strategist I'd say a neoconservative

strategist who truly believes that the

only security for the United States is

to be the number one the hegemon uh the

one with the full spectrum Primacy then

uh you don't you your interest in uh

absolute terms of rising living

standards and so forth you view your

interest as the difference between your

status and the other status so even if

you hurt both sides if you hurt the

other side even more that seems to be

beneficial in the mindset of

neoconservatives and it's been explained

to me by a lot of international

relations

strategists yeah we think differently

from economists economists believe in

mutual gain they believe in an open

world whereas strategists believe in

power relations so what counts is

dominance I've never believed that idea

you know one of our great realists in

the United States and a very smart and a

very nice man is John muirsheimer at

University of Chicago and his famous

book is called the tragedy of great

power politics and I put the emphasis on

tragedy he says yes there's a struggle

for power it's inevitable everyone's

fighting to be hegemon but his

conclusion is it's a tragedy my

conclusion is could we stop the damn

tragedy before it occurs you know why do

we need to go to World War over this

stupidity and when I look at what the

neocons think and say I find it

completely bewildering when I read

Robert kagan's book The Jungle grows

back I'm horrified his true belief his

true belief is that unless the United

States runs the world The World Won't

function well almost no one else

believes this by the way and for real

reason why should four percent of the

world

population presume to run the rest of

the world it makes absolutely no sense

and when you think about it the whole

Viewpoint is intrinsically

dangerous because of one place with four

percent of the world population says we

must lead what is the other 96 of the

world say and we we know what they say

no we don't want you to lead if you

would just behave and cooperate maybe we

could all get along together that's

that's my view

isn't a realistic one it's a fantastic

one

it's it the more realistic Vision by far

is you sensible trade and economic

relations with other countries that's

way forward to a much more stable and

realistic system the other one is a is a

sort of nightmare fantastic system it is

it's also yeah it's also you know it's a

terrible anachronism it's a throwback to

the 1950s uh it's and the the problem is

of course with the dissolution of the

Soviet Union

which

that that's a whole big issue it was not

Ronald Reagan defeating the Soviet Union

it it it was a an evolutionary change

because certain things weren't working

so there was an attempt at reform and

creating uh a uh a more common Global

space which then was taken by the

neoconservatives going all the way back

30 years of course to Cheney especially

to Rumsfeld to wolfowitz but then on the

Democratic party side to Biden to

Newland to Kagan and to others as okay

now we really are in the unipolar world

it was a fantasy then but it after 30

years of China's rapid development after

the stability and the recovery of Russia

after the financial crises of the 80s

and the 90s it's

it is absolutely a bizarre illusion it's

not an accident that it's being Guided

by an octogenarian U.S president this is

a throwback to the past it is not a

reflection of current realities if you

actually look at the world as it is if

you look at data as I do morning till

night you find interesting factoids like

the fact that the brics countries now uh

that is Brazil Russia India China and

South Africa are larger in economic

output measured at International prices

then the G7 countries

so how can we have a a world run by the

U.S or even by the G7 when the bricks

are larger than the G7 it it makes no

sense but you actually see I see it in

my former colleagues at the Harvard

University Kennedy School where I taught

for a long time I see it all over East

Coast America

still the this idea

that the U.S is the unipolar power we

can have our way and they're slowly

facing some grim

findings which are so obvious but come

as great revelations in the east coast

of the United States that the world

isn't going along with it I mean they're

puzzling even after a year of this why

isn't everyone on our side uh in uh this

uh proxy war in Ukraine why hasn't

everyone fallen into line they don't get

it because they don't get out enough

frankly they live in uh in in a

washington-centric

world not in the world as it is today

I remember our key criticism of unit

polarity in the early 90s was that it

would be temporary because the U.S would

exhaust its resources and it would

incentivize adversaries to come together

and I'm thinking now that you have this

financial economic crisis and you have

uh all the key adversaries you know

through brics Shanghai Corporation

organization even friends and neutral

countries of the US are you know

diversifying a bit away from the US is

as this prediction seemed to all come

true isn't there that you mentioned the

strategist and the well the the neocons

wouldn't even they start to think after

a while that this this is uh not a good

proposition where we're going to lose if

Percy hegemony should we maybe shift to

a

multiple multipolar system where we may

be the first among equals or is it

because it does it doesn't seem

sustainable uh continuing on this path

is to know do you see any movements at

all in the because you mentioned some

people are looking at the number numbers

now and it doesn't seem to work out yeah

I think it's important to say that the

failure of unipolarity is intrinsic in

the idea not in exhaustion per se but

simply in the fact that the rest of the

world doesn't just sit there the rest of

the world adopts new technologies

develops China is one of the most

productive Innovative Dynamic places in

the world it's got a population more

than four times the United States it's

had the greatest economic success over

the last 40 years through a massive

investment in modernization and

infrastructure and quality education in

very hard work by the way and it has

built a

a very large successful and dynamic

economy and there's no way that China

would remain a smaller economy than the

United States given that it has four

times more the population except if it's

somehow got stuck at less than

one-fourth of the per capita income of

the United States but why should it get

stuck it's doing the right things it's

investing in its people it's investing

in education it's investing in modern

infrastructure so it's not getting stuck

now the U.S has the lame brain idea what

will make it stuck you know we'll dust

off the Playbook of 1950 and we'll quote

contain China That's really an amazingly

bizarre idea first of all how is 330

million people going to contain 1.4

billion people where the 1.4 billion

population is the main trading partner

for most of the rest of the world how's

that supposed to work well the U.S says

we're going to cut them off from

Advanced semiconductors you know China

is very clever they will make these

semiconductors very soon this is the

whole history of attempts to cut off the

other side from one thing or another and

it's just at this stage illusion

basically four percent of the world

population cannot be the hegemon for the

world that's the bottom line by the way

nor can 18 of the world population China

is not going to be the new hegemon we're

not going to have a hegemon we're going

to have a multi-polar world unless we

blow it up

so we're moving to multi-polarity

because we're now in a world of

independent Sovereign nations with very

clever people all over the world with

the flow of knowledge and technology and

science which enables all parts of the

world to make progress and so the idea

of unipolarity or full spectrum

dominance or whatever one wants to call

it which by the way the U.S learned from

its Mentor Britain and we see where that

is uh has gone I it's just an

anachronism it doesn't work and it it

therefore should be

recognized for what it is a strange idea

that came from yes 200 years of relative

Anglo-Saxon uh hegemony but it's over

and it's fine that it's over it's over

for the good reason that Prosperity is

spreading around the world

I completely agree I mean one would have

thought that you know economic growth

prosperity in China is something to be

celebrated about something to be it's

not something to be feared trying to

restrict Chinese economic growth trying

to freeze China's per capita GDP at a

quarter of that of the United States is

immoral

what does China have to do

so you know to to be allowed to increase

its GDP to U.S levels and as you

absolutely rightly say it's unachievable

one of the things I mean I read a lot of

these neocon pieces and I think that one

of the things that really troubles me is

economics never features in it and yet

economics in their thinking and yet

economics

ought to be at the base of everything in

the modern world I mean power relations

depends on economics and you know

economics points you today away from

19th century power relations it should

not be difficult

sorry well you know it it it it is

true if you think about our aims as

being well-being

material uh security and so forth then

it's pretty obvious that the question of

who's number one is not the most

interesting question in the world it's

actually a pretty bizarre question again

if you are I suppose this kind of uh

geopolitical strategist which I'm not

I'm an economist hoping for well-being

around the world then maybe you ask

different questions but I must say the

track record of asking those different

questions is exactly what John mershimer

says it's tragic so we should learn to

ask different questions the main

question should not be who's number one

but the main question should be how can

we get along

this is actually

so evident

and you know you've discussed it I've

discussed it many times I find it

unbelievable

and tragic that Joe Biden and Vladimir

Putin have not spoken in the past year

unbelievable the world has consequences

of this are we in a playground or are we

serious people adults trying to solve

problems you know what is it that

prevents the two from getting on the

phone I think Biden should be the one to

do it because President Putin put

forward already in December 2021

reasonable ways to avoid conflict

absolutely sensible ways stop the NATO

enlargement then we can actually have

the mutual respect and security for

everybody but no didn't want to talk

about it and so

it is a completely different mindset

everything is uh if it's all about the

power relations you end up with tragedy

you end up with conflict in which nobody

wins and with China it's even more

bizarre and I've watched it

as a as a creation of this ideology

starting in 2015 there was a conscious

change well China's rise is no longer in

America's interest even grown-ups wrote

that are you kidding it's not in your

interest that China rise anymore now

we're going to have a different foreign

policy to stop China's rise but they

actually believe that and behave that

way and it's to my mind worse than a

schoolyard playground this kind of

behavior except it's in a world of

nuclear weapons so it's no joke at all

it's absolutely tragic

but for sex uh well we don't have a time

so I just want to thank you again for

yeah for taking the time to come and uh

yeah we hope to see you again absolutely

pleasure to be with both of you thanks

so much thank you thanks

foreign

[Music]