Chiny i Rosja nie są biegunami. Supermocarstwo jest tylko jedno [ANALIZA]

Welcome everyone to my channel. This is Krzysztof Wojczal, and I invite you to a material that is thematic and analytical this time. It won't be short, I'm warning you right away. I will present to you a topic concerning whether we are already living in a multipolar, multi-polar world, or still in a unipolar one, i.e., so-called hegemony. Before we get to that, of course, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I will say that this material was primarily developed first in written form and published on the blog. So, if anyone prefers to read, I invite you to the link in the description, and there you will find a much more extensive and better-justified written form. Here, we will focus on the most controversial points, I think, and I will try to justify them more broadly so that you also know on what basis I am making my theses. And now, a moment for the channel's strategic partner. Without a solid contribution, often hundreds of thousands of zlotys, investments in rental properties are usually out of the question. But this does not mean that your money should just lie idle in your account and lose value due to inflation. Look at it from this perspective. In the long term, many major global indices have grown. From the broad S&P 500, whose average annual return over the last 5 years was over 13%, to the global MSCI World index, whose average annual return for the same period was close to 13.4%. Remember that future results are not always a reliable guarantee of future events. These are years of upward trends interrupted by corrections, but with a perspective that rewards consistency and time in the market. Want to join what's happening in global markets? At XTB, you'll find thousands of stocks and ETFs from all over the world, commission-free up to €100,000 in monthly turnover. What's more, you can also count on interest on free funds, so your capital can work even when you're waiting for an investment opportunity. You can start with as little as 10 PLN. If you enter my code Vochal during registration with XTB, you'll receive free educational materials to start with, which will guide you step by step into the world of finance. And at the beginning, of course, traditionally, I thank you very much for supporting the channel, for subscribing, for liking, commenting, and sharing the materials, which works well for the algorithms, and you consistently feed those algorithms, for which I am very grateful. At the same time, I am even more grateful to all those who have decided to support the channel through Patronite or the "Support" button on YouTube, thanks to which I know that you like these materials, you appreciate them, you appreciate this voice in the discussion, with which you don't necessarily have to agree, but I hope I always give you arguments to think about, which must be confronted. And this is my task here on the channel, at least that's the task I've set for myself. And now, getting down to business, I will present to you a certain table, which I have already presented on social media, as well as on the blog. We have here 11 characteristics of a superpower. These characteristics or categories were subjectively chosen by me. I believe that at the moment, these are the characteristics that can determine whether a given country is a superpower, or just a regular power, or simply an ordinary country, like many others in a given category. This is quite important because some people, I feel, in the public space, and even commentators or experts, perceived the hegemony, or perceive the hegemony of the United States as a moment in history when Americans absolutely dominated and decided what was happening in the world. And since they no longer decide, and there are countries that clearly show their assertiveness towards Washington, and even rivalry, then of course, this hegemony has fallen. And this is, of course, already a mistake at the very start in defining the concept of hegemony. In my opinion, this concept, politically or geopolitically, in a geopolitical context, never meant that a given country essentially exercises a dictatorship over all others in the world. That is, if someone in Washington said, "Putin, jump," Putin would ask, "How high?" Or Xi Jinping, or Hu Jintao before him. So, such a situation has never existed. In the years 2000-2013, roughly 23 years, let's say a quarter of a century. It is a quarter of a century in which American hegemony has not been challenged to this day; everyone acknowledges that it truly existed. So, if it existed, what did it consist of? Well, not of this dictatorship, but it consisted of the enormous advantage of the United States in specific areas. So, hegemony is not an implied, literal, direct, total domination, the total imposition of one's will by a given country, but hegemony meant an advantage. And in my opinion, the correct definition of hegemony is one that states that we are dealing with geopolitical hegemony in the world when there is only one country with superpower status. Not a great power, not a regional power, not just a superpower, it must have some super characteristic, a superpower must have super characteristics that are either very rare or give unique, unique potentials to that country on a global scale, not regional, not even continental, but precisely on a global scale, so the global scale is important above all, and unique abilities, unique characteristics are important. And if we have one superpower, then we naturally have a unipolar world. We have this one pole, which does not decide everything. Even sometimes, this hegemon could not cope with countries like Iran after the revolution, or Venezuela or Cuba before, or even to this day. So, during this hegemony, which no one questions, the United States could not cope with such countries and was unable to impose its will on them. So, this meant that there were clear limits to the hegemon, despite the fact that he was the hegemon and was treated as the hegemon. And today, in this context, to prove that we are dealing with a multipolar world, as some claim, one would have to either present an event that completely reversed the geopolitical situation and changed the strength of the United States, and at the same time one would have to demonstrate that we are now dealing either with a multipolar world resulting from the fact that the United States has lost its superpower status and there are no longer any superpowers, and then we truly have multipolarity. Or one would have to demonstrate that we have more than one pole. It could be a bipolar world, right? Just like during the Cold War between the Soviets and the United States, there was this rivalry, and the Soviets at that time, in my opinion, and we can talk about this later, fulfilled the characteristics of a superpower at that time. So, there had to be at least two, two superpowers, three or more. And then we could also say that we are no longer dealing with hegemony, with a unipolar order, but precisely with a multipolar one. So, this is the key issue. How many countries have superpower status today? And the answer to this question will give us the answer, in reality, to what kind of world we live in, whether anything has changed. And based on this kind of definition or assumption, I created a kind of table. It is only an illustrative table, concerning, meaning, it is meant to give an idea of what resulted from my analysis, but not even the one written on the blog, which is quite extensive, but still heavily shortened. In fact, to create this table, I wrote a whole book, because the third decade was essentially written precisely to have a very broad and detailed perspective on the world and on individual countries, because it describes individual countries, their potentials, strengths, levers, weaknesses, and so on, and so on. There is truly a very large cross-section. Anyone who reads it, and there are many of you who own this book, knows that there is truly extensive knowledge about basically all the most important countries in the world, and even about medium-sized countries without superpower status. There is also a lot about them. So, of course, many years have passed since 2021, when I published this book. I have not only updated this knowledge but also deepened it. I am wiser than I was then. So, all of this is of course updated, regarding this table, and regarding the arguments used in the text, they are also new. Nevertheless, I am also posting this text and this table on social media and under discussions precisely because I expect criticism and I expect to confront my arguments, my worldview, or my assessment of the state of the world. And I really like substantive polemics. I really like it when someone questions or tries to undermine what I have established with arguments, because then I know whether my theses hold up or not, and whether I should perhaps change my perspective. So, among other things, I made this table for the purpose of discussing it, criticizing it, referring to it, and making it easy. Because the graphical form is also, in my opinion, more readable and inviting, much more so than a 30-page text published on the blog. So, now, after these 10 minutes of introduction, but I think it was necessary for us to know what we are discussing. And we also need to establish a methodology, right? And now, regarding the methodology itself, this table presents 11 characteristics of a superpower that I have chosen and which I will justify to you. Why I consider these to be characteristics of a superpower, and not others, and at this time and not another, because I believe that these characteristics are not immutable. For example, 20 years ago, or perhaps 30 years ago, I think that access to critical minerals, to critical raw materials, was not a characteristic of a superpower. It was only the Chinese and their dominance in this area and their use of this dominance as a political tool that made it a characteristic of a superpower. This does not mean that this characteristic will persist in the future. It may be that access to critical raw materials becomes widespread, and therefore it will not be a superpower characteristic at all. So, you see, all of this is, well, maybe not all, but many things can also be true, for example, only at this time and in this place, right? The world we are in. So, one must remember that. And now we have these 11 characteristics of a superpower. And I have marked in the table, in green, there are two exceptions. In yellow, I will explain that shortly, and in red. What does this mean? For me, it's almost a zero-one situation, meaning either a given country meets the characteristic of a superpower, or it does not meet the characteristic of a superpower, with two exceptions, incidentally, in favor of Russia and China, these are exceptions. And what does this mean? It means that in a given area, a country must have some unique characteristic on a global scale, which provides some potential, a specific potential, and a specific advantage in something that can be used, and it must be unique, it must be large, meaning either you have it, or you don't have it. You know, for example, Germany has a powerful economy and powerful production, of course, but is it a superpower here? Well, it's not even in the top three largest producers in the world. So, in this context, there is a big problem in my opinion, even though one can say that Germany is the largest producer in Europe. Of course, it is the largest, but is this a superpower characteristic, or does their production or economic power qualify as a superpower characteristic? In my opinion, no. It's more of a great power status, or a regional power. Or a country that has some regional advantages, perhaps this German industry is already a level higher than regional, perhaps even more global, global capabilities, but even so, they are significantly smaller than, for example, Chinese or significantly smaller than American, as you can check in the statistics. I also write about them specifically in my article. So, it's not that when I wrote in this table that, for example, China is financially weak or politically weak, and it's marked in red, it doesn't mean that China is politically or financially weak, but it means that they are too weak as a superpower characteristic for superpower status. Do you understand? So, they may be average, for example, in finance, let's say, or their finances may be large, but generally, they do not meet the superpower characteristic, so in this regard, they lack a lot, so I wrote that it is a weakness, a Chinese weakness, right? In the context of assessing whether it is superpower status in this area, or in this category. So, this is the methodology I followed. Of course, I could have entered it even more simply, i.e., ones or zeros, instead of developing it to, I don't know, partial domination, domination, or other phrases. However, perhaps there would be less confusion. However, I used these phrases so that they could be developed later, so that they might signify something more than just zero-one, and we will develop them further. We have two exceptions, and I will talk about them later, i.e., two exceptions, two cases where we don't have a 0-1 status, but let's say, in favor of China and Russia, I slightly adjusted, I gave them half a point regarding meeting superpower characteristics. So, we have 11 categories, 11 characteristics, and we will discuss them one by one. The first, one of the most important characteristics of a superpower in my opinion, is nuclear power. And in the world, there are currently two undisputed, dominant military powers, and these are the United States and Russia. And both of these countries meet their potentials in the nuclear sphere, they meet the characteristics of a superpower. What does this mean? It means they have a huge advantage over the rest. We have China, of course, which perhaps has 600 warheads, but officially there's talk of 300, but let's assume they have even 600. I've calculated that a bit generously. But how does that compare to the several thousand combined that Russians and Americans possess? 90% of the nuclear potential is precisely Russia and the United States. Roughly half each. And it's not about someone possessing nuclear weapons and thus being in this elite club, like France, let's add Great Britain, Pakistan, India. All these countries, or Israel, all these countries have several hundred nuclear warheads. It's about the fact that only the United States and only Russia have such a large nuclear potential that they are capable of annihilating a potential adversary and are capable of threatening someone with this annihilation. That is, at the highest level of the escalation ladder, if they enter into such a game with someone, who can do more to whom and who is more dangerous, then only Russia and the United States are at this highest level, where they can say, "We can simply shower you with these nuclear missiles, and you are unable to respond." And this also concerns potential, about what Maciej Korowaj, Lieutenant Colonel Maciej Korowaj, said on my channel, but not only on my channel. I recommend the material recorded with him here. It was probably the first, as we had several conversations where he explained how nuclear potentials are perceived and what counts, because it's really a mathematical puzzle, in which both sides, American and Russian, know how much, what nuclear potential the adversary possesses, and they know approximately how many nuclear warheads need to be launched in the first strike at the launch facilities of their own nuclear warheads, meaning we shoot at the adversary's nuclear potential to disable it, so that it cannot retaliate. And now, if both sides have calculated what the first major strike must be to disable the adversary, so that he knows he has already lost the nuclear war, and therefore, the second phase of the nuclear war has never happened. That is, this first phase of nuclear war is the preemptive strike by one of the sides, and the second phase, or let's say, the exchange. And the second nuclear phase is when we go all out and annihilate each other, right? Meaning we use everything we have. So, the point is to let the adversary know even before a nuclear war that we possess such nuclear potential that is capable of disabling your nuclear potential, and therefore, you are unable to retaliate later, and this war will end. And to do this, you need to have, this is mathematically calculated, you need to have the appropriate number of warheads, you need to have the appropriate capabilities, of course, and knowledge based on where you want to strike, because where the adversary's potential is, and so on, and so on. But you see that the number of warheads is crucial here, and this number is lacking precisely on the Chinese side. The Chinese also have a nuclear triad, but they lack these numbers. Because to achieve superpower status in the nuclear sphere, not just a great power like the French or the British, or the Pakistanis or the Indians, they would have to have a comparable number of warheads to the Russians or the Americans, because then they would start to count in this game, right? Which also involves fear and intimidation and showing that we are capable of completely destroying you, you Americans or you Russians, in any way. The Chinese do not have such a capability. They cannot participate in this game. At best, they can use their nuclear potential defensively, in relation to Russia or in relation to the United States. Meaning they cannot threaten Americans with nuclear potential because they are weaker. They cannot threaten Russia with nuclear potential because they are weaker. At best, they can say, "Well, if you attack us, we will retaliate somehow. Some warheads will also fall on you, but we know that you can destroy us anyway, because you have 6,000 warheads, and well, that's the end of us, right?" So, this advantage, this difference, makes Russia and the United States superpowers, while the Chinese in this matter are only great powers. Although, of course, the trend is increasing, and the Chinese are building more and more warheads, but I think it will take at least a decade for them to reach the appropriate level of potential, and perhaps more than a decade. We will see what the pace will be, because these are also expensive toys, and these are not cheap things, although the Chinese can do it cheaply, so this is also their advantage. So, we have a point for the United States. Zero points for China. A point for the Russian Federation. I did not consider the European Union because I believe that it is some kind of economic alliance or political alliance, but it is not a single country. And therefore, it cannot be a pole. At least not today, the European Union is not a pole at all. It decides nothing as a Union. At best, individual countries pursue their own interests, or sometimes countries agree, individual EU countries agree together to achieve some interest, but the Union as such, unfortunately, is not a political pole here, nor a country that could decide whether to launch a nuclear strike or send an army, because there is no common army, right? There are armies of individual countries, and so on, and so on. So, for these reasons, the European Union was not taken into account. Although I think that if it were taken into account as a whole, it would indeed meet the characteristic of a superpower in several points. Well, however, the basic characteristic of a superpower is that there is a single decision-making center, and there is none here. We have the second issue, the second characteristic, which I consider, well, also crucial, and which I consider a superpower characteristic, that this is a category that should be included in superpower categories, i.e., the area of military power, because nuclear weapons are basically unusable. You can play politics with them, but no one wants to destroy themselves and the whole world, so they are not used. As a rule, if someone wants to use force, they use conventional force, and this conventional force is, for now, fortunately, the ultimate argument for imposing one's political will. So, the military issue is definitely a superpower characteristic, or it should be. Well, and of course, here the issue is, this characteristic is met if a given country possesses unique capabilities, unique military potential, or potential that provides unique capabilities. Well, in my opinion, the United States meets the superpower condition, or the United States armed forces, because they are the most modern, the strongest, the first army in the world, and no one questions this. Neither the Chinese, nor the Americans, nor the Russians have the strongest navy in the world. They have the strongest air force, the largest air force in the world. They also have one of the best and largest armed forces, but not the largest land forces, of course. All of this is integrated into a system. Of course, this also includes various spheres. They also have a very strong cyber, they have this sphere, the space sphere, where they are the strongest in general. So, in many such sub-characteristics, they are the best in the world in terms of military strength. And therefore, the United States, thanks to this, has unique capabilities. They can start wars, they can use military force where others would not. Which, of course, they have recently shown. So, this is a unique characteristic that gives them exceptional capabilities on a global scale. Next, we have the Chinese army, and the Chinese army is a bit of a question mark. That is, it is not known what technological level Chinese equipment presents. It is not fully known. 20 years ago, they relied on Russian solutions, and only recently have they started to transition to their own solutions, which they somewhat derived from what they stole from the Americans and what they obtained from the Russians. It is not known how technologically advanced this modernization is, and their military equipment. This is not known. It is also not known whether this army is effective in combat, whether it can use the tools it possesses well, whether it is a controllable army, whether it is a well-commanded army, whether it is an army that would prove itself on the battlefield, in other words, because this army has not been tested for decades. Except, of course, for fights with sticks and stones in Kashmir with the Indian army. So, there are many question marks here, many things could be debated in detail, questioned, whether they are or are not. However, it is undoubtedly the largest army in the world, and currently, it is probably the second largest army in the world. It seems to me that there are many premises for this. The Chinese are currently militarily stronger, in my opinion, than the Russians. Despite the fact that the Russians are more experienced and know how to fight, the Chinese have the equipment, they have the numbers, and so on, and so on. So, I have given them a one here, meaning they meet the superpower characteristic in terms of military superpower due to having the largest army, the second largest army in the world in terms of overall strength. Despite the fact that this army has a number of limitations, which we will also discuss later, but these limitations do not stem solely from military potential, but also from geographical conditions, political conditions, and a series of other contexts that make it impossible for the Chinese to use these armed forces appropriately or to benefit from them appropriately. We will talk about this shortly. In any case, I believe that the Chinese still deserve a one here. It is marked in green, large, not yet tested, but still, the Chinese get a point in terms of military power. Russia, here also a bit generously, I give them a one, indicating that it is also one of the largest armies in the world. It is qualitatively weak, or qualitatively average, let's call it, maybe not weak, but average in quality. Well, weak would be, I don't know, some African army, right? And somewhere more from central or southern Africa, but the Russians are average, strongly average in terms of technology, in terms of equipment, much of which they have also lost, but I gave them a one also for the reason that the Russian army is still on, or could be, and if it were not fighting in Ukraine. Well, it is still fighting. It is used in Ukraine, but if it were not used in Ukraine, then in its current form, it would still be an army that Europe would fear, for example, or Central Asia would fear, the Caucasus would fear, and so on, and so on. So, it is still a force, partly because the Russians have a unique capability to wage a long, exhausting conflict with high losses, but a conflict that Europeans or everyone else fears, because we have a technological advantage, we have an informational advantage, and so on, and so on. And for example, if we agreed to a month of fighting, we would defeat the Russians there without losses, let's say. Yes. Strongly exaggerating, but if we fought not for a month, but for 5 years. Well, that's what we fear, right? So, the Russians have this unique ability to endure a very long conflict, even though they didn't want it in Ukraine, but they are capable of waging it, and this is the ability that, in my opinion, determines that the Russians get a one, meaning they meet the characteristic of a military superpower. Of course, they have their own equipment, their own production. This equipment sometimes falters due to the lack of Western technology, but they are also capable of producing it themselves. We are talking about combat vehicles, we are talking about missile launchers, artillery, ammunition, and in this context, they are also largely independent. This is not complete independence, because they still need something from the Chinese, but it is also a unique characteristic on a global scale. This large, largely independent production of their military equipment, which also gives their army the ability to fight a second war, because these two are linked. So, we also have a point for Russia. Then we have the third category, which is the political category. And here, ladies and gentlemen, in the political category, I do not consider things like, "Oh, this or that politician pursues bad policy, makes, I don't know, bad decisions, or argues with everyone, and so on, and so on." That's not the point. Political strength is something completely real that supports all other characteristics and something that is stable and constant. And we are talking here, of course, about political alliances, military alliances, economic alliances, and so on, and so on. But these must be hard alliances, not just some policy or some strategic partnership. It must be an alliance that provides concrete guarantees, that obligates to something, that provides real capabilities and multiplies other superpower characteristics. And in this political sphere, there is no doubt that the United States is the strongest country in the world politically, because it leads the largest military alliance in the world. It has a number of signed economic alliances with various Western countries and not only Western ones. And in the Far East, it has alliances of various formats with Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Europe, Canada as well, even though they are arguing at the moment, right? So, Americans have the largest, most powerful network of various alliances in the world, and this is undeniable. This is their great advantage over the rest of the competitors, and thanks to this, among other things, their fleet can sail wherever it wants, because it can pass through the Suez Canal, because they have a partnership with Egypt. It can sail through the Panama Canal, because Panama, well, it has to reckon strongly with the Americans, it has to cooperate with them. This fleet can sail, transit from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean, either through Suez, but also through the Strait of Malacca, because they have partners there too. In other words, no one from the shore wants to shoot at the Americans. And it is not in their interest. As a rule, in most cases, and therefore, American political strength multiplies their military strength. This political strength also multiplies their financial or economic strength, and also technological strength, because there is cooperation, after all, technological cooperation throughout the West, and so on, and so on. So, here, the Americans clearly meet and fulfill the characteristic of a political superpower. And here, I think, the first controversies, because I rated both Russia and China as zero, meaning there's nothing to count on here, and why? One can, of course, point out that the Chinese are politically strong because they pursue clever policies, because they talk to Europe, they talk to BRICS, and so on, and so on. They have a lot of talks, and so on, and so on. However, at the end of the day, if the Americans attacked the Chinese, no one is obligated, there is no alliance, absolutely no guarantee. Well, there is simply no paper at all that anyone would have to help or would help the Chinese in any war, in any war. In fact, not even with the United States. The Japanese are so, that's why it's bottled up, which I often say lately, I liked this comparison, because they have very strong military power, for example, they have a very numerous fleet, but because everyone perceives them as an adversary or a threat, they cannot sail this fleet anywhere beyond the first island chain. Taiwan is the maximum they can do here, where they can deploy this fleet. They don't sail aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean, because it's not their backyard, it's the backyard of the Indians. And besides, the US Navy is also there with its bases leased from the British, and without this network of political alliances, they cannot use this military force. Let's imagine, for example, that they had allies in Indochina and could freely pass through Malacca. Or if they had allies like Japan, or even with these Indians, if they had reached an agreement, right? And this Chinese fleet could freely sail on at least two oceans, right? Let's not demand that it sail to the Atlantic, but at least on two oceans. It doesn't even sail on one ocean. They can't even go out into the Pacific Ocean without fear that the Americans will sink them. And this is the political weakness of China. They have no alliances, they rely on strategic partnerships. Their closest strategic partner is actually not Russia, because with Russia, they are competitors, and they really want to exploit Russia to the fullest and are using the fact that the Russians are in a difficult situation, so they are draining them. But in reality, their closest strategic partner, I believe, is Pakistan. But Pakistan is not even a sure ally for them, because Pakistan also has to play with the Americans, and sometimes it leans more towards the Americans, because their security also depends on them, but also their financial matters, international organizations, and so on, and so on. So, Pakistan is constantly a revolving door in terms of state policy, even though it is, of course, consistently anti-Indian. Pakistan cooperates with China. Nevertheless, they have also cooperated historically in the 21st century with Washington, also in the context of Afghanistan and this war with the Taliban. So, the Chinese are politically weak. In fact, they are weak. One can say there is BRICS. But BRICS is a discussion club of countries that often have conflicting interests or are even hostile to each other. It's really a discussion club. It's like saying that the United States gets an extra political point because they are in the G20 or G7. These formats have no significance at all. These are discussion formats. Real are political-economic alliances. The European Union, for example, right? Real alliance treaties are with Japan and South Korea in the case of the United States, AUKUS, and so on. So, you know, what it's really about is not that we conduct policy well and discuss with many parties and get some deals. It's about real signed papers that provide stable, constant, strategic advantages. And the Americans have such unique political advantages, while the Chinese do not. The Soviets previously met this condition. They subjugated a large number by force.

part of the world. We had practically the whole of Central Europe subordinated within the Warsaw Pact to the Soviets, and the Soviets actually divided the world in half, right? And politically, so they were that political superpower. Russia, Russia is not. There are those unions, right, that are falling apart, practically falling apart at the seams, and so in reality, Russia's true ally is Belarus, let's say, because Kazakhstan is again an uncertain state. They would prefer to flirt with the Chinese, and with the Americans in general. These Russians are becoming less and less needed there, and more and more problematic from the perspective of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, or Uzbekistan. So Central Asia or the Caucasus in general, where Armenia has suspended its membership, Azerbaijan left the organization earlier, so well, the Russians are a political dwarf and are also politically isolated in the West at the moment, dependent on the Chinese, they are truly a political dwarf at the moment. That is why they do not meet this condition. So here we have a situation. We then have the feature of a financial superpower, and this feature, in my opinion, is not a traditional feature of a superpower. That is, in the 19th century, I think it would not have been a feature. I will explain why in a moment, because right after this, we have the second economic feature, right? So we have an economic, economic-financial feature and a financial feature as separate. And this, in turn, is something the Americans took care of, so that it would be a separate feature. And I will explain why in a moment. Well, on a purely financial level, we are not talking about the economy, but about the currency, about how it fulfills its role, about the mechanisms of its circulation, which did not exist. Once, you remember, there was only cash circulation, for example, right? There were no electronic transfers, a completely different world, but we live in a digital world today. And now, the fact that about 60% of the world's central bank reserves are dollars, that's one thing, that was already the case before. The fact that the dollar accounts for over 80% and participates in over 80% of international or currency transactions is another matter, because it usually looks like this, that for a large transaction, it's not like I exchange zlotys for, I don't know, rupees, and it's one to one. Zlotys to rupees are converted, right, bought and sold. It doesn't look like that in transactions. Usually, it's with the intermediation of the dollar, meaning first, I don't know, I buy dollars for zlotys, then I transfer, and then these dollars are transferred to rubles, to rupees, for example, and that's how a transaction occurs, say, between a Polish entity and an Indian entity. So the dollar participates in a very large number of such transactions, it participates in transactions where, in reality, no one pays in dollars. De facto, we agree on a price in some other currency, but the dollar is the intermediary, it is the intermediary in the exchange, so it has an 80% share in such international transactions. In addition, a 60% share in general as dollars, meaning we settle in dollars on the invoice. So I issue an invoice not in zlotys or rupees, but I actually issue an invoice in dollars, and the Indian has to pay me in dollars, for example, right? Well, well, or for example, we agree on another currency, any other. In any case, the dollar participates in such international transactions, it has a 60% share in invoicing. So there is a big advantage of the dollar, but it's still not a unique feature, it's a unique feature, but it doesn't give any unique direct capabilities yet. And now what happened? Well, there are two systems, Chips and Swift. You've probably heard of the latter. The Americans have a very big influence on Swift, which is not American, by the way, but they have the Chips system, which controls all dollar transactions. All dollar transactions go through this system. What does this mean? It means that when the Americans say we are imposing sanctions, when Europe says we are imposing sanctions on Iran, Europe says, and when the Americans say: "We are imposing sanctions on Iran, then these sanctions are real, because all transactions that would be conducted with Iran, they would have to be through." Well, they wouldn't have to be, because now Russians and Chinese are bypassing it, but that's a different mechanism altogether. We can talk about that maybe in another material, but in any case, the American sanctions on Iran were effective because the Americans said that if we see in our system that someone is exchanging dollars in transactions with Iran, we will punish all those banks that are ordering these transactions, and no banks would dare. Then there were American talks. The Americans visited almost every bank president in the world, all the largest banks, and explained. Listen, sir, if we see a transaction with Iran and the dollar is involved, and we see it, we will impose very large, very large fines on your bank, and such fines were imposed. Therefore, the sanctions on Iran were effective because everyone, because the banks simply stopped servicing transactions with entities from Iran. So this is the unique feature of a superpower that Americans possess, and which makes Americans more politically effective. They can impose sanctions or Slao, well, Slao is a completely different matter, but they can impose sanctions on certain countries and enforce their implementation. They are effective then. This is a unique feature. So we have dollar dominance, and because the dollar dominates international transactions, then when we monopolize dollar transactions and know everything about these dollar transactions, then we actually control, let's say, 80% of the world market in terms of goods exchange. So this is a great simplification, of course, but we want to finish this material in a measurable time. The light outside has gotten a bit darker, and for this reason, Americans absolutely dominate the financial sphere, they are the world dominator in the financial sphere, and they are the only ones in this regard, and this gives them unique capabilities. No one else has this. No one else has this. What I just said, and the fact that the Chinese have created their own payment system in yuan, or the Russians have created their own payment system in rubles, it doesn't give them anything and doesn't overturn anything. Well, if no one wants rubles in transactions, because the ruble is a junk currency, as I've told you before, then what transactions will this Russian system handle? Well, it won't handle any, because no one will want to settle in rubles, right? And there aren't too many rubles abroad, so Russians control nothing, and the world simply swims in dollars, and the Fed prints not only for its own needs, but the Fed does quantitative easing for the needs of the whole world, because the whole world needs dollars. In the case of the Chinese yuan, well, the yuan has a 2% share, a 2% share in these international, global transactions. So what do the Chinese control? The Chinese control nothing, they control nothing. The yuan could disappear as a currency overnight, and we wouldn't notice. And the Chinese, with their system, also control nothing. If they say they are imposing sanctions on someone, they say they are imposing sanctions. Meaning, they themselves can stop trading with someone, but they are unable to enforce it, for example, they are unable to impose sanctions on Iran and force everyone around, or Iran may be a bad example, but let's say, for example, would the Chinese be able to impose sanctions on Taiwan? Why don't they impose sanctions on Taiwan, and ban the whole world? That's a good example, right? You see, there are no Chinese sanctions on Taiwan, and the Chinese are not, because the Chinese are unable to deliver such sanctions, they are unable to force the whole world to stop trading with Taiwan. This is the simplest, this is the most illustrative example of Chinese shortcomings in this regard, and Russian ones too, because Russians are also unable to impose sanctions, so or enforce them, otherwise they are able to impose them, but politically they can create such a document, right, but what's the point? Well, that's why zero on the Chinese side, that's why zero on the Russian side in the financial sphere, which is very important in today's world, and which, in my opinion, was not necessarily a feature of a superpower before. Today it is, so again, a point on the American side, I think, well-deserved. Well, and we have the economic issue, of course. Without the economy, many things don't exist. Without the economy, we won't finance technology. Without a strong economy, we don't have a strong industry. Without a strong economy, we don't have political leverage. Without a strong economy, we cannot finance a strong army. We cannot have nuclear potential because we can't afford it, and so on, and so on. The economy is clearly a feature that belongs to the characteristics of superpowers, that is, a strong economy. And there are probably no controversies here if I say that well, the United States has the status of an economic superpower. It is the largest economy in the world, there is no larger one. It is the largest consumer market when looking at countries, there is no larger, more absorbent market in terms of consumption. Which, by the way, Donald Trump brutally exploits in negotiating trade agreements and in the policy of imposing tariffs, scaring with tariffs, which is visible. So this economy, of course, has its weaknesses, of course, it has problems. Americans are economically shaky here, but it is still the strongest economy in the world, the largest. And undoubtedly, they deserve the status of a superpower. I think China also does. I have awarded them this point as the second largest economy in the world. Despite the fact that GDP per capita, per Chinese person, taking into account purchasing power parity, GDP in China is twice as low as in Russia. Do you understand? I mean, you can go to the Chinese coast and be amazed by the wealth, the buildings, the infrastructure, the bridges built, the neon lights. But how poor must it be in the rest of the region, in the rest of the country, especially in the western part of the country. How poor it must really be, since they have such a low GDP per capita? Twice as low as Russians, and I'm not even comparing it to the American one. The strength of this economy is its mass. They have a lot of people, and therefore the GDP is massively large. And therefore, this also gives China great opportunities, because this mass, this scale does the job, because thanks to this scale, they are able to finance armaments, thanks to this scale, they were able to finance the nuclear program. Thanks to this scale, they have built a very strong industry. Thanks to this scale, they are developing technology, and so on, and so on. So undoubtedly, despite many, let's say, weaknesses here that can be pointed out, but every economy has them, the American one too, I have given full points to the Chinese for the second largest economy in the world, which is also the largest producer. There will be a separate scoring for that, by the way. Additionally, from the same economic category, the Chinese will get two points. But that, as it were, will not affect their overall assessment of their strength compared to the United States. So they get a point, absolutely. Russia, I guess there's nothing to talk about. It's obvious, it's obvious how it is. They don't meet the characteristics of a superpower. Well, one could categorically discuss whether they are an economic power given the scale. But I don't think so. And that would be a problem, so I guess there's nothing to discuss. We have the next feature. Technology. I think it's one of the most important features. Technological advantage is almost everything, because thanks to technology, we can be dangerous in the nuclear sphere. We can be even more dangerous in the conventional military sphere. Thanks to technology, we can have political advantages, because we can sanction access to technology, right, as Americans do. We can have economic advantages, because our economy will be more efficient, because it is more innovative, we can have industrial advantages. So it is indeed an important technological feature. It also determines the future of a country, its ability to gain some technological advantage, which will give them a really significant overall political advantage over rivals. So I think there's no need to justify further that this is a feature that a superpower should possess. Of course, it's not that to be a superpower you have to meet 11 points. As you can see from this table, Americans meet 10 out of 11 in my opinion. And I think that if a country met, say, 7 out of 11 features, including, for example, being a nuclear superpower, then it could be classified as a superpower. The Soviets, for example, in my opinion, met 7 out of the then points or features of a superpower, because there were fewer then during the Cold War, I think. Critical minerals were not, which I will also mention in a moment, were not in my opinion, and the financial one, let's say, I would also cut off that category, it was more under the economic category then, because for a certain time, you know, we had the dollar based on gold, the economy worked completely differently, because there was no fiduciary money, circulation was cash, not cashless, there were no digital tools, right, control, so it all worked a bit differently, so there were nine features. I think of a superpower at that time, and the Soviets met seven, not all of them, but enough to say they were the second pole, they clearly were. So we have the technological feature, and now here will be the biggest controversies, I think, but I think so. The United States is clearly a superpower in the space sphere, they dominate, they have the only companies, and probably two or even a third will join soon, that are capable of launching and landing with the same rockets, right? This technology, space technologies in general, is an American forte. They manage space. They are practically the dominator here. Besides, Starlinks, right, introduced by Musk, well, Musk has basically done the job for them in industry or in space, and in this space sphere. Well, but we have an advantage in space, we have an advantage in software. Windows, not Windows, right, software, applications, and so on, and so on. Americans have, I think, a 60% share in the software market, right? We have a technological advantage in the military sphere. The most modern aviation, the most modern fleet, when it comes to large ships, especially aircraft carriers. We have a number of other weapon systems that are at the forefront or are the best solutions. Not everything, of course, but they are clearly a technological power in the military sphere, in the space sphere, in the AI sphere. AI, and also chips. Control of the most modern chips, how to build them, they know, right? They do it in Taiwan, but they know how to make these most modern chips. They have the know-how, and they manage this know-how in terms of cutting off the Chinese from these technologies. So they are cutting off the Chinese from technology, not the other way around. It shows who is ahead, right? So here, the Chinese, of course, one could point out that they introduced 5G, but everyone has caught up with 5G, and it wasn't any kind of incredible technology. It's just that no one did it before because it wasn't profitable to erect so many masts that provided coverage, right? Because it requires a lot of masts, and the Chinese just did it because the masts could be made cheaply. Well, so everyone else has caught up with this technology, but it wasn't, it wasn't a technology that was unavailable or unimaginable for the West, it just wasn't used in the West. But that's already caught up, right? We have electric cars, well, Americans also make Teslas. So here too, I don't see anything that the Chinese have and could say, "Well, we won't give you this technology, and thanks to this technology, we are winning against the whole world, right?" Just like Americans do with chips. So Americans have a number of advantages. Of course, they are not the only ones. Europe also has great innovation and so on, and so on. But they clearly meet the characteristic of a superpower, and their American technologies, even the technology of shale extraction, how it changed geopolitics. Shale oil, shale gas, how all this saved us in the context of how the Russians cut us off, and what they did now, that we later cut ourselves off. We cut ourselves off from the Russians in terms of hydrocarbons, because Americans have the right amount, and Americans, even a decade ago, had a law that American companies could not sell oil and gas abroad, so as not to run out of their own resources in their own market, because they didn't have much. But thanks to the technology of shale extraction from shale rocks, Americans took off. So here too, technology in this sphere. You see how many sectors have been game-changers in certain areas, which allowed Americans to maintain this superpower status. So the superpower characteristic is clearly met. And now China, this is controversial. I gave half a point, although I think if we have a zero-sum system, then maybe it should be zero, but if I gave zero, there would be crying and gnashing of teeth, protests, and who knows what. So I gave it half a point, but in reality, I cannot point to a technology from which the Chinese, Chinese technology, from which the Chinese could cut us off and say: "Well, now it's checkmate, you have no chance, do as we tell you, or we won't give you this technology." Meaning, no, we will manage technologically without the Chinese. We will produce everything we want to produce. It will be more expensive or it will be produced elsewhere, not in China, but in India. But we will have all of it after some time, because factories need to be rebuilt or built anew, but we are able to supply all of it ourselves. That's the truth. There are practically no, maybe some very narrow issues or small advantages in some very exceptional areas. They talk about renewable energy, but in renewables, they are not technologically gods in any way, they just produce cheaper, so we don't produce something anymore. That's an industrial advantage, not a technological one. No. And therefore, a bit of a superpower feature for the Chinese is that they are not technologically better, but they have built great independence. Meaning, well, we can't get the best chips, but we can produce some chips and we can make our computers from A to Z, right? And so on. Okay, we have our fifth-generation planes. Maybe I don't know if they are the same as American ones, maybe they are a bit weaker, but they exist. We produce them ourselves, and so on, and so on. So they have "good enough," right? At least "good enough," which they can make themselves from A to Z, meaning this technological independence in China, which was born out of great dependence, from theft of technology, but they have built some technological independence. And this is quite unique on a global scale, that a country can have such great technological independence, because, for example, we in Europe, well, without cooperation, without breaking supply chains, it would be really bad. The same for Americans, but the Chinese have this great independence, so they are not ahead, they are not pushing civilization forward for now. They are not leaders, right, who are pulling civilization behind them and saying that we invent so many things that if it weren't for us, nothing would move forward. But let's say half a point for this independence. Of course, everyone can say, well, but they have the largest number of patents in the world. So what results from these papers? So what results from these papers? Well, well, give me one example that has strategic importance, where they can cut someone off from technology. There is no such sphere. If there were, if the Americans cut off from the most modern chips, then the Chinese would cut off the Americans from something, but they didn't, because they have nothing, so they used rare earth metals, right, which is their strength, not technology. So this shows that the Chinese are not yet at the technological forefront. This may change in a year or two. Maybe this table will have to be redone in two or three years or updated, and so on. And I will probably do that. However, as of today, we are examining what is today. Today, the Chinese cannot say they have the status of a technological superpower. It gives them no unique advantages. So, so this half a point for this great independence. Russia, I probably won't justify why they got zero. There is simply no product that they could use to conquer any markets anywhere, even if there were no sanctions. And even in the military sphere, it seems that they are no longer catching up even with the Chinese. Not even the Chinese. And they were ahead of the Chinese just two decades ago. They had better engines for planes, for fighters. They had better technologies for building ships, and the Chinese took from them, after all. So in many areas, they had better armored forces, or missiles, air defense systems. All this the Russians had better than the Chinese. Just two decades ago. Now they have the same or worse. So that's how it looks. So here, clearly zero points. Well, and we have the next category, the industrial category, industrial capabilities. This category is very important in times of chaos and war, because then it is crucial to have a strong industry that will supply our economy with appropriate products, and at the same time allow us to rearm the army, right? So I'm taking industry out, just like the financial sphere, out of the economy and making it a separate, distinct feature, for which you can get points as a superpower, meaning you can have a strong economy and have a weak industry, right? This threatened the United States in the long run, and Trump is reversing this to avert this threat. And now in the industrial sphere, it is probably beyond doubt that in the industrial sphere, the Chinese are a superpower, and the largest one. They have the largest industrial share in the world, they produce the most, they are the world's producer. There are no doubts about this whatsoever. What's more, well, it used to be Western assembly plants in China, now these Western assembly plants in China are only part of it, because they also have a considerable, large industry of their own, so they are the largest producer in the world. A superpower feature, absolutely, this is their advantage. It also adds political advantages, because we are dependent on their products, and so on, and so on. You know this. So, absolutely a point. A point also for the United States. And why? Well, because it's not that Americans suddenly stopped producing and are in some unfathomable depth when it comes to industry, because some suggest that oh no, Americans don't produce any tankers or transport ships at all. Well, they don't produce transport ships, but they produce F35s like crazy. They launch new ships. Now, with a delay, but they have launched another supercarrier. Speaking of super issues, it will probably be operational soon. So. So when it comes to the defense industry, Americans have the strongest, the strongest. The defense industry, which is the most important, and they have the strongest. They export the most, the largest share in world markets for years, I think 2000, maybe 21-24 or 2024, something like that, according to the SIPRI ranking, the Swedish one, they have a 40% share in the world market, the most in the world, a powerful advantage, or maybe even 60% now, I don't know anymore, I don't have them in front of me, but among the 10 largest defense companies, six belong to the United States, three to China, but the Chinese ones produce for China's needs. It's just this scale effect, right? And there is one British, one British concern, but in the 100 largest defense concerns, there are 40 American ones, and they produce an annual value greater than all others combined. Of course, this industry has its weaknesses, i.e., supply chains, i.e., assembly plants elsewhere, components elsewhere. The F35 is assembled from how many parts, from how many parts of the world. This is a weakness of this industry, but it is still the second largest industry in the world. They have the know-how for production, they can move this production, of course, it takes time or bring it back to the country. Americans are doing this, by the way. They are trying to strengthen themselves in this area, but clearly on many levels, this American industry is the most innovative. On many levels, it is a dominator, as in the space sphere, but also the military sphere. So it's not that they are some weaklings here. They are the second largest producer and with a significant advantage over third-placed Japan, because Japan has, I think, 6% or less share in global production, and Americans have, I think, 15 or 16 or 18. In the article, it's precise, to be honest, there are 30 pages, I don't want to waste your time looking for it. You can find this data on my website or Google it. Now, Google AI will provide everything instantly. So, here, a point also on the American side, I think. Well, and we have the Russian Federation. I gave half a point for this industry. They don't produce anything that we would want as consumers in the world, but until they started the war and needed everything they produced for the army, their defense industry was quite strong in exports as well. And mainly for this reason, that domestic production is also very independent and serves the war mainly due to this military aspect. It gives Russians half a point for this industry. So, let's say I'm stretching it a bit with this industry. Let them have half a point. It's not a full-fledged superpower characteristic. It should be zero, because they do not meet the characteristic of an industrial superpower, but they have such a unique capability that allows this industry to keep the army in combat. So, so let them have half a point. We have the next category. This is the energy category, but it's not just about electricity, because energy is a broader concept. Energy also includes heating, it includes meeting the fuel needs of the transport sector. Energy is also fuel, oil, gas, and so on, and so on. So it's a broader concept, and here I mainly looked at the issue of dependence on energy resources, which are still crucial in the world. Well, and this feature is very important, because it gives political advantages, dependencies, also economic dependencies, and also gives economic strength. In the case of Russia, for example, based on energy resource exports, the entire budget stands. So I think this feature deserves to be a superpower category. Well, let's look, the United States is one of the largest producers of oil and gas in the world. They are one of the largest exporters of gas and oil in the world. The United States is independent when it comes to electricity production for itself. To produce this electricity, they have their own coal, they have their own gas. So in this regard, they are first of all independent, and secondly, in addition, they have this unique capability, this leverage, thanks to being the largest exporter in the world. And therefore, the energy situation of many other countries also depends on them. So they have one point, and in exactly the same way, Russia can be assessed. It is also independent in electricity production, it also has energy resources, it also exports still floating and so on. So this gives some advantages, some leverage. Russians are still an energy superpower. So, a point on the Chinese side is zero for this reason, that while the Chinese are able to produce electricity for themselves, they are independent in this regard, because they have invested heavily in renewables, and coal accounts for 60% of electricity production, which they also mine in sufficient quantities, although they still import some, but it's about 10% of demand, 90% is Chinese coal mining on site. So they have coal, they have some nuclear, and they have renewables, which they also produce themselves with their own technologies, very much, very cheaply, and thanks to this, they are able to do it and have this electricity. But in heating, they use gas. They are the largest importer of gas in the world. But they are the largest importer of gas in the world not only for heating, but also because, dear sirs, industry doesn't just run on electricity. No, some branches of industry, like smelters, for example, or other types of industrial installations, require gas. It's about achieving enormous temperatures for various types of processing of metals or other types of elements or materials. And Chinese production is dependent. Their industry and production, which is the main strength of their economy, are based on, dependent on gas imports. And gas imports, dear sirs, over 80% go by sea, and this is LNG. What does this mean? That they are dependent in energy matters, and the economy is dependent in energy matters on sea routes, which are dominated by the US Navy and its allies. What's more, China lacks oil, and of course, the transition to electric cars is starting to solve this problem. However, they are still a very large importer of oil, which they get largely from the Persian Gulf, which they do not control, because who controls it? Americans and their allies. And dear sirs, this is how it looks in terms of energy resources. The Chinese are weak, they are dependent, their economy is dependent, and for these reasons, it is clearly zero in my opinion here, Chinese potential does not have superpower characteristics in this regard. It provides independence in electricity production, but that's not enough to be a superpower in the entire energy sphere. So, so here it's zero on the Chinese side, I don't think it's a big controversy. These dependencies are very important regarding oil and gas imports. Finally, we have a new category, one that has emerged quite recently in my opinion, and that is access to critical raw materials. Americans estimate, from the White House website, that in about 29 elements, they have a 90% dependence on China, and in several dozen more, 50%. So a huge dependence in this regard. Of course, they are weak, because their high-tech industry needs various specific elements to function, to develop the technologies they are developing, and simply Americans do not produce this. It's not that they don't have resources, because they do. It's not that they don't have the know-how for their extraction or processing, because they do, but it's so expensive, so unprofitable, that they have moved all of it to China, and the Chinese have used this, and as I said earlier, from this one sphere, they have created their political leverage, and it is precisely for this reason that I have extracted this category as a separate superpower feature. And here only China gets one point, because Russians also have plenty of these resources, only again, they don't produce them, they don't manufacture them, and they also import from whom? From China. The Chinese here, really in the production of rare earth metals, have over 80% share in the global market, and in lithium, well, in many, really in many elements crucial for today's technologies, the Chinese either dominate or have the majority. So this is clearly a Chinese point, and only they gain in this category. So they got their new category. I think rightly so, they dominate it, so it is their unique advantage in this table. Only they can score in this category. But dear sirs, moving on to the next point, to the 10th superpower characteristic, it is a characteristic that is a collection of other abilities. That is, a series of other features creates a new unique feature that gives unique capabilities to a given country. Namely, control of global sea lanes and the ability to project power anywhere and at any time on Earth. This is that unique feature. And this feature, in turn, is a unique feature exclusively for the United States. Only they get a point for this reason, because they have the strongest fleet. And because they are the strongest politically, they have allies everywhere in all key places in the world. Whether it's the Strait of Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, the Strait of Malacca, the Panama Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, or wherever you look, the American fleet can sail safely, even with the escort of allies, and Americans are able to pull the trigger anywhere on Earth at any time they choose. Of course, they cannot react everywhere, all the time, but if they plan something, they are able to execute it. And well, we probably don't need to look far. If we look at what is happening in the world now, then at the moment Americans can have tens of thousands of ground troops in Europe, including almost 10,000 in Poland. Simultaneously, they can have tens of thousands of soldiers in South Korea and Japan, simultaneously have the largest number of military bases worldwide among all other countries. Simultaneously, they are able to kidnap Maduro. Simultaneously, they are able to bomb ISIS in Africa, simultaneously.

They are capable of bombing Iran in the Middle East. Simultaneously, they are capable of conducting military maneuvers in the Far East with partners, showing, demonstrating China's strength. At the same time, they are capable of blocking the Persian Gulf, at the same time they are capable of operating aviation in the Arctic, at the same time they are capable of operating militarily in Europe. Well, ladies and gentlemen, everything at once. They choose the place, the time, they can do anything, and no one is able to stop them. And I think we are just realizing this. In the case of Venezuela, in the case of Iran, Russia and China are powerless. This is a unique feature of the United States, and it is clearly a category that should be considered a characteristic of a superpower, because thanks to this, Americans, being able to project their strength anywhere on Earth, at any chosen moment favorable to them, or controlling sea routes thanks to their military might, then have an impact on political strength, strengthen their political strength, strengthen their economic strength, they can strengthen their economic strength in this way, they can strengthen their strength in the energy market in this way. They can thus gain access to critical raw materials, for example. Well, it gives a lot of things, and only Americans can do this. Only Americans can do this now. Neither Russians nor Chinese have this. Both are closed off. Russia is, as it were, closed in the region, and the Chinese are completely closed within their borders, because they have neighbors like they do, because they border Russia, which can be, whose borders are defended by the most powerful nuclear weapons in the world alongside American ones, they have India. and a difficult mountain border with India through the Himalayas. So again, well, as if the Chinese can be powerful, but they are like a genie trapped in a bottle, they cannot expand, right? Well, and they have this first island chain protected by the Americans, and these are the Japanese, after all. In addition, there is South Korea on the peninsula. If we add to this, for example, the Philippines, which are afraid of China, or Indonesia, or Malaysia, and let Australia join, well, the Chinese are simply closed off, and well, they don't deserve any points here. The same goes for the Russians. The Russians are capable of acting only in their own areas, in their own vicinity, i.e., as they call it, in the liminal zone, and they do not dominate any trade route, nor do they control any trade route. The Chinese, for that matter, also do not control any trade route, because one can easily bypass the coast of China and serve the economies of Japan, Taiwan, it would be more difficult, but it would still be possible, or South Korea. The Chinese do not even control the land Silk Road route, because it is controlled, for example, partly by the Russians, partly by the Poles, Belarusians, right? So, there will be no points on either the Russian or Chinese side. Well, and we finally have the last feature, category. This is the cultural category. It is very important, contrary to appearances. It is extremely important to be able to communicate with someone. In the military, they say that communication is everything. Whether logistics, they have a lot of such things, logistics is also everything to them, so everything is everything to them. Laughing a bit, but communication is really important. And now I will justify a bit what factors I took into account culturally, because I tried, because this is such a soft category in which I feel quite uncomfortable, because I like to base myself on data or concrete facts, so even in this category, I tried to be concrete, and for example, whether a given country uses a numerical notation understandable to others, right? Well, we have Arabic numerals, and Arabic numerals basically dominate the world, right? And Americans use Arabic numerals, just like all of us, and the Chinese do not use Arabic numerals, and the Chinese, well, no one can read it, except for the Chinese themselves, almost, right? what number they have there, or even a digit, what they have written there. So we have Arabic numerals. This is clearly a point for both the Russians and the United States, but we also have a universal alphabet, right? And again, Americans, in fact, most of the world understands it. Even the world that does not use our alphabet, it is so popular that many societies understand it, many are switching to it, because since Cyrillic is losing, many countries want to move away from Cyrillic, those that are still in this system and adopt our Latin alphabet. So here again is a point on the American side. Weakness, because Cyrillic is on the Russian side, although Cyrillic once for the Soviets, those Soviets were culturally strong. Their language, Cyrillic, their communist system, was spread by force, but it was spread to half the world, politically. However, the Russians are weak everywhere in this context. All this is weakening. The Russian language is also less popular, and so on, and so on. Well, so we have the Latin alphabet, we have Arabic numerals, and this is on the American side, this is not on the Chinese side. No one can read the Chinese. No one can communicate freely with them. Moreover, English is the most popular language in the world, and even Indians can use English, although not all Indians can understand English, but they can understand the English of others, right? This is very important. So there is this communication, typically linguistic, there is this communication advantage when it comes to using the language. And the popularity of English, again, the weakness of Russian in my opinion, Russian may have once fulfilled the role, today it does not fulfill the characteristics of a super language, let's put it that way. The Chinese even more so. We have the issue, of course, of this soft understanding of culture, but we have Hollywood, we have music, the music industry, the sports industry, the film industry. And consequently, this is a kind of American dominance, practically, right, on this level. And this is also crucial for communication, because, ladies and gentlemen, when a billion people watch the same film, in which there was the same joke or the same situation from which a moral can be drawn, then we have the same cultural code in our heads, right? that by recalling this situation from the film, we are able to convey our thought to another person in one sentence or even sometimes one phrase, and that we understand each other well what we mean, right? This is extremely important in this context, and here again Americans have a huge advantage over Russians and Chinese. The Chinese are also developing this industry very strongly. This must also be mentioned, of course, but it is not a reach for it is not a super entertainment or cultural industry, right, Chinese. Well, it does not have that status, it is not so popular, so widespread. We do not understand each other without words, right? With Americans, it would be faster in this regard. So here I think that Americans have a huge advantage. Moreover, the common cultural bases, the fact that Americans essentially originate from Europe, Europeans conquered half the world, or Australians, New Zealanders, and even those who, like Indians or Indonesians, being countries that were colonies in the past, being colonies, sorry, in this way they got to know our way of thinking and got to know our way of communication, the Western way of thinking, and this is also our advantage. That is, we are able to get along with them, and they are able to understand our intentions, if we want them to. So I believe that this cultural advantage is on the American side. It is not on the Chinese or Russian side. I believe it is a characteristic of a superpower. Because this is a soft power, which perhaps is not visible every day, which is difficult to measure, but which actually has significant importance. It actually has significant importance. So such sub-points, let's call them, I approached this cultural issue in a methodological way. Of course, there is also a common cultural heritage in art, in music, and so on, and so on. Here Americans, well, do not have these classical representatives, because it is a young nation. But already this contemporaneity and popularity of American artists today, well, it makes up for the losses of the past in my opinion. At least in the context, if we compare it to China, well, Chinese culture is less known. It is known in the Chinese world. One can be fascinated by it, even being here in Europe. One can appreciate it. Of course, the same with Russians, but it is not so popular, right? So, so that's how it looks and that's how my assessments look. And of course, ultimately, we have 11 out of 10 points for the United States, 4.5 out of 11 for China, which I believe proves that the Chinese are not yet a superpower, but they are not. They must and but they are working on it to catch up. They are working on everything where they are weak. They are working on the nuclear sphere, they are working badly, they are working on the political issue, badly, I think, because of their aggressive actions against Taiwan, because of their aggressive policy and such possessive economic policy, many countries have been burned by the Chinese. And generally, the more aggressive the Chinese are, the more everyone else flocks to the United States. Well, the United States is stronger. The more dangerous China is, the more dangerous Russia is, the stronger the United States is politically. This is the situation, which I have also said many times. But well, the Chinese are making many mistakes here. In financial matters, the Chinese are also trying something, but well, they are not able to reverse anything for now. In energy matters, they are also dependent, and well, I do not see any possibility of a quick change here. Control of world routes and the ability to exert force anywhere and anytime, the Chinese are also still weak here, and culturally too, well, not really. So they are working on where they can gain points? They have 4.5 and where can they gain? They can gain in technologies. They are working very hard on this, then they would have five points, right, if they succeeded in the future, and they have a chance in nuclear. These are two areas where I think they are focusing and where it really depends on them and they are capable of doing it in some time perspective. So we have these two areas for today at least. And I believe that if the Chinese become a nuclear superpower and if the Chinese become a technological superpower and achieve six points out of 11, it is not much, but I believe that the weight of technological advantage and the weight of advantage in the nuclear weapons sphere are among the most important categories. And therefore, I believe that with a score of 6 out of 11, assuming they have a technological advantage and the status of a nuclear superpower, this would give them superpower status, I believe. So they are capable of doing it. They are capable of doing it, and then we would have a bipolar system, because Russia is in a downward trend, even in those areas where it has green, militarily it is going down. Nuclear potential, they will have to try very hard to maintain it, because it is very expensive for them. Industry, we will see how it goes. Energy is also no longer as strong as it was due to sanctions, due to the fact that we have largely become independent of Russian resources. So this no longer has such a political impact. We will see how it goes. And in general, their extraction will decrease, because they are not building new mines and new refineries, because they do not have the technology for it. And the deposits they are extracting, they are depleting. So the Russians are really, and this is, as it were, the table confirms what I have been telling you for many, many, many years. So the Russians are really going down. The trend has been since 2013, and the forecasts for Russia are bad. The war is simply keeping them afloat at the moment. So, so that's how it looks. That's how it looks. Therefore, the final assessment is that we are still living in a world of hegemony, i.e., in a world where we have one superpower, i.e., a unipolar world, and there are no other poles. This is evidenced even by the fact that despite everything Trump is doing, these alliances have held up, because theoretically Europeans should say that you know what, Americans, we will form an alliance with the Chinese. We don't need you anymore. NATO is no more, there are no more trade agreements with you, and so on, and so on. We are breaking everything, but this is not the case. There are, of course, flirtations, there are visits to Beijing to show the Americans that we are playing on two pianos here, so we are increasing our own, but this is only to improve our bad negotiating position with the Americans, but ultimately to reach an agreement with the Americans. They only go to Beijing for this. Whether this Starmer was in Beijing now, or whether they traveled from Berlin or from Paris before. Only for this, because generally the dependence on the United States is so great that Europe has no alternative. Moreover, if Europe wants to survive, it must cooperate with the Americans, because everyone else wants to eat Europe, subordinate it, dominate it, strip it of its economic advantage, and so on, and so on. So, so the situation is that we have one pole, de facto one pole, and you see, ladies and gentlemen, that what I am telling you is confirmed. That is, Trump brutally tests all of this, because whatever he does, we, all of Europe, all the time, want to, that is, want to, well, are dependent on it and need the United States, and it is visible that they need it and submit to the United States on subsequent issues. Fortunately, Europe has probably defended itself with Germany. Fortunately, I believe, moreover, well, but defense spending has increased due to Trump's pressure. A trade agreement with the United States was also forced. It has not yet been ratified, because of the issue of Greenland, right? But generally, it seems to me that it is a matter of time, and whatever Trump has not pressured us on, whatever he has said about Europe, as you can see, Europeans are still oriented, dependent, in fact, more so, because maybe they would want to, maybe they would want to with someone else, but they cannot. Some Europeans at least might want to with someone else, but they cannot, because Germany would still want to with the Russians. This is, as it were, a strategic situation. The geographical location has not changed. They would want to with the Russians, but on different terms. Germany. Maybe this is for another recording, because it's already too long, but I'll say one more thing, that Germany, they will continue to strive for cooperation with Russia, only they have learned one thing. Russians are stupid, they take stupid actions that disrupt Germany's plans. From Berlin's perspective, the attack on Ukraine was one of them. Therefore, the Russians must be weakened so that they do not have military strength. If they do not have military strength, they cannot use it, then it will be possible to reach an agreement with them on better terms, because a weak Russia means stronger Germany in talks with Russia, and therefore Germany will want to impose conditions on the Russians in the future, but they will still want this Berlin-Moscow partnership. That is, the strategic thinking has not changed here, but the perception of what relations should look like has changed, and the perception of whether to allow, how much to allow the Russians, has changed. So I think Germany will continue to be oriented towards Russia. Of course, at the moment we have a moment when Merc says no, absolutely, that this is our enemy. But if there is any peace, then it will come back to business as usual. Only the point is that this business as usual does not strengthen Russia militarily and does not make it more dangerous for Europe and also for German business, right? Because Germany also earns the most on the European market, de facto, with its production, so but these are many, many threads. This would require separate, maybe indeed, I will record a separate episode about it. This one was supposed to be dedicated to, well, the global situation and whether we are dealing with hegemony, a unipolar world or a multipolar world. Well, and as you can see, ladies and gentlemen, I am of the opinion that we still have a unipolar world, and there has not yet been any world event that has turned the existing order upside down. That is, one can say that the most important event, the most significant for geopolitics, was the attack on Ukraine in 2022. And what did it change? Did it overthrow the American status? No, it strengthened it. Finland and Sweden joined NATO. Europe began to fear Russia. It is more dependent on Americans. Americans are brutally exploiting this. They increased arms sales, they increased gas and oil sales. They are squeezing these Europeans, mainly from the West, mercilessly. And the Russians are losing in all other directions. They are losing in the Caucasus, they are losing in Central Asia. In fact, this attack, this major event, weakened Russia. It weakened Russia and strengthened the United States. So it was not an event that overthrew hegemony, ladies and gentlemen. It tested the hegemon, but the test failed. And therefore, I will probably end here. I hope you enjoyed the recording. I have presented you with a series of arguments, I have presented the justification. Perhaps I always do it this way so that you can argue, because if I tell you that I will use eight words incomprehensible to you, six from English, two from Chinese, all will be very general and not explaining anything. And I will define one definition by throwing a definition of it with another equally general and incomplete concept, and in fact meaning nothing concrete. Well, then you cannot argue with that. And then after half a year, I could say that I said about this, because everything is coming true, what I said, because this, this, this, and this happened, and I said such, such generalities, so it fits, so I was right, right? I am giving you the cow on the grass. Coffee on the table, maybe it sounds more elegant. What are the arguments, what are my concrete theses, on what do I base them. You can argue with this, you can google whether my theses are based on appropriate analytical data, or whether there is some falsehood somewhere, or whether I misunderstand something. You can test it, you can call me out on it that I am wrong somewhere, and I will be wiser thanks to this. So, this is my modus operandi. I want to develop myself, not convince you of perhaps my erroneous theses and build a church for myself. This is, this is, I believe, the difference when it comes to this channel and my activity, and the activity of some other centers. So, if you appreciate this, once again, I invite you to support the YouTube algorithms, and also if you appreciate my work, to support it through Patron, through the Support button on YouTube. That's all from me. I greet you warmly and until we hear from each other. M.