Jiang Xueqin: Predictions for 2026 - Empire, Rivalry & Collapse

Welcome back. We are joined today by Professor Jang to discuss, uh, 2026, uh, what to expect. So, thank you very much for coming back on.

"Thanks, Karen."

So, uh, you're renowned for using historical patterns and game theory to predict the direction of geopolitics. And, uh, from the election of Trump to the invasion of Iran, you've been pretty much spot on. So, uh, I thought who better to ask about what to predict, uh, for this year, 2026. And, um, yeah, we certainly got off to a very rough start. Uh, but, uh, well, before we look into 2026, can I ask you, well, what is it that makes your geopolitical predictions, uh, more accurate? Is it, do you rely on the economic structure, then, the elite politics, ideology, or military balance? If you would assess 2026.

"Yeah. So, I use game theory and I basically see geopolitics as, um, a game played by different, uh, players who are trying to maximize their own self-interest. Um, so, I don't really look at ideology. I don't really look at, um, I, I, I, I basically focus on self-interest. So, um, the 2026 then, what are, I guess, the main things you are looking at, right? So, for me, I think the big event of 2026 will be, uh, this April when Trump visits China, um, on a state visit, his first in his second term. And, um, the US-China relationship will, uh, be the big question for 2026. Russia, the war in Ukraine, um, it's basically pretty settled. It's, it's stabilized. Um, what will happen between Europe, NATO, Russia? We can, we can basically forecast easily. But what's really up in the air is the US-China relationship. So, what Trump wants to do is go to China and negotiate a grand bargain between China and the United States. Remember that, um, in 1971, uh, Nixon removed the US dollar from the gold standard, and so the dollar was now free-floating. So, to stabilize the US dollar, to give it value, he did two things. The first is he established a petrodollar, meaning that Saudi Arabia would only allow for its oil to be purchased by US dollars. And the second thing that he did was he visited China to open up China. And so, what America did in the 1980s was transfer technology, um, and, um, expertise to China, open its market so that China would become addicted to the US dollar. And for, you know, a few decades, this relationship worked really well. But then the United States started to abuse its exorbitant privilege. It started to print too much US dollars. It started to engage in these wars in the Middle East that were causing the, um, debt to balloon. Then you have the 2008, 2009, uh, great financial crisis. So, China became much more worried about the value, the stability of the US dollar. So, now, so then it began, began to, uh, try to internationalize the UN. Uh, it created something called the gold corridor, the Shanghai Gold Exchange. So, it's trying to, uh, recalibrate the financial market so it becomes much more stable and China would have much more sovereignty, um, in the global trade system. And this is now destabilizing the US dollar. So, what Trump wants to do is to, um, force China to continue to buy US dollars because, remember, if China were to dump all of its US treasuries, then there would be a sovereign debt crisis in the United States. So, um, Trump needs to figure out how to liberalize the Chinese financial markets and to get, get Chinese to continue to buy, uh, more US dollars. And that's why we're seeing what we're seeing right now. Right. So, uh, by invading Venezuela, um, what Trump hopes to do is force China to, uh, buy oil using US dollars. So, where, where does China get most of its oil? It gets most of its oil from the Middle East. So, if it were, if Trump were to attack Iran and destabilize the Middle East, then China would be forced to rely more on the Western Hemisphere for its oil supply. But not just the oil supply, but also for silver, for gold, for lithium, for copper, basically all the, um, minerals that, that China needs to power its EV industry, its AI industry. So, this is the grand strategy that's being played out where Trump is conducting, conducting all these wars around the world in order to strangle the Chinese economy so that they, so, so that China becomes reliant on the Western Hemisphere for supply, and then, and then China would be forced to, uh, buy more US dollars. And, uh, that's the great game that we're being played, that we are witnessing right now in 2026."

"But it looks like this can go both ways because if the United States really wanted for China to use the US dollar, and again, there's a lot of benefits for China to use the US dollar, then they would want to do, uh, I guess, to some extent, the exact opposite. That is, to create trust and an open, predictable, uh, international economic system in which the rule of law would come first. Uh, the problem of forcing will suggest that all rules were cast aside. If you look at the efforts to cut off China from, uh, from, uh, the semiconductors, to, well, crush its tech industry. All of these things, it would have the opposite effect. It would convince the Chinese to go a different direction because if they now bow to the pressure of the United States, they would essentially be owned by the United States. And I guess, well, if you took the Venezuelan case, instead of being forced to buy US dollar, buy gold, sorry, buy oil in US dollars, they could go the other way. They can make themselves more dependent on Russian energy, given that they have a common border, and put these two great powers even closer. So, it, how do you assess what direction the US goes? Because at the moment, it seems to be a bit of a strategic vacuum. They want to build trust, but at the same time, they want to force China and coerce it to do exactly what it wants. You can't have it both ways. You have to pick one path and stick with it, otherwise everything falls apart."

"You're absolutely right. I completely agree. Um, the United States, if it were to perceive China as a peer, and were to treat China with respect, to see China as a sovereign nation that is worthy of respect, then we would have no issues. China would be perfectly happy to trade, uh, as equals with the United States. The problem is that the United States is the global hegemon, and it insists on maintaining its global hegemony. So, China must be a subordinate to the American Empire, and China refuses to do that. China is a sovereign nation and it wants to be respected on the world stage. But as you point out, these two nations are codependent on each other. Um, if China were to lose access to oil in the Middle East and in the Western Hemisphere, it could depend on Russian oil, but Russia could not meet China's, uh, energy needs. China imports three-quarters of all its oil from overseas. 50% of of its oil comes, uh, from, sorry, uh, China imports three-quarters of all its oil needs. Half of those come from the Middle East. 20% come from Russia. If China tomorrow could import all its oil from Russia, it would do so. But Russia does not have the capacity to do that. You still have to build those pipelines, which will take years and years and cost tens of billions of dollars. And so, China is sort of stuck right now. But as you point out, um, China does have a lot of tools, um, it does have a lot of weapons. For example, it can continue to destabilize the US dollar. And we saw that with the, um, silver markets, right? So, what China did at the start of this year was announce that it would restrict exports of its silver, and China dominates the silver market. And this caused the price of silver to skyrocket, um, in, um, coax the, um, the commodities exchange in the United States, and this destabilized the US financial markets. So, what we're seeing is almost mutually assured destruction, right? So, if the United States were to cut off China's, um, oil, if, if the United States were to embargo, uh, China, China could just dump all its US treasuries, could just cause financial havoc, and both nations would be destroyed. So, what we're seeing, and, and, and, and here's a metaphor. Okay, imagine a ladder over an abyss, and, um, both China and the United States are trying to climb this ladder, and it would be in their best interest to climb it together at the same time. The United States, for whatever reason, insists on being higher than China. Now, if, if the United States goes too far and leaves China far behind, the ladder destabilizes, and they both fall into the abyss. If China overtakes the United States and climbs too far, they also both fall into the abyss. So, this is a really dangerous, uh, and really stupid game they're both playing. Um, and again, we would not be in this situation if the United States showed some humility, um, and started to treat China as an equal. But unfortunately, we are in this situation."

"Yeah, that's why I initially asked about ideology because, uh, often in, um, at least for political realists, the assumption is that states are rational. But, uh, we see with ideology over the past 30 years, a whole political class being raised on the notion that peace in the world needs, well, requires the hegemony of the West because then we will elevate these liberal democratic values. It's the idea that they can't imagine a world in which they do, it's not based on dominance. And I think this is fueling a lot of irrational behavior. I mean, if it's a problem in the US, it's definitely a problem in, in Europe. Uh, I, I like though that you, that you pulled China into the Venezuelan issue because many people miss that Venezuela, they did offer to accommodate all these American energy companies, though. But it's not about only the US getting access. It's also denying or conditioning the access of, uh, rival great powers. So, I think, yeah, that's an important aspect. Um, but also, yeah, in terms of, uh, accommodating China, though, Kissinger made a similar comment back in 2014 in regard to Russia. He said, if they are a great power and we should, then we should treat it as such, accommodate their interests so they can be accommodated into the US-led order. If not, we're going to end up with stupid policy such as trying to defeat or destroy them, and that's what he warned against. And I, I fear that's the direction they're going with China as well. Um, how do you see though with"

"Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Um, you know, I, I love what you said. So, let me make two points to reinforce what you said. First of all, I don't think it's ideology. I think it's hubris and racism. Okay. I think that Americans think that they are the best, and they hate, hate the fact that China is catching up to America. Okay. So, it's actually, it's hubris, and you can also say it's racism, right? Now, what's happening in this geopolitical order. That's number one. Number two is that, you know, we saw what happened in Venezuela. You know, Maduro being kidnapped, and many say are saying that America did this to capture Venezuela's oil resources. That's not true. What America did was to spite China because America's not going to go in and build up Venezuela's oil infrastructure. That'll cost, you know, tens of billions of dollars. It will take many, many years before America can, can, um, really bring the Venezuela oil industry up to modern standards. What it's, what it's doing is cutting off access to China. That's, that's the entire goal, right? So, um, it's not to claim the oil, and it's not to, um, benefit US oil companies. It's just to spite China. That's all it is."

"Well, no, I, I agree. I think, well, this is the main issue of, well, this is why they keep referring to the Monroe Doctrine. And obviously, China is the main concern there because if you want to control your own hemisphere, seeing China as being the main trade partner to, well, all of Latin America is, yeah, something that has to be reversed. Um, but how do you factor in though the unknown variables? For example, if I would predict one thing for 2026, it will be an economic crisis that is, uh, for, for, for the United States. And again, once economic crisis kicks in, you have, it manifests itself in political, social instability. Uh, the rationality of states, uh, tend to, well, wither away when, uh, when things at home, uh, go poorly, and they will seek quick fixes and easy solutions. And, um, yeah, like these tariff policies or allow economic conflicts to elevate into war. So, how do you see economic crisis, uh, playing into 2026, especially the US-China rivalry?"

"Right. So, America, the American economy has some major weaknesses, and you're right that, um, it's possible that America faces a great financial crisis, uh, this year. So, let's go over some of the major, uh, problem areas of the American economy. The first is artificial intelligence, where right now, most American GDP is driven by investment in AI. So, just building data centers which consume a lot of water and electricity, uh, in local communities. And what's a problem is that these data centers cost tens of billions of dollars. And it's really unclear how these data centers will make money because right now, uh, how, how most people make, how most people use AI is to generate videos and to, like, cheat in school, right? To get ChatGPT to write their essays. It's unclear how this will be beneficial to the economy. And if it's possible for AI to be profitable, this will cause millions of jobs to be lost. So, it seems as though the AI bubble is about to burst. The problem though is that right now, the US economy doesn't make any sense. Right? So, there's Michael Burry, who is very famous for, uh, famously predicting that in 2008, the, uh, supply market, the CDO market would collapse, and he took out billions of dollars in, uh, in, uh, bets against, uh, this market, and he made a lot of money. And then he, uh, made a bet against AI because he was certain that none of the fundamentals made any sense in the AI industry. And then he suddenly announced that he was actually leaving the industry. And the reason why is, okay, the AI industry doesn't make any sense. But guess what? The American, the entire American financial industry doesn't make any more sense anymore. Meaning that right now, the American, uh, financial industry, it's controlled by a few oligarchs. Uh, it's, it's controlled by a minority of people who can dictate the market to their will. And so, the average consumer, the average investor, market fundamentals no longer apply to what's happening. So, yes, in theory, uh, the AI market should, could, could collapse, but because, um, there are so few players within the AI market, it's controlled by, you know, seven companies, they can do whatever they want. And, um, the American government has something called Operation Stargate, Project Stargate. And so, they're so Trump has promised hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in the AI infrastructure. So, it's possible that this bubble keeps on going on and on. Okay. So, um, this, this, this means that right now, the American financial industry lacks the capacity to self-correct. Um, and so, if the market collapses, it's going to, it's probably going to take the entire economy with it. And so, that's a great problem facing the US financial industry. That's problem number one. Problem number two is over-financialization. And this goes back to the silver example where when China announced that it was going to ex, limit its exports of silver, and China controls about 60% of the silver market in the world, the, uh, price of silver went crazy. And the reason why is that, um, in China, silver is used for manufacturing needs. So, silver goes into, uh, AI, EV, uh, batteries, all that. So, China really needs silver. But in the United States, silver is used for speculation. So, silver is really a, uh, it's only paper silver. And a lot of these, um, companies like JP Morgan, they're leverage, overleveraged 300 to one. So, every one ounce of silver that they have, they promised 300 on paper. And so, um, and, and so, it's a great bubble that's going to, that's going to burst. You know, like what we saw in silver was almost like a small bank run, but it's not just silver. It's almost all these commodities where, uh, these commodities aren't used for manufacturing needs. They're used for speculation. And so, um, the American financial industry is one, this great Ponzi scheme that's about to explode at any point. Um, and the third great, uh, weakness of the US economy, of course, is cryptocurrency, um, where, you know, big horn, it's all speculation. It brings actually no benefit to society. So, you have all these major weaknesses in, uh, the American economy. But because, first of all, um, you have a few oligarchs who control the resources. Second of all, the American government can print as much money as it wants. There's something called quantitative easing. Um, and third of all, there's really no challenger to the US dollar. Um, this bubble can sustain itself past 2026. But when it collapses, the entire society collapses. So, you're basically looking at civil war."

"So, civil war in America."

"Yes."

"Well, uh, so in terms of gold and silver, you, you would assume that this rally will continue then, given that it's, uh, the paper gold and paper silver has been inflated so far beyond what actually exists in terms of the hard assets."

"Look, the reality is that, um, demand exceeds supply, right? So, silver goes into AI, it goes into EVs, batteries, because silver is the best metal conductor in the world, and there's no second. Copper is, um, second, but it's far behind silver. So, you need silver, and the world cannot produce, produce enough silver, and this has been true for the past five years. And China and the United States, they're having, investing heavily into AI. So, right now, there's a major, uh, fight for for access to silver. And this goes back again to Venezuela, where Latin America and South America actually are the world's greatest producers of silver. Whoever controls Latin America and South America, basically has, uh, control over the AI future."

"Well, so things look a bit grim for the United States, and you have all these bubbles you refer to. Once this begins to fall apart, civil war becomes a real possibility. Um, but how do you see this, obviously affects the rivalry they have now with China, but what do you see on the Chinese side? Because what, what are the strategic priorities, and how do you see them pursuing them? Because, uh, one would assume that China would also become a bit more assertive as it becomes more confident, but also as the pressure is building on the United States to, to essentially break China and, uh, will restore the 90s, if you will."

"Yeah. So, um, you know, the greatest strength and the greatest vulnerability of the United States is, um, the US dollar, right? But the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of China is its reliance on exports. Um, China is an, is an export-oriented economy, and in order to, uh, feed its economy, it focuses on exports, and sometimes its export strategies are counterproductive and self-defeating. So, for example, it dumps, um, commodities onto the world market, which hurts, uh, the trade system. Okay. So, China has also a lot of fundamental issues right now. The problem is that the United States is threatening to strangle, embargo, blockade China, right? So, um, one thing that will flare up in 2026, it's already flaring up right now, is a rivalry between China and United, and Japan, right? So, Prime Minister Kishida has said that, uh, she believes that Taiwan is part of Japan's strategic interest. And what does she mean by that? What she means by that is that if China were to get hold of Taiwan, Taiwan could blockade Japan from access to the Strait of Malacca, and therefore, um, oil from the Middle East, which Japan is dependent on. And so, um, Japan believes that if China were to invade Taiwan, then Japan would have to step in. Okay. So, Taiwan is key. But, you know, the opposite is true where if Taiwan were to side with Japan, then the first island chain could, could embargo China, can block China from trade. So, I think 2026, you'll see a lot more heated rhetoric between, uh, China and Japan. The reason why is both economies are dependent on Middle East oil, and whoever can control the Strait of Malacca can basically strangle each other's economy."

"Yeah. Well, this is the classical problem. I mean, again, I think we talked before about how it looks a bit like pre-World War I, that is that China has kind of outgrown this, uh, uh, security architecture or economic architecture as well, which is, well, more or less designed to contain China. So, it's, if there's not a diplomatic path to this, it does look like conflict becomes, uh, unavoidable. Um, but if, if we shift a bit towards, uh, Europe and, uh, well, which includes then Russia, you said that the Ukraine war has been more or less settled, uh, stabilized. Uh, I assume you're not referring to stable front lines. I'm assuming that the, the future of the conflict has been, I mean, the determined now, which seems correct. But on the other side, uh, the reason I focus on the rationality of states is because you see from the Europeans now increasing rhetoric that, well, we can't afford a peace, uh, if, uh, if, if the war ends, then, uh, Russia would focus its resources on us. And so, one after another, you see these different European leaders and media outlets saying, 'Well, it's, it's war may be better than peace now.' So, are we prepared to end this war, or how do you see this playing out now?"

"Yeah. So, I think, I think like the future is obvious. Uh, Europe is going to militarize against Russia, even though it is against the best interests of its people. Its people will be very upset with remilitarization. You, you're already seeing massive protests in Germany. A lot of this will be irrational, meaning like Europe has absolutely no path to victory in Ukraine, but, um, Europe's going to send, uh, men to their deaths in Ukraine anyway because Europe doesn't know what else to do, right? So, so what Europe is really saying is that we, we banked on, uh, Russia losing this war, and then we could impose an indemnity on Russia, and that would solve all our fiscal problems. Now that Russia is, is winning the war, we are facing, um, economic collapse at home, and we don't really want to face that. So, we're going to continue the war and hope for the best. So, there's no strategy here. It's, um, suicidal. It's irrational. But Europe is stuck where it is. Well, whenever I ask different experts what they see the likelihood of a direct war between Russia and the Europeans, they they usually say, 'Ah, very little because the Europeans don't have the troops. It would be suicidal.' But this assumes that all wars are calculated and deliberate because if I think a war, an accidental war, war by miscalculation would be rooted in this assumption of escalation control, that is, you know, the Europeans can't afford to see Russia lose now, win. So, we'll, we'll send a little bit more extra long-range missiles. We try to target the political leadership. Let's blow up some Russian tankers. So, we escalate at the same time as pressure is mounting on Moscow to, to stop allowing the Europeans to step over all red lines. So, why should the Russians accept the Europeans engaging in direct attacks, killing Russians? So, they will then retaliate, and I don't think the Europeans want this, but want a direct war. They would just like to kill Russians through Ukraine, and then, you know, claim that their hands are clean. But I don't think this, this is coming to an end. I think from what I hear coming out of Moscow, this is, we're reaching the end of the line, and especially the Germans should be hit hard if they continue along this path. But if you open any European or German newspaper, they don't seem to realize this at all. If they recognize the possibility of war, it's because Russia will want to restore the Soviet Union or, you know, something, march on Paris, something along those lines. Do you think though that this is a real prospect?"

"Look, I think that the leadership of Europe, the European elite, they live in their own reality. Um, so, you know, like YouTube and social media, there are different bubbles, and I think like the, uh, European elite, they literally believe that Russia will collapse tomorrow, and we just wait another day, then, uh, the Russian economy will collapse, the people of Russia will revolt, and Putin will be overthrown, and then Russia will sue for, for, for peace. If you just, like, watch their media, they repeat this over and over, and it becomes a self-in, self-reinforcing bubble. The EU is just this brawling, um, um, self-reinforcing bureaucracy, and they're not capable, capable of imagining defeat. They're not capable of imagining, um, different possibilities. They're, they're certain, they're absolutely certain that, um, if they just wait out one more day, then the war will be over, and they would have won. And, you know, if you talk about irrationality, go back to World War I, and like for those four or five years where these millions of people were dying for, for no reason. And the reason why was these leaders just could not accept the possibility that they had made a mistake. Okay? I mean, it's, it's, I, I understand this is all silly, like why would you sacrifice men of men because you can't afford to make a mistake? They can't afford to admit that, hey, maybe sending Boris Johnson to sabotage peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow was wrong. Maybe blowing up that Nord Stream pipeline was wrong. Maybe antagonizing Russia these 20 years by expanding NATO to its borders was wrong. It's these people absolutely refuse to admit they're wrong, and they're willing to sacrifice their own nations, uh, to avoid admitting, you know, being, being wrong."

"Yeah. Even now that the loss, NATO losing Ukraine is starting to become obvious, the, the new goal appears to be, well, let's lose slower. Let's keep the Ukrainians a little bit longer in the fight, even though it will be a humanitarian disaster for Ukraine and also a strategic disaster for Europe because this is not good for them. Um, but how do you see this playing out in the European security architecture? Because again, um, the EU and NATO are the two main pillars of how Europe has been structured in the post-Cold War era. They were supposed to, you know, be the hegemonic or order of Europe. Also, what, what US unipolarity was supposed to rest on, uh, especially NATO. Did you see them being able to survive? Well, 2026 might hold on, but how, how do you see this, uh, well, what would you expect from 2026? Uh, complete collapse isn't necessarily in the cards, but, uh, it, it, it seems to be deteriorating fast. I mean, as we speak, Trump is laying claim to Greenland. So, and the Danish prime minister trying to refer to Article 5, but I'm not sure if America would come to the defense of Greenland if America goes after Greenland. I mean, this is kind of absurd stuff."

"Um, look, the reality is that Trump hates Europe. He's hated Europe ever since 2016 when Europe was, um, um, um, when Europe basically insulted him during his first presidency. Um, Europe thought he was a joke. He was a charlatan, and Europe inspired Obama to refer him in 2020. So, um, Trump hates Europe, and you can, and you can tell because, um, you know, what was the first thing that happened after Trump, um, won election? He sent JD Vance to Europe to scold Europe for failing Western civilization, right? For letting in too many, uh, for letting in too many immigrants, for embracing woke ideology, for betraying Christian values. And so, um, your Trump would be more than happy to see the entire NATO system collapse. And you could argue that like, like, you know, Trump is forcing NATO to collapse because Trump is forcing NATO to fight a war, it could possibly not win against Russia. So, I think what's going to happen is that, uh, NATO will sleepwalk into disaster into Ukraine. And the reason why is that it's just this lumbering bureaucracy that can, that cannot possibly imagine its own demise. And these are just bureaucrats who just want to collect their own paycheck and who are looking for their own pension. So, they don't really care what happens. They'll just do what they're told. And, um, this war will be settled in Odessa. I think that NATO will collapse in Odessa because NATO will commit to defending Odessa. Russia will encircle it, blockade it, and, um, NATO will not be able to hold on. NATO will force, uh, Europeans to be conscripted into the army to die in Odessa. They will refuse, and you will have civil war throughout Europe. But this is, this is like a five to ten-year timeframe. It's going to happen this year. It, it'll be, it's going to be another five to ten years, but it's a slow death for Europe. So, Odessa would be the end of the Ukraine war then."

"Yes."

"Yeah. No. Well, that makes sense. Uh, the Russians have set their eyes on Odessa, as this is to a large extent about the Black Sea, and of course, this is where NATO attacks Russia from primarily from Odessa. And, uh, I think the British and French would never accept giving up Odessa. This is, I think, the key prize in, in this war. So, yeah, you're probably spot on there. Um, how about Europe's goal of strategic autonomy? This was, we heard for many years, strategic autonomy, European sovereignty. These were the slogans of the EU. It's in very stark contrast to the subservience to a US which hates Europe. Um, but, uh, how do you see the internal cohesion holding in, in place? Because I think Europe, you know, it succeeded when it was able to live, deliver economic benefits to its member states as a collective bargaining power. I don't see that anymore."

"Yeah. So, after 1945, Europe was forced to adopt the ideas of the open society. Right. This is Karl Popper, who argued that World War II was caused by fascism, by this excessive embrace of nationalism. So, to prevent another great war, we, uh, societies have become much more open, multicultural, tolerant, and that was a strategy for the EU bureaucracy for the past few decades. That's why, uh, they've let in so many of the immigrants. That's why they, that's why they've embraced woke ideology, and it's basically made the societies, um, you know, much more, uh, polarized. So, you have the real possible civil war in Britain, in France, because they let in all these immigrants, and the natives see these immigrants as a threat to their cultural identity. Um, and so, you know, wars are fought because people want to fight them to protect the ones they love, and they, they fight them for their homeland. But right now, if you go to Britain and you ask them, like, what does Britain mean to you? I think British people would be hard to answer you. If you, you know, um, these immigrants in Britain, if you interview them and you say, hey, are you willing to go fight a war in Ukraine to defend Britain? And they'll say, hell no. And natives are like, why would I, leave this land to go die in Ukraine so that these immigrants can take it over after I'm dead? So, the idea of, you know, getting these Europeans to fight anywhere is just ridiculous now. And, yeah, I mean, you will conscript quite a few because, um, these European nations have become authoritarian, um, but it's going to destroy the societies. So, Europe is no longer capable of fighting a full-scale conflict with Russia. Sometimes I get, um, a feeling of some similarities with, with the Soviets after the Bolshevik revolution when they, when they were fighting because the Russians were deeply religious. So, when you, when they were essentially, yeah, going to fight under a Bolshevik or a Soviet flag, the, the problem then was, what exactly are they fighting for? So, they kind of had to allow the, the church to come back in because this is why, what people fought for. And I get the same impression now that the Europeans are being told that we have to go and, you know, die for them to fight Russia. And if you ask why, they will refer to, you know, the nation and, you know, the typical things people would die for. But, but they spent the past, uh, years, if not decades, to express their, you know, contempt for our faith, our traditions, our culture. And now we're supposed to die for it. I mean, it's"

"What, what are we dying for? It doesn't really make any sense. I mean, this is what people, nationalism is. Yeah. People kill for it, but they're also willing to die for it. I think, I think the smearing of nationalism, even though it was introduced in the French Revolution with democratization, I think it's been another flaw. But, um, yeah, uh, so, um, uh, how, how does this, uh, play into the to the United States? Because the Europeans were a key partner of the US in the past, in order to, well, world and during the Cold War and the hegemonic era. But, uh, what do you see the Americans doing now? If they drifting further away from the Europeans? Will they abandon bloc politics, or will they simply demand subservience? How, how is the, how will the US build this power moving forward? Because this is what perplexes many European politicians. Every time America slams them or threatens to take Greenland, they they all go on Twitter going, 'Well, you know, we're good allies. You need us to be great.' But, but, uh, it doesn't appear that this sentiment is shared by Washington. So, how, how, what, what will the US build its power on?"

"Look, the United States is now transactional. It's an empire, and it's going to exploit its vassals. And if it cannot exploit its vassals, it will just abandon them. So, the United States right now, it's uncertain what it can derive from Europe, right? Europe is has an aging population. Um, it is not willing to fight wars. It does not have that many able-bodied men. It has very few resources. So, the United States doesn't really know what it can do with Europe. And in fact, the United States believed that Europe has been, um, stealing and exploiting the United States for the past few decades. It's the, uh, American security infrastructure that has protected Europe, that has allowed Europe to create its welfare state, that has allowed, uh, Europe to, um, basically, um, the Americans think that the Europeans are just lazy, um, and decadent and corrupt. And so, the United States is preparing to throw Europe, like, overboard, right? They just abandon Europe to Russia and forget about it. And so, uh, Europe, so, United States national security strategy, it's very clear. It's going to use the Western Hemisphere to project its power overseas. So, the example goes out to China, where listen, in the future, China, if you want resources, don't think about the Middle East because it's on fire, right? Uh, the entire place is at war. Don't think about Europe because Europe is dead. Um, don't think about Africa because we're going to challenge you there as well. You're going to have to come and buy resources from, from the Western Hemisphere, and therefore, you're going to have to buy from us. Um, so, I think that's the national security strategy going forward. Uh, the United States is intent on maintaining its hegemony for the, for the US dollar, and so it needs to make China subordinate to the US dollar, dependent on the dollar."

"Yeah. This idea that they will, in this new imperial phase of the United States, that they will either exploit or abandon. I don't think the Europeans appreciate this because I heard the same from Americans as well. Like, we were trying to decide whether or not we should make it an exclusive sphere of influence for the United States or just extract the wealth. But, if it's an option between exploiting or abandoning, the Europeans can't envision a future without the leadership of the US. So, they're allowing, I think, the US to extract wealth at the moment through all this, uh, trying to trans, yeah, putting companies across the Atlantic or, or these trade deals which are so horrible, but they still signed them on Trump's golf course. But of course, this is temporary, a temporary fix. Once, uh, America extracted everything it needs, Europe is even weaker, more irrelevant, and it will be abandoned anyways. But, uh, uh, the, well, again, there's no, no discussion in the political class what to do. It's just the assumption that Trump is a bad man, and if we just wait him out, things will go back to normal. That's literally what they're doing. They believe that in 2028, the Democrats will come in, reverse all of Trump's policies, as Biden did in 2020. And what the Europeans don't realize is that this is a new reality. We're not going back to 2020. Even if the Democrats were to come in in 2028, they're going to maintain Trump's imperial policies because this is in the best interest of America. America has no benefit from helping Europe in any way."

"No, especially if it grows even more irrelevant. I mean, uh, but they don't, they don't see it in terms of national interest and the value of an alliance. They, they talk about friendship and values, which is kind of a, it's"

"But that's again where the ideology comes in. I mean, this is, they, they convince themselves that this is what glues us together as opposed to having common strategic interests. Um, but, but for the United States, though, do you see overall, uh, its power, uh, retrenching? Will they overextend, or will there just be a complete absence of a coherent strategy?"

"So, um, what we're seeing is an acceleration of the demise of the American empire. So, let's go back to Venezuela. And I'm sure, you know, everyone saw what happened where, you know, these, um, Chinook helicopters carrying Delta Force special operators flew into Caracas and killed basically Maduro's security team, Cuban security team, and then escorted him to New York where he was paraded. And it seemed as though, you know, a triumph of the Romans, right, where they brought in these kings who they captured and they paraded him through the streets of Rome. And so, in America, everyone's ecstatic about this. Everyone thinks this is tremendous. But what you don't, what people don't recognize is that, you know, the reason why Americans didn't do this in the past is because it's stupid to do this sort of stuff, right? Because, um, why would you insult a nation like this? So, not only did the Americans go kidnap a head of state, a sovereign head of state who represents the state itself, but they also destroyed the monument of Hugo Chávez, um, who is the spiritual hero of the Chavismo movement in Venezuela, who is the current regime in Venezuela. So, Trump has made it impossible now for the United States to seek an arrangement for Venezuela. Even if there's some negotiation that takes place, it's going to end up in bad faith because Venezuelans have lost trust in, uh, the United States. But not only that, but South America right now will rally against the United States. Trump has threatened both Mexico and, um, Colombia. He has his eyes set on Cuba, on Nicaragua. So, now the South Americans are like, you know, we can't, we can't trust the Americans. We need to stick together. And they're going to resist American, American power. And then Africa, Europe, uh, the entire world is going to see America for the bully that it is. So, listen, America had the greatest military for the past 50, 60 years. It didn't really want to use its military because once you start using your military, you're stuck using the military forever, right? You're better off using soft power through, um, you're better off using covert ops, uh, propaganda, um, you know, infiltration, and that's what America did really well for these 50, 60 years. And, and they could have done the same thing in Venezuela where, you know, they could have just basically bribed Maduro, bribed the elite to seek, um, an economic treaty with the United States where all oil belonged to the United States, and Venezuela would have agreed to this, and all of South America would have been happy with this deal. Um, but instead, it chose to, do what it did because it wanted to project strength and power. And so, it sacrificed strategy for optics. And this is a sign of an empire in decline where it's no longer capable of grand strategy, where it's no longer capable of foresight. It's no longer capable of restraint and humility. It's complete hubris. We see this all the time when empires are in, uh, decline, where not only does it antagonize its enemies, but also antagonizes its own allies and exploits its vassals. So, what the United States is doing, it's suicidal. It's, um, short-term, it's stupid. And look, in the short term, I say for the next two to three years, it will look great in that, you know, America is able to control the entire Western Hemisphere, or the world bows to America. In the long term, um, you have sold the seeds for global, um, discontent, for a global revolution against American power. And basically, I think that the American empire is done."

"Yeah. The French philosopher, um, Emmanuel Todd, he, he calls this micro-militarism, and he, he sees it as a common trait, as you suggest, of a declining empire that is to seek military solutions against minor states, easy targets to project strength and cover up, uh, yeah, declining status in the world. But, no, I think you're right. Of course, this is the extraordinary thing. Uh, Maduro was, you know, resented in many places in Latin America, even especially by the Brazilians. But none of the Latin Americans want to see this kind of thing, the US restoring its empire and hegemony across the Americas through military force. It's so counterproductive, it seems though."

"Look, Maduro, regardless of his faults, okay, and he has lots of faults, he was the head of state of Venezuela. He represents the nation-state. So, when you kidnap Maduro in this manner and you humiliate him in such a manner in New York City, you are humiliating the entirety of the Venezuelan people as well. So, this can only end in disaster for America."

"Yeah. Well, in the US, uh, a lot of people fiercely hate Donald Trump, especially here, the Democrats. But if you would have China, Russia kidnapping Donald Trump, parading him down the streets, you know, this will be a national humiliation. Even the biggest haters of Trump would see this attack on America. But again, I, this is the problem when you only focus on on leaders. The assumption you take this guy out, put in someone else, and then everything will be fine. Even this time, they didn't even put in someone new. Just took the leader and then hoped that everything would fall apart. I think this dictator, this is the, whenever we call our adversaries dictators, this is the assumption. You just remove the head of state, and then everything will fall apart, which is, uh,"

"Yeah. So, look, look, look, that's how Donald Trump thinks. He, he thinks that, oh, I've captured Maduro, therefore now Venezuela belongs to me, and Venezuela now must obey what I tell them because I've captured their head of state. Um, he lives in his own reality, you know, he, you know, he spent too much time doing reality TV, The Apprentice. And so, he thinks that, you know, if I can just make people believe this, it'll become reality. And he doesn't recognize that there are these fundamental laws to geopolitics. Um, so, an example is, you know, Trump, when he was with The Apprentice, it had the, um, best ratings on TV, but whenever Trump ran a business, he ran it into the ground. He destroyed every single business that he touched. So, that's the man he is. And like, he's going to get great TV ratings, but he's, he's destroyed America in the process."

"I often refer to this scene in The Head with Zelensky in the Oval Office when, after scolding Zelensky, he just looked towards the camera. Well, this is great TV. I think he forgets the actual role he's in. President."

"He does not live, he does not live in our world. He lives in his own world, Trump World, and it's all make-believe. And, and, and in his world, he thinks that, hey, if I can manifest this idea, if I can make enough people believe this idea, it will become reality. Okay. In his world, he thinks that he is making America great again by resurrecting the"

American empire. He believes that by you know captaining Maduro, by bombing Iran, he is projecting force and if people understand how powerful America is, everyone will bow to America and just obey America and and all the problems will just vanish. The debt will vanish. This the polarization will vanish. Um all all this discontent will vanish. [snorts]

>> Yeah. Well, it's possible he's able to topple the government there. But I did think it was a bit premature when he when he, you know, he kidnaps Maduro and then he says, "Well, we're going to run um Venezuela now like a colony until we find someone to take over like a puppet regime." But I I was I thought, well, you know, don't don't sell this don't don't sell the fur onto our skin before we kill the beer. It's why the government is still in place. I thought it was a bit premature, but uh again, maybe they have a plan or maybe it's just complete delusion. Who knows?

>> In Trump world, because he was able to kidnap Maduro, which was a u feat of spectacular television. Okay. Looked great on TV.

>> Yeah.

>> He had won. He thought he had won the war and now the people of Venezuela must obey him because he's proven himself to the god Emperor Trump. Okay. In his world, in his mind, he literally believes that he now controls Venezuela because he now has Maduro in his hands. That's what he literally believes.

Yeah. Well, uh on um the global south though, uh do you see any other developments um predictions for 2026? Uh uh given that you predicted the the attack on Iran, do you see another attack in 2026 because it appears that uh the Israelis are selling this very hard to Trump though.

>> Look, Trump is going to continue his attacks everywhere, okay? So, expect land strikes against cartels in Mexico. expect um land strikes uh in Colombia. Uh that's a massive American Navy assembled in Caribbean, it's not going away. It's still going to, you know, uh attack um fishing boats. It's still going to do what it's going to do. So, the American military presence in the Caribbean is is only going to uh increase because what Trump wants to do is bring the entire global south under under its control. And then in April when he goes to China, he now has leverage over China. Okay. Everything is leading to April where um Trump wants to sit down with China and negotiate a grand bargain in which and an example is where okay, you know what, you're the subordinate to the empire China. So what what's happen is this. We control Venezuela, but we will allow you to go into Venezuela and build the oil infrastructure so you can extract it and buy from us with US dollars. Okay, that's that's literally what Trump has planned in April.

>> And how will the Chinese respond to this though?

>> That's a great question. And how China responds will determine next five years. So um I'm based in China. I know China very well. And I will tell you like right now there's a lot of debate within China. Uh there's a lot of different factions who have who propose different strategies. Some are very pro-Russian and says listen in the long term we're better off for Russia. But there are also some of factions who are like you know what you know what we don't we don't become too reliant on Russia. If we get 100% of of oil supply from Russia that's gonna be a problem. So maybe it's better to get you know 50% from America 50% from Russia. So you have a whole spectrum of views and um what China will decide in April will depend on how these different factions um uh coales together and and they will also have to look at the geopolitical uh environment and then there's these domestic concerns as well. Um, so I couldn't tell you right now what will happen in April, but my thinking is if I were a betting man, I would think that China and United States will come to a grand bargain. But this grand bargain will not actually alter the geopolitical landscape, meaning that the empire will still collapse and you'll still have wars raging over the around the world.

>> Yeah. Well, uh I think that yeah, the three main rules of energy security is yeah, diversify, diversify, diversify. So, it's probably a good move for China not to become excessively dependent on chi on Russia. So, yeah, main partner good. But, um yeah, and any country wouldn't want to put themsel in that position where all eggs are in one basket. Uh but uh again, back to Iran though because again, I think you're right. There's many countries who could be next. Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Panama. Uh well, de facto Denmark taking Greenland could go back to Gaza, Lebanon, they could lose Syria, go back in there. Russia, intensify, China, of course, yeah, Nigeria, maybe they're not done bombing there. So, there seems to be a lot of countries on Trump's war list. But, uh uh but in terms of Iran, how how likely do you think this is that there will be a doover? because they didn't go as well as the hope last time obviously.

>> So I think that Trump um was elected um the Israelis helped to elect Trump because remember uh Maron Aden gave um $100 million to Trump, right? So um and a lot of it was that Trump agreed that he would resolve the Iran issue and we saw that in June in Operation Midnight Hammer. But you know Trump is transactional. So he is going to invade Iran at some point but he wants to maximize his own personal benefit. Okay. So what that what this means is that he's looking for as much as possible from the Israelis. So what's happened is that Ellen Mus has promised Trump $20 million um for the midterms in November. Miam Allison has promised Trump $250 million if he if he were to run for a third term. Okay. So Trump is trying to maximize u as many benefits as possible before he proposal trigger and orders an American attack on Iran. But all the seats are in place, right? Because we're seeing all these protests in um Iran. We can never know for sure the extent of these protests, but we can know that listen, you have these Mossad agents in there. You've got all this um American special forces in there. A lot of money is being spent on bribing these criminal networks, minorities, um dissident to cause as much havoc as possible in Iran. And quite honestly, Iran itself is facing a lot of economic issues because of this American embargo. So, um um Iran is in a lot of trouble in 2026, but whether or not Trump pulls a trigger in 26 26 is I I can't tell you. Um, it's possible he launches more strikes, but the real issue is, will Trump launch a ground invasion of Iran because Israel wants regime change in Iran and the only way we can do that is with ground troops. Um, air strikes won't do it and Israel itself cannot do it by itself. So, it needs the United States to send in ground troops. Um, so 2026 I think we'll see an acceleration of events but um, but but maybe 2027 is when we'll have the full climax.

[snorts]

>> Yeah. But with this great power rivalry with the Chinese, the Russians, reasserting dominance over the Western Hemisphere uh during an economic crisis. It just seems [laughter] going going after ground invasion of Iran would really be overextending. This is not going to be Iraq. This is a very different uh animal. I mean, Iran is a is huge territory. It's a much larger population. It's much more powerful militarily. This could be a this will be a disaster. You know,

>> sorry, facts don't matter to Trump, okay? They've never mattered to Trump. You know, they tried for the longest time to give Trump press briefings, right? Daily briefings where he was updated on geopolitics. And at first it was a page and they recognized he doesn't even have the attention span for a page. So they trans they they made it a paragraph and they recognize oh my god he can't even read a paragraph. So what they figured out was that this guy watches TV all the time. So if you want Trump's attention if you want him to recognize certain aspects of foreign policy you need to go on Fox News and tell it to him there. Okay. So this guy's brain is a TV set and so he doesn't re recognize uh the fundamental rules of geopolitics. He doesn't understand what it means to be overextanded, what it means um to have enough resources to fight wars. All he sees is optics, right? So he thinks that this this thing in Venezuela was a huge success. Why can't we do the same thing in Mexico? Why can't we do the same thing in Cuba? And why can't we do the same thing in Iran? So for Trump, it's it's all about optics, about visuals. He sees him he sees him he sees these Teleforce uh operators um flying into uh Tran and blowing blowing things up and that's that's how how his mind works. There's a lot of focus on the United States overextending its hard power, but I think it's also overextending its diplomatic um capital because Trump only speaks in this language of oh this is my dear friend or best friends in order to you know be as as his good cop or he's going to destroy you which is his bad cop. But it's either or. and he tends to switch back and forth to the point at least what I hear from the Russians that they they don't take him that seriously anymore because nothing he says will last for more than a week because he will switch again. I mean now he's oh Vladimir my good friend and now I will destroy their economy and you know we'll kill some more Russians. I mean this is it's um there's no consistency. It's either

Yeah, but that was my point with Chinese as well. either you build trust trust in America's economic infrastructure or you try to core something but you can't do both.

>> Well, I I think I think he is consistent. He's a mafia boss and that's why people don't really understand about him. You know, he's not the president of United States. He's a mafia boss. And once you appreciate that, then it's he's easy to deal with. Just don't trust him. Just don't don't take what he says with just don't believe anything he says. you know, he's going to do what is in his own personal best interest. Not necessarily in the best interest of the United States, but his own best interest. He's going to do what makes him look good. This Maduro raid was counterproductive for the United States. It really hurt the American um standing around the world. Um, it made America look like a criminal enterprise, but he doesn't care because it made him look good on TV.

Well, do you have any final thoughts on uh 2026 uh before we wrap up?

>> Um, yeah, so I would say that this event uh in April when Trump visits China um Trump needs to figure out a lot of things before April. Okay. So what we're seeing in South America is the United States establishing hijgemony, military hijgemony throughout South America. Um, and we can see and we will see an escalation of that over the next few months. Um, especially with regards to Colombia and Mexico. Um, possibly Brazil as well where Trump gets into um an argument with Lula for whatever reason. Trump likes that to show that he's he's the boss. Um, we can also expect to see more conflict in Africa as well because Africa is where uh in national security strategy Trump said very vocally that he will not seat Africa to China that they that America and its allies will challenge America uh will challenge China wherever he can. And the last uh area would be China Japan. So I would say that um as time goes by uh the conflict between Japan and China will just increase because uh Trump needs to exert as much leverage over China uh as much as possible and then you'll have this um meeting in April and I think there are four meetings actually scheduled for 2026. So Trump needs to resolve the China issue and the reason why is the endgame is Iran. He needs to resolve the China issue before he launches a full force invasion of Iran. Um, Russia will come to Iran's defense. There's nothing that Trump can do about it. The wild card right now is China. What China will do uh in response to an Iran invasion. And so um the endgame is Iran. China is um maybe the um penultimate boss before Iran. But but but I think if I were betting man and I think people will be surprised by this, China, United States will come to an arrangement.

>> Well, I'll keep an eye on April then. And uh I I like the idea that if there's two major powers, the US and China can work out a deal then uh other pieces can fall in place. On the other hand, if they work at a deal, it could also be something about the US uh asserting its dominance in its near abroad. It's uh the Arabs have a nice expression. I think it's along the line that you know when the elephants fight the the grass get uh trampled but uh when the elephants make love it also gets flattened. So you know right

>> so so they're screwed anyways. That's my point. So anyways thank you so much for taking time.

>> Thank you.