Speaker 1: Good evening, and welcome to another edition of The Cajun
Speaker 1: Night Live. I am your host, the Cajun Night Jacob Mook.
Speaker 1: A lot of things have discussed this evening. We're gonna
Speaker 1: start off with the United States. Then we're gonna shift
Speaker 1: over the Atlantic to Europe. Then we're gonna make a
Speaker 1: little bit of a stop into South Africa, stop off
Speaker 1: in India for a minute, and then we're gonna end
Speaker 1: over in China and Southeast Asia as a whole. All right,
Speaker 1: For anybody who would like to see what we are
Speaker 1: gonna be talking about rather than just hear about it,
Speaker 1: please come to the link in the description below to
Speaker 1: the Cajun Night. There is where we had the links
Speaker 1: to host these events every Wednesday night at nine pm Central.
Speaker 1: If you would like to join this ever growing community,
Speaker 1: Now is the time, all right, Without further ado, I
Speaker 1: am going to get over to our main course for
Speaker 1: the evening, starting off with some things in the United States. Now,
Speaker 1: before I say anything, this is not going to be
Speaker 1: an episode where we spend a lot of time talking
Speaker 1: about the Epstein cover up. That's just what I'm calling
Speaker 1: it now, There's no other way to verbalize it. However,
Speaker 1: I find it interesting that Dan Bongino has issued ominous
Speaker 1: statements about FBI corruption probe. Shocked me down to my core.
Speaker 1: For anybody who doesn't know, Dan Bongino just recently released
Speaker 1: a statement on X, on Twitter, on the socials and
Speaker 1: the media's and essentially just told everybody that he has
Speaker 1: forever been changed. He had no idea that the agency's
Speaker 1: works like this. This time in DC has shaked him
Speaker 1: down to his core and all of these things. His
Speaker 1: direct quote says, we cannot run a republic like this. Okay,
Speaker 1: so let's just get into the reading of it. Dan Bongino,
Speaker 1: former conservative radio host and current deputy director of FBI,
Speaker 1: posts a vague but highly ominous statement Saturday about what
Speaker 1: he's learned during an internal investigation of corruption and quote
Speaker 1: unquote political weaponization at federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies,
Speaker 1: saying his findings thus far have shocked me down to
Speaker 1: my core. Direct quote. Bongino, who is very quiet since
Speaker 1: his statements dismissing the Epstein matter kicked off a firestorm
Speaker 1: inside the Trump administration, posted the message Saturday on X,
Speaker 1: though he gave no specifics or names. Bongino, who would
Speaker 1: routinely dial up the drama around the news and conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: As a host of The Damn Bongino Show, made it
Speaker 1: sound something very big and very dark. Way excuse me,
Speaker 1: made it sound like something very big and very dark
Speaker 1: was soon to come out during my tenure this direct
Speaker 1: quote here. During my tenure here, as the deputy director
Speaker 1: of the FBI, I have repeatedly relayed to you that
Speaker 1: things are happening that might not immediately might not be
Speaker 1: immediately visible, but they are happening, Bongino wrote, the Director
Speaker 1: and I are committed to stamping out public corruption and
Speaker 1: the political weaponization of both law enforcement and intellig intelligence operations.
Speaker 1: It is a priority for us. But what I have
Speaker 1: learned in the course of our properly predicated and necessarily
Speaker 1: investigations into these aforementioned matters has shocked me down to
Speaker 1: my core. Okay. Bongino was reportedly considering his resignation earlier
Speaker 1: this month amid political fallout from his commitments or comments
Speaker 1: rather that Epstein did in fact kill himself, which he
Speaker 1: did not, and that there was no infamous quote unquote
Speaker 1: client list, But Bongino stayed, and something he's come across
Speaker 1: since he's since has got him on one, and something
Speaker 1: he's come across has got him on one on a list. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this article's written very strangely. I know it sounds like
Speaker 1: I'm stammering here, but it's actually okay, it's another direct
Speaker 1: quote here. We cannot run a republic like this. I'll
Speaker 1: never be the same after learning what I've learned. Bongino
Speaker 1: called the investigation righteous and proper and promised it would
Speaker 1: be done by the book and in accordance with the law.
Speaker 1: A direct quote continuing as with the investigation, I cannot
Speaker 1: predict where it will land, but I can promise you
Speaker 1: an honest and dignified effort at truth. Not my truth
Speaker 1: or your truth, but all capital the truth. God bless
Speaker 1: America and all those who defend her respectfully. Damn. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's the overunder of the statements that he made. I
Speaker 1: maybe I'm just a bit of a pessimist at this point.
Speaker 1: I have less than zero faith in the system, and
Speaker 1: somehow they still shock me. And that just seems to
Speaker 1: be a new thing every day. The internal investigation that
Speaker 1: he has said that has shocked him to his core,
Speaker 1: and all of these things. I have a weird feeling
Speaker 1: that this is gonna be in reference to a twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen Obama scandal. I could be so wrong here. I
Speaker 1: could be wrong, and he is really about to give
Speaker 1: us the truth about Epstein. I just I don't believe that.
Speaker 1: I think that he's letting out this ominous tweet to
Speaker 1: get people, you know, hanging by a thread like, oh,
Speaker 1: is it about to happen? I think the big hammer
Speaker 1: drop is gonna be a treason charge from twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: which I cannot stress this enough. Trump won that election
Speaker 1: and he's drumming up old charges about something from an
Speaker 1: election that he won. So like, at this point, there
Speaker 1: are some, not myself, but there are some that are
Speaker 1: saying that this is more or less him being a
Speaker 1: really late sore winner, like really late, like two administrations
Speaker 1: late sore winner to this particular conversation. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Perhaps I'm wrong, and Dan Bongeno will release all of
Speaker 1: the Epstein things in kind. Maybe this is just not
Speaker 1: gonna go anywhere, and it's all gonna be a part
Speaker 1: of spinning the rumor mill, which all of these people
Speaker 1: have done, Cash, Pam, Dan, Trump, JD all of them
Speaker 1: just kind of seemed to be spinning that rumor mill
Speaker 1: as much as humanly possible to maintain their composure and
Speaker 1: their job. All right, now, let's move on here. Interestingly,
Speaker 1: still sticking to the US, but starting to make our
Speaker 1: way across the Atlantic. The United States nuclear weapons are
Speaker 1: quote unquote deployed to UK for the first time in
Speaker 1: seventeen years. For anybody who does not know, yes, this
Speaker 1: is very true. The United States has decided to give
Speaker 1: some nuclear warheads over to UK to just kind of
Speaker 1: hold on for a while, just you know, Hey, we're
Speaker 1: gonna send some boats. Can you just put them at
Speaker 1: port and the stuff that's on the boats, can you
Speaker 1: put them in a really secure location for us just
Speaker 1: for a little bit. Thanks. No real reason as to
Speaker 1: why nothing has started up in Europe any more or
Speaker 1: less than what's been going on for the past three
Speaker 1: years that would lead anybody to assume that we need,
Speaker 1: and by way, I mean the United States need a
Speaker 1: nuclear arm out there in Europe. Nothing has happened that
Speaker 1: would shift that gear. Yet somehow here we are now.
Speaker 1: I know some are gonna say that this is in
Speaker 1: response to Russia Test five firing one of their new ICBMs. Okay, fine, fine,
Speaker 1: But to the principle of America sending nuclear warheads to UK.
Speaker 1: I feel like that's a bit presumptuous. If anything, test
Speaker 1: firing in ICBM seems like the ultimate saber rattle. But
Speaker 1: it's only just a saber rattle. It was a test fire.
Speaker 1: No one got hurt, nothing got damaged or any of
Speaker 1: these things. And we already knew that Russia had ICBMs.
Speaker 1: That's that's that's not a flex, it's a it's a
Speaker 1: rattle of the saber. But anyway, reading on here, this
Speaker 1: is from newsweeks the United States military has moved nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons to British soil for the first time in close
Speaker 1: to two decades. New analysis indicates open source analysis identified
Speaker 1: an aircraft taking off from the Kirkland Air Force Base
Speaker 1: in Albuquerque, New Mexico, bound for the United Kingdoms Royal
Speaker 1: Air Force Royal Air Force Base rather than Lackynheath in
Speaker 1: the east of England. Kirkland Air Force Base is the
Speaker 1: headquarters of the US Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, a
Speaker 1: main storage site for nuclear weapons. I feel like me,
Speaker 1: maybe we shouldn't just have that open source. Same time,
Speaker 1: I think, actually, because of the nuclear deals that it
Speaker 1: kind of has to be open source. I'm not one
Speaker 1: hundred percent on that, but anyway. A US defense official
Speaker 1: told Newsweek the US did not comment on the status
Speaker 1: or location of strategic weapons. Okay, that's that's actually pretty funny,
Speaker 1: as they just told us the location and said they
Speaker 1: didn't comment on it all right. A spokesperson for the
Speaker 1: British Defense Ministry said it remains a long standing UK
Speaker 1: and NATO policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence
Speaker 1: of nuclear weapons at a given location. Why does this matter?
Speaker 1: Speculation has long surrounded whether the East England RAF base
Speaker 1: could once again host US Air Force or US nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: Rather rif Locknheath hosted American nuclear weapons for several decades
Speaker 1: until two thousand and eight. Interesting that they held nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons until Bush got out of office. I find that interesting,
Speaker 1: But moving on, the Federation of American Scientists the FAS
Speaker 1: said in twenty twenty three, the United States military budget
Speaker 1: documents strongly implied the US Air Force intended to re
Speaker 1: establish its nuclear weapons mission in the UK at Lacknheath,
Speaker 1: the home of the forty eight fighter Wing dubbed Liberty Wing,
Speaker 1: has been upgraded in recent years. If Washington moves nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons back into the UK. It would break with decades
Speaker 1: of policy and planning and reverse the southern focus of
Speaker 1: the European nuclear deployment that emerged after the end of
Speaker 1: the Cold War, the FAS said in an updated analysis
Speaker 1: earlier this year. So what do we need to know
Speaker 1: from this? Flight tracking data shows that the US Air
Speaker 1: Force C seventeen cargo plane deported or excuse me, departed
Speaker 1: from Albuquerque for a flight just over ten hours to
Speaker 1: Lackenheath on July sixteenth, and left the UK two days later.
Speaker 1: It looks like it went to England, dropped off those
Speaker 1: weapons and went back to regular operations in the US.
Speaker 1: William Albuquer Alberquie Okay, a former head of NATO's Nuclear
Speaker 1: Non Proliferation Center, told Britain's The Times. The UK government
Speaker 1: announced last month that it would buy at least twelve
Speaker 1: F thirty five A fifth generation aircraft, which, unlike the
Speaker 1: F thirty five B jets the country's RIF already operates,
Speaker 1: are certified to carry nuclear weapons. The jets will be
Speaker 1: stationed at RIF Marham Marham. I guess I don't you know.
Speaker 1: I don't speak the Kings English, I speak American English.
Speaker 1: A base north of Lackynheath. The purchase reintroduces a nuclear
Speaker 1: role for the Royal Air Force for the first time
Speaker 1: since the UK retired its sovereign air launched nuclear weapons
Speaker 1: following the end of the Cold War. The British government
Speaker 1: said in a statement the UK has triedent its own
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons program, made up of four Vanguard class submarines
Speaker 1: able to fire nuclear missiles. The US has both strategic
Speaker 1: and non strategic nuclear weapons. Non strategic nuclear weapons, which
Speaker 1: in the US case are variants of the B sixty
Speaker 1: one gravity bomb, are also known as tactical nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: The US announced at the start of the year that
Speaker 1: it had completed a long running program to upgrade the
Speaker 1: B sixty one to the B sixty one Dash twelve.
Speaker 1: Strategic nuclear weapons are deployed or on intercontinental ballistic missiles,
Speaker 1: submarine launches, launched ballistic missiles, and those fire from bomber aircraft.
Speaker 1: They are thought of as missiles that could level entire
Speaker 1: cities and threaten major global superpowers. Unlike strategic weapons, tactical
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons are designed for use on the battlefield or
Speaker 1: in what is known as a specific theater. They have
Speaker 1: a smaller yield and are designed to be used against
Speaker 1: different targets. That different targets than strategic nuclear weapons, which
Speaker 1: are limited under the New Start treaty that is due
Speaker 1: to expire in twenty twenty six. The US has an
Speaker 1: estimated two hundred tactical nuclear weapons, with roughly half deployed
Speaker 1: at European bases. The US is believed to have around
Speaker 1: one hundred tactical bombs deployed in five NATO countries on
Speaker 1: the continent, including in Turkey, Germany and Belgium. So what
Speaker 1: people are saying, Ah, it's not really that important, Okay,
Speaker 1: Long story short, The US has decided to send nuclear
Speaker 1: capable weapons to Britain, as well as sell Britain a
Speaker 1: upgraded version of the F thirty five that is capable
Speaker 1: of carrying said nuclear weapons. Is this also a form
Speaker 1: of saber rattling the same way that Russia launching its
Speaker 1: ICBM might have been seen as such? I personally think so,
Speaker 1: Although I do find it interesting that they would choose now,
Speaker 1: of all times to flex in this manner. I don't
Speaker 1: know that. Being said, we're talking about nukes making its
Speaker 1: way to Britain, We're talking about jets being sold. It's
Speaker 1: interesting to note that one of the biggest military industrial
Speaker 1: complex figureheads in America, Lockheed Martin. Their profit dives eighty
Speaker 1: percent on one point six billion dollar charge, shares tumble.
Speaker 1: If you haven't heard anything about this, Lockheed Martin's profit
Speaker 1: shares have dropped eighty percent. That is unprecedented and there's reasons.
Speaker 1: There's absolutely reasons as to why. But you would even
Speaker 1: think still Locky Martin, RTX formerly Raytheon, and Boeing are
Speaker 1: the biggest. Those are the top three. Those the godfathers,
Speaker 1: if you will, of the American military industrial complex. For
Speaker 1: their profits to drop eighty percent is insane, especially if
Speaker 1: it's on a charge like I understand that. But even still,
Speaker 1: they got lawyers. For their lawyers, you think they'd be
Speaker 1: able to beat the case and keep going. But you
Speaker 1: know what, let's just read into it. Here is it
Speaker 1: from earlier this month, July twenty second, Locky Martin reported
Speaker 1: on Tuesday that its second quarter profit plunged by about
Speaker 1: eighty percent after the US defense group recorded a pre
Speaker 1: tax loss of one point six billion dollars mainly linked
Speaker 1: to a classified program within its aeronautics segment, sending its
Speaker 1: shares down more eight percent, more than eight percent. Rather,
Speaker 1: the company also trimmed its twenty twenty five profit outlook
Speaker 1: by one point five billion dollars or eighteen percent, and
Speaker 1: said it now targets six point sixty five billion in
Speaker 1: operating profit for the year. This new guidance revised down
Speaker 1: since the company's last estimate in April did not include
Speaker 1: potential impacts from tariffs, which have affected other defense companies
Speaker 1: with international customers. Lockheed's tariff's risk is relatively low, as
Speaker 1: its supply chain and labor are largely domestic, said Brian Mulberry,
Speaker 1: portfolio manager at Zach's Investment Management. Don't know who that is,
Speaker 1: but moving on, the company's hefty change charge stem from
Speaker 1: difficulties with a classified program in its Aeronautics business and
Speaker 1: air National Helicopter program and its Sikorski unit. Thing got
Speaker 1: killed that word all right. Defense contractors are grappling with
Speaker 1: mounting cost pressures as inflation and supply change disruptions drive
Speaker 1: up expenses on long term programs priced years ago. Many
Speaker 1: of these contracts, often fixed price, were negotiated before the
Speaker 1: post pandemic surge in labor, material and component costs, forcing
Speaker 1: contractors such as Lockheed to absorb overruns. Apart from the
Speaker 1: nine hundred and fifty million dollar charge on the classified program,
Speaker 1: Lockheed took a five hundred and seventy million dollar hit
Speaker 1: on its work for the Canadian government relating to the
Speaker 1: procurement of its H one forty eight cyclone maritime helicopters.
Speaker 1: The Turkish Utility helicopter program saw a ninety five million
Speaker 1: dollar loss as well. This charge was due to a
Speaker 1: rest restructuring caused by US government sanctions on Turkish entities
Speaker 1: and persons involved in the program. Tasselt said it was
Speaker 1: in a call with Analysis. Lockheed is also engaged in
Speaker 1: a tussle with the US tax authorities, who assert the
Speaker 1: company owes an additional four point six billion dollar tax bill,
Speaker 1: executives said, adding that they were pursuing a remedy that
Speaker 1: could include litigation. Additionally, the company provided an update on
Speaker 1: progress with upgrades for its F thirty five jets, saying
Speaker 1: it had completed hardware integrations and released new software for
Speaker 1: the fleet. Earlier this month, the Pentagon's Program Office confirmed
Speaker 1: the final delivery of seventy two jets held in long
Speaker 1: term storage. In twenty twenty four, Lockheed's net income in
Speaker 1: the quarter fell to three hundred and forty two million
Speaker 1: dollars or a dollar forty six per share, from you
Speaker 1: know what once was. Okay, let me let these numbers
Speaker 1: are insane. They fell from three hundred and forty two million,
Speaker 1: or a dollar forty six per share. And this was
Speaker 1: from one point sixty four billion dollars or six eighty
Speaker 1: five per share. So their profit shares dropped from six
Speaker 1: dollars and eighty five cents per share to a dollar
Speaker 1: forty six per share. This is that's drastic. That's really drastic.
Speaker 1: And you would think again, with all of the wars
Speaker 1: going on around the world, the military industrial contras like this,
Speaker 1: whether they're American based or French based or Russian base,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter, you would think that this would be
Speaker 1: go time for them. Everybody wants their their materials, everybody
Speaker 1: wants their equipment, and somehow Lockheed has dropped eighty percent
Speaker 1: in one quarter. That is remarkable. Lockheed missed Wall Street
Speaker 1: estimates for a second quarter revenue, which came in at
Speaker 1: eighteen point sixteen billion dollars compared with an average expectation
Speaker 1: of eighteen point five to seven billion. Okay, I thought
Speaker 1: it was just interesting to bring up. How again, you
Speaker 1: would think the Lockey would kind of be, you know,
Speaker 1: living off the fat of the hog right now, and
Speaker 1: unfortunately that is not the case now as of this moment,
Speaker 1: as of time of recording, there is no conversation about
Speaker 1: Lockey closing its doors, restructuring, management, or any of these things.
Speaker 1: Most of the tariff conversation has been you know, well
Speaker 1: at least understood and agreed upon with the certain countries
Speaker 1: and things. But put a pin in that one for
Speaker 1: later in the episode, because now we have an issue
Speaker 1: where Trump has decided that India will now pay a
Speaker 1: twenty five percent tariff. We'll get to that here in
Speaker 1: a moment. Anyway, moving on to the next topic. As
Speaker 1: we were talking about the nukes making their way to
Speaker 1: the UK, and as we were talking about Locky Martin
Speaker 1: and all these things going on, let's go now across
Speaker 1: the pond full force. Here the UK and Germany hail
Speaker 1: a wide ranging treaty deepening ties in face of threats.
Speaker 1: For anybody who hasn't heard, we will be talking about
Speaker 1: the Kensington Treaty. This is something it was just recently
Speaker 1: signed in England. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor
Speaker 1: Frederick Murz hailed a major treaty to deepen ties in
Speaker 1: areas ranging from defense to immigration on Thursday, the latest
Speaker 1: step in Britain's push to reset UK relations with the
Speaker 1: European Union. Isn't that kind of why the whole Brexit
Speaker 1: thing happened? They didn't want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the EU, but all right, nope. On his first trip
Speaker 1: to London, as Chancellor Mar's described the Kensington Treaty as historic,
Speaker 1: the first major bilateral agreement between Britain and Germany to
Speaker 1: deepen defense cooperation and to try to boost economic growth
Speaker 1: in both nations. Murrs's day trip follows a three day
Speaker 1: state visit by Britain to Britain by French President Emmanuel Macrome,
Speaker 1: which bro not gonna try to sign tangent too much here.
Speaker 1: But I don't know if y'all been keeping up with
Speaker 1: what's been going on with old Brigitte. She apparently lawyered
Speaker 1: up to try to take on Candace Owens, and apparently
Speaker 1: her lawyer has a very very very dirty past, with
Speaker 1: all but actual skeletons in his closet, so it's not
Speaker 1: looking really good. And Candace is pretty much right there
Speaker 1: to just absorb all the smoke. I think at this
Speaker 1: point she's actually getting high off the smoke. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean that to say that she choked it down,
Speaker 1: although I'm not saying she doesn't. You know, she does her,
Speaker 1: but it's gearing up. I'm still fully of the belief
Speaker 1: that Brigitte Macrone is a dude and or Emmanuel's long
Speaker 1: lost dad slash long lost uncle. But anyway, Murse's day
Speaker 1: trip follows a three day state visit to Britain by
Speaker 1: French President Emmanuel Macrone, signaling a greater cooperation between Europe's
Speaker 1: top three powers at a time of threat to the
Speaker 1: continent and uncertainty about their US ally. This seems to
Speaker 1: be more of the intent behind the Kensington Treaty. Yes,
Speaker 1: it is to deepen ties between these two countries and
Speaker 1: all these things, fine, fine, cool. It is actually more
Speaker 1: or less because they can't trust that the United States
Speaker 1: will do as they say they will do, and a
Speaker 1: lot of NATO countries are starting to feel that way.
Speaker 1: There's reasons for that. Could it be that this is
Speaker 1: because Trump has spurned on and more or less strong
Speaker 1: arm leverage everybody in NATO to now spend five percent
Speaker 1: GDP rather than two percent, because he wants them to
Speaker 1: be stronger on their own so that America doesn't have
Speaker 1: to step in if things go sideways. Okay, I get that.
Speaker 1: That being said, now European countries aren't feeling so safe
Speaker 1: that America is going to come to their aid in
Speaker 1: times of needs. So now they're starting to make their
Speaker 1: own treaties, their own alliances. The Kensington Treaty is one
Speaker 1: of them. This is a direct quote here. We see
Speaker 1: the scale of the challenges our continent faces today and
Speaker 1: we intend to meet them head on. Starmar told a
Speaker 1: press conference after the two leaders signed the treaty in
Speaker 1: Victoria and Albert Museum, co founded by Britain's Queen Victoria
Speaker 1: and her husband Prince Albert, of German origin, which also
Speaker 1: makes sense. I mean the Habsburgs, which is the current
Speaker 1: royal family, if I'm not mistaken, are of German descent.
Speaker 1: So like it makes sense that Britain and Germany would
Speaker 1: have their historic reasons for making this treaty happen. Dope,
Speaker 1: The Kensington Treaty is an expression of our shared aims
Speaker 1: and values. But more than that, it's a practical work
Speaker 1: plan setting out a seventeen major projects where we will
Speaker 1: come together to deliver real results which will improve people's lives.
Speaker 1: Standing next to Starmer at an airbus plant, Merz aimed
Speaker 1: again lamented Britain's departure from the EU, but said the
Speaker 1: agreement would cement ties between the two nations and compliment
Speaker 1: in agreement london struggle with France. His direct quote from Merz,
Speaker 1: we are jointly determined to shape this new era with
Speaker 1: new leadership opportunities the United Kingdom and Germany side by side.
Speaker 1: Europe has been confronted with the US tariffs since President
Speaker 1: Trump returned to the White House as a well, excuse me,
Speaker 1: as well as question about the US commitment to defend
Speaker 1: its European allies, including Ukraine, against Russian invasion. So let's
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about weapons for Ukraine here, because
Speaker 1: that is also where we're going next. Two leaders said
Speaker 1: they had discussed in detail plans to send more weaponry
Speaker 1: to Ukraine after Trumps signaled he would sell weapons to
Speaker 1: NATO countries, including Patriot air defense missiles Kiev has urgently sought.
Speaker 1: Merz said that the two had discussed Ukraine's need for
Speaker 1: long range strike systems, which he called long range fire
Speaker 1: and Ukraine will soon receive substantial additional support in this area,
Speaker 1: he told press at a press conference. The treaty includes
Speaker 1: a cause clause excuse me on mutual assistance, which, in
Speaker 1: light of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, is
Speaker 1: highly significant, a German official said this week. It builds
Speaker 1: a different defense deal agreed last year that included the
Speaker 1: joint development of long range strike weapons, and comes after
Speaker 1: France and Britain agreed last week to reinforce cooperation over
Speaker 1: their respective nuclear arsenals. As part of Thursday's announcement, Britain
Speaker 1: and Germany also pledged to pursue joint export campaigns to
Speaker 1: drum up orders from other countries for equipment they make jointly,
Speaker 1: such as the Typhoon, eurofighter jet and the Boxer armored vehicle.
Speaker 1: So moving on here the Europe situation. Yeah, we're gonna
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about Ukraine. Very briefly. We brought
Speaker 1: up last week that America is sending Patriot missile systems
Speaker 1: that way, and in spite of all of these things,
Speaker 1: Germany and Britain have decided that they want to have
Speaker 1: even closer ties than they already do. I understand it.
Speaker 1: I'm not necessarily throwing shade at it by any means,
Speaker 1: but I find it interesting that Britain went through the
Speaker 1: whole process of splitting from the EU, which I mean
Speaker 1: as somebody who is not British outside looking in perspective here,
Speaker 1: I respect they were at the time one of the
Speaker 1: biggest economies in Europe and they were pretty much footing
Speaker 1: the bill for all the EU projects and that's not fair.
Speaker 1: They decided to split and do their own thing. Now
Speaker 1: because of the insane amount of immigrants, not just there
Speaker 1: but all over Europe. But Britain themselves, their economy is
Speaker 1: not doing as hot as it once was, and now
Speaker 1: they're making these private deals between them and France, them
Speaker 1: in Germany. It'll be interesting to see who they make
Speaker 1: a deal with next. But beside the point, I think
Speaker 1: that that also gives them a little more leverage as
Speaker 1: far as making deals goes now that they are not
Speaker 1: a part of the EU, but they can still be
Speaker 1: friends and draw treaties with the EU. I could see
Speaker 1: it as kind of the best of both worlds. Again,
Speaker 1: kind of early in this whole conversation, So we will
Speaker 1: see how it plays out. All right. Now, let's talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about the Bricks Summit that just took
Speaker 1: place not too terribly long ago. There is some differences
Speaker 1: of opinions that came to light at this last Bricks
Speaker 1: you know summit, and of the similarities that these countries share.
Speaker 1: Of course, they want to topple the USD as the
Speaker 1: world currency in question, right, they want to be taken seriously,
Speaker 1: they want to be seen as the new g seven.
Speaker 1: That being said, that's about where the similar stopped, and
Speaker 1: there was no real hints at a military alliance. Everybody
Speaker 1: was more towards the side that they want to be
Speaker 1: the leader of AI. They want bricks to be the
Speaker 1: world's foremost AI thing, and by they they meant China
Speaker 1: and Russia are gonna vie for who's leading the world
Speaker 1: in AI technology. That's about what I got from it,
Speaker 1: But the differences that came out of it I found
Speaker 1: to be pretty interesting as well. Let's read the takeaway
Speaker 1: here and then we'll just kind of go over the briefs.
Speaker 1: The seventeenth Bricks Summit, held in Rio de jan Ara, Brazil,
Speaker 1: marked the first major gathering of the expanded block, which
Speaker 1: now comprises eleven members, the original five Brazil, Russia, India, China,
Speaker 1: and South Africa, which for the record, South Africa was
Speaker 1: kind of late to the game. At first it was
Speaker 1: just called brick. Then when South Africa joined, it became
Speaker 1: bricks and they were seen as the original five but anyway,
Speaker 1: and the new entrance Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: which has not yet formally accepted membership, and the UAE.
Speaker 1: They were joined by Brazil in Brazil by ten partner countries,
Speaker 1: including Malaysia and Vietnam. With the summit haled just days
Speaker 1: before the US President's July ninth reciprocal tariffs deadline. The
Speaker 1: bricks countries appeared united in pushing back against the tariff
Speaker 1: threat and sought to present themselves as united on key
Speaker 1: issues such as global conflicts, AI and critical minerals. Put
Speaker 1: a pin in the critical mineral thing, because while your
Speaker 1: first inkling might be you know, iron, cobalt, lithium, these
Speaker 1: types of things, that is actually kind of a source
Speaker 1: of contention between bricks in and of themselves, but not
Speaker 1: in the way you might think we're gonna get to
Speaker 1: it anyway. However, statements of unity nowithstanding, member states are
Speaker 1: pursuing divergent strategies in how they are negotiating with the
Speaker 1: Trump administration. Meanwhile, differences among the BRICKS member countries also
Speaker 1: persist on issues such as global conflicts, reforming multilateral order,
Speaker 1: and critical minerals. Yes, let's talk about this, just kind
Speaker 1: of reading over the briefs here. The expand of Bricks
Speaker 1: block accounts for approximately forty percent of global GDP compared
Speaker 1: to twenty eight percent for the G seven, and represents
Speaker 1: about half of the world's population. I mean, to be fair,
Speaker 1: China's got a really dense population, so does Russia, so
Speaker 1: does India. So I mean, yeah, that's that's pretty fair
Speaker 1: as far as the numbers are concerned. In a notable
Speaker 1: first sense, taking office, President Jijiping don't worry, We're gonna
Speaker 1: get to him later in the episode did not attend
Speaker 1: the summit, missing an opportunity to project China as an
Speaker 1: alternative to US power. He was represented instead by Premier
Speaker 1: Lee Kwang. Russian President Vladimir Putin attended virtually as he
Speaker 1: faces an international criminal court arrest warrant in connection with
Speaker 1: alleged war crimes committed in Ukraine. Not going to go
Speaker 1: into it on that fine. Ukrainians have committed some war
Speaker 1: crimes as well. Russia has committed some war crimes as well.
Speaker 1: Like we're not We're not gonna have that conversation day.
Speaker 1: It is what it is that being said. At least
Speaker 1: Putin was able to like zoom call in. Jizaping has
Speaker 1: actually gone into full tilt hermit mode, Like he is
Speaker 1: vowed that he will never leave his country again. There's
Speaker 1: a conversation to say that this might be because of,
Speaker 1: you know, his health, maybe he's not doing so well,
Speaker 1: his age, the stress heavy lies, the crown kind of thing.
Speaker 1: There's another conversation to say that he is afraid that
Speaker 1: if he leaves, he may not make it back. There's
Speaker 1: a conversation happening right now to say that he might
Speaker 1: get overthrown if he tries to leave again. And I'm
Speaker 1: not saying I necessarily believe that, but it is documented
Speaker 1: in a few different places that Xijaping is definitely becoming
Speaker 1: more of an isolationist and wants China to be isolationist,
Speaker 1: even though he wants them to have global reach. It's
Speaker 1: a very strange time. It's a very weird time for China.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about that more in depth here in
Speaker 1: a minute. Moving on with the brief keynotes from the
Speaker 1: Brick Summit, signaling discontent with the US President Trump's tariffs.
Speaker 1: The group's joint declaration voice concerns over unilateral tariffs and
Speaker 1: non tariff measures which distort trade and are inconsistent with
Speaker 1: WTO rules, albeit without directly naming the US, but I mean,
Speaker 1: you could look at it. We knew exactly who they
Speaker 1: were talking about, but anyway, the summit produced a separate
Speaker 1: Leader Statement on Inclusive AI governance, a roadmap for energy cooperation,
Speaker 1: and an emphasis on fair and resilient critical mineral supply chain. Okay,
Speaker 1: a roadmap for energy cooperation. A big source of contention
Speaker 1: right now is that half of the bricks countries rely
Speaker 1: on fossil fuels, and now I mean relies in like, oh,
Speaker 1: they use them, but they're trying to be more green.
Speaker 1: No no, no, like they really heavily rely on fossil fuels.
Speaker 1: The other half of them are making all of these
Speaker 1: efforts to become more green. So when we're talking about energy,
Speaker 1: when it comes to bricks, it actually has led to
Speaker 1: a decent amount of infighting within the bricks nations, but
Speaker 1: we'll get to that more in here in a minute.
Speaker 1: The joint declaration avoided, however, the blocks pass references to
Speaker 1: trading in local currencies, a potential challenge to the dominance
Speaker 1: of the US dollar. Nevertheless, President Trump responded to the
Speaker 1: group's tariff statement, warning that countries aligning with anti American
Speaker 1: policies would face an additional ten percent tariff. Brazilian President
Speaker 1: Louis Silva responded, saying the world does not want an emperor,
Speaker 1: and I agree with that statement. It absolutely doesn't. We
Speaker 1: can skip over the implications. Basically, it's going to be
Speaker 1: more towards the tariff conversation. But there's more than just
Speaker 1: the tear tarriffs that took place at the Brick Summit.
Speaker 1: Now which kit and bricks countries are closed to a
Speaker 1: trade deal with the US. No bricks country has finalized
Speaker 1: a trade agreement with the US, with the exception of Indonesia.
Speaker 1: Beijing reached a tentative trade framework with Washington in June,
Speaker 1: but the truce remains fragile, with an August twelfth deadline
Speaker 1: looming for a formal deal to avert renewed tariffs. Trump
Speaker 1: has also announced DEEEP tariffs in Brazil fifty percent following
Speaker 1: a public spat with President Lula, and on South Africa
Speaker 1: thirty percent amid growing trade tensions, both set to take
Speaker 1: effect on August first. Now New Delhi, however, appears to
Speaker 1: close close to securing a deal. An interim trade deal
Speaker 1: with Washington is reportedly nearing completion, although the key sectors,
Speaker 1: such as India's heavily protected agriculture, remains continuous contentious. Rather
Speaker 1: as India prepares to assume the Bricks presidency in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six, it continues to perform a careful ballotleancing act,
Speaker 1: projecting leadership within the global South, while steering clear of
Speaker 1: any d dollarization rhetoric to avoid friction with Washington. Put
Speaker 1: a pin in that because this article was written about
Speaker 1: a week in some change ago. Yeah, we just things
Speaker 1: have changed here. Trump just made it to where now
Speaker 1: India is gonna have a twenty five percent tariff because
Speaker 1: of them buying Russian oil. We're gonna get to it.
Speaker 1: Critical minerals emerged as a key area of cooperation and competition.
Speaker 1: While Bricks leaders have pledged cooperation on critical minerals, significant
Speaker 1: differences persist among key members, particularly China and India, two
Speaker 1: countries locked in a regional rivalry and engaged in an
Speaker 1: unresolved border dispute. Indian Prime Minister Mody denounced the weaponization
Speaker 1: of critical minerals and at the Rio summit following Beijing's
Speaker 1: imposition of rare earth export restrictions on India. This signaled
Speaker 1: pushback against the Chinese are China's alleged economic coercion and
Speaker 1: price manipulation, aligning New Delhi more closely with Western leed
Speaker 1: initiatives as India seeks secure and stable sources of critical minerals.
Speaker 1: A partnership with Canada, positioning itself as a key player
Speaker 1: in the critical mineral sector shows strong potential. With global
Speaker 1: players competing for trade opportunities, partnerships and investments in this sector,
Speaker 1: both competition and cooperation are likely to shape their economic
Speaker 1: and diplomatic strategies. All right, So, knowing what we just
Speaker 1: read about bricks, there was a lot of cooperation that
Speaker 1: was had a lot of things about how they need
Speaker 1: to stand together against the tariff war that Trump is raging,
Speaker 1: a lot of things about we need to de escalate
Speaker 1: military conflicts around the world. Although they weren't talking about Russia.
Speaker 1: Oddly enough, when they were talking about de escalation and
Speaker 1: ending conflicts in all this, it seemed to be more
Speaker 1: at they were pissed at America for bombing Iram or
Speaker 1: getting more heavily involved with Israel. No one talked about
Speaker 1: the Russia at the entire Bricks summit. They just kind
Speaker 1: of meandered over the topic. It was. It was pretty
Speaker 1: much none of their concerns, so why concern yourself with
Speaker 1: that kind of thing. But one of the key things
Speaker 1: that started to show cracks in the bricks system is
Speaker 1: the energy conversation. South Africa is one of the original
Speaker 1: five members of Bricks, right, they're an og as far
Speaker 1: as the bricks thing is concerned, and I understand that's
Speaker 1: a weird thing to say. They haven't been around that long,
Speaker 1: but as far as the conversation goes, they're seen as
Speaker 1: the original five. We read that earlier. But they rely
Speaker 1: so heavily on coal for a lot of their energy.
Speaker 1: Bricks is starting to make moves to say that they
Speaker 1: are going to I don't want to use the word
Speaker 1: in force, but also they are making the signal that
Speaker 1: if bricks countries don't start making more efforts to go green.
Speaker 1: There may be, for lack of better words, consequences. Now,
Speaker 1: what exactly does that mean? Does that mean there's gonna
Speaker 1: be internal tariffs, There's gonna be strong words and statements
Speaker 1: given I don't know. I don't know. I have zero
Speaker 1: belief that any bricks nation is actually going to take
Speaker 1: steps against another bricks nation, because if one card out
Speaker 1: of the base of that house of cards falls out,
Speaker 1: it all comes crumbling down. It's still a very new
Speaker 1: and very fragile system. So I don't think anybody's gonna
Speaker 1: try to really rock the boat that hard. I get that.
Speaker 1: This being said, let's talk a little bit about South
Speaker 1: Africa and while they are a bricks nation and all
Speaker 1: these things, let's talk about it here. How do South
Speaker 1: Africa pivot as the US withdrawals from JETP. Now what
Speaker 1: is the JETP. It's called the Just Energy Transition Deal. Now,
Speaker 1: as much as South Africa is a bricks nation, hardcore bricks,
Speaker 1: they're one of the original five. All the thing, keep
Speaker 1: in mind that the United States was a big investor
Speaker 1: in their entire country, and some would say that they
Speaker 1: can't really make it without the US dollar investing in
Speaker 1: their infrastructure. For this Energy Transition deal. I'm not saying that.
Speaker 1: Let's read into it here. So this is from the
Speaker 1: website investing in African mining in Daba. Okay. Interesting. South
Speaker 1: Africa seeks new funding as US exits just energy transition
Speaker 1: deal again. They want to devalue the dollar, they want
Speaker 1: to take it out from me in the one world currency.
Speaker 1: And now they're looking for help because the US just
Speaker 1: exited a deal with them. Interesting how that works out?
Speaker 1: Considering South Africa being formally informed by the United States
Speaker 1: Embassy on about the United States decision to withdraw from
Speaker 1: the JETP, how do South Africa proceed? The US has
Speaker 1: pledged in support of the jet Investment Plan, which was
Speaker 1: subsequently developed by South Africa, comprising of fifty six million
Speaker 1: dollars in grant funds and one billion dollars in potential
Speaker 1: commercial investments by the United States International Development Finance Corporation.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. The JETP was expected to provide eight point
Speaker 1: five billion dollars in funding from partner countries the US,
Speaker 1: the United Kingdom, European Union, Germany and France. Interesting how
Speaker 1: none of that was bricks nations. It's all it's crazy.
Speaker 1: It's crazy to me, but anyway to support South Africa's
Speaker 1: transition from coal to cleaner energy. So the Bricks Nations
Speaker 1: are making pushes for all of their countries to go
Speaker 1: more green, yet they are helping one of their original
Speaker 1: five go green. In zero regard, the only countries that
Speaker 1: were helping fund South Africa to go more green were
Speaker 1: non bricks nations. I find that interesting any way, State
Speaker 1: Utility escam, escam, I hope I'm pronouncing that right needs
Speaker 1: significant investments to upgrade infrastructure and transition to cleaner energy,
Speaker 1: so the loss of US participation will hinder progress on
Speaker 1: uscrom's restructuring and plans for renewables. International investors may see
Speaker 1: the withdrawal as a sign of reduced global commitment to
Speaker 1: South African energy transition, possibly affecting future green investments. However,
Speaker 1: other JETP partners are still committed to All other JETP
Speaker 1: partners are still committed, so alternative funding options might be explored.
Speaker 1: In addition, the withdrawal of the US could strain US
Speaker 1: South African relations, especially as South African maintains ties with
Speaker 1: Bricks Nations right. This would see South Africa seeking more
Speaker 1: secure alternative partnerships with China and or private investors to
Speaker 1: fill the funding gap. South Africa's ability to meet its
Speaker 1: climate targets reducing carbon emissions and achieving net zero by
Speaker 1: twenty fifty is now at risk. Bro twenty fifty, that's
Speaker 1: how far the plan is in advance, and now they're
Speaker 1: saying that the third twenty five year look ahead might
Speaker 1: be at risk because of what's happening right now. That's interesting.
Speaker 1: Without sufficient support, the country will struggle to balance economic growth,
Speaker 1: job preservation, preservation rather and in cold dependent regions, and
Speaker 1: decarbonization efforts. South Africa will have to explore several alternative
Speaker 1: funding sources to compensate for the US withdrawal from the partnership.
Speaker 1: South Africa could negotiate for increased contributions from the remaining
Speaker 1: partners Institutions like the World Bank IMF and African Development
Speaker 1: Bank AfDB may provide concessional financial financing for energy transition projects.
Speaker 1: Given South africa strong ties to Bricks, the Bricks's new
Speaker 1: Development Bank could be a viable alternative for funding renewable
Speaker 1: energy products. China has shown interest in financing energy infrastructure
Speaker 1: in Africa again, so even though they are showing their
Speaker 1: cracks here Bricks is there are some things that they
Speaker 1: are unified on, no doubt, there's other things where they
Speaker 1: are very divided on. They are actually judging the fossil
Speaker 1: fuel heavy countries for not being more green, even though
Speaker 1: the ones that are trying to go more green, we're
Speaker 1: doing so from Western funding rather than bricks funding. Will
Speaker 1: bricks step up to foot the bill for not just
Speaker 1: South Africa but even India to try to help them
Speaker 1: become more green and use renewable energy in all these things,
Speaker 1: we shall see, We absolutely shall see. But again, a
Speaker 1: lot of the bricks nations already have enough on their
Speaker 1: plate to deal with right now, just trying to keep
Speaker 1: their own people fed and keeping their own energy costs down.
Speaker 1: With that being said, let's move over to talk about
Speaker 1: another bricks nation that is under fire as we speak.
Speaker 1: This is from Al Jazeera. Trump hits India with twenty
Speaker 1: five percent tariff extra penalty for Russian oil purchases. All right, y'all,
Speaker 1: remember how Trump said that he was going to tariff
Speaker 1: the in his words, I'm not mistaken the shit out
Speaker 1: of countries that were buying Russian oil third party. He
Speaker 1: was very clear about these things. Now, of course, Donnie
Speaker 1: t does not run the world. These countries leaders are
Speaker 1: gonna do what's best for them and they're gonna look
Speaker 1: out for their country's best interests. Of course, who can
Speaker 1: blame them for this? I get this. That being said India,
Speaker 1: who we just had this big talk about them being
Speaker 1: coming more friendly with making these deals with There's even
Speaker 1: there was a defense contract deal that was just struck
Speaker 1: with Indian now too long ago. If I'm not mistaken,
Speaker 1: American Indy just signed a military alliance which was pretty
Speaker 1: pretty substantial. Now Trump is hitting Modi with a twenty
Speaker 1: five percent tariff, literally an extra penalty for the Russian
Speaker 1: oil purchases. Now, let's get into it here. US President
Speaker 1: Trump has announced a twenty five percent tariff on Indian goods,
Speaker 1: as well as an unspecified penalty for the country's purchase
Speaker 1: of Russian oil and military equipment as an unending war
Speaker 1: in Ukraine frustrates the White House. It's frustrating the world,
Speaker 1: by the way, not just the White House. We're all
Speaker 1: pretty tired of it. But we'll move on. Trump announced
Speaker 1: the trade moves, which he said will come into effect
Speaker 1: on Friday, on his true social account on Wednesday, saying
Speaker 1: they are necessary to reverse long running trade imbalance. While
Speaker 1: India's our friend, we have over the years done relatively
Speaker 1: little business with them because of their tariffs are far
Speaker 1: too high. You know what, there's a quick video here.
Speaker 1: I wonder if it will do a good job of
Speaker 1: breaking it all.
Speaker 2: Down for US rehearsing for the first visit to good
Speaker 2: Wrath by a US president. As Donald Trump is driven
Speaker 2: from the airport, he'll be welcomed by these dancers. Then
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand people in Sad are valid by Patel Stadium.
Speaker 3: We are very much excited and we feel proud for
Speaker 3: one of the best leader of the world. Mister Donald
Speaker 3: Trump is coming to a coming to Gujarat, coming to
Speaker 3: a Handabay Government.
Speaker 2: Leaders in Gujarath have spent around ten million dollars half
Speaker 2: of that on the blanket security operation for Donald Trump's visit,
Speaker 2: scheduled to last just four hours. Billboards every few meters
Speaker 2: around the city center celebrate the friendship between They say
Speaker 2: the world's oldest democracy in the world's largest.
Speaker 1: Okay, real quick, hold on, They have spent ten million
Speaker 1: dollars strictly on security for Donald Trump's four day visit.
Speaker 1: That's substantial. All right, let's continue.
Speaker 2: And This wall has been built along the road that
Speaker 2: President Trump will take from the airport to hide the
Speaker 2: slum behind it, but away from the newly manicured city center.
Speaker 2: Is another Gujarat from a time when that End Mordy
Speaker 2: was Chief Minister of the state and banned from traveling
Speaker 2: to the United States. In February two thousand and two,
Speaker 2: Hindu mobs killed at least one thousand people, most of
Speaker 2: the Muslims in riot. The US government banned Modi because
Speaker 2: of allegations he tacitly supported the mob violence. Ninety seven
Speaker 2: people were killed in the Muslim neighborhood of the Roorda
Speaker 2: Patia in one day, including Salim Shik's cousin and her
Speaker 2: two young children.
Speaker 4: By inviting Trump, Modi wants to hide the atrocities taking
Speaker 4: place against Muslims in India. He wants to clean his
Speaker 4: image and pretend that everything is peaceful in India. But
Speaker 4: what happened was wrong.
Speaker 1: I believe that I agree with that, and the fact
Speaker 1: that they literally built a wall to hide the slums
Speaker 1: behind it, so that Trump on his drive from the
Speaker 1: airport to the building, don't he won't see the slums.
Speaker 1: It's that's pretty incredible. Anyway, moving on with the article here,
Speaker 1: the president also blamed India for buying military equipment and
Speaker 1: oil from Russia, which he said has enabled the war
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. There's there's some merit to that, but I
Speaker 1: mean every country who's buying Russian oil, and it's not
Speaker 1: just India, there's tons They're buying a third party still
Speaker 1: Russian oil, which is still in turn funding the war.
Speaker 1: Which okay, that's how that goes. As a result, he
Speaker 1: intends to charge an additional penalty starting on Friday as
Speaker 1: a part of the launch of his administration's revised tariffs
Speaker 1: on multiple countries. The Indian government said in a statement
Speaker 1: on Wednesday it had taken note of Trump's tariff decision
Speaker 1: and was studying its implications. That's that's a statement right there.
Speaker 1: But anyway, the aggressive trade policy further complicates ties between
Speaker 1: Trump and India's Prime minister, which were warmed during the
Speaker 1: US president's first term but have since faced challenges over
Speaker 1: trade and immigration. Mody has also denied Trump's claims that
Speaker 1: he intervened to resolve a four day conflict with Pakistan
Speaker 1: in May, saying India had not and or has not
Speaker 1: and will never accept mediation. Pakistan, by contrast, has seen
Speaker 1: its stock rise with Trump's administration before and after the
Speaker 1: conflict with India. In June, Trump hosted Pakistan's army chief,
Speaker 1: a sim Munir Awesome Munir Sure, for lunch at the
Speaker 1: White House, the first time the US president has hosted
Speaker 1: a military chief from Pakistan who isn't also the country's
Speaker 1: head of state. The US announcement also follows a slew
Speaker 1: of negotiated trade frameworks with the European Union, Japan, Philippines,
Speaker 1: and Indonesia, all of which Trump said would open markets
Speaker 1: for US goods while enabling the US to raise tax
Speaker 1: rates on imports. Trump views tariff revenues as a way
Speaker 1: to help offset the budget deficit, increases ties to his
Speaker 1: recent income tax cut, and generates more domestic factory jobs.
Speaker 1: We shall see if it actually does that. It's a
Speaker 1: good thought. I still have a belief that AI driven
Speaker 1: robots are going to be taken over most of the
Speaker 1: menial manufacturing jobs that he thinks so many Americans are
Speaker 1: just dying to get into a factory and work. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's true, but we'll see. While Trump has
Speaker 1: effectively wielded tariffs as a Kougel to reset the terms
Speaker 1: of trade. The economic impact is uncertain, as most economics
Speaker 1: economicists excuse me, expect a slow down in US growth
Speaker 1: and greater inflationary pressures as the cost of taxes are
Speaker 1: passed along to domestic businesses and consumers. The Census Bureau
Speaker 1: reported that the US ran a forty five point eight
Speaker 1: billion dollar trade imbalance in goods with India last year,
Speaker 1: meaning it imported more than it exported. With a population
Speaker 1: exceeding one point four billion people, India is the world's
Speaker 1: largest country and a possible geopolitical counterbalance to China. India
Speaker 1: and Russia have close relations, and New Delhi has not
Speaker 1: supported Western sanctions on Moscow over its war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: When Trump in February met with Mody, the US President
Speaker 1: said that India would start buying US oil and natural gas.
Speaker 1: Trump discussed his policies on trade and tariffs with the
Speaker 1: reporters accompanying him on Tuesday on the flight home following
Speaker 1: a five day visit to Scotland. He declined to comment
Speaker 1: when asked about reports that India was bracing for a
Speaker 1: US tariff rate of at least twenty five percent, saying
Speaker 1: we're going to see. Trump also said the outlines of
Speaker 1: the trade agreement with India had not yet been finalized. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's also worth mentioning not to circle back. But also
Speaker 1: I think it's funny when Trump went to Scotland, he
Speaker 1: you know, played golf as he is, you know, one
Speaker 1: to do, and the reporters pretty much bombarded him with
Speaker 1: Epstein questions while he was in the middle of his
Speaker 1: golf game. He got pissed. It was hilarious. It's uh,
Speaker 1: it's great, it's great. Moving on here, let's talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about this twenty five percent tear if that
Speaker 1: Trump is putting on India.
Speaker 5: President Trump says the August first deadline to implement new
Speaker 5: tariffs on trading partners could include one of America's largest
Speaker 5: allies in Asia. The president says India's trade policies have
Speaker 5: been hurting America and helping fund a war. Erica Brown
Speaker 5: has more details tonight from Washington.
Speaker 6: President Trump says he's ready to impose a twenty five
Speaker 6: percent tariff on India.
Speaker 7: They sell a lot to us, but we don't buy
Speaker 7: from them. You know why, because the tariff is so high.
Speaker 7: They have one of the highest tariffs in the world.
Speaker 7: Now they're willing to cut it very substantially, but we
Speaker 7: see what happens.
Speaker 6: New Delhi says it will evaluate Trump's latest comments. The
Speaker 6: US and India have held multiple rounds of trade talks
Speaker 6: but have not come to an agreement.
Speaker 7: We're talking to Indian now, we'll see what happens. It
Speaker 7: doesn't matter too much whether we have a deal or
Speaker 7: whether we charge them a certain teriff.
Speaker 8: But you'll know at the end of this week.
Speaker 6: And he wants an additional penalty for India buying military
Speaker 6: equipment and oil from Russia, which President Trump says helps
Speaker 6: fund Russia's war with Ukraine. The President is also deflecting
Speaker 6: questions about Justice Department files related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 7: It's getting to be very old news.
Speaker 6: Senate Democrats announced they are invoking a little known law
Speaker 6: to try to force the DOJ to release all Epstein
Speaker 6: documents by August fifteenth.
Speaker 1: Under federal law, when any five Senators on the Homeland
Speaker 1: Security Committee call on the executive the executive branch must comply.
Speaker 6: Republicans say the move is likely to trigger court challenges
Speaker 6: before the Trump administration complies.
Speaker 1: Erica Brown, It's getting to be very old news. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: it's not. It's really not, bro, It's it's it is
Speaker 1: crazy how hard he has pivoted away from this conversation.
Speaker 1: It's mind blowing. And even some of his most staunch
Speaker 1: supporters people I personally know that we're pretty much the
Speaker 1: forever Trumpers, you know, at this point it was going
Speaker 1: to be Maga till I die kind of thing. Even
Speaker 1: they are turning away from him and his administration strictly
Speaker 1: off of the way he's handling the Epstein thing. It's great,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm glad that people are, you know, in
Speaker 1: one regard not to go to conspiratorial with the conversation
Speaker 1: at this point, but COVID did a lot to make
Speaker 1: people start thinking for themselves right along the two. If
Speaker 1: you want to argue this point three year mandates and
Speaker 1: all the things, the masks, the stabs, the vaccines, all
Speaker 1: the shit, a lot of people started thinking more critically about, hey,
Speaker 1: maybe we should make our own decisions, Maybe we should
Speaker 1: think for ourselves before we just do some stuff. Right
Speaker 1: and Trump for everything that he has done that I
Speaker 1: do like and I do support. This Epstein conversation has
Speaker 1: done so much in the way of making even more
Speaker 1: people start thinking more critically. It's great in that regard.
Speaker 1: I hope that things come out. I hope that it
Speaker 1: doesn't get pushed under the rug. I just I have
Speaker 1: a very hard time believing in at this point. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's just pessimistic of me. I don't know. I just
Speaker 1: have a really hard time believing that. And whether it's
Speaker 1: the flight logs, the Little Black book, the client lists,
Speaker 1: the videos of the guilty parties, and whatever, whatever, I
Speaker 1: got a hard time believing that any of that's going
Speaker 1: to come out. The The big thing about it is,
Speaker 1: if you were to do that, it's not even just
Speaker 1: the American government, like legitimately three quarters of American elected
Speaker 1: officials in Washington would be brought into jail over that list. Allegedly.
Speaker 1: It's not just the United States though, and it's not
Speaker 1: just Israel, and it's not just Russia, and it's not
Speaker 1: just China, and it's the conversation goes more into the
Speaker 1: realm of society might crumble if that list gets released. Personally,
Speaker 1: that sounds like a good time to me. Not society crumbling,
Speaker 1: but a real rebirth of society with all of the
Speaker 1: shitheads at the top not being a part of the conversation.
Speaker 1: That sounds amazing to me personally, But there are some
Speaker 1: people that think that would be too drastic of a
Speaker 1: shift and that society would not be able to withstand.
Speaker 1: I don't know. But anyway, anyway, so back to the
Speaker 1: whole Trump India thing. India does have very high tariffs
Speaker 1: on imports into their country. That's very true, mostly because
Speaker 1: they make so much that they buy in house. They
Speaker 1: don't really have to outsource for much when it comes
Speaker 1: to like the things that you would buy at your
Speaker 1: local grocery store, manufacture goods, things like that, and they
Speaker 1: have exceptions to certain things. I think the auto industry
Speaker 1: has a couple of exceptions that you're able to sell
Speaker 1: cars in India without such high tariffs and things, but
Speaker 1: I'm not one hundred percent of that. They may have
Speaker 1: high tariffs on their auto industry as well. My point
Speaker 1: is India does have a very high tariff margin. As
Speaker 1: far as the global conversation is concerned. Trump's saying that
Speaker 1: he is pretty much matching fire with fire. However, the
Speaker 1: main push to the upgrade to the twenty five percent tariff,
Speaker 1: as well as the penalty he is saying, is based
Speaker 1: in India's like, even though they made a deal with
Speaker 1: US to buy our oil and natural gas in February,
Speaker 1: They're still buying Russian oil and Trump's pissed about this.
Speaker 1: So all right, fair enough, fair enough. We'll see how
Speaker 1: it shakes out. We will see if that tariff stays
Speaker 1: in action, or if India comes and strikes another deal
Speaker 1: with Trump like so many other countries have done. We'll see.
Speaker 1: Moving on the New York Post, and remember how I
Speaker 1: said that President Xi might be on his way out
Speaker 1: Old Winnie the Pooh himself the Chinese president Jijaping on
Speaker 1: his way out question mark. This is from the New
Speaker 1: York Post. Over the past few months, unprecedented developments point
Speaker 1: to the potential and excuse me, potential and potentially imminent
Speaker 1: fall of China's chairman of Everything, Jijaping. I don't necessarily
Speaker 1: believe this, but at the same time, it is very
Speaker 1: interesting that Gi has gone more into a state of
Speaker 1: hermatism than anything else. Not going to the Brick Summit
Speaker 1: wasn't at first glance, wasn't necessarily that big of a deal. Okay,
Speaker 1: so he missed a event. Man was busy, he was
Speaker 1: maybe he had a stomach virus or something something happened.
Speaker 1: Whatever the case, maybe there was a legitimate reason for
Speaker 1: him missing the Brick Summit, but there's been more than
Speaker 1: a few speaking engagements foreign events where he was slated
Speaker 1: to go where he has basically just not gone. There
Speaker 1: may be more to this than what we originally thought.
Speaker 1: The Chinese Communist Party elders, including Hugh Gianto's GI's imminent predecessor,
Speaker 1: who G humiliated at the twentieth Party Congress in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, are now running things behind the scenes. G
Speaker 1: is in poor health and is likely to retire at
Speaker 1: the CCP plenary session this August or take a purely
Speaker 1: ceremonial position. G's downfall has been rumored before, but never
Speaker 1: have we seen the recent purges and mysterious deaths of
Speaker 1: dozens of People's Liberation Army generals loyal to G, all
Speaker 1: replaced by non G loyalists. Now, I remember us talking
Speaker 1: about this a couple weeks back. There seemed to be
Speaker 1: this weird thing where there was more generals and more
Speaker 1: heads of big businesses in China that were all just
Speaker 1: found dead. And it wasn't in this big ceremonial military
Speaker 1: tribunal hanging on the national news and everybody watched the execution.
Speaker 1: Nothing like that, more or less, just very quietly, these
Speaker 1: dudes have been pronounced dead and onto the next topic.
Speaker 1: I mean, the CCP runs all the media in that country,
Speaker 1: so if they don't run a big story on it,
Speaker 1: there's just not gonna be a big story on it.
Speaker 1: And we talked about how one of the biggest basically
Speaker 1: the iPhone. To make the iPhone, it takes like three
Speaker 1: hundred small companies and they're all owned by the CCP.
Speaker 1: But one guy that was in charge of like a
Speaker 1: third of the manufacturing facilities that all have a hand
Speaker 1: in making the iPhone, he started making a conversation like
Speaker 1: he was about to defect a Taiwan he got found dead.
Speaker 1: And so it's not just the government, it's not just
Speaker 1: the well, everything in China has its ties to the government.
Speaker 1: My point is, it's not just government officials, it's not
Speaker 1: just military leaders. It's even heads of businesses in China
Speaker 1: that are all starting to make their way out. Xiang Wuxia,
Speaker 1: probably mispronouncing that with whom she had a major falling
Speaker 1: out after helping g secure an unprecedented third five year term,
Speaker 1: is now the de facto leader of the People's Liberation Army. Also,
Speaker 1: the unnaming of Ji's father's mausoleum last month was unprecedented.
Speaker 1: The mausoleum, which she has built to honor his late father,
Speaker 1: was was larger than a mausoleum for either Mal or Dang,
Speaker 1: which is crazy. Meanwhile, Ji's personal protective detail has recently
Speaker 1: been halved. What world leader cuts his own security. That's
Speaker 1: that's where it actually kind of gets crazy to me personally. Uh,
Speaker 1: whenever you see a world leader that is still currently
Speaker 1: serving as a world leader. By the way, like whenever
Speaker 1: Trump wasn't president, Yeah he had some secret security detail,
Speaker 1: but I mean that's very normally. Former president still has
Speaker 1: secret service with him in some way, shape or form,
Speaker 1: not to the left that the seated president does. But
Speaker 1: even Bush right now has a secret service detail attached
Speaker 1: to him, usually older guys or girls or girls who
Speaker 1: are you know, they're not the cream of the crop,
Speaker 1: but they're still very capable agents and they just kind
Speaker 1: of are with him anywhere he goes, just as private security.
Speaker 1: It's very normal. She is still currently serving, and China
Speaker 1: is not necessarily a uncontroversial country by any means, so
Speaker 1: for him to cut his personal security detail in half
Speaker 1: is actually kind of concerning to the status quo here.
Speaker 1: There is no explanation for G's disappearance for almost two
Speaker 1: weeks in late May and early June, while foreign dignitaries
Speaker 1: were hosted in Beijing by other CCP leaders. She has
Speaker 1: also been conspicuously missing from the pages of the People's Daily,
Speaker 1: the CCP organ that until recently ran fawning front page
Speaker 1: stories of G Daily. G appeared to host Belarus dictator
Speaker 1: and Russian puppet Alexander Lukashenko in early June. G looked
Speaker 1: tired and uninterested, even defeated. I don't. I don't necessarily
Speaker 1: see him as tired or uninterested or defeated in this picture.
Speaker 1: If anything, they both equally look like they're just kind
Speaker 1: of not really feeling this conversation. It don't look like
Speaker 1: they're they're mad or unfriendly with each other. They both
Speaker 1: just kind of look over it. So I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't know, honestly, and I've seen G's face in many
Speaker 1: a picture that's pretty much just his face. I don't.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm just being Maybe I'm just being mean. I
Speaker 1: don't mean to sound like a dick. But I don't
Speaker 1: think he actually shows expression on his face ever, so
Speaker 1: I don't know, but sure to some people he looked defeated.
Speaker 1: I suppose the meeting location was a low key, family
Speaker 1: style area of the CCP leader's compound in Beijing that
Speaker 1: had never before hosted a state visit, stripped of all
Speaker 1: the pomp and circumstance that used to accompany every G gathering.
Speaker 1: The entire entourage was a mere handful. None of G's
Speaker 1: translators or senior aides were present. I find that to
Speaker 1: be highly unlikely. How is there a conversation between the
Speaker 1: leader of Belarus and the leader of China without a translator?
Speaker 1: But all right, unless maybe maybe Lukashenko had his own translator.
Speaker 1: Maybe that was what's being implied here, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Compare that to the state visits recently hosted by other
Speaker 1: CCP leaders, large extravagant affairs in prestigious CCP conference halls,
Speaker 1: And following his recent call with President Trump, Chinese state media,
Speaker 1: including State TV, referred to G without any formal title
Speaker 1: at all. This has never happened before. They usually call
Speaker 1: him by all of his monikers because he is the
Speaker 1: you know, the the ambassador to everything, the president of
Speaker 1: everything that you know, not of the world, but of
Speaker 1: every single group and association and whatever conference committee whatever.
Speaker 1: He is always the head of this committee, the head
Speaker 1: of this conference ahead of this. For them to just
Speaker 1: refer to him without any of his proper titles, that
Speaker 1: actually has never happened before in China. That's kind of crazy.
Speaker 1: While this was later partially corrected, it is an inconceivable,
Speaker 1: is it. I'm sorry, it is inconceivable that such a
Speaker 1: glaring oversight was an accident. Recently, professors at some of
Speaker 1: China's most prestigious universities have published articles directly criticizing G,
Speaker 1: which was unthinkable previously. That's another thing. Anybody that's been
Speaker 1: critical of G has ended up in jail or their
Speaker 1: family in some way, not to the level of Kim Jong.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying they get forced into twenty years of
Speaker 1: hard labor for using their voice. But also, China is
Speaker 1: not a free speech country, nor have they pretty much
Speaker 1: ever been in the last century and a half. Arguably,
Speaker 1: so that's pretty crazy that these professors are getting away
Speaker 1: with being critical of him. That's unprecedented. These are just
Speaker 1: a few of men unusual signs from Beijing that signal
Speaker 1: major changes in the CCP power structure. Although not yet certain,
Speaker 1: it appears that Jiang Wuxia again probably mispronouncing that Yuxia
Speaker 1: Wuxia whatever, and CCP elders have chosen Wang Yong from
Speaker 1: ding Zia xiapin Japing, Yeah, lifted out of obscurity and
Speaker 1: who served as a successful technocrat until his force retirement
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty three, to be the next CCP chairman. Again,
Speaker 1: very highly speculative at this point. I don't I don't
Speaker 1: necessarily believe that she is going to be stepping down
Speaker 1: in August. It's possible. There's always a greater than zero
Speaker 1: percent chance of a leader stepping down early from a term,
Speaker 1: especially if it's his third five year term consecutively and
Speaker 1: all these things. I don't know, but if that was
Speaker 1: to happen, it would also make sense that they would
Speaker 1: have a person slated to take the role next. He
Speaker 1: is known as a he's all spoken reformer who supports
Speaker 1: more free market policies, more decentralized decision making, and a
Speaker 1: much less confrontational foreign policy. So he sounds like a
Speaker 1: better pick as far as the Americans are concerned. Tony
Speaker 1: I saw you with your hand raised way in on
Speaker 1: this one.
Speaker 8: Brother, Yeah, I wanted to say.
Speaker 9: Dun Chowphing was the leader of China from nineteen seventy
Speaker 9: eight to about nineteen ninety one. He presided over major
Speaker 9: moves toward a more capitalist economy, but they would never
Speaker 9: say that out loud. And he was also head of
Speaker 9: the Central Military Commission while the Tianeman Square uprising happened,
Speaker 9: which is odd because he was definitely more pro Western
Speaker 9: and less Communists than the rest of the Chinese leadership
Speaker 9: and he almost got killed early on for it. And
Speaker 9: so his protege is again named Yang Yang. I had
Speaker 9: never heard of that guy, but he must be kind
Speaker 9: of old if he can trace his roots back to
Speaker 9: the the eighties probably, And the other guy you were
Speaker 9: trying to pronounce, his name is pronounced Jiang Yoshiah.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm glad you're here for that, dude, because these
Speaker 1: words I speak American.
Speaker 8: Dude.
Speaker 9: That's wild to the way they chose to romanize Chinese.
Speaker 9: Has been a few ways, and they all suck. But
Speaker 9: I'm pretty familiar with the one called Pinion, and.
Speaker 8: It's it makes sense.
Speaker 9: You just got to remember the Q is a cha
Speaker 9: and the X is a sha, and then there's like
Speaker 9: five or ten other kind of very irregular rules that
Speaker 9: don't make sense to us. But Chinese is limited in
Speaker 9: it sound, and it's kind of stuffed our alphabet into
Speaker 9: their language, and you do get used to it if
Speaker 9: you see it enough.
Speaker 1: The X makes a shah or a shu.
Speaker 8: Shit, it's a soft sha sound, so they use the
Speaker 8: sh for the hard sha sound, and they use the
Speaker 8: X for the soft shu sound. The hard sh comes before.
Speaker 9: The the vowels A E, I, O, you, and it'll
Speaker 9: make it before an eye. It sounds like shit, But
Speaker 9: if it's an X, it's a soft and it sounds
Speaker 9: like she.
Speaker 1: So wait a minute, I thought, gie Zaping, I thought
Speaker 1: we were doing like a soft g almost when saying
Speaker 1: that name. It's she.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's something like she or C something between those
Speaker 9: two consonants. Yeah, it's a soft sh sound, so it's
Speaker 9: like she or c, either one of those. And when
Speaker 9: it's before you, the X makes the show sound, but
Speaker 9: the U is an u sound, so you'll see x
Speaker 9: u or x u e and that's pronounced shoe or shue,
Speaker 9: and our language just doesn't really make those sounds. But
Speaker 9: there's dozen they stuffed our alphabet into their language. And
Speaker 9: I could educate you on all these rules some other
Speaker 9: time if you want.
Speaker 1: I would probably appreciate that, brother, but I also probably
Speaker 1: will forget it as soon as the lesson ends. That
Speaker 1: is crazy. This whole time, I've heard so many people
Speaker 1: call him Gi Zaping, not she shiping.
Speaker 8: That's great, Yeah, it's she Jean ping. So another thing
Speaker 8: is people say jen ping. No, it's not jen ping.
Speaker 9: It's like gene like the genes that you'd wear, and
Speaker 9: ping it's not like ping pong, or it's it's like
Speaker 9: peeing in the toilet or some ping.
Speaker 1: My god, Yeah, that language does not convert to the
Speaker 1: English alphabet. That's no way, no way, absolutely not. Moving
Speaker 1: on into the article here, to paraphrase Churchill, China is
Speaker 1: a riddle wrapped in an enigma surrounded by a mystery.
Speaker 1: Look that literally, from what we just talked about, that
Speaker 1: completely makes sense. Just the language itself is an enigma
Speaker 1: wrapped in a riddle surrounded by a mystery. Let alone,
Speaker 1: they're governmental status, but all right, moving on, so no
Speaker 1: one can know anything about with absolute certainty. But given
Speaker 1: the disastrous results of She's one man rule his ouster
Speaker 1: would be no surprise. With over five excuse me, with
Speaker 1: over fifty trillion dollars in total debt, national, local and
Speaker 1: private sector debt is larger than the combined economies of
Speaker 1: the US and the EU. Wow well over fifty million
Speaker 1: unused and mostly unusable apartments due to government policy failures,
Speaker 1: enough for all of Germany wealthy Chinese immigration in en mass,
Speaker 1: with their assets in an unemployment rate in depression territory.
Speaker 1: Very true, it is not surprising that local riots, factory arsons,
Speaker 1: and anti government protests have flared all over China. All right,
Speaker 1: so earlier this year there were reports, actually for the
Speaker 1: past few years, ever since COVID, there were reports of
Speaker 1: riots and protests just starting up all over China. And
Speaker 1: there were those that were saying that this couldn't be
Speaker 1: true because the people in China love al Panda bear himself, right,
Speaker 1: they would never ride against them and these things. Well,
Speaker 1: when you read that the numbers are in fact what
Speaker 1: they are, it would make sense that the Chinese people
Speaker 1: would be pretty pissed about it, especially if this guy
Speaker 1: has made himself the one man ruler over everything, so
Speaker 1: to speak. He has surrounded himself with a cult of
Speaker 1: personality of yes men that pretty much tell him that
Speaker 1: every idea he's ever had is brilliant, and over the
Speaker 1: years he has not. He's not he's not now up
Speaker 1: to snow what he once was. Let's just be real here, Okay.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's age. I'm not saying that he's
Speaker 1: been in power for too long and it has gone
Speaker 1: to his head. Maybe it's a mixture of both. Maybe
Speaker 1: there's a whole extra thing that we're not talking about here.
Speaker 1: But fifty trillion dollars in total debt is pretty crazy.
Speaker 1: Five or sorry, fifty million unused apartments and they're unusable.
Speaker 1: And that I've read that report from so many sources,
Speaker 1: and that the crisis there, the unemployment rate, all of
Speaker 1: these things. It's it's not good. It's not good at all. Anyway,
Speaker 1: CCP elders understand that China needs a new, pragmatic leader
Speaker 1: to have any chance of escaping the disaster now unfolding.
Speaker 1: Such a change will have huge positive implications for the
Speaker 1: US and our democratic allies if handled correctly, very very big.
Speaker 1: If on that, if it's handled correctly, I should say
Speaker 1: Trump can win this Cold war with China without firing
Speaker 1: a shot. Well, that's typically how Cold War happens. But
Speaker 1: all right, but Russia, North Korea and Iran could be
Speaker 1: devastated by this momentous change. In fact, Iran's rapid defeat
Speaker 1: by Israel and the US has underscored the weakness of
Speaker 1: Xi's foreign policy. One CCP elder recently lamented China's complete
Speaker 1: isolation on the world stage under sheet except for a
Speaker 1: handful of countries that are good for nothing. Vladimir Putin,
Speaker 1: take note, you lost Siria last year, you are on
Speaker 1: the brink of losing Iran, and you may soon lose China.
Speaker 1: Excellent news for all democracies, and especially for Israel, America
Speaker 1: and the brave people of Ukraine. Well, so this article
Speaker 1: is clearly biased, right, and I get that, But that
Speaker 1: doesn't denote some of the numbers that were thrown out here,
Speaker 1: or the fact that China is kind of going downhill overall.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the future holds for Jijiping. I
Speaker 1: will say that, yes, if he was to be removed
Speaker 1: for a more deal making person, a more agreeable person
Speaker 1: to take over the CCP, I feel like that would
Speaker 1: only go better with the entire world now there's another
Speaker 1: article from World Politics Reviews, when crisis hits China keeps
Speaker 1: leaving its partners high and dry. Now I felt like
Speaker 1: this would be pretty interesting as it was talking about
Speaker 1: when Iran was hit with the US and the Israeli
Speaker 1: joint airstrikes, China, one of Iran's really close allies, did nothing.
Speaker 1: They said some things, some words were exchanged, but that
Speaker 1: was also happened by most of the bricks nations that
Speaker 1: met at the summit. They all, if you look at
Speaker 1: individual reports, every one of them were not too pleased
Speaker 1: with what happened with Iran. Did nothing happen as a
Speaker 1: result of it. These are words, These are just words.
Speaker 1: Let's read the article here. Iran has been one of
Speaker 1: the most vocal countries in opposing US hegemony and welcoming
Speaker 1: the rise of China. It is usually lumped together as
Speaker 1: an authoritarian axis along with China, Russia, and North Korea. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: when Iran was overwhelmed by the combined airpower of Israel
Speaker 1: in the United States in mid June, Beijing not only
Speaker 1: remained quiet, but even signaled its disapproval of Tehran's threats
Speaker 1: to block the Straight of Horror moves to maritime traffic.
Speaker 1: Now that makes sense to me. For a business standpoint,
Speaker 1: the straight of Horror moves is one of the biggest
Speaker 1: corridors of trade on Earth. Of course, if Iran talking
Speaker 1: about blocking it, China would be pissed. China only survives
Speaker 1: because of international trade. But let's move on. Though the
Speaker 1: israel I Ran conflict ended without further escalation, it underscored
Speaker 1: the fact that the narratives declaring the rise of a
Speaker 1: new Chinese led global order in Beijing's willingness to replace
Speaker 1: the US as a global hegemon are for now wildly premature.
Speaker 1: This makes me happy. Those narratives have gathered steams since
Speaker 1: the US President returned to the White House, seemingly intent
Speaker 1: on upending the last remnants of the liberal international order.
Speaker 1: But they are more a projection of Cold War era
Speaker 1: pragdem's paradigms excuse me onto today's world, than a reflection
Speaker 1: of what China has in mind. During the Cold War,
Speaker 1: the US and Soviet Union competed for global primacy by
Speaker 1: coordinating a network of allies backing them and even taking
Speaker 1: part in a costly military interventions to sustain their their
Speaker 1: spheres of influence. Name any war from the sixties and seventies,
Speaker 1: even the fifties, we could talk about Korea two. It
Speaker 1: was all part of that, right, that was all Cold
Speaker 1: War things. China has a different approach, acting not as
Speaker 1: a protector of its partner states but as an enabler
Speaker 1: of their options. China has contributed to the rise of
Speaker 1: a multipolar globalization by providing economic and technological alternatives that
Speaker 1: reduce Western leverage. Its strength relies more on the long
Speaker 1: term impacts of these shifts in global power it has
Speaker 1: helped catalyze, rather than on Beijing's ability to willing ability
Speaker 1: or willingness to take immediate action to assist partners or
Speaker 1: exercise leadership on the global geopolitical stage. This approach allows
Speaker 1: Beijing to contribute to and benefit from those shifts without
Speaker 1: bearing the full cost of providing alternative leadership. Nevertheless, China's
Speaker 1: strategy has run up against important limits with what friendly
Speaker 1: governments desperately need is not long term investments, but help
Speaker 1: from a protector capable of guaranteeing their immediate security. Recent
Speaker 1: events in the Middle East illustrate both the advantages and
Speaker 1: limits of China's enabler strategy. The fact that Beijing is
Speaker 1: a major purchaser of Middle Eastern oil, has led many
Speaker 1: analysis to mistakenly assume that China has the same geopolitical
Speaker 1: leverage as countries that can project military strength in the region,
Speaker 1: like the US and to a lesser degree, Russia. But
Speaker 1: that's not the case. Over the past fifteen years, in Syria,
Speaker 1: for example, China backed the government of former dictator Bashar
Speaker 1: al Assad through the United Nations Security Council VETOS and
Speaker 1: limited economic engagements, while aligning rhetorically with Russia and Iran
Speaker 1: in support of Damascus. In return, Syria supported China's position
Speaker 1: in international forums. But China's economic investments in Syria, including
Speaker 1: participation in reconstruction projects and energy sector developments, proved irrelevant
Speaker 1: when it came to the Asad Reshim's survival, which I
Speaker 1: mean that makes sense when Aasava was on his way out,
Speaker 1: China was an entering the conversation as far as helping
Speaker 1: him stay in power, not at all. They were just
Speaker 1: there for the energy. They're there for the business side
Speaker 1: of it. They're not there to project military force. In
Speaker 1: December twenty twenty four, when large sections of Syria's armed
Speaker 1: forces began to desert him, Beijing offered a sod rhetorical support,
Speaker 1: leading some observers to erroneously believe China was willing to
Speaker 1: step up its role in the conflict. However, China offered
Speaker 1: no practical assistance to prevent Alsad's ouster just days later.
Speaker 1: By March twenty twenty five, Beijing had already moved on
Speaker 1: and was trying to normalize relations with the new Syrian government.
Speaker 1: China's perceived in action in moments of crisis does have
Speaker 1: an impact on its international image, and its non interventionalist
Speaker 1: approach carries costs and limitations as well. That contrast with
Speaker 1: Russia's costly intervention in Syria from twenty fifteen onward, which
Speaker 1: ultimately also failed to save As'ad. And for the record, yeah,
Speaker 1: Russia has a vested interest in Syria maintaining some sort
Speaker 1: of a normalcy. Their largest air and naval stations to
Speaker 1: the entirety of the Mediterranean Sea are located in Syria.
Speaker 1: Of course, Russia's gonna step into, at least, if nothing else,
Speaker 1: protect the far western and coastal areas of Syria. That's
Speaker 1: more than China can say. But it's not like they
Speaker 1: were trying to offer military aid to keep a soden power.
Speaker 1: They at least offered some quote unquote peacekeeping operations in
Speaker 1: the area, but it wasn't even Russian forces at that point,
Speaker 1: it was more Wagner. But anyway, to a certain extent,
Speaker 1: this is the model of Russia and China's geopolitical cooperation
Speaker 1: with Moscow providing the military muscle that Beijing lacks, while
Speaker 1: Buringjing brings the cash. However, when Russia became entangled in
Speaker 1: a war in Ukraine, China did not even consider stepping
Speaker 1: up its role in Syria, which would have been a
Speaker 1: clear sign of Beijing adopting a new global profile. And
Speaker 1: I agree with that. If China wanted to make it
Speaker 1: known on the world stage that they are trying to
Speaker 1: take over as the new superpower in some way, shape
Speaker 1: or form, or at least enter the conversation as being
Speaker 1: the global superpower, Syria would have been a great time
Speaker 1: to step into that conversation. So would it have been
Speaker 1: with the India and Pakistan conversation. There's many examples where
Speaker 1: they could have and some would argue should have stepped
Speaker 1: up in a military way. They have no interest in it.
Speaker 1: They simply don't Chinese military. I know a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Their biggest asset is their numbers, but that's also been
Speaker 1: China's biggest asset as far as everything is concerned, and
Speaker 1: that's also becoming their biggest deterrent at this moment too.
Speaker 1: But let's continue. Like Moscow, Beijing might simply have thought
Speaker 1: that Asad was beyond saving. But Asad's downfall raises particular
Speaker 1: concerns for China, as it can be traced back to
Speaker 1: the so called Arab spring and the wave of regime
Speaker 1: changes those upright unleashed throughout the Arab world. Beijing has
Speaker 1: always seen those revolts as color and color revolutions in general,
Speaker 1: as driven by foreign forces, namely the US, purportedly operating
Speaker 1: through a global network of media and NGOs. That's not inaccurate. Look,
Speaker 1: if we're gonna keep it one hundred, let's go ahead
Speaker 1: and keep it one thou well here, that's not inaccurate.
Speaker 1: But it's not like US is the only actor on that.
Speaker 1: I would say that we are probably the biggest actor
Speaker 1: on that. But okay. China considers any success for these
Speaker 1: popular uprisings as dangerous, a dangerous precedent, and a threat
Speaker 1: to its own political stability, as demonstrated by the links
Speaker 1: to which it goes to portray the Hong Kong pro
Speaker 1: democracy movement as the product of hostile foreign forces. That's
Speaker 1: that's actually inaccurate. Hong Kong was owned by Europe or
Speaker 1: by England, I should say, for a very long time.
Speaker 1: When it came time for it to be returned back
Speaker 1: to China, the people of Hong Kong that operated in
Speaker 1: a democratic way didn't want to go to a CCP
Speaker 1: way that wasn't hostile foreign forces. That was a culture
Speaker 1: that had been endemic to what we might affectionately call
Speaker 1: a modern city state. That was obviously that was going
Speaker 1: to be a tumultuous transition, but neither here nor there.
Speaker 1: For these reasons, Beijing has had reasons to prefer that
Speaker 1: a SOD remained in power, but China lacked both the
Speaker 1: will and the tools to help him. That underscores the
Speaker 1: fact that while China's influence is important to normal times
Speaker 1: and it lacks the coercive capacity to bail out an
Speaker 1: ally during moments of political and security crisis, China's involvement
Speaker 1: in Iran has been much greater compared to Syria. China
Speaker 1: is Iran's top oil buyer. Despite Western sanctions, Beijing has
Speaker 1: provided Tehran with an economic lifeline against Western pressure, including
Speaker 1: access to alternative markets and financial mechanisms. In addition, China
Speaker 1: has supplied Iran with dual use technology that enabled Tehran
Speaker 1: and its proxies like the Huthis to develop highly capable
Speaker 1: military drones. More importantly, China has shepherded Iran into two
Speaker 1: multilateral groupings as full members, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Regional
Speaker 1: Security Block and the Bricks. Now, I did want to
Speaker 1: make a mention of that one. China has supplied Ran
Speaker 1: with dual use technology that has enabled them and entire
Speaker 1: Tehran and its proxies like the hoo Theis, to develop
Speaker 1: highly capable military drones. I am personally of the belief
Speaker 1: that thewish dot com slash TMU drones that China has
Speaker 1: been peddling out to these people is not what we
Speaker 1: would call highly capable quote unquote that's just my two cents.
Speaker 1: But anyway, but for that support if Iran if Iran's
Speaker 1: greatest security crisis since it's war with Iraq in the
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties. China responded by following its habitual playbook diplomatic
Speaker 1: statements condemning Israeli actions. Okay, got you, affirming affirmations of
Speaker 1: Iran's sovereignty no doubt, and vague calls for peaceful resolution
Speaker 1: of the conflict one hundred percent. That seems to be
Speaker 1: very much China's playbook. Only after the ceasefire was reached
Speaker 1: between Israel and Iran did China reportedly provided Iran with
Speaker 1: surface to air missile batteries in exchange for oil. You
Speaker 1: would think that that'd be something they would want prior
Speaker 1: to But okay again, Although that may help Iran in
Speaker 1: the event of a return of hostilities with Israel, it
Speaker 1: is a far cry from the kind of military aid
Speaker 1: the US has provided to Ukraine, for example, in its
Speaker 1: war with Russia. China's behavior in the Middle East fits
Speaker 1: into a broader pattern around the world. For years, China
Speaker 1: has been one of the key enablers of the Cuban government,
Speaker 1: for instance, providing the country with technology like its internet infrastructure.
Speaker 1: That would explain why Cuba is still not doing too
Speaker 1: hot if China was the one that was running the
Speaker 1: Ethernet but all right, as well as limited loans and investment. However,
Speaker 1: when Cuba faced protests at the end of the pandemic
Speaker 1: due to shortages of food and medicine, threatening the communist
Speaker 1: regime survival. Beijing denounced the US blockade, but showed no
Speaker 1: willingness to offer the kinds of aid that would relieve
Speaker 1: the pressures of Havana. According to illustrative example in Pakistan,
Speaker 1: which could be the country's most clearly under China's protective umbrella,
Speaker 1: and that's because of their Belton Road initiative. Just so
Speaker 1: everybody's clear here, why would Pakistan China be connected Because
Speaker 1: they're trying to make their way through Pakistan. For a
Speaker 1: they're trying to go to the southern portion of Pakistan
Speaker 1: to have another port. But then they're also trying to
Speaker 1: drive a road through or a railway through Pakistan to
Speaker 1: get to the mineral minds in Afghanistan that the Chinese
Speaker 1: mining companies have claimed for themselves. But yeah, Pakistan's pretty
Speaker 1: critical to the Belton Road initiative. Therefore is very critical
Speaker 1: to China anyway. Win the situation with India and Pakistan
Speaker 1: popped off, where was China, Let's continue It says it
Speaker 1: played a key role in Beijing's Belton Road initiative and
Speaker 1: is a major purchaser of big ticket Chinese arms platforms. However,
Speaker 1: in Pakistan's recent exchange of fire with India, China took
Speaker 1: a relatively hands off position. Beijing did not express support
Speaker 1: for Islamabad and shared vital intelligence with its Pakistani counterparts,
Speaker 1: and while it remained unclear how reliable the after action
Speaker 1: reports were, Pakistan reportedly downed a number of Indian Air
Speaker 1: Force jets using Chinese made Shangdu j ten Ci fighters
Speaker 1: again because they're Tamu, because their wish dot com. China's
Speaker 1: tech is not anywhere in the conversation of being good tech,
Speaker 1: but they keep buying it because of Chinese and his
Speaker 1: cheap and I get that. But yeah, Pakistan was able
Speaker 1: to down a number of these Chinese jets, which is
Speaker 1: allegedly one of their fifth gen fire which is it's
Speaker 1: not it's really not anyway.
Speaker 9: But basically sixteen's were they not? Were the Indian ones
Speaker 9: also Chinese?
Speaker 1: The Indian ones that they were flying that Pakistan shot
Speaker 1: down were Chinese.
Speaker 9: Oh I thought the Pakistani ones were Chinese. Never mind Pakistan.
Speaker 1: If I'm not mistaken, they were flying French made planes.
Speaker 8: Oh yeah, the Salt I forgot about that. Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 1: And I don't know how many of them were down.
Speaker 1: I think that India got a couple of them down
Speaker 1: as well. And I'm not even saying, well, you know,
Speaker 1: the French, their their tech is adequate. It's not cutting edge,
Speaker 1: and it's also not dog shit either. It's somewhere in
Speaker 1: the middle. But yeah, the Chinese planes absolutely ate dirt.
Speaker 1: And a couple of the.
Speaker 9: Other thing here was that the air to air missiles
Speaker 9: have an enormous range, like two hundred or three hundred miles. Yeah,
Speaker 9: so it's not like close range dog fight like in
Speaker 9: a video game.
Speaker 8: Yeah, World War Two, it's a very long range.
Speaker 1: Yeah, way, go for it, go for it. But you're
Speaker 1: right the dogfight conversation as far as what we might watch,
Speaker 1: like you know the movie Iron Eagle from the eighties,
Speaker 1: right that there was still that last little remnant of
Speaker 1: like a traditional dogfight air to air combat like it's
Speaker 1: it's it is not the same as it once was
Speaker 1: and arguably never will be again. But yeah, it's it's
Speaker 1: usually the surface to air missiles that do most of
Speaker 1: the heavy lifting as far as downing craft goes. There
Speaker 1: are air to air missiles, like you're saying, but yeah,
Speaker 1: the range on them is ridiculous, Like, well before there
Speaker 1: even within eyesight of you, you're able to see them
Speaker 1: blip up on your radar and just lock on and
Speaker 1: send it. Whether you can see them with your eyes
Speaker 1: or not, it's it's next level anyway. But Beijing never
Speaker 1: signaled any willingness to become directly involved in the conflict
Speaker 1: in order to deter Indian escalation, nor did it play
Speaker 1: any role in the truce negotiations between the two sides. Now,
Speaker 1: in fairness, China has never suggested it would intervene to
Speaker 1: protect its partners, let alone promise to do so. In
Speaker 1: all of these cases, the diplomatic and economic risks and
Speaker 1: costs of any intervention would have far outweighed any potential benefit.
Speaker 1: And I also understand that as far as the China
Speaker 1: playing a role in the India Pakistan conversation, you know,
Speaker 1: China and India, depending on the week, are either bitter
Speaker 1: rivals or thicker than thieves. It really depends on when
Speaker 1: we're talking about because on one hand, they're both bricks nations.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, there is still an open border
Speaker 1: dispute between the two, which at least once a year
Speaker 1: leads to fistfights. Somehow, it hasn't gone to using weapons
Speaker 1: except like sticks. But there is a disputed border region
Speaker 1: between India and China that these dudes just meet up
Speaker 1: and have a full on platoon versus platoon brawl over
Speaker 1: the land, which and I do believe the violence solves
Speaker 1: a lot of problems. I'm a proponent of this, but
Speaker 1: nothing ever gets resolved. It's more of them both flexing
Speaker 1: really hard and they going home over it and then ah, yeah,
Speaker 1: well we'll see y'all next year. That's all it ever
Speaker 1: amounts to. So if China would have helped Pakistan in
Speaker 1: that conversation, would India have taken that as a third
Speaker 1: party offense against them the enemy of my or the
Speaker 1: friend of my enemy is my enemy, something along those lines.
Speaker 1: Would that have deteriorated bricks because again, it is such
Speaker 1: a new system, it is so fragile. One card being
Speaker 1: removed can topple everything. So did China step back from
Speaker 1: that whole conversation to try to maintain bricks hegemony or
Speaker 1: at least what they're trying to have as agemony, or
Speaker 1: was it more that they're all talking no bark or
Speaker 1: all bark no bite However, that phrase goes in your
Speaker 1: own head. That also makes sense to me. So the
Speaker 1: Pakistan India conversation, I understand why China wouldn't have weighed in,
Speaker 1: at least from a diplomatic stance. I get it. Why
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have helped Syria, that's crazy to me. Why
Speaker 1: they wouldn't help South Africa and some of the issues
Speaker 1: they've been having. It's pretty crazy. Why they wouldn't have
Speaker 1: helped Cuba. That's really wild to me. But anyway, China's
Speaker 1: perceived in action in moments of crisis does have an
Speaker 1: impact on its international image, and its non interventionalist approach
Speaker 1: carries costs and limitations as well. Friendlier governments that fall
Speaker 1: may be replaced by less friendly ones, and with countries
Speaker 1: increasingly forced to choose between close economic relations with the
Speaker 1: US or China, or else weighing their options for partnerships
Speaker 1: in key sectors like next generation tech, some may consider
Speaker 1: Washington to be a better option due to its benefits
Speaker 1: it offers with regard to regime survival. Yeah, historically speaking, America,
Speaker 1: we be doing war. That's one of the only things
Speaker 1: we're really good at. So if you're gonna hit your
Speaker 1: horse to a certain wagon. It would make more sense
Speaker 1: to me out loud that you would hitch your horse
Speaker 1: to the Washington conversation more than the Beijing conversation. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't know that country. Yeah, the help economically, even
Speaker 1: though they are fifty trillion in dead that's insane. But
Speaker 1: moving on, the Gulf States are a prominent example, despite
Speaker 1: China now being their principal oil buyer. China's approach also
Speaker 1: limits the degree to which it can take advantage of
Speaker 1: short term changes in diplomatic landscapes. For example, in theory,
Speaker 1: Trump's trade policies since returning to the office should have
Speaker 1: created opportunities for China to expand its influence very much so.
Speaker 1: As much as Trump has been throwing tariffs left, right
Speaker 1: and center, he's been handing them out like candy. He's
Speaker 1: been throwing tariffs on countries like it's going out of style.
Speaker 1: You would think, especially China being the business hub that
Speaker 1: it is, they're all about the money. You would think
Speaker 1: that China would take that opportunity to strengthen trade deals
Speaker 1: with all these countries to where they may not want
Speaker 1: to go to America to sell their goods. Why don't
Speaker 1: you sell it in China. We have a big population,
Speaker 1: we have all these things going on. Whatever. Yet Beijing's
Speaker 1: response has been sluggish and even aloof it has offered
Speaker 1: some cosmetic measures, such as eliminating tariffs on African imports,
Speaker 1: but that mostly applies to commodities that China needs, while
Speaker 1: failing to offer more meaningful benefits, whether to developing economies
Speaker 1: or the European Union. Yeah, most of that was minerals.
Speaker 1: Most of that was the cobalt and the lithium and
Speaker 1: things like that that are being mine through slave labor
Speaker 1: in Africa right now. That was they're eliminating the tariffs
Speaker 1: on African imports. If you look deeper into that, it's mostly,
Speaker 1: like you said, things that China needs, like the precious minerals.
Speaker 1: That was it. That was their response. But anyway, China's
Speaker 1: priority remains protecting its own economic interests and avoiding entanglements
Speaker 1: that could jeopardize its long term strategic objectives. I completely
Speaker 1: understand that, including maintaining access to global markets and technology,
Speaker 1: but even the most carefully crafted long term planning means
Speaker 1: little if a country is incapable of seizing unexpected opportunities
Speaker 1: that present themselves along the way at times of crisis.
Speaker 1: Beijing's reluctance to take on diplomatic obligations, engage in military interventions,
Speaker 1: or make economic sacrifices to secure its partner's interests highlights
Speaker 1: the limits of translating economic influence into geopolitical power. At
Speaker 1: any other moment, this would offer a clear advantage to
Speaker 1: the US, whose willingness to support allies with military action
Speaker 1: is an important complement to economic statecraft in its efforts
Speaker 1: to counter China. But given Trump's hostility to alliances and
Speaker 1: a US public keen on avoiding excessive military engagements, China's
Speaker 1: preference for economic traction over political action suggests that the
Speaker 1: world may be entering a period in which no single
Speaker 1: power is willing to bear the full cost of global leadership.
Speaker 1: Now couple that with the article that we just read
Speaker 1: about possibly being on his way out. I gotta tell
Speaker 1: you now, more than ever, I feel like we need
Speaker 1: to hear from our random Malaysian man correspondent in the streets,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Don't trust China. China is ass ho. Thank you,
Speaker 1: random Taiwanese guy. I love you to death. Stay homeie, stay.
Speaker 1: Speaking of with things that are going on in the
Speaker 1: South East Asian area. If anybody hasn't heard, Cambodia and
Speaker 1: Thailand are popping off. They have a full on war
Speaker 1: going on, and it seemed like it was gonna be
Speaker 1: something small, right, There was a land mine that went
Speaker 1: off in Cambodia, and to be completely honest, that was
Speaker 1: probably a landmine that we put there. If you look
Speaker 1: into Operation Barrel Roll, we were trying to disrupt any
Speaker 1: kind of movement in the Ho Chi Minh Trail. We
Speaker 1: dropped tons of land mines and explosives. Actually, if we're
Speaker 1: gonna be honest, we dropped two hundred and sixty two
Speaker 1: million pounds of ordinance into these areas during the Vietnam
Speaker 1: War during Operation Barrel Roll. Look it up and there's
Speaker 1: a lot of unexploded ordinance in and around Lous and Cambodia.
Speaker 1: A landmine went off, Thailand is blaming Cambodia. Cambodia is
Speaker 1: blaming Thailand. There's a whole thing of who done it
Speaker 1: on this. This has spawned and spurned and spun off
Speaker 1: into a whole conflict. This video that I'm about to
Speaker 1: show y'all again, for anybody listening to this, you're gonna
Speaker 1: want to see this Come to the Cajun Night on Patreon.
Speaker 1: Link is in the description below. This dude is a
Speaker 1: whole vibe. I don't this is a Cambodian soldier. He's fighting,
Speaker 1: firing towards a tie position with a RpK and a RPG.
Speaker 1: I will say this with the RPG or excuse me,
Speaker 1: the RpK. Typically that's a belt fed machine gun. He's
Speaker 1: got the mag fed style of it. Those metal drum
Speaker 1: bags are sick if you're using it for an AK
Speaker 1: or a single f action for full auto. Those metal
Speaker 1: canister mags are absolute dog shit. You're gonna watch him
Speaker 1: do remedial action on this RpK like every shot, if
Speaker 1: not every other shot. It's insane. But I just want
Speaker 1: to point out some things about this homeboy. He is
Speaker 1: a whole vibe of a war fighter. Check this out.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I should give a warning. There's gonna be
Speaker 1: gunfire and explosions in this. So if you're listening to
Speaker 1: this the following day in your car or something like that, relax,
Speaker 1: it's just it's just a video and plan. I'll turn
Speaker 1: down the volume a little bit more just so that
Speaker 1: I'll be courteous to all of our AirPod and speaker
Speaker 1: listeners here. But yo, check this dude out cigarette dangling
Speaker 1: from the mouth, backwards hat, no shirt, no shoes, no problem,
Speaker 1: just out there getting it in, just just having a ball,
Speaker 1: just dudes being bros. He fires a couple rounds with
Speaker 1: the RpK. Look, I'm still cigarette he's he's even his
Speaker 1: own cameraman. He has a whole one man unit over
Speaker 1: here firing the rp.
Speaker 9: BRO.
Speaker 1: I love this guy, and I'm not even supporting Cambodia
Speaker 1: in this conflict, but I like this homie. Homeboy is
Speaker 1: legitimately no shoes, no shirt, cigarette dangling, just out there
Speaker 1: getting it in. You know that? Just it Ah, that
Speaker 1: makes me happy. It makes me so happy. Anyway. All right,
Speaker 1: let's read a little bit into the conversation, because while
Speaker 1: the war kicked off, I don't want to call it
Speaker 1: a war. I don't know even know if it's classified
Speaker 1: as a war. Yet, Let's call it the conflict, right,
Speaker 1: the Cambodia Thailand conflict. There was a lot of finger pointing,
Speaker 1: There was a lot of names being called, There was
Speaker 1: a lot of blame that was trying to be assigned
Speaker 1: one way or another, And for a split second, there
Speaker 1: it sounded like they were about to have a ceasefire,
Speaker 1: and then Thailand accuses Cambodia of violating the fragile ceasefire
Speaker 1: for a second time. Cambodia has pre denied breaking the truce,
Speaker 1: which came into effect on Tuesday after five days of
Speaker 1: violent clashes. Thailand has accused Cambodia of a flagrant violation
Speaker 1: of a truce to end cross border fighting, claiming Cambodian
Speaker 1: troops launched an overnight attack on the frontier. The neighbors
Speaker 1: agreed to a ceasefire starting Tuesday after five days of
Speaker 1: clashes killed at least forty three people on both sides
Speaker 1: as a long standing dispute over contested border regions boiled
Speaker 1: over into open combat across the eight hundred kilometer frontier.
Speaker 1: Thailand's Foreign Ministry said its troops in Sisiket Province came
Speaker 1: under attack by small arms fire and grenade assaults launched
Speaker 1: by Cambodian forces and an offensive which continued until Wednesday morning.
Speaker 1: This represents a flagrant violation of the ceasefire agreement, set
Speaker 1: a Foreign Ministry statement. Thai government spokesperson g Rayu Huang
Speaker 1: sab Yeah also reported overnight clashes, but said in a
Speaker 1: statement the Thai side maintained control of the situation and
Speaker 1: general conditions along the border are reported to be normal
Speaker 1: from eight am Wednesday. Cambodia has previously denied breaking the
Speaker 1: truce designed to end fighting, which has seen the two
Speaker 1: countries evacuate a total of more than three hundred thousand
Speaker 1: people from the border region. The armisiss got off to
Speaker 1: a shaky start in the early hours of Tuesday, with
Speaker 1: Thailand accusing Cambodia of continuing attacks in a clear attempt
Speaker 1: to undermine mutual trust. Before calm generally prevailed. Meetings between
Speaker 1: rival commanders along the border, scheduled as part of the
Speaker 1: pact went ahead on Tuesday, with Thailand's armies saying de
Speaker 1: escalation steps were agreed, including a halt on troop reinforcements
Speaker 1: or movements that could lead to misunderstandings, but later in
Speaker 1: the day a foreign affair spokesperson for Bangkok's Border Crisis
Speaker 1: Center not going to try to pronounce that, warned in
Speaker 1: this moment in the early days of the ceasefire, the
Speaker 1: situation is still fragile. Jets, rockets and artillery have killed
Speaker 1: at least fifteen Thai troops and fifteen Thai civilians, while
Speaker 1: Cambodia has confirmed only eight civilians and five military debts.
Speaker 1: The peace pact was sealed in Malaysia after intervention from
Speaker 1: US President Trump, who both Thailand and Cambodia are counting
Speaker 1: for a trade deal to avert his threat of an
Speaker 1: eye watering tariff. Okay, So with all this being said,
Speaker 1: the Thailand Cambodia war conversation, that's gonna be a bit
Speaker 1: of a dog walking if it actually continues to escalate.
Speaker 1: Thailand has a military force of I wanna say, six
Speaker 1: hundred thousand, while Cambodia has a little under two hundred thousand. So,
Speaker 1: just going off of numbers alone, let's not even talk
Speaker 1: about tech. Let's not even talk about actual military prowess
Speaker 1: and capabilities here, just off of the numbers and the equipment,
Speaker 1: Thailand would absolutely decimate the Cambodian forces. Now, look at
Speaker 1: whenever you see videos of Thaie fighters, they're a proper military,
Speaker 1: they're a proper United Force. Then we see Cambodian fighters
Speaker 1: who are out there looking like beach bombs with military equipment,
Speaker 1: which I'm not mad at. I like that your boy
Speaker 1: is in a comfortable you know, he's comfortable while he's fighting.
Speaker 1: That makes my heart happy. But also, let's not negate
Speaker 1: the fact that that is the majority of Cambodian fighters,
Speaker 1: a lot of them are wearing whatever uniform pieces they
Speaker 1: could throw together. They're using outdated equipment at best. If
Speaker 1: this conversation goes further, if this conflict goes further, Thailand
Speaker 1: is gonna absolutely the disputed border region is not going
Speaker 1: to be very disputed for long. So all right, that
Speaker 1: was about all I have on my end. Let's get
Speaker 1: to the chat and see what everybody else has brought
Speaker 1: to the table. Raven Lee has pulled up a video
Speaker 1: of a picture. I'm sorry, uh oh, it's Ozzie. It's
Speaker 1: Sharon being sad that Ozzie's dead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Rip
Speaker 1: to Ozzy Osbourne, the true prince of darkness in my opinion.
Speaker 1: Let's see, there's another article here, Doug Warner. Another quake.
Speaker 1: Ooh okay, let's talk about this. A six point four
Speaker 1: quake just struck in the same region off the coast
Speaker 1: of Russia where the eight point eight earthquake registered. Talk
Speaker 1: about a swarm. Nearly all of these marks on the
Speaker 1: map are from the last couple of days alone. Wow,
Speaker 1: So that is a pretty substantial fault line, for lack
Speaker 1: of better words, or a spot where the plate's meet,
Speaker 1: that is experiencing a lot of quakes as of this moment. Now,
Speaker 1: I did see before we started shooting that Hawaii had
Speaker 1: a tsunami warning that they were, you know, starting to
Speaker 1: evacuate around the coast, and it has already been called
Speaker 1: off that. You know, it's a relatively good practice whenever
Speaker 1: you see an earthquake that could potentially send a tidal
Speaker 1: wave your way to get to higher ground. Apparently it
Speaker 1: didn't do anything, and they're not expecting that it's gonna
Speaker 1: do anything either. So I do find it interesting that
Speaker 1: Russia is having all of these quakes in that short
Speaker 1: amount of time. The symbolism, you know, I agree, Raven
Speaker 1: one hundred percent, sounds like somewhere is about to need
Speaker 1: some freedom and democracy. Yeah, Anthony, Yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 1: Let's see moving on here. I'm rooting for Candice, but
Speaker 1: there's always the chance that Brigitte's team proves that she
Speaker 1: is a woman somehow and that they have been hiding
Speaker 1: it specifically for the right moment. I can't wait to
Speaker 1: see you know Tim Dillon had a very hot take
Speaker 1: on this. All she has to do is show it,
Speaker 1: like not to the world. I'm not saying that Brigitte
Speaker 1: needs to make OnlyFans account or something like that, but
Speaker 1: you know, I'm just I'm throwing it out. Our first
Speaker 1: lady has a centerfold in Playboy that you could go find.
Speaker 1: Brigitte's got man hands and broad shoulders, and I'm just
Speaker 1: I'm throwing it out. I'm not saying that she should
Speaker 1: even do something like that. But if it goes to court,
Speaker 1: if the international suing that seems to possibly get ready
Speaker 1: to take place here, if that goes down, y'all understand
Speaker 1: that we're gonna have to get a real medical professional
Speaker 1: to examine Brigitte Macron's genitals to confirm that she has
Speaker 1: the parts that were born to her. I mean, yes,
Speaker 1: they could just do a blood test, right That would
Speaker 1: be one way, but that can also be altered with
Speaker 1: enough hormones. Look at all these quote unquote women that
Speaker 1: were competing in the Olympics that had dicks, but they're.
Speaker 8: Not the chromosomes. That's the thing. The chromosomes will show
Speaker 8: it right away.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's very true. It's very true. I hope that
Speaker 1: they do something like that, and it would just it
Speaker 1: would save everything. Literally if she was to submit that
Speaker 1: to a medical professional, that would end the conversation. But
Speaker 1: you know, here we are.
Speaker 9: Uh huh, Yeah, I'm figuring there's a chance she may
Speaker 9: do that, and maybe she really is a woman, but
Speaker 9: she's been trying to hide it, specifically to lead someone
Speaker 9: like Candace Owens on. And Candace Owens may even say
Speaker 9: that it's a victory for Candace that oh see, look
Speaker 9: I made her release that all this stuff she didn't
Speaker 9: want to release, and then but it'll it'll be a
Speaker 9: defeat for Candas if that happens.
Speaker 8: I'm still rooting for her to actually be right about the.
Speaker 9: Whole thing and Forgit to be a man, for her
Speaker 9: to be Jean Michelle troug No. Yeah, and you know,
Speaker 9: she refuses to produce any photos of herself from her
Speaker 9: youth or standing next to Jean Michelle troug No. I
Speaker 9: think Candace has had to concede that Jean Michele and Brigitte,
Speaker 9: at least at one point in the distant past world
Speaker 9: two different people. But she's claiming that maybe Brigitte died
Speaker 9: and that Jean Michel Trugnau assumed her identity. Now that's
Speaker 9: quite a climb down from the previous statement, and you know,
Speaker 9: maybe it'll turn out Canvas is wrong and that's not
Speaker 9: going to shatter my entire world, right, you know, I
Speaker 9: just can't wait to see what the real truth is.
Speaker 1: I would love to see the backpedal if Brigitte does
Speaker 1: submit the DNA evidence and all the things, and it
Speaker 1: is understood that is a very manly looking woman, but
Speaker 1: a woman nonetheless bro that I could see Candas trying
Speaker 1: to still claim it as a victory. Like you said,
Speaker 1: I could see her absolutely trying to do that, but
Speaker 1: also the amount of backpedaling and public apology that she
Speaker 1: would have to do would be unprecedented for her. So
Speaker 1: I don't know. Either way it goes. I'm still getting
Speaker 1: a laugh out of it. So I call it. Macrona
Speaker 1: announced France would recognize Palestine very recently too. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: that's a thing. But Cron's falling out of favor in France.
Speaker 1: From what I could tell, A lot of his people
Speaker 1: are not too happy with him, and they haven't been
Speaker 1: for a while, but now more than ever. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it's over the Palestine thing. There's multiple levels to that.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, to your point you're about to say, here,
Speaker 1: Europe has too many Muslims, and their leadership class may
Speaker 1: be facing a choice of whether to support Ukraine or Israel,
Speaker 1: and they are choosing Ukraine. Yo. That's another thing too,
Speaker 1: talking about too many, you know, and not just Muslims.
Speaker 1: We should give the distinction that these are refugees and
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants from Muslim countries. That yeah. But even that
Speaker 1: being said, dude, New York City is about to elect
Speaker 1: a socialist Muslim as their mayor. And the worst part
Speaker 1: is the Hasidic Jews of New York were the deciding
Speaker 1: vote to put him in office. That is mind blowing
Speaker 1: to me. But still nonetheless it's happening. Let's see, Prince
Speaker 1: Albert was not a Habsburg. He was the house of
Speaker 1: Saxe Kuberg. Oh yeah, yeah, which changed its name to
Speaker 1: Windsor in World War One to sound less German. That's right,
Speaker 1: that's right. I apologize. The Muslims are getting their round
Speaker 1: two for the Crusades, yo. Israel is looking like it
Speaker 1: wants round two for the two Crusades. They bombed the
Speaker 1: only Catholic church in Gaza that crusades were launched for
Speaker 1: much less in the Middle Ages. I'm just saying, but
Speaker 1: I hope that it doesn't escalate like that. I hope
Speaker 1: everybody just calms down and goes home and stops it.
Speaker 1: They're not gonna, I hope, but they're not gonna, you know.
Speaker 1: Tony went on to say, I think China's AI is
Speaker 1: at least as good as the US, may be better
Speaker 1: for generating video, Yeah, because they robbed it from US.
Speaker 1: Because the deep Seak conversation. Hell, there was about a
Speaker 1: month where if you went to deep seek and asked
Speaker 1: what are you, it answered chat GPT and there was
Speaker 1: that open file that they found in the Pentagon with
Speaker 1: a direct link to China. So, yes, to your point,
Speaker 1: China's AI is literally as good as the United States
Speaker 1: as AI. I one hundred percent agree with you on that.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 1: India is quite culturally dissimilar to the US and ways
Speaker 1: that are getting more noticeable. Very true. There is also
Speaker 1: a huge anti Indian far right movement on Twitter that
Speaker 1: largely started last Christmas over the H one B visas. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I noticed that too, the far right movement. It's it
Speaker 1: is very interesting that they are going after pretty much
Speaker 1: all H one B visas, but they were specifically targeting
Speaker 1: Indian H one B visas. I didn't I don't know
Speaker 1: where that particular spun from, but that seemed to be
Speaker 1: a flavor profile they were going for.
Speaker 9: Well, I've seen the charts showing that Indians in particular
Speaker 9: get like eighty percent of the H one B visas.
Speaker 9: It's an overwhelming majority. And they work with each other,
Speaker 9: their entire firms in India that are dedicated to getting
Speaker 9: people H one bvss that don't exist in other countries.
Speaker 9: And they've also got a reputation for being very nepotistic.
Speaker 9: So anyway, yeah, the far right definitely, there were a
Speaker 9: lot of very anti Indian memes made, mostly about a
Speaker 9: lot of them don't like toilets and you know, their
Speaker 9: accent and stuff like that, and I thought, wow, you know,
Speaker 9: I thought Indians were regarded as pretty conservative and well, anyway,
Speaker 9: the far right, like alt right people on Twitter, really
Speaker 9: seem to hate Indians almost that exception I know so
Speaker 9: much seeks, but especially Hindus, especially the polytheists.
Speaker 1: You know, yeah, Sikhs are by and large theists. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're monotheists for sure, but they are if we're going
Speaker 1: to talk about just typical political leanings, they are conservative,
Speaker 1: if not ultra conservative in a lot of cases. So
Speaker 1: it makes sense that the far right would not really
Speaker 1: have much beef with them. They do see to have
Speaker 1: a lot of beef with the Hindus as a religious
Speaker 1: and a cultural thing. But also I don't know many
Speaker 1: Sikhs that got an H one B to get here.
Speaker 1: Most of them just like properly into immigrate to the
Speaker 1: area and like set up shop. That seems to be
Speaker 1: another thing for them culturally is to like branch out,
Speaker 1: not for takeover principles, but more or less because the
Speaker 1: Sikhs have been well, I don't want to say discriminated against,
Speaker 1: but there are certain countries like Canada for instance, that
Speaker 1: is borderline persecuting the Sikh population there, and there's there's
Speaker 1: reasons they say that they were housing terrorist groups or
Speaker 1: leaders of terrorist groups and all these things. It's but yeah,
Speaker 1: the the far right, they I'm with you. I don't
Speaker 1: know why they have such a hatred towards the Indian
Speaker 1: population as of this moment. But all of the shit
Speaker 1: that's going on with Trump and Modi right now is
Speaker 1: not helping that cause whatsoever.
Speaker 9: Oh yeah, well, yeah, the Sikhs are a pretty small
Speaker 9: minority in India. There may be one or two percent
Speaker 9: of the population, but there are a disproportionately high percentage
Speaker 9: of the Indian immigrants to the US and Canada. I
Speaker 9: worked with a ton of Sikhs in one of my
Speaker 9: lab jobs, and I don't think they were h one b.
Speaker 9: They don't tend to be programmers as much, but they
Speaker 9: just do all kinds of other stuff like work in
Speaker 9: labs and work as truckers. Yeah, all over the country
Speaker 9: as truckers for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 9: And the Hindus for some reason, I guess they tend
Speaker 9: to be more like programmers and other stuff. But the
Speaker 9: reason the far right doesn't like them, there's several One
Speaker 9: reason is India's government and the Hindus tend to be
Speaker 9: very pro Israel for some reason, and the far right
Speaker 9: in this country is very anti Israel, especially on Twitter,
Speaker 9: and Indians are seen as very nepotistic but also like smelly.
Speaker 9: Oh gosh, we just don't like them basically, and especially
Speaker 9: vivek Wa'maswami, they don't like him. Vivic Arama Swami, head
Speaker 9: of tweeted about how oh Americans, the heritage Americans are
Speaker 9: just too lazy, and we immigrants work hard because we
Speaker 9: need to, because we're told we need to get ahead.
Speaker 9: We're not watching Saved by the Bell and the Simpsons
Speaker 9: like you people. And yeah that's WEE heard f be
Speaker 9: back a lot. But Okay, that's all I gotta say
Speaker 9: on that.
Speaker 1: That's not an untrue statement though. And it's not just Indians, right.
Speaker 1: You find any Southeast Asian immigrant to America, they blust
Speaker 1: their ass mostly because of the cultural things their parents. Like, Yo,
Speaker 1: if you're bringing home a minus like you are just worthless,
Speaker 1: it's got to be a plus's I remember I had
Speaker 1: a couple of Asian friends growing up. That was the thing.
Speaker 1: They didn't have a four oh GPA like, that was
Speaker 1: their ass when they got home, Like it was a
Speaker 1: real cultural thing to them. And you know, we could
Speaker 1: argue about the semantics as to why that is. Is
Speaker 1: it because they were second generation Americans. Their parents were
Speaker 1: directly off the boat, not physically, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: And so they wanted their child to do well in
Speaker 1: America with the opportunities they were presented because they knew
Speaker 1: what they came from. Okay, there's probably something to be
Speaker 1: said for that. But a lot of the H one
Speaker 1: B immigrants, there's a conversation to say that some of
Speaker 1: them stay in America and do great here. Others you're
Speaker 1: kind of part of the brain drain, if you will.
Speaker 1: And they take all the credentials that they get from
Speaker 1: American institutions, go home and they live like kings. Right.
Speaker 1: And to your point about how Indians kind of get
Speaker 1: more into the tech industry, there's even racism within India
Speaker 1: which goes back to their cast system. Don't get me wrong,
Speaker 1: but like North India is more of the tech people,
Speaker 1: like you're talking about, South India gets shit on by
Speaker 1: North India as the craftsmen for lack of better words. Ah,
Speaker 1: they use their feet when they make stuff. Oh, they're
Speaker 1: the worst. They're the ones with the slums. They're the
Speaker 1: ones that don't use toilets and this and this, and
Speaker 1: it's like, you know, I understand that India is the
Speaker 1: largest country on Earth and that there's tons of cultures
Speaker 1: within India. Hell, their money has ten different languages on it.
Speaker 1: That's how culturally diverse the subcontinent itself is. But it
Speaker 1: is really, uh, it's a thing like you said, from
Speaker 1: the far right conservatives. They do not like India. Some
Speaker 1: of that's for Israeli leanings. Some of that is just
Speaker 1: for their culture and heritage as a whole. It's it's
Speaker 1: pretty wild to see. Let's see you shared a picture
Speaker 1: thirteen years of jijaping. All right. So in twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: when Jijaping took office, the GDP of China was eight
Speaker 1: point five trillion, The GDP per capita was six thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: Inflation was at two point six percent, the gold reserves
Speaker 1: were at three point two trillion dollars, the debt was
Speaker 1: twenty four percent, the pension was four hundred yen per month,
Speaker 1: and the income was four thousand yen per month median
Speaker 1: household income. Of course, twenty twenty five, the GDP is
Speaker 1: forty one trillion, the GDP per capita is thirteen thousand,
Speaker 1: Inflation is down to two point one percent, the gold
Speaker 1: in the reserves up to four trillion. The national debt
Speaker 1: is up only one percent, from twenty four percent to
Speaker 1: twenty five percent. That's nice. The pension per month has
Speaker 1: increased to just over thirty three hundred yen per month,
Speaker 1: and the median income per month is forty two thousand
Speaker 1: yen per month as opposed to four thousand, So she
Speaker 1: has done very well for China with his tenure. I'll
Speaker 1: be very honest with you, but it seems as though
Speaker 1: in the last couple of years he has kind of
Speaker 1: been going a little off the rails, and I think
Speaker 1: his people are not too pleased with him. Although I
Speaker 1: will say people have a short memory. People forget what
Speaker 1: it was like before he took office as opposed to
Speaker 1: how they're living now. But even still, it's all one,
Speaker 1: oh shit, will ruin a thousand out of boys? Right,
Speaker 1: And I've said that a million times. You could build
Speaker 1: a thousand bridges, you know what I mean. But you
Speaker 1: do that one thing and that's all you are. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that's exactly what is happening with she as
Speaker 1: this moment. I don't I couldn't tell you, to be
Speaker 1: completely honest. Moving on here, let's see romanizing the j's noise.
Speaker 1: Yeah you said that.
Speaker 8: Yeah, we can just kip some of that stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I got you. Let's see Tony when you have
Speaker 1: time wikipedia on. Oh is that the thing for the
Speaker 1: pronunciation as well?
Speaker 8: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Got you. I'm gonna pull that up so I could
Speaker 1: review that later for sure, because that's gonna be a
Speaker 1: whole thing. China may be getting more ownership of the
Speaker 1: Panama Canal. Tell us a little bit about this, Tony.
Speaker 8: Oh yeah, I read an article about this, and it's
Speaker 8: a little too complicated even for me. But there's this
Speaker 8: Chinese or Hong Kong based shipping conglomerate called Hutchison that
Speaker 8: owns a lot of ports around the world, and black
Speaker 8: Rock from the US obviously has a stake in a
Speaker 8: lot of ports around the world. And there's a.
Speaker 9: Chinese Beijing owned company called Costco. It's like our Costco
Speaker 9: without the tea, and it also has a big steak
Speaker 9: in a lot of ports around the world. And apparently
Speaker 9: they're negotiating and doing some horse trading. And the short
Speaker 9: version of the story is that the Chinese government and
Speaker 9: Chinese owned Costco might be taking control of more ports
Speaker 9: in and around Panama and maybe a bigger steak in
Speaker 9: the Panama Canal. But the article I read didn't go
Speaker 9: into enough detail to really flesh it out, and I
Speaker 9: don't want to take too much time here, but yeah, China,
Speaker 9: they've had a big steak in the Panama Canal since
Speaker 9: Panama gave it to them in sometime after nineteen ninety nine.
Speaker 9: The US basically broke Panama off of Colombia in about
Speaker 9: nineteen oh three in order to make the Panama Canal
Speaker 9: happen so Colombia wouldn't own it. And then in nineteen
Speaker 9: seventy seven, the US agreed to give the Panama Canal
Speaker 9: back to Panama in nineteen ninety nine, twenty two years later,
Speaker 9: and then that happened, and then I think Panama sold
Speaker 9: a major stake of it to China.
Speaker 8: And here we are now.
Speaker 1: Fair enough. I remember whenever the big deal happened with
Speaker 1: that Trump in the big situation with the Panama Canal,
Speaker 1: Blackrock was making a big thing where they were buying
Speaker 1: like fifty four new ports. They already owned ports all
Speaker 1: over the world. They were moving in on like fifty
Speaker 1: four of them very strategically. Twenty. I know there was
Speaker 1: three that was like the crown jewels of the Panama Canal,
Speaker 1: but there was twenty of them in and around that
Speaker 1: area that it was a whole we did a whole
Speaker 1: cult to conspiracy episode as a matter of fact, on
Speaker 1: the fact that they were owning these strategic ports, Yes,
Speaker 1: for American interest, but Blackrock has a lot more than
Speaker 1: just American interests that they answer towards. So yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: very interesting. I haven't heard much about China buying more
Speaker 1: or building more ports around the area. But again, if
Speaker 1: China is trying to project more power, and they do
Speaker 1: so through economics, and I understand that, but man, they
Speaker 1: have not done anything to help their homies on a
Speaker 1: military standpoint, especially in lieu of all the tariff's conversation
Speaker 1: that's going on here now. They are seated at a
Speaker 1: forty five percent tariff etchedon stone as of this moment.
Speaker 1: That can also change. I know that goes against the
Speaker 1: entire term of etchton Stone, but with our current administration,
Speaker 1: it depends on the day, It depends on the moon phases,
Speaker 1: it depends on the winds. As far as what's going
Speaker 1: to happen next. With all of that being said, let's
Speaker 1: see you also said that there may be rare earths
Speaker 1: on that high border, but Grox says, no, I haven't
Speaker 1: heard anything as far as there being some sort of
Speaker 1: a rare earth or anything like that as far as
Speaker 1: what the border dispute is about. But that border dispute
Speaker 1: has it's not a new conversation. That's been a border
Speaker 1: dispute for a couple of years for sure, And I
Speaker 1: don't know if they use this random accident with a
Speaker 1: landmine as just the catalysts to try to finally settle
Speaker 1: the border dispute forever, or if there is some real
Speaker 1: truth to that. I said earlier that it's very possible
Speaker 1: that it's an American mind from the Vietnam War era.
Speaker 1: It's very possible. It's also equally possible that that mine
Speaker 1: was placed by one of these sides for that purpose,
Speaker 1: maybe to be a not a false flag operation, but
Speaker 1: for the principle of starting the conflict in the first place.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. I hope that everything
Speaker 1: gets resolved fairly quickly. Me and Mar, just on the
Speaker 1: other side of Camba or on the other side of
Speaker 1: Thailand is still in an open civil war. So out
Speaker 1: of the entirety of the Southeast Asian area, India just
Speaker 1: got out of a conflict with Pakistan, there's still in
Speaker 1: a conflict with China. China is in multiple border dispute.
Speaker 1: It's not necessarily conflicts, but border disputes. Nonetheless, Me and
Speaker 1: Mar is an open fighting. Cambodia and Thailand are in
Speaker 1: open fighting. The only ones that seem to be mining
Speaker 1: their business is Laos, Vietnam, Singapore. That's about it. Honestly,
Speaker 1: it's pretty crazy. Like I said, I hope everything gets
Speaker 1: resolved fairly quickly and we can get back to business
Speaker 1: as usual. I would prefer that, and I'm sure all
Speaker 1: the good listeners of The Cajun Night would as well.
Speaker 1: With all this being said, we are gonna wrap this
Speaker 1: episode up if you again, if you would like to
Speaker 1: join in the conversation next week, please join us. The
Speaker 1: link is in the description below. Go to Patreon and
Speaker 1: check out The Cajun Night. There's only one tier for injury.
Speaker 1: We do this every Wednesday night at nine pm Central.
Speaker 1: It gets promoted on the Cult Conspiracy. And if you
Speaker 1: would like to throw in your two cents or bring
Speaker 1: up something that I did not bring up. If you're
Speaker 1: listening to this right now and you're like Jake, if
Speaker 1: you talk about all of these things, but why are
Speaker 1: you missing this thing? Why have you not talked about
Speaker 1: this conversation or whatever? Bring it. I would love to
Speaker 1: hear more people's opinions about what is important and what
Speaker 1: is happening around the world again. The link is in
Speaker 1: the description below, Cajun Night at Patreon. Once again, everybody,
Speaker 1: I am the Cajun Night and thank you again for
Speaker 1: joining me. And as always, God bless