Podcasts about shanghai cooperation organization

Chinese President Xi Jinping met his Belarusian counterpart, Alexander Lukashenko, in Beijing and urged the two countries to enhance cooperation under multilateral frameworks such as the United Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

China and Russia issued a joint statement on Thursday on further deepening the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era, agreeing to push forward the high-level development of bilateral ties, uphold a correct historical perspective on World War II and firmly defend international fairness and justice.The statement was jointly signed by President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin following their talks in Moscow.The two heads of state witnessed the exchange of more than 20 bilateral cooperation documents covering such areas as global strategic stability, upholding the authority of international law, biosecurity, investment protection, the digital economy, quarantine and film cooperation.Xi arrived in Moscow on Wednesday, his 11th visit to the neighboring country since becoming president, for a state visit and to attend celebrations of the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Soviet Union's Great Patriotic War. This year also marks the 80th anniversary of the victories in the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1931-45) and the World Anti-Fascist War.The two heads of state have met more than 40 times on different occasions over the years."The foundation of political mutual trust between China and Russia has grown deeper, the ties of practical cooperation have become stronger, and cultural and local exchanges have flourished," Xi said, noting that China-Russia relations are more composed, confident, stable and resilient in the new era.Xi called on the two countries to continue with the general direction of cooperation, eliminate external interference, and make the foundation of cooperation more solid and the momentum for progress more abundant.China and Russia should leverage the complementary advantages of the two countries' resources and industrial systems to expand high-quality and mutually beneficial cooperation in areas such as trade and economy, energy, agriculture, aerospace and artificial intelligence, Xi said.The two countries should synergize the Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union, in order to provide a platform for promoting high-standard connectivity, he said.Xi also urged the two sides to enhance coordination and cooperation on multilateral platforms such as the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS to unite the Global South, uphold genuine multilateralism and guide global governance reform in the right direction.As China is striving to build itself into a great modern socialist country in all respects, and is advancing the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts, Xi said that China is determined and confident in overcoming various risks and challenges, and will steadfastly manage its own affairs well regardless of changes in the external environment.He expressed China's readiness to work together with Russia to shoulder the special responsibilities entrusted by the times, maintain the global multilateral trading system, and ensure the stability and smooth operation of industrial and supply chains.This will contribute more significantly to the development and revitalization of both countries and the safeguarding of international fairness and justice, Xi said.Putin, who received Xi with a welcoming ceremony on Thursday morning, said, "I am grateful that, just as you did 10 years ago for the previous anniversary, you have chosen to join us in commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory, which our nation holds sacred."Putin said that amid global uncertainty, the Russia-China relationship is a crucial stabilizing factor on the international stage and undoubtedly a model of state-to-state relations in the 21st century.Russia-China ties are built on the principles of equality, mutual benefit and respect for each other's interests and sovereignty, and are not directed against any third party, he said.Putin added that imposing high tariffs goes against common sense and is illegal, and will only backfire.He also said he will be delighted to make an official visit to China for the commemorative events marking the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the end of World War II.

This episode features Nitin A. Gokhale, one of South Asia's leading strategic affairs analysts, who joins co-hosts Ray Powell and Jim Carouso to break down the ongoing conflict along the India-Pakistan border, offering expert insight into its origins, recent triggers and global stakes.The conflict's roots trace back to the 1947 partition of India and the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which has sparked four wars between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. Tensions reignited recently after a terrorist attack in Kashmir, where militants targeted and killed Hindu tourists. Pakistani terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are allegedly supported by the Pakistani military and intelligence services.In retaliation, India conducted strikes against terrorist camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and, for the first time, across the Kashmir border into Pakistan's homeland. India emphasized that its response was targeted, non-escalatory, and focused solely on terrorist infrastructure, aiming to avoid a broader military confrontation.Gokhale explains that Pakistan's internal instability--including insurgencies in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, strained relations with the Taliban and political unrest--may have influenced the timing of the attack. The Pakistani military, facing low public confidence and political challenges, may have sought to rally domestic support by provoking a crisis with India.With both countries possessing nuclear weapons, the stakes are high. Gokhale suggests that international pressure and Pakistan's internal weaknesses could create an off-ramp for de-escalation. India's careful messaging and restraint are designed to reinforce deterrence without inviting a full-scale war.The discussion explores the influence of China, Russia, the United States, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. While India insists on bilateral solutions, outside actors may quietly urge restraint to protect their own interests in regional stability and economic ties.The episode delves into the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, a critical agreement for Pakistan's agriculture. India's move to withhold hydrological data and potentially control water flows adds another layer of pressure on Pakistan.Gokhale contextualizes India's actions within Prime Minister Modi's security philosophy: resolute on the border, reasonable in diplomacy. Modi's approach favors decisive retaliation against cross-border terrorism while avoiding unnecessary escalation.The India-Pakistan border conflict is not just a regional issue–it has global implications due to the risk of nuclear escalation, the involvement of major powers and the precedent it sets for responding to state-sponsored terrorism. Understanding the dynamics at play is essential for anyone interested in international security, South Asian geopolitics or global peace.

The member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization have expressed strong support for an open, transparent, and inclusive global trade system, with the World Trade Organization at its center.

Greetings to everybody! Time flies fast, and the new year will be with us shortly. I extend my best wishes to you all from Beijing.大家好！时间过得很快，新的一年即将到来，我在北京向大家致以美好的祝福！In 2024, we have together journeyed through the four seasons. Together, we have experienced winds and rains and seen rainbows. Those touching and unforgettable moments have been like still frames showing how extraordinary a year we have had.2024年，我们一起走过春夏秋冬，一道经历风雨彩虹，一个个瞬间定格在这不平凡的一年，令人感慨、难以忘怀。We have proactively responded to the impacts of the changing environment at home and abroad. We have adopted a full range of policies to make solid gains in pursuing high-quality development. China's economy has rebounded and is on an upward trajectory, with its GDP for the year expected to pass the 130 trillion yuan mark. Grain output has surpassed 700 million tons, and China's bowls are now filled with more Chinese grain. Coordinated development across regions has gained stronger momentum, and mutually reinforcing advances have been made in both new urbanization and rural revitalization. Green and low-carbon development has been further enhanced. Indeed, a more beautiful China is unfolding before us.我们积极应对国内外环境变化带来的影响，出台一系列政策“组合拳”，扎实推动高质量发展，我国经济回暖向好，国内生产总值预计超过130万亿元。粮食产量突破1.4万亿斤，中国碗装了更多中国粮。区域发展协同联动、积厚成势，新型城镇化和乡村振兴相互融合、同频共振。绿色低碳发展纵深推进，美丽中国画卷徐徐铺展。We have fostered new quality productive forces in light of actual conditions. New business sectors, forms and models have kept emerging. For the first time, China has produced more than 10 million new energy vehicles in a year. Breakthroughs have been made in integrated circuit, artificial intelligence, quantum communications and many other fields. Also for the first time, the Chang'e-6 lunar probe collected samples from the far side of the moon. The Mengxiang drilling vessel explored the mystery of the deep ocean. The Shenzhen-Zhongshan Link now connects the two cities across the sea. The Antarctic Qinling Station is now in operation on the frozen continent. All this epitomizes the lofty spirit and dreams of the Chinese people to explore stars and oceans.我们因地制宜培育新质生产力，新产业新业态新模式竞相涌现，新能源汽车年产量首次突破1000万辆，集成电路、人工智能、量子通信等领域取得新成果。嫦娥六号首次月背采样，梦想号探秘大洋，深中通道踏浪海天，南极秦岭站崛起冰原，展现了中国人逐梦星辰大海的豪情壮志。This year, I have visited many places across the country and seen how our people enjoy their enriching lives. I saw the big, red Huaniu apples in Tianshui, Gansu and the fishing boats in Aojiao Village, Fujian loaded with their catches. I watched the millenium-old "Eastern Smile" in the Maiji Mountain Grottoes, and I learned more about good-neighborliness passed from generation to generation in Liuchixiang Alley. I enjoyed the hustle and bustle in Tianjin's Ancient Culture Street, and I saw how the people in Yinchuan's mixed-ethnic residential communities live together as one family. The concerns of the people about jobs and incomes, elderly and child care, education and medical services are always on my mind. This year, basic pension has been raised, and mortgage rates have dropped. Cross-province direct settlement of medical bills has been expanded, making it easier for people to seek medical treatment across the country. And consumer goods trade-in programs have improved people's lives... All these are real benefits to our people.今年，我到地方考察，看到大家生活多姿多彩。天水花牛苹果又大又红，东山澳角村渔获满舱。麦积山石窟“东方微笑”跨越千年，六尺巷礼让家风代代相传。天津古文化街人潮熙攘，银川多民族社区居民亲如一家。对大家关心的就业增收、“一老一小”、教育医疗等问题，我一直挂念。一年来，基础养老金提高了，房贷利率下调了，直接结算范围扩大方便了异地就医，消费品以旧换新提高了生活品质……大家的获得感又充实了许多。In the Paris Olympics, Chinese athletes raced to the top and achieved their best performance in Olympic Games held overseas, fully demonstrating the vigor and confidence of young Chinese. The PLA Navy and Air Force celebrated their 75th birthdays, and our servicemen and women are full of drive. When floods, typhoons and other natural disasters struck, members of the Communist Party of China and officials stepped forward to lead disaster relief efforts, and our people were of one mind and reached out to each other. People in all fields -- workers, builders and entrepreneurs, among others -- are working hard to fulfill their dreams. I presented awards to recipients of national medals and honorary titles. The honor belongs to them; it also belongs to every hard-working person who has lived up to their responsibilities.巴黎奥运赛场上，我国体育健儿奋勇争先，取得境外参赛最好成绩，彰显了青年一代的昂扬向上、自信阳光。海军、空军喜庆75岁生日，人民子弟兵展现新风貌。面对洪涝、台风等自然灾害，广大党员干部冲锋在前，大家众志成城、守望相助。无数劳动者、建设者、创业者，都在为梦想拼搏。我为国家勋章和国家荣誉称号获得者颁奖，光荣属于他们，也属于每一个挺膺担当的奋斗者。In a world of both transformation and turbulence, China, as a responsible major country, is actively promoting global governance reform and deepening solidarity and cooperation among the Global South. We are making deeper and more substantive advances in high-quality Belt and Road cooperation. The Beijing Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation was a full success. We put forward China's vision at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, APEC, G20 and other bilateral and multilateral forums. We have contributed greatly to the maintenance of world peace and stability.当今世界变乱交织，中国作为负责任大国，积极推动全球治理变革，深化全球南方团结合作。我们推进高质量共建“一带一路”走深走实，成功举办中非合作论坛北京峰会，在上合、金砖、亚太经合组织、二十国集团等双边多边场合，鲜明提出中国主张，为维护世界和平稳定注入更多正能量。We celebrated the 75th anniversary of the founding of New China. With deep affection, we looked back at the sea change that has taken place across China since the birth of the People's Republic. Nurtured by our 5,000-plus years of continuous civilization, our country, China, is engraved not only on the bottom of the ancient bronze ritual wine vessel of He Zun, but also in the heart of every Chinese. At its Third Plenary Session, the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China sounded a clarion call for further deepening all-round reform. We will march forward in great strides to advance reform and opening up as the trend of our times. We will surely embrace even broader prospects in pursuing Chinese modernization in the course of reform and opening up.我们隆重庆祝新中国成立75周年，深情回望共和国的沧桑巨变。从五千多年中华文明的传承中一路走来，“中国”二字镌刻在“何尊”底部，更铭刻在每个华夏儿女心中。党的二十届三中全会胜利召开，吹响进一步全面深化改革的号角。我们乘着改革开放的时代大潮阔步前行，中国式现代化必将在改革开放中开辟更加广阔的前景。In 2025, we will fully complete the 14th Five-Year Plan. We will implement more proactive and effective policies, pursue high-quality development as a top priority, promote greater self-reliance and strength in science and technology, and maintain sound momentum in economic and social development. The Chinese economy now faces some new conditions, including challenges of uncertainties in the external environment and pressure of transformation from old growth drivers into new ones. But we can prevail with our hard work. As always, we grow in the wind and rain, and we get stronger through hard times. We must be confident.2025年，我们将全面完成“十四五”规划。要实施更加积极有为的政策，聚精会神抓好高质量发展，推动高水平科技自立自强，保持经济社会发展良好势头。当前经济运行面临一些新情况，有外部环境不确定性的挑战，有新旧动能转换的压力，但这些经过努力是可以克服的。我们从来都是在风雨洗礼中成长、在历经考验中壮大，大家要充满信心。Of all the jobs in front of us, the most important is to ensure a happy life for our people. Every family hopes that their children can have a good education, their seniors can enjoy good elderly services, and their youngsters can have more and better opportunities. These simple wishes are our people's aspirations for a better life. We should work together to steadily improve social undertakings and governance, build a harmonious and inclusive atmosphere, and settle real issues, big or small, for our people. We must bring more smiles to our people and greater warmth to their hearts.家事国事天下事，让人民过上幸福生活是头等大事。家家户户都盼着孩子能有好的教育，老人能有好的养老服务，年轻人能有更多发展机会。这些朴实的愿望，就是对美好生活的向往。我们要一起努力，不断提升社会建设和治理水平，持续营造和谐包容的氛围，把老百姓身边的大事小情解决好，让大家笑容更多、心里更暖。On the eve of the 25th anniversary of Macao's return to the motherland, I visited the city again, and I was gratified to see the new progress and changes there. We will unswervingly implement the policy of One Country, Two Systems to maintain long-term prosperity and stability in Hong Kong and Macao. We Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one and the same family. No one can ever sever the bond of kinship between us, and no one can ever stop China's reunification, a trend of the times.在澳门回归祖国25周年之际，我再到濠江之畔，新发展新变化令人欣喜。我们将坚定不移贯彻“一国两制”方针，保持香港、澳门长期繁荣稳定。两岸同胞一家亲，谁也无法割断我们的血脉亲情，谁也不能阻挡祖国统一的历史大势！As changes unseen in a century accelerate across the world, it is important to rise above estrangement and conflict with a broad vision, and care for the future of humanity with great passion. China will work with all countries to promote friendship and cooperation, enhance mutual learning among different cultures, and build a community with a shared future for mankind. We must jointly create a better future for the world.世界百年变局加速演进，需要以宽广胸襟超越隔阂冲突，以博大情怀关照人类命运。中国愿同各国一道，做友好合作的践行者、文明互鉴的推动者、构建人类命运共同体的参与者，共同开创世界的美好未来。Dreams and wishes may be far, but they can be fulfilled with dedicated pursuit. On the new journey of Chinese modernization, everyone is a key actor, every effort counts, and every ray of light shines.梦虽遥，追则能达；愿虽艰，持则可圆。中国式现代化的新征程上，每一个人都是主角，每一份付出都弥足珍贵，每一束光芒都熠熠生辉。Splendor adorns our motherland, and starlight graces every home. Let us greet the new year with hope. May our great country enjoy harmony and prosperity! May all your dreams come true! May you all have a new year of happiness and peace!河山添锦绣，星光映万家。让我们满怀希望，迎接新的一年。祝祖国时和岁丰、繁荣昌盛！祝大家所愿皆所成，多喜乐、长安宁！quantumn.量子

In this ‘ReConnect China' Podcast Professor Bart Dessein unpacks China's narrative of 'a shared future for mankind' as one of a series of 'strategic narratives' along with the country's 'Global Development Initiative' of 2021, the 'Global Security Initiative' of 2022, and the 'Global Civilization Initiative' of 2023. The episode sheds light on these initiatives as part and parcel of China's geopolitical and geo-economic initiatives (Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS+, Belt and Road Initiative), and traces the historic roots of such initiatives back to the 1950s. Prof. dr. Bart Dessein is full professor at the Department of Languages and Cultures of Ghent University and serves as the scientific coordinator of the ReConnect China project. The episode is hosted by Dr Huanyu Zhao, a postdoc researcher at the Department of Languages and Cultures of Ghent University and manager of the ReConnect China project

The National Security Hour with LTC Sargis Sangari USA (Ret.) – Al Johnson and I delve into whether the US faces the early stages of World War III, exploring the need for strong deterrence and military readiness. We analyze China's and America's military capabilities, insights from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the BRICS summit. Drawing on decades of experience, we uncover global tensions shaped by information warfare.

The National Security Hour with LTC Sargis Sangari USA (Ret.) – Al Johnson and I delve into whether the US faces the early stages of World War III, exploring the need for strong deterrence and military readiness. We analyze China's and America's military capabilities, insights from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the BRICS summit. Drawing on decades of experience, we uncover global tensions shaped by information warfare.

①President Xi Jinping has urged Fujian province to play a pioneering role in China's modernization drive. (00:40)②Chinese Premier calls for deepening Shanghai Cooperation Organization cooperation. (14:24)③China will introduce a slew of incremental measures to stabilize the property sector. (23:26)④Zelensky presents "victory plan" to Ukrainian parliament. (30:46)⑤An interview with Sir Danny Alexander, Vice President for Policy and Strategy at AIIB (40:14)

Get ready for a game-changing episode of Connecting the Dots! Dr. Wilmer Leon and Caleb Maupin dive into the seismic shifts happening worldwide—where the U.S. is no longer the sole superpower and what that means for our future. They explore a growing movement challenging America's global influence and break down what the 2024 election could mean for the future of U.S. politics. If you care about where our country is headed, this is a must-listen. Don't miss out on insights that could change how you see the world!     Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links to find @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!   Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!   Wilmer Leon (00:00:00): As we are living through a pivotal moment in world history, the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world, anti-imperialism is at the core of this global movement as the US is at the center of this global shift. How did anti imperialism take hold in the us? Let's find out Announcer (00:00:27): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:00:35): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon and I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which these events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historical context in which they take place. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode. The issue before us, the issues before us, are the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world. How is this happening and what does it mean? As well as the developing 2024 US presidential political landscape to help me work through these issues. Let's turn to my guest. He's an author, independent journalist, political analyst and reporter for RT, and his latest book is entitled “Out of the Movement to the Masses, Anti-Imperialist Organizing in America”. And he's also the author of Kamala Harris and The Future of America, an essay in Three Parts. He is Caleb Maupin, my brother. Welcome back! Caleb Maupin (00:01:53): Sure. Glad to be here. Wilmer Leon (00:01:55): So first of all, your thoughts on my introduction, is that a hyperbole or is that a fairly accurate description of the dynamics that we find ourselves dealing with? Caleb Maupin (00:02:13): Trying to stop the rise of a multipolar world would be a lot like trying to stop the sun from rising in the morning, maybe trying to stop gravity. That's the way the world is moving. But our leaders are committed to trying to keep the world centered around Wall Street and London and they are going to fail. The question is how much of a cost in terms of human lives, in terms of the economy, in terms of political repression, are we going to have to endure before they come to the terms of reality, which is that we're going to have a world where there are other centers of power and countries trade with each other on a different basis. So I would agree with you, Wilmer Leon (00:02:54): And so as we look at this changing dynamic from the unipolar to the multipolar, we've got China, we have Russia, we have India. There are a number of countries that over the years have been targets of American sanctions, regimes and all other types of pressure from the United States. With all of that or from all of that, we now have the rise of the BRICS nations, we've got Brazil, we've got Russia, we've got India, we've got China, we've got South Africa, and now what about how many, I've lost track now about 15 or 17 other countries that have joined this organization, this economic organization, which also seems to be an anti imperialist organization. Caleb Maupin (00:03:49): Sure. I mean, if you understand imperialism in the economic sense, imperialism is a system rather than a policy, right? Kind of layman's terms imperialism is when one country is mean to another country or attacks another country. But we're referring specifically to imperialism as an economic system when the world is centered around financial institutions, trusts, cartels and syndicates centered in the Western countries that dominate the world through the export of capital, sending their corporations all over the world to dominate the economies of developing countries, to hold back economic development, to keep countries as captive markets and spheres of influence. That process whereby countries are prevented from lifting themselves up, from electrifying, from building modern education systems, developing modern industries, developing their own economies, and just kind of used to dump the excess commodities of Western countries and have their economy dominated by a foreign country and a foreign monopolies and big corporations from another country from the west. (00:04:55): That process refers to, that's what I mean when I say imperialism. I'm referring to a global economic setup, and that economic setup is on its way out. And that's been pretty clear and a lot has gone on, went on in the 20th century to kind of erode imperialism. And in the 21st century, imperialism continues to be in the decline, and there is this new economy rising around the world, centered around the two U superpowers, Russia and China. They are kind of at the center, the linchpin of a global network of countries, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba. But then there's even other countries that are willing to trade and are kind of on the one hand friendly to the United States, but on the other hand are happy to work with Russia or China if they give them a better deal. The shape of global politics is changing, the world is changing, and this is just something we need to embrace. The world is not going to be centered around the West as it was for so long during the age of colonialism and sense. Wilmer Leon (00:05:54): In fact, what we're finding out is that on the 27th and the 28th of August, Moscow is hosting the sixth annual, the sixth International Municipal BRICS Forum. And what might surprise a lot of people is there are delegations from 126 countries that are expected to take part, more than 5,000 participants from 500 cities around the world. This isn't getting very much attention or coverage here in the western media, but folks need to understand, as we talked about the shift from the unipolar to the multipolar, this is a perfect example of that shift isn't happening, that shift HAS happened. Caleb Maupin (00:06:45): Sure. When I was at the Valdi Discussion Club in Sochi, Russia in the mountains near the city, I saw Ael Togi, the head of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and he pointed out that in the Eurasian subcontinent and outside of the Western countries, this is like a golden era. The amount of electrification that's going on, the amount of roads and railways that are being constructed, I mean, there is a whole exploding new economy happening in the world. And I saw that when I was at the Yalta Economic Forum in Crimea in 2018, and other people have seen it when they go to the Vladi Stock Economic Forum in the Russian Far East. People have seen it with the Belt and Road Initiative and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that China is building. There is this whole new economy in the world now that is focused on development and growth, building power plants, building schools, building universities, building hospitals, and it's a really, really big part of the global economy. And our leaders are being very foolish by trying to just barricade it and blockade it and oppose it because they're locking the United States out of that economic growth. When somebody's growing economically, they have more money to spend, they have more products they can buy, and we could be benefiting from this new economy that's rising, but instead, our Western leaders are committed to maintaining their monopoly at all costs. And so we are getting locked out of an explosion of growth. It's just a very, very mistaken approach. Wilmer Leon (00:08:18): And I want to, with that intro shift to shift to your book out of the movement to the masses, anti-imperialist organizing in America, because as I said in the intro, one of the major elements I believe of this shift from the unipolar to the multipolar is anti imperialism. And you write in the second paragraph of your introduction, what made the Communist party USA important was that it was the first anti-imperialist organization to take hold in the country. There were certainly anti-war organizations such as Mark Twain's, anti-Imperialist League. There had been pacifists and socialists like Eugene Debs, who opposed War on a Class basis, but the Communist party of USA was founded on the ideological breakthroughs of the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia specifically the teachings of Vladimir Lenin. So I wanted to use this book out of the Movement to the Masses, which is a textbook, and wanted to start the conversation with what motivated you to write this book and what motivated you to write this as a textbook? Caleb Maupin (00:09:33): Well, it's important to understand that I think the ultimate interest of we the American people is in a society free from imperialism. I don't think that helping ExxonMobil and BP and Shell and Chevron dominate the global oil markets really benefits American working people in the long run. There might be some short-term bonuses, but those things are fading and that there is a long Wilmer Leon (00:09:57): Short-term bonuses such as, Caleb Maupin (00:09:59): Well, we've had a higher standard of living at least in the past, but that standard of living is in decline, and the future of the United States is not in this decaying western financial system. It's in a new order where we're trading with countries on the basis of win-win cooperation. And the reason I wrote the textbook is because I wanted people to be aware of the fact that there has been a strong anti-imperialist movement in this country, and that we can learn from these struggles of the past and these organizations that existed and what they achieved as we figure out in our time how we can build an anti-imperialist movement to rescue our country from the nightmare of the emerging low wage police state and the drive toward World War iii. And I mean, really, you don't have anti imperialism as we understand it, right? You don't have the rise of Russia and China. (00:10:50): You don't have the bricks. You don't have any of that without the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. That was a pivotal moment. That was a country that broke out of the Western imperialist system during World War I and started on an independent course of development. And it came out of the Bolshevik started out as part of the Marxist movement. Marxism was the ideology of the labor movement, right? The worker versus the employer. But there was a division in the labor movement increasingly between wealthy labor union bosses and higher paid skilled trade jobs that increasingly became supporters of empire and supporters of their country, colonizing countries in Africa and countries in Asia, et cetera. And the lower levels of the labor movement of more oppressed workers, the American Federation of Labor, the A FL was the big labor federation in the United States. And the people who started it, like Samuel Goer's, they were socialists or Marxists, but they were not anti-imperialist. (00:11:55): And by the time World War I came along, the A FL was a union that largely was for whites only. Most of the unions that were part of it banned black people from joining, banned people not born in the United States from joining, banned people who did not speak English as their first language from joining. And they were big supporters of World War I when it happened. And there was a divide in the labor movement and Marxism that had been the ideology of the labor movement got very much divided. And you had parties like the British Labor Party, the ruling party of Britain today. It originated as a Marxist party of labor organizers, but it became a pro imperialist party. Well, Bolshevism and the people who took power in Russia, the Bolsheviks, they were a breakaway from the Marxist movement that had developed this new theory of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. (00:12:48): And they said, we're not just fighting against regular capitalism. We're fighting against the monopolistic capitalism of Britain and France and Germany and America, and that means that we support nations, right? Originally, Marxists and the labor movement said, there are no nations workers of the world unite. It's just the workers versus the bosses. No borderers in our struggle. Well, Lenin says, actually, we do support nations in their fight against imperialism. And after the Bolsheviks took power in Russia, one of the first things they did is they called a conference in Baku in Azerbaijan. And at that conference, they invited all kinds of people from all over the world and they said, we will support you as long as you're fighting imperialism. And one of the people that came to that conference and was given military support by the Bolsheviks was the Amir of Afghanistan. And the Amir of Afghanistan was a conservative monarchist. (00:13:40): He was not a Marxist, not a socialist of any stripe. He was a conservative monarchist, a very conservative Muslim, but the Bolshevik said, you're fighting imperialism and so and so, we support you. And he gave them support. And many people around the world were inspired by the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist message that the Bolsheviks had, which was kind of a breakaway from the standard Marxist movement. The understanding was we're not just fighting capitalism, we're fighting against imperialism, and we support nations and colonized people of all different classes, workers, capitalists, whoever who are struggling against imperialism. That is the basis of this new movement that we are trying to build. And the Communist Party of the United States was the incarnation of that movement, and that's why it was embraced by many different sections of the population, most especially the black community in America, because they viewed black people as a colonized people, an oppressed nation within US borders. Marcus Garvey had been leading the black nationalist movement in the United States, the Back to African movement, and many black people saw African-Americans as a colonized people within the US borders. And the Communist Party agreed with that, and that was a winning point that they had with many people in the United States. And the Communist Party was supportive of anyone around the world who was struggling against British American or French imperialism. Wilmer Leon (00:15:04): And as we look at that history and we bring it forward to the current moment and the Russia phobia that we find ourselves subjected to, I submit, and please if I'm wrong, correct me that one of the things that's at the crux of this Russia phobia is the fact that America is an imperialist nation and a neo-colonial power, and Russia has the Soviet Union and then into Russia has been anti-colonialism, which is one of the reasons why we find now Russia gaining so much traction with countries on the continent of Africa. Caleb Maupin (00:15:53): Well, I got to tell you, just a few weeks after the special military operation in Russia began a couple of years ago, I was in New York City with Tanner, 15 of my friends, and we were marching around with American flags and Russian flags chanting, Russia is not our enemy, Russia is not our enemy. And we chanted this in Union Square, and then we went up to Grand Central Station, we marched around Grand Central Station chanting that, and while we were doing that, we got thumbs up from a lot of different people. Now, many people did not agree with us, but the people who did give us thumbs up, many of them were people that were not from the United States. New York City is a big international center. You have the United Nations that's there. You have Wall Street that's there. And I would say the majority of the people who gave us thumbs up and gave us support were from the continent of Africa. (00:16:40): They were people from West Africa, from Nigeria. They were people from South Africa. And that the economy of Africa is very tied in with the Russian economy, and Russia provides fertilizer to many countries. Russia has partnerships with many countries to help them develop their state run mining industries or their state run oil and natural gas industries. So support for Russia on the African continent is widespread. Now, this doesn't match the narrative of liberals. Liberals would have us believe that Russia is a white supremacist country, and that's why they rigged the elections in 2016 to get white supremacist. Donald Trump elected, and that just does not match reality. The Soviet Union, which modern Russia is built on the foundations of the Soviet Union, was the best friend of anti-colonial and liberation movements on the African continent, and those relationships still exist. When I was in Russia, I sat down with people from various African countries. (00:17:43): I sat down with people from Namibia. Well, the ruling party of Namibia is the Southwest People's Organization, which was a Soviet aligned, Soviet funded organization that fought for Namibia to become independent. The ruling party of South Africa, the African National Congress was armed and funded by the Soviet Union. If you go to Ghana, the man who created modern Ghana was Kwame Nkrumah, who was a big friend of the Soviet Union and was called himself an African socialist and developed his own interpretation of the Marxist philosophy that was specific to the African continent. I mean, there was Julius Nire, there was Gaddafi who built Libya into the most prosperous country on the African continent. There are just so many examples of how Russia is intimately tied in with the struggle against colonialism on the African continent with the struggle of African countries to pursue their own course of development. (00:18:43): And that is rooted in the foundation of the Bolshevik Revolution. And the Bolshevik ideology, which I will emphasize was a break with the standard Marxist view. Marx himself, he believed that the first communist revolution would happen in Germany, and it would be the European countries that had the communist revolution first because they were the most advanced. And it was Lenin who came along and said, well, actually, that's wrong. The center of revolutionary energy is going to be in the colonized and oppressed countries of the world. And the working class in the imperialist homeland is largely being bought off, and it's going to be the division between what we now some academics talk about the global north and the global south. It's going to be that division that brings socialism into the world. And that is kind of the defining aspect of what Lenin taught. And as much as the global anti-imperialist movement is not explicitly Marxist Leninist in the Soviet sense, they don't exactly follow that Soviet ideology. That understanding of imperialism and what happened in the 20th century with the Soviet Union, with later the Chinese Revolution, the Vietnamese revolution, the Cuban Revolution, all of that laid the basis for what exists today. And that understanding is important, and that's why I wrote this textbook. Wilmer Leon (00:19:55): And to your point about all of these myths and stories and fictions about Russia being involved in our election and all of this other foolishness, mark Zuckerberg just wrote a letter to Jim Jordan saying that he apologizes for having purged stories from Facebook regarding the Hunter Biden laptop and some of the other stories, because he has now come to understand that that whole narrative was not Russian propaganda as the FBI had told him, he now has come to understand that those stories are true. And I bring that up just as one data point to demonstrate how so much of this rhetoric that we've been hearing, so much of this propaganda that we've been hearing about China being involved in our elections and Russia being involved in our elections, and Iran, mark Zuckerberg, the head of Facebook, just sent a letter to Jim Jordan laying all this out, that it was bs. It was a fiction created by the FBI, Caleb Moin. Caleb Maupin (00:21:14): Well, we've been through this before, right after the Russian Revolution, just a few years later in London, in Britain, there was a scandal called the Enovia of letter. And the British people were told, oh my goodness, the Russians are meddling in our elections. They're trying to get the Labor Party to win the election. And Lloyd George, who was the conservative military leader, was playing up the idea that the Labor Party was being funded and supported by Russia, and they held up this piece of paper they said was the smoking gun. It was the proof, the Enovia letter, this letter supposedly from the Russian government official of Enovia to the Labor Party. Well, it was later proven to be a complete hoax. It was fake, right? But that was happening back in the 1920s. And we've been through this over and over and over again. When Henry Wallace ran for president, he was the vice president under Roosevelt, and then when Truman was president, he ran against the Democrats as they became a pro-war party, the party that was leading us into the Korean War, et cetera. (00:22:12): He ran as an independent candidate in 1948, and they acclaimed his campaign was a big Russian conspiracy, and it was a communist conspiracy. There's a whole history of this and the FBI, if you look at the number of investigations they've done into supposed Russian influence in American elections, it's endless, but it's always a hoax, right? American elections happen because of events in America, not because of Russia. However, there is no question that many people in the United States do want peace, and they do want peace with the Soviet Union or with modern Russia, and they may vote for candidates who they think are more likely to bring about that peace, but that's not a conspiracy. That's doing what you're supposed to be able to do in a democracy expressing yourself at the ballot box. And what they're really worried about is Americans thinking wrong. They're really worried about not having a monopoly over the information that we receive. They're really worried about us questioning what we're told and not marching in lockstep behind their agenda of war and dividing the world into blocks and isolating certain countries. And this story has happened over and over and over again in American politics. We've been through it so many times. Wilmer Leon (00:23:25): Final point on this, I don't want to get back to the book. As you just said, events happen in American elections due to America. Well, all of this chicken little, the sky is falling and the world is interfering in our elections. Well, there was a story in the New York Times about what, three months ago, about APAC spending $100 million to unseat what they consider to be left-leaning Democrats, whose position on Israel was not consistent with the Zionist ideology. I'm going to say that again. This was in the New York Times. I'm not making this up. This is an anti-Semitic dialogue. It was in New York Times APAC spending $100 million on primary campaigns to remove Democrats that they consider to be anti-Israeli. What happened in New York with Jamal Bowman? That's what happened in Missouri with, what's her name? I think she's in St. Louis, the Congresswoman. I'm drawing a blank on her. Anyway, and they were successful in a number of campaigns. So we're running around chasing ghosts, chasing Russian ghosts, and Chinese ghosts when the real culprits are telling you right upfront in the New York Times what it is they're doing and why it is they're doing it. With that being said, you can either respond to that or how did you organize your textbook and why is it organized in the manner in which it is? Caleb Maupin (00:25:16): Well, I went over like case studies of three different anti-imperialist movements or organizations in the United States. I started with probably the most successful, which was the Communist Party of the United States, which at one point had a huge amount of influence During the Roosevelt administration, they entered an alliance with Roosevelt, and in the late 1930s, the Communist party controlled two of the city council seats in New York City. They had a very close ally in the US Congress representing Harlem named Veto Mark Antonio. They also had a member of Congress in Minnesota who was their friend and ally and read their newspaper into the congressional record. They had meetings at the White House with President Roosevelt. On multiple occasions, members of the Communist Party or the Young Communist League were brought to the White House to meet with Roosevelt, and they led the CIO, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which was a new labor federation they had created as an alternative to the American Federation of Labor. (00:26:14): And they were a very influential group in the labor movement among intellectuals in Hollywood. And they put forward an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist message, and their successes are worth studying. There were certainly mistakes that were made, and they were very brutally crushed by the FBI in the aftermath of the Second World War with the rise of McCarthyism. But there were studying then from there, I talked about the Workers' World Party, which was a Marxist Leninist political party that really came into prominence in the late sixties and really kind of peaked in its influence during the 1980s. And they were a party that took inspiration, not just from the Soviet Union, but from the wave of anti-colonial movements that emerged. They were sympathetic to Libya and Gaddafi. They were sympathetic to North Korea and others, and they did a lot of very important anti-war organizing, building anti-war coalitions. They were very close to Ramsey Clark, the former US Attorney General who left the Lyndon Johnson administration and became an international lawyer and an opponent of the International Criminal Court in his final years and such. (00:27:17): And then I talked about the new communist movement of the 1970s, which was a number of different organizations that emerged during the 1970s that were trying to take inspiration from China. They wanted to take guidance from the Chinese revolution. China had argued that the Soviet Union had kind of abandoned the global anti-colonial, anti-imperialist struggle. They felt it was holding back revolutionary forces, but China was at that point presenting itself as a bastion of anti imperialism. And so there were a number of new political parties formed during the 1970s that modeled themselves on China. And all three of these case studies, all three of these groups made big mistakes, but also had big successes. The most successful was the Communist Party prior to it being crushed by the FBI during the McCarthy period. All of them had big successes and were able to do big important things, and I studied all of them. (00:28:08): And then from there, the fourth chapter talked about divisions in the ruling class, and why is it that we see, at this point, we're seeing a big all-out fight between Donald Trump and those who oppose him. And when you talk about the Watergate scandal and you talk about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, what was really going on behind closed doors? And then in the final chapter, I tried to kind of take from all of that what we could take and what we could learn when trying to build a movement in our time. One thing I made a point of doing in the book is that every chapter is accompanied by a number of original texts from the period discussed. I have a number of texts from the Communist Party, from the Workers' World Party, from the new communist movement of the 1970s, so that we can hear from the horse's mouth, so to speak, what these people were preaching and what they believed as they were building their organizations. Wilmer Leon (00:29:01): So how does this history, how relevant is this history you just mentioned Donald Trump? How relevant is this history to where we find ourselves today with our politics? Caleb Maupin (00:29:15): I would argue it's extremely relevant. And if you look at Roosevelt and who opposed him, and if you look at the Kennedy assassination, and if you look at the Watergate scandal, there has always been a divide among the American elite between what you can call the Eastern establishment, the ultra rich, the ultra monopolies, the Rockefellers, the DuPonts, the Carnegies that are now at this point aligned with Silicon Valley, the tech monopolies, bill Gates and Jeff Bezos and others. There's always been a divide between these entrenched ultra monopolies and a lot of lower level rich people who are not part of the club and feel that those entrenched monopolies are kind of rigging things against 'em. And I quote, there's a very good text called the Anglo-American Establishment by Carol Quigley that talks about this divide. I think he was one of the first people to talk about it. (00:30:06): But then from there, you also have a great book by Carl Oglesby called The Yankee and Cowboy War that talks about this and specifically applies that analysis to what went on with the Watergate scandal, with the assassination of JFK and the political crisis in the 1960s and seventies. And I would argue that in our time, this is the fight that kind of defines things when we talk about trying to build a movement against colonialism and imperialism in the United States, these lower level capitalists would gain if America had paved roads, if America had a stronger economy, and if we were doing business with the countries around the world that are growing right now in alliance with China, right? If we were trading with them and some of that wealth was flowing into our economy, we would be benefiting. However, it is the ultra monopolies that are very much tied in with the intelligence apparatus, the people who brought us, Henry Kissinger, the people who brought us z, big new Brozinsky. (00:31:01): They are determined to keep the United States at the top and keep Western imperialist this financial system at the top of the world at all costs, even if that means kind of playing a long geopolitical game and if it means dramatically decreasing the standard of living and kind of collapsing the domestic economy of the United States. And so when Trump talks about America first and his supporters rail against globalists, this is really what they're getting at is the lower levels of capital are fighting against the Eastern establishment. And that creates an opening for those of us who want to build an anti-imperialist movement in this country to intervene. And I talk about that, and unfortunately, it seems like really since the 1970s and since kind of the end of the 1960s and seventies, political upsurge, much of the left has kind of just deteriorated into being the foot soldiers of that Eastern establishment. (00:31:56): They see those lower level capitalists as being the most hawkish and warlike as being the most anti-union and the most authoritarian. So they think, okay, we're going to align with the Eastern establishment against them. And I argue that that's not the correct approach because right now it is those lower level capitalists who feel threatened, and it is among them that you found support for Julian Assange that you find interest in being friendly with Russia and with China and anti-establishment sentiment, you find opposition to the tech monopolies and their censorship. And that really we're in a period where those of us who are anti-imperialist need to pivot into trying to build an anti-monopoly coalition. And that's what the Communist Party talked about at the end of the Second War as the Cold War got going, as they were being crushed by the FBI, they said their goal was to build an anti-monopoly coalition to unite with the working class, the small business owners, even some of the wealthy against the big monopolies in their drive for war. (00:32:54): And I would argue that's what we should be aiming to do in our time, is build an anti-monopoly coalition. And that's what I've pulled from that textbook and from that history going over what has been done and what has been successful and that the Communist Party really gained from having an alliance with Roosevelt that was very strategic on their part. And I would argue that similar alliances are necessary, but the main thing is that there needs to be a network of people that are committed to building anti-imperialist politics in America. We need a network of people who can work together, who can rely on each other and can effectively carry out anti-imperialist operations. And there are examples of this. I'm about to go to Florida to support the Yahoo movement, the Yahoo movement, the African People Socialist party. They are an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist organization, and they're doing it. And if you go to St. Louis, Missouri, and if you go to St. Petersburg, Florida, Wilmer Leon (00:33:50): Who, Cory Bush, I'm sorry, her name you said St. Louis, Cory Bush, sorry, is the other congresswoman that was defeated by the, sorry, I had to get it out. Go ahead. Okay. Caleb Maupin (00:34:01): But you'll see the huge community centers that they've built, the farmer's markets that they've built, I mean, they have built a base among the African-American community in these two cities where they are providing services to people while teaching an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist ideology. Now, I don't necessarily agree with their entire approach on everything, but I see why they're being targeted because they are laying the foundations of building a broader anti-imperialist movement. And what they are doing is a great model to look at. They are building a base among the population. The title of the book is Out of the Movement to the Masses. I've been going to anti-war protests, and I've been going to socialist and communist spaces, and very rarely did I ever encounter the African People's Socialist Party, but they were organizing where it counted not in these kind of obscure academic bohemian spaces. (00:34:54): They were organizing in communities and they were providing real services, and they were building community centers and having classes for pregnant mothers and having organic farmer's markets. And they were doing things among the masses of people, not among the, so-called movements of people that like to read books about communism or whatever. And that is why they're being targeted, because they are actually building the kind of movement that needs to be done. They're doing what the Communist Party did during the 1930s. They're doing what the new communist movement of the 1970s attempted to do and was pretty unsuccessful because of global circumstances, et cetera. They are doing what needs to be done to build a real anticolonial movement. And that's kind of what I'm in the text is we have to have a reevaluation and we have to figure out how we can reach the bulk of the American people and not confine ourselves to kind of left academic and intellectual spaces. Wilmer Leon (00:35:50): Is it too simplistic to, when you look at this battle between the elites, is it too simplistic to categorize it as the financials versus the industrialists? Caleb Maupin (00:36:01): Yes. It's a little bit too simplistic because there is a lot of financialization, a lot of the lower levels Wilmer Leon (00:36:07): Of capital. Caleb Maupin (00:36:09): Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's not exactly right, but you're pointing to a certain trend that there is one faction that favors economic growth because economic growth will mean more money for them. There's another faction that is not concerned about economic growth so much as they're concerned about maintaining their monopoly. And in order to maintain their monopoly, they need to slow down growth around the world, and they're actually pushing degrowth or slow growth economics. So that's probably the primary divide is pro-growth and anti-growth, right? You would think that every businessman would be pro-growth, but the ultra monopolies that are heavily involved in finance at this point, they're blatantly talking about degrowth as a way to stay at the top. Wilmer Leon (00:36:51): In fact, one of the ways that they maintain their position is through consolidation. One of the ways that the banks control their monopoly is by buying smaller banks and bringing the or. So that's just one example. Caleb Maupin (00:37:10): Sure, sure. I mean, we live in a time where at the end of the day, the issue is technology is that it is human labor that creates all wealth, right? It is only human labor that creates value at the end of the day, and it is the value that workers create that lays the basis for the profits that capitalists can make, et cetera. And we are in a period where the technological revolution is reducing the role of workers at the assembly line. There's a lot of jobs that are no longer in existence because of technological advancement. And in a rational society that would be great. But in our society where profits are in command, that's leading to an economic crisis. Great example is self-driving cars, self-driving cars should be a great thing. It should be great that this job called driving this chore, this human labor of driving cars is no longer necessary. (00:38:02): But if they introduce self-driving cars, you would immediately in this country have millions of truck drivers unemployed, millions of Uber drivers unemployed, millions of traffic court employees unemployed. You would have riots in the streets. And Andrew Yang talked about how if self-driving cars came to the United States, we would have a society-wide crisis of unemployment and chaos like we never seen. How is that rational? Why should technological advancement lead to greater poverty? And that is the problem that we are facing. Human creativity and brilliance has outstripped the narrow limits production organized to make profit. We need a rationally planned economy so that economic growth can continue and technological advancement leads to greater prosperity for all Wilmer Leon (00:38:46): That sounds like China. Caleb Maupin (00:38:47): Yeah. And China, by controlling their economy and by having the state assigned credit based on their five-year plans and having state controlled tech corporations that are in line with the Communist party's vision, they're able to continue having growth despite having technological advancement. And that's ultimately what we need to have. And that is what Marx wrote about. One of the writers I quote extensively from is a brilliant thinker from the new communist movement named Nelson Peery and his autobiography, black Radical, which is very good, talks about his involvement in the Communist Party and then getting kicked out of the Communist Party and FBI infiltration of the Communist Party and then starting the Communist Labor Party during the 1970s. But also his very important book that he published before he died, I believe in 2004, called The Future Is Up To Us, which really gets into this contradiction of technology leading to impoverishment. (00:39:42): And he's saying this like during the Bush administration before ai, before any of what we're saying now he's laying out how this is going to lead to a big economic crisis that's going to necessitate a new economic system. Nelson Period is a brilliant thinker who had this kind of understanding. I also draw from Fred Goldstein, from Sam Marcy from some of the other writers who said the same thing. But this has always been kind of the understanding is that technological advancement should not lead to impoverishment, it should lead to greater prosperity. I often quote, there's an old story called the coal miner's riddle, the coal miner. He's sitting in his house with his son. The son says, father, why is it so cold in the house? And he says, because I can't afford to buy any coal. And he says, well, why can't we afford to buy any coal? (00:40:30): And he says, because I lost my job at the coal mine. I was laid off. And he says, father, why were you laid off from the coal mine? Why did you lose your job? He says, because there is too much coal. That's capitalism, but that's not rational. It's poverty created by abundance. I keep hearing our politicians talk about a housing shortage. Have you heard this? A housing shortage in America, there's no housing shortage. I live in New York City, there's four empty apartments for every homeless person. There's millions of empty housing, there's no housing shortage in America. There's a shortage of affordable housing black, because the national economic system, Wilmer Leon (00:41:06): BlackRock bought up a lot of the housing stock and instead of putting those houses back on the market, they held those homes off the market and then put 'em out for rent. So in many instances, it's not a matter of oh, $25,000 credit to those first time home buyers allegedly to lower the price of housing or to make housing more affordable. No, all that's going to do is raise the price of houses by $25,000. What you need to do is get that housing stock that BlackRock has as bought up and put that on the market, make that available. Because if you look at the Econ 1 0 1 supply and demand, you put more houses on the market, chances are the price of houses is going to decline. Caleb Maupin (00:42:02): Absolutely. Absolutely. When we talk about imperialism and we talk about anti-imperialist movements, one great example is the situation with Yemen, right? Yemen right now, this is one of the poorest countries in the world, and right now, this country that has a big movement called the Houthis or Anah, they're shaking the world. But if you go and listen or read the sermons or the founder of the Houthis movement, Hussein Al Houthis, what he's fighting for is economic development because he points out that Yemen is one of the poorest countries in the world, but yet it has a huge amount of oil. It has a huge amount of arable land to grow food, but the people there are very, very poor. And the Houthis movement that is now at this point, stopping ships in the Mediterranean and standing with the Palestinians and sending drones to the Indian Ocean and just shaking the world. (00:42:56): That was a movement of very, very poor people in one of the poorest countries in the world that demanding to take control of their natural resources and take control of their economy. My understanding of imperialism and such very much had a lot to do with the fact that in 2015, I participated in a humanitarian mission attempting to deliver medical aid to Yemen after the upsurge of 2015 when the Houthis movement and their revolutionary committee took power, I went on a ship from the Islamic Republic of Iran with the Red Crescent Society, and we tried to deliver medical aid to Yemen, and we were blocked in doing so. And reading about this anti-colonial movement that was formed in Yemen, a very religious Shia Muslim movement, demanding economic development, demanding, taking control of their resources, reading about that was very inspiring in the aim of building an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movement in the United States. (00:43:54): Now to see what the Houthis are doing as they're blocking ships to support the Palestinians as they're withstanding us attack, this is a movement of impoverished people fighting for their economic development and fighting to build a new country. This is a mass anti-colonial movement that is worth studying. And the fact that they align themselves with Russia and China, they're not blocking ships from Russia, they're not blocking ships from China. They are blocking ships from Israel and any country that trades with them, that shows you that this global anti-imperialist movement that is about mobilizing millions of people to fight for their rights, this global movement has a real strength. Wilmer Leon (00:44:34): Let's shift now to the 2024 presidential election. We've come out of the Republican Convention, we've now come out of the Democratic Convention and the Democratic Party convention, and Donald Trump was shocked when Joe Biden stepped down, Kamala Harris stepped in. That has changed the dynamic, at least in terms of the dialogue, and we're starting to see some shift in the numbers. Your thoughts on where we are now with this landscape. Caleb Maupin (00:45:09): I think that Kamala Harris is a completely manufactured candidate. She was created by the people who brought us the Hillary Clinton State Department when it was made clear that Hillary Clinton couldn't run for president once again in 2020, all of Hillary Clinton's financial backers put their money behind Kamala Harris. She was not popular with the American people, but yet powerful forces twisted Joe Biden's arm and put her on the ticket as vp. She has not been popular or successful as vp, but she is the candidate that the forces that are committed to regime change and all out efforts to oppose Russia and China at all costs. She is the one that they have invested the most in supporting. And I don't think she's going to win. I think that Trump will win the upcoming election. And that doesn't mean everything about Trump is good or I endorsed Donald Trump. (00:46:03): I'm just telling you that I think Trump is going to win. But I also believe that there are very powerful forces that see Kamala Harris as their best bet at getting what they want, which is more regime change wars, more destabilization around the world. I did write a book in 2020 about Kamala Harris four years ago, and I thought it was very odd that right after she got the Democratic nomination, this book that had been on sale for four years on Amazon suddenly got removed from Amazon. And for seven days my book was banned from Amazon and then restored with no explanation seven days later. I thought that was very, very odd. It raised a lot of eyebrows, but it also points to the amount of power the tech monopolies really have. It seems like everything was being done to support Kamala Harris. What I also thought was interesting is that in my book, I talked about Tulsi Gabbard and how Tulsi Gabbard kind of represents forces in the Pentagon that are really worried about another Arab Spring and what Kamala Harris and the Hillary Clinton State Department forces people like Samantha Power, people like Anne-Marie Slaughter, what they might engineer if they come back to office. (00:47:11): My book highlighted Tulsi Gabbard as being kind of a faction that is opposed to Kamala Harris. And the very same day that my book was pulled from Amazon, Tulsi Gabbard was added to the Quiet Sky's terrorism watch list by the American government. When she tried to board a plane, she found out she was accused of being a terrorist. And I thought that was interesting as well. And it just kind of points to, and there was all kinds of weird stuff going on in terms of social media and Google searches that was being manipulated around that time. But the book that I wrote about Kamala Harris and who has backed her and the ties that she has getting pulled from Amazon, it was interesting to see the timing, Wilmer Leon (00:47:52): The position of the Democratic Party as it relates to Gaza. And I was at the DNCI was also at the RNC conventions, but there were protestors in Chicago demanding a change in the US policy as it relates to the genocide in Gaza. Then you had uncommitted delegates that were able to have a sit-in at the DNC right outside the front door of the entrance to the United Center, demanding that a pro-Palestinian spokesperson be added to the speaker's list. And none of that was agreed to. In fact, it was basically dismissed summarily. So your thoughts on the dangers that the Democrats are playing with taking that position as it relates to the general election? Caleb Maupin (00:48:55): Well, if the Democrats are going to win this election, they're going to need lots of votes in Minnesota, lots of votes in Wisconsin and lots of votes in Michigan. And what do all three of those states have in common? Those swing states, Wilmer Leon (00:49:06): Large Arab populations. Caleb Maupin (00:49:08): That's right. Lots of Muslim Americans, lots of Arab Americans, and with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris giving a blank check to Israel to do what they're doing. I think it's very unlikely to see those folks lining up to vote for them. Now, Kamala Harris has made some noise about this or that, but she's basically the president already. If she was going to do something, she could do it right now. I mean, she's the vice president, but Joe Biden doesn't seem to be as actively involved in the political running of the country as some people might expect. That said, I will say that Donald Trump, I mean his position on Israel Palestine, I mean, is pretty reprehensible, and he continues to play up the idea that Kamala Harris and the Democrats are somehow anti-Israel, which they are not. What I think is interesting though, and I noticed that it seems like anti-Israel voices in the Trump camp, they may not be on the front stage, but they do have a lot of influence. (00:50:03): And I'm not saying all these people are doing what they're doing for necessarily good reasons, but I noticed when Elon Musk was interviewing Donald Trump in the chat, it just exploded. And all over Twitter, it exploded. The phrase, no war on Iran that came from Nick Fuentes. Now, Nick Fuentes is somebody that I don't agree with on many, many things and find a lot of his views and just his presentation style to kind of reprehensible and gross, but he, for his own reasons says no war with Iran. I also noticed that Candace Owens, who is a conservative and was very pro-Israel at one point, she was not pro-Israel enough. Now she's kind of moved for interesting reasons that are very different than anything I would say. She's moved into an anti-Israel direction and she has also got a lot of people in the Trump camp who listen to her and she is making noise, no war in Iran and urging Trump supporters not to support Israel. And this points to the fact that opposition to Israel, I think is much more widespread in both parties than anyone wants to recognize. (00:51:07): It's an element of the emperor has no clothes. Both parties pretend that everyone in their camp just supports Israel. But anyone who talks to a typical Democrat, you were at the Republican Convention and the Democrat Convention, and you could probably confirm that opposition to what Israel is doing is boiling beneath the surface, amid both political parties and amid all sections of this country. And that there is a lot of growing outrage about the influence and power of Israel and American politics, even among people who might support Israel otherwise, but just don't appreciate the arrogance and grip that they seem to have over policymaking. Wilmer Leon (00:51:46): And some people just help me understand why, but some people just have a problem with genocide. It's a bit os there are growing groups, Republicans for Harris, and there are those who are positing that this is because she's a stooge of the elite and this represents how she who's truly backing her. What about the argument that many of those in those types of organizations see her as an opportunity to reclaim the Republican party by getting rid of Donald Trump? And it's almost a any port in the storm kind of mentality, they see her as the stalking horse. If they can back her, if she can defeat Trump, they then can, the old school, the traditional Republicans can regain control of their party. What say you Caleb Opin? Caleb Maupin (00:52:58): Well, I would say that the Bush era Republican party is gone. It's never coming back. And Donald Trump is a symptom of that. And that's very clear. And that Donald Trump's recent embracing of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK, that indicates that Donald Trump is taking his campaign in an anti-establishment direction. Now, that doesn't mean that he's going to necessarily do good things as president. That just means that he's increasingly realizing that his appeal is to people that are opposed to the establishment. And I think that means the establishment is going to fight him a lot harder. There's no question about that. And that there are your regular traditional neo-conservative Republicans, my country, right or wrong, if you don't like it here, move to some other country, support the military, support the wars, support America dominating the world, and showing the world about our great American way of life. (00:53:51): Those folks are increasingly finding the Republican party to not be their home. And this is all very interesting. I noticed in Kamala Harris's DNC speech, she attacked the Republicans for denigrating America. And that made me smile because it reminded me of what I always heard about the far left, right? It was the far left. They hate America. They're always saying things are bad. Why are you always running down our country? And a lot of things that Kamala Harris said in her speech almost sounded like Neoconservatism. She attacked Donald Trump for meeting with Kim Jong-Un. She said he was cozying up to tyrants and being friendly with tyrants. And it seemed to me like there was very much the Republican Party, I believe over time is going to become more of a catchall populist, anti-establishment party, whereas the Democratic party is more and more becoming the party of the establishment of the way things are supposed to be. I think that what I would call the late Cold War normal in American politics is being flipped. It used to be the Republican party was the party of the establishment, and the Democrats were the party of opposition. Not very sincere opposition in many cases, but they were the party of, if you didn't agree with what you're supposed to think necessarily, if you're a little more critical, you become a Democrat. Well, Wilmer Leon (00:55:05): If you were proc civil rights, if you were pro-environment, if you were anti-war, that's where you went. Caleb Maupin (00:55:12): Yeah. And I think it's being flipped. And that doesn't mean that Republicans and the MAGA base that are talking a certain way are sincere at all. That just means who they're appealing to. The Republican party has an anti-establishment appeal more and more every day. The Democratic party has a ProE establishment appeal. And I think this Republicans for Harris is a great example of that. Wilmer Leon (00:55:32): So as we move now, spiraling towards November 5th, you've already said you believe that Donald Trump is going to win the election. One of the things that I find very, very telling, and I check it every day when you go to the Harris website, there's still no policy positions stated. There's no policy tab. In fact, when I asked that question a couple of times at the DNCC, I was told, oh, you don't understand. She hasn't had time. There hasn't been. I said, wait a minute. She ran for president four years ago. So she had to have, we hope she had established some policy positions as a candidate. She was the vice president going on four years now, we hope during those four years she could have figured out some policy and it's now been almost a month. You can't tell me that she couldn't pick up the phone and call a bunch of people in the room and say, Hey, I need policies on education, on defense, on the economy, on these five positions. I need policy in 10 days. Go get it done. Caleb Opin. Caleb Maupin (00:57:00): Well, I think there are three possible outcomes for the election. In my mind, probably the worst case scenario would be Kamala Harris winning. And I think that would be followed by a number of, there'd be chaos in the streets. A lot of Trump supporters will not accept it as a legitimate election. And I expect there will then be a big crackdown on dissent, and I expect there'll be a lot of provocations, et cetera. And that will be used by the establishment to crack down on dissent. Wilmer Leon (00:57:26): Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. And people need to understand the crackdown on dissent has already started by looking what's being done to who's being platformed from social media sites. Look at what's happening to folks who are getting arrested, the guy that started Instagram and all of these folks, the three Scott Ritter, your book taken off of taking all of these things are data points to support your position that the crackdown on descent has already started? Caleb Maupin (00:58:02): No, I mean the Biden administration has already indicted. Sue me, Terry, who was the top advisor to Obama and Bush on South Korea. And I mean the fact that she's been indicted as a foreign agent of South Korea just because South Korea wants to have mattered negotiations with North Korea. I mean, it looks like blatant retaliation. Wilmer Leon (00:58:22): And South Korea is an ally. Caleb Maupin (00:58:23): Yeah, their closest friend in Washington dc Sumi Terry has now been accused of being a foreign agent. She's facing decades in prison. I mean, this is craziness. This is a top CIA person who's been a top advisor on career matters. So that would be kind of what I think the worst case scenario would be. The most likely scenario is that I think Donald Trump will win. But all the negative things about Trumpism will amplify. I think the pro-Israel stuff, the pro-police stuff, the anti-immigrant stuff will amplify Wilmer Leon (00:58:55): Project 2025. Caleb Maupin (00:58:56): Yeah, the government will try to, the powers that be will try to ride the wave of Trumpism to push forward their own agenda, which is not good But I do think there is a third possible scenario, which is a real long shot. It's a real long shot, which is that Donald Trump takes office in a completely defensive position. And under those circumstances, he may be compelled to do a lot of good things because he's just at odds with the establishment and needs popular support. So much so we shall have to see. But those are my three predictions. But in all of those circumstances on anti-imperialist organization, a network of people that are committed to anti imperialism and building a new America beyond the rule of bankers and war profiteers is going to be vitally important. And at the end of the day, what really matters is not so much who is in office, it's what the balance of forces is in the country and around the world, and what kind of movement exists, what kind organizations. (00:59:58): There are people that are involved in the political process and to change the world and taking responsibility for the future of their country. And I wrote the book as a textbook for the Center for Political Innovation. My organization as we try to do just that, as we try to build a network of people who can rely on each other and build an anti-imperialist movement in the United States to support the Hru three, to study these ideas to be out there. That is one thing we aim to do. If Donald Trump wins the election, one thing that we aim to do is and intend to get that picture of Donald Trump shaking hands with Kim Jong-un and get it everywhere and say that this election is a mandate that the peace talks on the Korean Peninsula should continue. And that could be a way to nudge the discourse toward a more peace oriented wing of Trumpism. (01:00:46): That's one thing that we intend to do. We have other operations that we intend to carry out with the aim of nudging the country in an anti-colonial direction. One thing that I think is very important is Alaska, right? Alaska is right there close to Russia and there's the bearing Strait that separates Russia and Alaska and Abraham Lincoln had the idea of building a bridge to connect Alaska to Russia. And a lot of great people have had the idea of doing that since. And I think popularizing the idea of building a world land bridge to connect Alaska to Russia and pivot the US economy toward trading with the Russian Far East and with the Korean Peninsula and with China that could nudge the world and a direction of Multipolarity pivot away from Western Europe and towards the World Land Bridge and the bearing Strait and all of that. (01:01:36): So there are various things that we can do to try and influence discourse, but I must say the explosion is coming, right? I mean, you can feel it rumbling in the ground. The avalanche is going to pour, the volcano is going to go off. It's only a matter of time. Those of us who study these ideas and understand things, we have the job not of making the explosion come, but rather of trying to guide it in the right direction. The conditions in this country are getting worse. Americans are angry at the establishment. Things are going to change. But what we hope to do is guide that change and point it in a good direction toward a better world. And that's all we can really hope to do. I quote Mao the leader of the Chinese Revolution. He said The masses are the real heroes and at the end of the day, it will be the masses of the American people and their millions who determine what the future of this country will be. I think they are going to awaken and take action. The question is only what type of action will that be? And I think guys like you and I have a role to play in shaping what kind of action they might take when they do awaken. Wilmer Leon (01:02:39): Well, thank you for putting me in that group. And if we are able to build a bridge across the bearing strait between Alaska and Russia, I'm sure Sarah Palin will be the first one. Should be operating the toll booth. My brother. Alright, my brother Kayla mopping. Man, thank you so much for being my guest. Thank you so much for joining the show today. Caleb Maupin (01:03:05): Sure thing. Always a pleasure Wilmer Leon (01:03:07): Folks. Thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Woman Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, follow us on social media. The Patreon account is very, very important. That helps to support the effort. You can find all the links below in the show description and remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge talk without analysis is just chatter. And we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out Announcer (01:03:50): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.    

In this episode of the ChinaPower Podcast, Dr. Elizabeth Wishnick joins us to discuss recent Sino-Russian activities and what they mean for the overall China-Russia relationship. Dr. Wishnick analyzes the May 2024 Xi-Putin meeting in Beijing, noting that the joint statement the two countries released had significant areas of continuity and some areas of change compared to 2023. She then analyzes the meeting between the two leaders at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit and the nearly half a dozen military exercises the two countries engaged in in July and August 2024. Dr. Wishnick emphasizes that the recent surge of China-Russia military exercises are meant to signal China-Russia political and strategic coordination, with some scheduled in advance as part of their normal annual exercise plans and others scheduled in response to U.S. activities. Finally, Dr. Wishnick shares her predictions for developments within Sino-Russian relations in the coming months.  Dr. Elizabeth Wishnick is a Senior Research Scientist in the China and Indo-Pacific Security Affairs Division at CNA. She was a Professor of Political Science at Montclair State University from 2005-2024 and the Coordinator of MSU's Asian Studies Undergraduate Minor from 2010-2019. Since 2002, she has been a research scholar at Columbia University's Weatherhead East Asian Institute. She previously taught undergraduate and graduate courses in international relations, Chinese politics, and Chinese foreign policy at Barnard College, Columbia College, and SIPA. Dr. Wishnick has dual regional expertise on China and Russia and is an expert on Chinese foreign policy, Sino-Russian relations, Northeast Asian and Central Asian security, and Arctic geopolitics.  She received a PhD in Political Science from Columbia University, an MA in Russian and East European Studies from Yale University, and a BA from Barnard College. She speaks Mandarin, Russian, and French.

The significance of some of the recent diplomatic moves the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made can't be understated. It appears what the regime is trying to do right now is enact a plan for the so-called Eurasian Empire. It's making key moves to create a new world order, so to speak, and to cut off the United States from its new system. The enacting of this new agenda was very public, but easy to miss. During the recent meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the CCP and member states announced their plans for a new Eurasian trade alliance, along with a new security bloc that can rival NATO. Immediately after, the CCP launched a diplomatic tour, shifting old policies to try to woo countries including India and the Philippines, which have until now been the focus of conflicts with the CCP. Alongside that, the regime has been carrying out similar moves throughout Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. And this has likewise been accompanied by an increased military boldness against the United States. To understand what's now taking place, we need to go into the concepts of Duginism and the proposed plans for a so-called Eurasian Empire. We'll discuss in this episode of Crossroads. Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.   ⭕️

Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube!   FULL TRANSCRIPT: Wilmer Leon (00:00): I am back. I'm back. I went to what I'm calling Cult Fest 2024, also known as the RNC in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. That was a site to behold. But with all that said, president Joe Biden has decided not to pursue a second term for 2024. Without a primary, without an open process, vice President Kamala Harris has quickly become the Democrat's. Presumptive nominee. Is this democracy or a Bernie Sanders? Redo. Stay tuned. We're going to answer those questions, Announcer (00:41): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:49): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they are current, a vacuum failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur, thus enabling you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, the issue before us is the 2024 presidential election and how the Democrats are selecting their nominee. My guest is Tom Porter. He's a lifelong activist and scholar, former dean of the African-American Studies Department at Ohio University, former director of the King Center in Atlanta, former host of morning conversations with Tom Porter. Tom Porter. Welcome back to podcast, my brother. (01:57) So Tom, as I said in the open President, Joe Biden has decided not to pursue a second term for 2024 without a primary, without an open process. Vice President Kamala Harris has quickly become the Democrat's presumptive nominee. I believe she has now amassed the requisite delegates in order to become officially the nominee on July 8th. Clinton advisor, James Carville, who is one tricky, somebody wrote a piece entitled Biden Won't Win, Democrats need a Plan. Here's one wherein he wrote, the Jig is Up, and the sooner Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders accept this, the better we need to move forward. But it can't be by anointing Vice President, Kamala Harris or anyone else as the presumptive democratic nominee. We've got to do it in the open, the exact opposite of what Donald Trump wants us to do. Tom, it doesn't appear, at least at this point that the Dems are listening to Carville Tom Porter (03:09): And they shouldn't. Wilmer Leon (03:10): Okay? Tom Porter (03:11): And they shouldn't. I remember the most important black labor leader in the country came out of a meeting with Clinton Carville and Al from, and he said, Tom, they're a bunch of fascists. It is the Clinton Wing that took over the Democratic Party under the leadership of the Democratic Leadership Conference, which was made of Southern governors, which has gotten the Democratic Party in trouble ever since. And what that means is that CarVal didn't want Kamala Harris. That's what that means. It had nothing to do with the open process and what have you. He would know open if he had a can opener, Wilmer Leon (03:58): But to his point about an open process, because further on in that piece, he talks about Clinton and Obama selecting, I think it was eight potential nominees, and that they needed to have regional town halls where these individuals would travel the country explaining their policies, introducing themselves to the electorate, and then based upon that, an individual would be, I think the term was selected, Tom. Tom Porter (04:30): Well, the effect of it is one of the things that Jesse Jackson and the Jackson campaign of 1984 is instructive and people should study that more. What Jesse found out that even though he was leading the other presidential candidates, that the rules of the Democratic party was stacked against him. It was called front loading. So for CarVal, they throw the word around democracy. First of all, the America's never been a democracy. It was born in slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and still the land from the Mexican. So the fact of it is it only had the possibility of becoming a democracy, and it has yet to come there. So what car is talking about it seems very, very interesting. But he crow controls the process, controls the day, and I'll guarantee you that Clinton and CarVal and that bunch are not going to have any kind of process that they don't control. And so it may look like it. I mean, it looks like Biden was chosen. He was number four. How did he get past three candidates and become number one? It wasn't open process. And I tell you one thing carve out and nobody else said anything because he was their choice because they wanted to stop Bernie Sanders. Wilmer Leon (05:52): There are those who say that Joe Biden was selected not to defeat Donald Trump. Joe Biden was selected to defeat Bernie Sanders, Tom Porter (06:03): And you are absolutely right. And that is what they have done. They did it with Jesse in 84. The whole Jaime thing was just that a hoax. Jesse never said it in any kind of way that was demeaning towards the Jews, but the JDL disrupted interrupted Jesse's announcement when he announced that he was going to run for president and hounded us, us being me, Florence Tate and Jesse, who were three people called the road team. When Jesse first started running in 84, they hounded us to JDO every place we went. And before we got secret service protection, it was Farhan and the FOI that protected us. So they were after Jesse from the beginning. It's instructed for people to read the platform of the Rainbow Coalition because Jesse has had the most progressive populous campaign in the 20th century. Wilmer Leon (07:00): I'm glad you brought that up. This takes us a bit off topic, but I think it is relevant because James Clyburn and a group of African-American leadership went in and met with Biden a couple of weeks ago, and that's when Clyburn came out with the line, we Riding with Biden. And one of the things that I said as a result of that was, what did you get for that endorsement When you walked into the room and you sat down with Joe Biden, did you put your own project 2025 plan on the table and say, look, Joe, here's what we need. Here's what we want. Here's what we demand. You're going to sign this or we're going to go back out here and tell people that you just fell asleep in the meeting. I don't know what they got for that. And based upon the way that this whole thing has gone, it seems as though they were once again on the wrong side of history. So for you to say that people need to go back and read the plan from the Jackson campaign, and then we can even go back to the black political, the Gary Conference, Tom Porter (08:15): Gary Convention, that Wilmer Leon (08:17): There's enough data. Go ahead. Tom Porter (08:19): Those are two documents that people need to read. Not only read, but they need to update them. That is the agenda that came out of the Gary Convention and Jesse Jackson's platform. Not only was Jesse's platform the most advanced in 1984, when I left the university, I was looking for something to do, so I decided to run for Congress and Jackie Jackson called me Jesse's wife and said, Jesse wants to meet with you. And I was in Cincinnati running for Congress, and I went to Chicago, spent the night at Jesse's house the day before 1983, and that's when Jesse asked me if I would work with him in the campaign. But I ran for Congress in Ohio and I ran in two counties that were 99% white and blacks and white in Cincinnati, which was a big city, said, don't go out there, show your literature, but don't show your face. Long story short, Mondell was at the top of the ticket. I got 2000 more votes than he did in Brown County and a thousand more than he did in Claremont County. He was at the top of stick. He was supposed to ticket, he was supposed to help me. The fact of it is it was just as populism that got basically these working class, mostly Republican whites to get behind Jesse because of his platform. It was a very populous platform to the left. Trump came along with a populous platform from the Wilmer Leon (09:52): Right, from Tom Porter (09:53): The right. And so the Democratic Party, instead of embracing Jesse's platform, which came out of the Gary Convention, instead of embracing it, they moved the leadership of the Democratic Party to the Democratic Leadership Conference and hired all of Jesse's people and gave them jobs which are meaningless jobs, moved the structure from the party someplace else. But these Negroes became deputy. This deputy, I call their names, but I don't want to, some of my still call friends, but they drank the Kool-Aid. And if you read some of the press around Clinton and his crew Al from, and James Carve, one theme was We don't need Jesse Jackson anymore. They marginalized Jesse so much so that in the convention in New York, Jesse didn't have a VIP pass. He had to come through the door like everybody else. That's Clinton and his crew, and Nancy Pelosi and Clyburn and all of the Negroes come out of that. Obama's position was to negate the progress and the black leadership that had gone before he calling Dr. King a simple country preacher, he couldn't carry Dr. King's dirty underwear. Wilmer Leon (11:12): Well, in fact, wait a minute. First of all is that negating the negation is the one question. And to your point, you can go and read President Obama's acceptance speech at the Nobel where he talks about Dr. King and then says, but I'm an American president. I have a different set of concerns that I must address. You don't quote Dr. King and then say, yeah, but you say, yeah, yeah. Tom Porter (11:43): But his job was to negate the advances that had been made and our responsibility, and this is what this generation of young people, when Joe Biden has to pass the torch, but not pass the torch, the Hakeem Jeffries and that crew, we have to negate them, which is called a negation of the negation, which is an affirmation of something at a high level Wilmer Leon (12:11): Because two negatives make a positive. Tom Porter (12:13): That's right. That's right. And so getting back to where we are now, of course Kamala Harris was not chosen as a result of some democratic process, and one would not expect that coming from the Nancy Pelosi, bill Clinton and them. And so the responsibility of this generation of young people and young people have actually shown from the mass worldwide protests around the George Floyd lynching, Greta and Climate can change the mass protests around the war and Gaza, the mass women protests around the world. There's a new populism that is emerging. And if Kamala Harris does not pick somebody to be the vice president to the left of her, she may have problems. Wilmer Leon (13:16): Now, when you say to the left of her, that's a very, very interesting designation because there are many who will say she is the left, that she was the left to Biden. And by the way, folks, Tom mentioned the Democratic Leadership Council, Joe Biden was an instrumental part of that as well. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Biden, they were all Nancy Pelosi. They were all part instrumental parts of moving the Democratic Party from the left. They want to say center, but it was actually to the right. So Tom, what do you say to those that say, oh, wait a minute, wait a minute, Mr. Porter, vice President Harris, it's to the left of Joe Biden. Tom Porter (14:03): It wouldn't be difficult. (14:07) I mean that's a distinction without a difference. They say Twi D and Twiddly dumb. She was as a black person, as a black person, she would have to be given the history that she is a part of, be the left of most white candidates. But at the same time, she was not on the left. And so for her to pick conventional wisdom is a bunch of Bs curse of all. Somebody's always been telling me, well, Tom, conventional wisdom or you don't understand real politics. I say, I'll tell you where you can go with both of those. So conventional wisdom says that she should pick somebody from a state that she needs a governor. The protests and the mass movements that are happening, the populous movements that are happening are to the left. And they're to the left because the Democratic party and the Republican party are so far to the right. But what used to be when we said left, we meant socialists or communism. (15:28) But the left today is anything left of the Democrat or Republican parties. But if she is to, there are two things that I think that are important now. One is the platform. One is the platform. I mean, she's going to be the vice president, the president nominee. That's a foregone conclusion because any of these other people who want to jump up, they can't go anywhere. What's this guy out of? West Virginia said that he was thinking about running, right? The base. Yeah. The base of the Democratic party is black and growing Hispanic, and he's not going to get any votes from them. And so for him to say that he might run and they know it. They know it. And that's why they use Clyburn in 2020 who just as he said, we riding with Biden, we know Joe and Joe know us. I mean some of that old coon foolishness. So they know they can't move without black folks. But the same time they hoping that they got other cly burns Wilmer Leon (16:45): And they know they can't move without black folks, but they never offer substantive legislation to demonstrate a commitment because for as much as they know they can't move without us. They don't want to appear to the broader demographic that they're with us. Tom Porter (17:11): Well, the fact of it is if they were true and honest, Jesse Jackson would've become leader of the Democratic Party just like Trump did. Obama could have become the leader of the Democratic Party, but that wasn't his job. His job was to look good. He and his wife while doing nothing, my daughter sent me a magazine cover the other day where Obama was on there, and it was something about the new generation of Kool. He was supposed to be the replacement for Miles Davis and Malcolm X, all of the black people. We considered to be cool just because they taught him how to dress and walk black and he could shoot a basketball. So he did not want to be head of the Democratic party. He liked his job. He had barbecues and all kind of black folks in the White House, and they line dance and did what they did, and then he came out and did nothing. So the key thing now for the Democrats, if they want to win, I wasn't going to vote for Joe Biden anyway, and I already said it, and anybody that co-signs what he did in Gaza, he could be running against the devil and I wouldn't vote for him or the devil, so I wasn't going to vote for him. (18:38) Kamala Harris, black people going on the glory, they went on the glory with Jesse Jackson. They went on the glory with Barack Obama because black people feel their late nationalism that when we get somebody black, we'll get a better deal if we get somebody white. But as they say, you might be my race, but you're not always my taste. But they're excited about Kamala Harris. They're all this money and black women on Facebook are putting on with camera. I don't have a problem with that. The problem is what's going to be the platform and is she going to choose somebody to the left of her a more populous candidate? Because if she's not going to do that, then what are we talking about more the same? And the other thing that the Democratic Party has to do in the new world that we live in, they've got to loosen the grips that the Israeli lobby has on the party. Wilmer Leon (19:38): What about, I want to quickly go back to the issue with the African-American women and this proclamation or this statement, this sentiment that Vice President Harris has earned the right to be the vice president. And that any attempt to either have a more open process or anything that might challenge that is a threat to black women, it's a threat to black womanhood. Your thoughts on these politics, this whole identity politics thing, because she's a black woman, now all of a sudden is hands off. Tom Porter (20:24): Yeah, I understand that sentiment, but I understand it. It's like with Obama, we knew we questioned Obama, but the black women said that Michelle would keep him in line. Remember that? Wilmer Leon (20:42): Oh yeah. Tom Porter (20:43): They said, Wilmer Leon (20:44): Because Michelle we're from Chicago. And when she said that, I said, oh, we got some straight gangsters up in this joint. We got some Tom Porter (20:52): Elkins. But it was also because she was darker Wilmer Leon (20:56): Than Tom Porter (20:56): Obama. And even though Obama himself said he was a mu mother, he was sure about one thing, and he really wasn't black. He was clear about that. So I understand the sentiment, but everything else in our politics we've got to be serious about. Wilmer Leon (21:20): Not sentimental. Tom Porter (21:22): Not sentimental. That's what Dr. King said and his great thing about power, he said love without power. He said, power without love is reckless, but love without power is weak, sentimental an anemic. And so I understand that everybody wants to see somebody. I'd like to see short guys run the world. I'm five six. Nobody's deeper than that. Wilmer Leon (21:53): No, Tom, it's taller than that. Tom Porter (21:57): You're absolutely right. So I understand the sentiment, but that's the reason why I tell people that you must study deeper. You can't be all form and no content because then you end up saying that Michelle is darker than Obama and therefore she'll keep him in line. They were both like Clinton and Hillary, which was their role model, latter Day Bunny and Clyde's. So I understand that sentiment, but unless they turn it into something, unless they talk about the platform, what is the platform going to look like? What is camera going to run on? I mean, I see her quietly distance herself from Netanyahu's visit. She's going to be in Indiana, but then she's going to secretly meet with him. It's not so much a secret. So we've got to be, these are very, very serious times. And as they say in my neighborhood in Ohio, now's not the time to be nut rolling. So these are very, very serious times. And so when we look at passing the torch, who are we passing the torch to? Not Hakeem Jeffries, not the rest of these niggas, Roland Martin, they're all getting in line. They're getting in line without even discussing the platform. Wilmer Leon (23:26): Well, first of all, could Kamala Harris get away with not meeting with Netanyahu, understanding the power of apac, not meet with Netanyahu and still win the election? Tom Porter (23:42): I think she could. Wilmer Leon (23:43): Okay. Tom Porter (23:44): I don't think, see, APAC has never been challenged, (23:49) And APAC represents that group in the Jewish community who attempts to control everything that they can, particularly in the black community, whether you're talking about the music, the culture, or what have you got to say it. We got to say it because if we don't say it, then we allow ourselves to be chumped. And the fact of it is, is that it's got to be challenged and she won't, but she can challenge it by who she picks and what the platform's going to be. In apacs power is basically through the media, the media and its money. It's not the numbers that they have that can put a candidate in office except maybe in New York City, but she won't. But that has to happen. We cannot allow a group of people to control significant aspects of our community and not say something about it. Wilmer Leon (24:58): Wait a minute. And to that point, to those that listening to this conversation, want to jump on the antisemitism train and accuse us of being antisemitic, APAC said, and you can go back and look it up in the newspaper, they were going to invest 100 million into the Democratic primary process to be sure that they would unseat or prevent from winning candidates whose politics were to the left, and that they deemed to be anti-Israel. That's not us making this up. That's them making the declaration. All we're doing is highlighting and calling your attention to what they said. So we're not making this up. Tom Porter (25:51): I let those kinds of conversations roll off my back that you anti-Semitic, the same way when somebody says, if we get into disagreement and the first thing they go to is you got a Napoleonic complex. And my answer to that, would I be wrong if I was tall? So you can't be afraid of all these things because they going to come at you anyhow. I said to Jesse, when the ING thing came up, I said, man, just don't cop to that. And some of the people who were around him told him to cop to that. It was the biggest mistake that he ever made because they never heard him said it, and he never said it in a derogatory way. About, on the other hand, in our first meeting in New York, Percy Sutton met us before we were supposed to meet with the Jewish leaders of New York with a yako on his head telling us how we had to talk and act in front of the Jews in New York. So look, I don't pay any attention to that. We have to challenge, we have to cash all checks when it comes to us. And it has to be a Pan-African perspective where we really, where the continent and blacks in the new world. We've got to challenge those things that oppress us because if not in this serious time, Trump them are going for all of the marbles. Wilmer Leon (27:18): Yes, they are. I mean, Tom Porter (27:19): They're going for all of the marvels, and there's enough Democrats, white Democrats who will side with that stuff. Because quite frankly, where we are right now, in order to solve the world's problems, we have to understand two things. Who's been in charge of the world for the last 400 years? White men look at the state of the world. They forfeited the right to run the world, but you're not going to give up just because you enslaved. A bunch of people stole the land from the Native Americans. If we give up, we'd have to give up what we got. It's too bad, but we not giving that up. And that's what trumped them. That's what Hitler was riding on. That's what Trump didn't riding on. We don't want to give. Democracy is what it means to pay reparations, give some of the land back to the neighborhood. What the hell with democracy? That's what they're saying. Wilmer Leon (28:13): I want to quickly go back to your point about challenging APAC and other type of organizations, and I want to tie it to what's going on in Gaza now nine months into that conflict. And the Zionist government of Israel has been taken a ass whooping for nine months straight. And so this whole mythology of the invincibility of the IDF, that they're this phenomenal military force and they're getting their ass whooped. And so the whole mythology behind this thing is being exposed. And so just as it's being exposed there, it's being exposed here. The question is, are we willing to do what we have to do to challenge that mythology in alliance with those that are fighting in Gaza? Does that make sense? Tom Porter (29:12): Sure, it makes sense. Well, the fact of it is, given the geopolitical alignment in the world today with China and Russia and Brazil and different formations coming together, even the EU who has been lockstep with Israel, the eu, it can no longer hold to that position because without Africa, Europe is broke in terms of the resources. And so the Israel, where it appears to be winning because of the devastation that it is reaping on the Palestinian people, there will be a reckoning, and it's coming slow, but it is coming even among the evangelicals who say that the rapture will come when Israel is safe and secure within its borders, and then Israel will be destroyed. Wilmer Leon (30:12): Look at Yemen. Look at what Yemen has been able to extract or the force that they've been able to exact upon in terms of their involvement in this process. A small Yemen is considered to be the poorest country in the world. They control the Red Sea. They're sending missiles 1200, 1400 miles across Saudi Arabia and decimating important ports that Israel controls. The whole dynamic is shifting. So with that, when you look, you've talked about the platform. I remember when the platform committee meetings used to be broadcast on television, and I used to sit and listen to 'em. I know I need to get a life, but I used to sit and listen to 'em. That's not happening anymore. So how does a candidate, Harris, what type of platform does she articulate having sat there for years while the Biden administration is involved in genocide, while the Biden administration has wasted trillions of dollars in Ukraine, how does she formulate a platform that takes us away from that failed, attempted world domination and moves us closer to the direction that the world is actually going as in bricks in the South and the Chinese? Tom Porter (31:47): Well, as if we look at the Middle East, Wilmer Leon (31:52): The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is what I was trying to get to. Go Tom Porter (31:55): Ahead. If we look at the Middle East, Wilmer Leon (31:59): Is that a reasonable question to Tom Porter (32:01): Ask? Not only is a reasonable question to ask, but it's a reasonable question to expect that it be answered. You can't allow a small country in the Middle East, which was settled by people who were not from, that had no connection to the original inhabitants of the Middle East to control the future of the Western world women. There's a movie called Rollover, and this was when the Arabs dominated the money thing through it started Kris Christoff and James Fonder and the Greenspan character played by Hume Cronin. At one point, the Arabs were not going to roll over the money, and Hume Cronin said, you are playing with the end of the world. That's where we're at. You can't allow a group of people since Jesus time to control your system in the way that these people do, because it won't work with people talking about if they leave the dollar, Wilmer Leon (33:26): Which they are doing, Tom Porter (33:28): Which they're doing, somebody else loses their influence because there's nothing back in the dollar to begin with talking Wilmer Leon (33:38): About other than more dollars. Tom Porter (33:38): Yeah, talking about only a paper Moon Wilmer Leon (33:45): And Tom, people really need to understand for it because it's not really being articulated here in the Western media. Again, the power of the bricks, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and now about seven or eight other countries have joined the organization and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, those two as quiet as is kept in the West man, they kicked the French out of Niger. You look at the development of the Sahel cooperation organization, man, they are kicking ass and taking names. They are finally moving beyond flag independence, and they are now actually taking control of their economies and they are taking control of their countries and they are kicking the west out. Tom Porter (34:42): The Palestinian leadership met for two days in Beijing. I mean the world, one of the most popular soap operas used to be. As the world turns Wilmer Leon (34:55): In daily city, Tom Porter (34:58): The world is turning. And quite frankly, it's turning away. Not so much from the West, but from the ways of the West. And they don't get it. They don't get it. You can't put sanctions on the whole world without putting sanctions on yourself. You can't tell people they can't come to America, and you'd be welcome in Panama and Costa Rica and Brazil. It doesn't work like that. Or you'd be welcome in Africa. It doesn't really work like that. You tell the people they can't come. Well, clues the borders work both ways. We can open 'em and close, and you can't. I mean, the policies are so stupid in the West. I mean, it's almost particularly in the United States because they have sold this white nationalism for so long, they'd actually believe it themselves. The world is going on without them. Wilmer Leon (35:52): And to their point, I'm looking up here seeing if I could put my hands on it, but I can't quickly, Dr. Ron Walters wrote a book a while ago, white nationalism, black Interests, and I strongly suggest that people get ahold of it. To your point about the policy and the borders, which they say that the Biden administration put Kamala Harris in charge of the borders. I was at the RNC and this woman, Latinos for Trump is who I was talking to. And she was talking about the border, the border. The Democrats have just, I said, wait a minute, wait a minute. You are not even talking about the American foreign policy in these countries that is decimating their economies and forcing these people to leave their countries to come here. And she looked at me very puzzled and quizzical, and I said, lemme give you an example. Chiquita Banana last week was convicted in federal court in Florida of having sponsored death squads in Guatemala. So Chiquita Banana, a US corporation is killing Guatemalans, torturing Guatemalans. And that isn't motivation for them to leave their countries. She didn't even want to touch that, didn't want to Tom Porter (37:18): Touch it. I mean, it's very interesting that Trump would say that the people who are coming across the border are taking jobs from blacks and Latinos. Who does he think are coming across the border? Wilmer Leon (37:33): Oh, I asked her about Haitians. I said, the United States. Thank you. Hakeem Jeffries, thank you Kamala Harris, thank you. Linda Thomas Greenfield, the United States is trying to rein invade Haiti. Where are the Haitians supposed to go? Tom Porter (37:51): I mean, the fact of it is we have got to make sure and say to anybody that says that they represent us. Hakeem Jeffries, John Clyburn, governor Wilmer Leon (38:06): Gregory, Gregory Tom Porter (38:06): Meeks. Gregory Meeks, that if you're going to represent us, this is the platform brother. I mean, you had Hakeem Jeffries and Jonathan Jackson down here in Maryland supporting the guy from that owns Total Wine and Liquorice who was running for Senator Now, I dunno, Wilmer Leon (38:28): David Tron. Tom Porter (38:29): Yeah. And also Brooke. I didn't have no dogging hunt. But how do you come down here in this neighborhood and you support a white candidate who was no more distinguished than Officer Brook for what? Well, I know what Johnson Jackson did. He's in the same business. He's a liquor distributor and by man owns Total Wine. But I understand that he paid off some of Hakeem Jeffries and John campaign debts. So I don't know. But that's not representing us. You're not representing us if you're not on the side of the Palestinians. If you don't believe in the two state Wilmer Leon (39:10): Solution, Tom Porter (39:11): You're not representing us. If you don't understand what's happening in Africa or Haiti or Cuba, 70% of the people in Cuba of African descent. So you putting sanctions on your own people, you can't be co-signing that. And we got to say this, we got to negate the negation. We, as Margaret Walker said, let a new race of men and women rise and take control. That's what time it is. Wilmer Leon (39:38): So how do we get the presumptive right now, democratic nominee, Kamala Harris as a woman of color, as a multi-ethnic woman, Jamaican and Indian, how do we get her to speak to those issues? Tom Porter (40:02): First of all, we got to energize the black community because they're counting on that. And we've got to say to black women, these are the issues that we think, and there are black women who agree with us. These are the issues that we think that are important to the black community, and we need to have townhouses. We got to not only reenergize our black community, but we need to reenergize a movement because the struggle's not over. And we've got to put before, we can't just say that Kamala, you black, and therefore whatever you do is cool because it's not cool. Wilmer Leon (40:45): But that's the narrative right now, we are so ecstatic, and I'm speaking in the global, we are so ecstatic now that she is in this presumptive position and they are saying that she has earned the right to be there simply because she's black, because she's a woman and because she's been the VP for four years. But when you go back to when she ran for the number one slot, she was the first one out the race. She had zero delegates. She got less than 5% of the vote. Black people didn't even vote for her. Wait a minute. And final point, Tulsi Gabbard torched her ass in 45 seconds. And folks, I ain't hating. I'm just putting out the data, Tom. Tom Porter (41:39): Well, I mean she's earned the right as much as anybody else, but that's not really saying anything. Wilmer Leon (41:46): Okay? Tom Porter (41:47): It's not ever saying anything. The question is, now you here and this is what we're saying. Wilmer Leon (41:52): So what you going to do? Tom Porter (41:53): Yeah, this is what we're saying. We already went through Obama with this stuff and see, we got to quit accepting this notion of the first black to do this. The only reason why, I mean, you take the question of black quarterbacks. The only reason why there were no black quarterbacks in the NFL until there were some had absolutely nothing to do with. There were black quarterbacks, quarterback at junior high, black high schools and colleges ever since. There were some. And so the fact that you decide to let us in don't have anything to do with it because we've earned the right, we've earned the right. Our ancestors paid the price for us to be any damn thing. We want to be in this country. But now, if you're going to represent us, this is what we need at this point. And if you can't do that, it's okay. Do like Biden did go sit next to him while he's fishing, but we have got to have more programs like this. Too many people are not rolling in the press. You have people who, when I was in radio, well, you got to do both sides. There's no good side to slavery. I'm not even going to attempt that one so Wilmer Leon (43:04): Well. In fact, Tom, I've always, particularly when I started talking about Palestine, and I'd get calls from Jewish listeners who would tell me that I'm not balanced. And I said, no, I'm not trying to be balanced. I'm the counterbalance. Because anything that the positions that you want to articulate in the narrative that you want to hear, you get it in the Washington Post, you get it in the New York Times, you get it in the LA Times, you get it on M-S-N-B-C-I-A, you get it on CNN all day every day. So I don't have to present that because it's already presented. I'm the counter to that. And I think I got that from you, by the Tom Porter (43:46): Way. Well, it's very, very interesting. I was watching the BBC yesterday and the BBC hosts was saying, Kamala Harris is black and Asian, as if these would become factors. And she had an affair with Willie Brown. I mean, first of all, she's running against the cat who's damn near serial rapist Wilmer Leon (44:12): And admitted as such. Tom Porter (44:14): But then nobody mentioned that JD Vance's wife was Indian. Nobody talked about Nikki Haley being Indian. It only comes up with his black people Wilmer Leon (44:29): Who I talked to at the convention and was an empty can just full of talking points. Go ahead. Tom Porter (44:38): And so we going have to, the black community is going to have to defend her even if she doesn't want us to defend her because they coming at her. Wilmer Leon (44:49): Oh, no question. Tom Porter (44:50): They're coming at her and somebody's going to slip up and use the N word. Wilmer Leon (44:56): In fact, when I was at the convention, I was on the floor right after they nominated JD Vance, and that whole process ended the day session. I'm doing my standup with the convention floor in the background. And this other news entity had allowed us to use their standup space. And as I'm wrapping up, I say, I find it interesting that a guy who just three years ago was telling America that Donald Trump was the next thing to add off. Hitler is now going to be standing next to this add off Hitler as his vp. I said, how does that happen? And when I said that, the guy who allowed us to use his space came up and said, you guys got to go. You guys got to go. And we said, well, wait a minute. So anyway, but I raised all that to say that question. I'm not hearing many people ask, JD Vance said that Donald Trump was the next thing to Hitler, and he's now standing next to his Hitler. Tom Porter (46:13): Well, I say this about JD Vance and I put it on Facebook that he is either the white version of the Spook who sat by the door or he is the opportunist of the highest order. And I think it's probably a combination Wilmer Leon (46:28): Of nation of the two. Tom Porter (46:29): Yes, yes, yes. And I think Trump may be a little bit concerned now because Trump is in hot water because people don't like him now. They tolerate him. You think Mitch McConnell lacks Trump? Wilmer Leon (46:44): No. Oh, well see, in fact, I'm glad you said that because my advice to the Democrats right now is just put together a clip, a montage of JD Vance, of Little Marco Rubio of what's the dude from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, all of these folks who were, most of whom were sitting in Trump's box last week at Cult Fest 2024, which is also called the RNC Convention, put a montage of them, of Lindsey Graham saying, he's a narcissist, he's a bigot, he's an idiot. All of those put all that language Cruz, all the folks that were in that box kissing his butt. They need to tell the truth. Tom Porter (47:40): And at the same time, the Democrats, they've got some work to do. Oh, where do you think all of those people who were supporting Bernie Sanders in 2020, it's one thing for Bernie Sanders to be with the party, but those people, that's the reason why I said if she doesn't really pick a populous candidate as Vice President running mate, or if the platform is not one that is of a populous nature, she's got serious problems. Wilmer Leon (48:12): Those former Bernie people are part of that new crew called the Dual Haters. They're part of that new crew that is saying, we don't want either of these buffoons talking about Biden and talking. Tom Porter (48:25): And the fact of it is a significant number of the American people didn't want either one of 'em either. Correct. It was the press and the polls. And I say to people that polls are designed to shape and mold public opinion not to reflect the truth of public opinion. And of course, the other thing that nobody's ever, we haven't looked at, who are these people in the press? How many of them are actually Republicans? I know Lester Ho is Now, I'm not saying he's a Trump, but I'm just simply saying, because the press has been very, very lack in covering Trump. I mean, he lies. They never say that he lied. We are going to fact check him. Why don't you just say he lied about this? He lied about that. That's, that's the operative word. He lied. Wilmer Leon (49:21): In fact, I'm glad you brought up the polls because that part of the conversation got away from me for a minute because, and I know that the whole issue with Kamala now has just surfaced. So current polling hasn't taken place yet and hasn't been analyzed. But when you go back to, in looking at the numbers, you go to real clear politics. Trump at 58.4, Kamala Harris at 32.9. Now she has gained traction over the last couple of days, but still 58.4 to 32.9, that's not where you want to be with four months out from the election. Tom Porter (50:14): Yeah, but I think she has ignored the polls. I remember again. Wilmer Leon (50:18): Oh, absolutely. Tom Porter (50:18): Absolutely. I remember, again, traveling with Jesse and Negroes always ask these questions. They don't ask these questions. And they said, well, let's face it Jesse Jackson, you can't win Reverend Jackson. You got no organization, all this kind of stuff. And at that time, it was seven candidates in the race, and Jesse said, I'm number three, at least four other candidates that'd like to have my place. And so I think she has to ignore the polls because the polls are all part of the establishment, and they got a dog in the, and what's on the agenda now? What's on the agenda now is whether or not capitalism can in fact solve depressing problems that are facing the world today. And I would say that it can't. And so then what is the solution? I mean, I'm not saying that I have a solution, but I can say, what ain't the solution because it hasn't worked. (51:19) And therefore we got to be trying something new with some new people. And so the changing of the guard and the passing of the baton includes the passing away from white men, the same white men that who've been running the world, and the same white women who've been aligned with them. The passing of the church means that we got to not go with these Negro leaders who've been appointed, but to find our own leaders and to elect our own leaders, and the ones that don't do what we want 'em to do, we punish them by not electing them. Again, Wilmer Leon (51:54): Final question to you then. As you look at Kamala Harris as the presumptive nominee, I've been saying it can't work by just changing the messenger and not changing the message. Tom Porter (52:12): Oh, absolutely. Wilmer Leon (52:13): Go ahead, Tom Porter. Tom Porter (52:14): I mean, absolutely. We've already been there before. We've been there with Obama. Obama had, in the first term, he had the House and the Senate. He did nothing. And so we can't just change the message, the messenger or be satisfied that the messenger looks like us. We can't have got the demand and insist that people who represent us at whatever level, they represent us from the city council to the Congress and what have you, that if you're going to represent us, represent us. And if you not get the hell out the way, Wilmer Leon (52:55): But Tom, so what do you say to those AKAs that are ski win and doing the electric slide behind Kamala Harris and saying, oh, no, no, no, you can't do that now. Oh, no, no, no. You can't say that now because you can't put that on her now because we have to get her elected. And if you play those cards now, you're going to put her in a very precarious position and we'll lose the opportunity to have the first woman as a president. So what do you say to them that will respond in that manner? Tom Porter (53:30): We don't need a first black woman president because she's black. It's like people who say people fought and died for the right to vote. That's a lie. I fought and I didn't die for the right to vote, not for the right to vote, but the right to vote for something and somebody that would represent me. And so as the old folks say, you might be my race, but you're not my taste unless you willing to do what the ancestors have done. The legacy that you've inherited is not a legacy of people who went along to get along. It's a legacy of Fannie Lou Hamer. It's the legacy of Dr. King. It's the legacy of SNC and Core. That's the legacy. And if you ain't in that legacy, then get the hell out the way. Whether you a KAI don't know nothing about Greek organizations because I'm gamma delta iota damn independent. But my point of it is, we could no longer listen to these kind of arguments. I mean, these arguments go slow, slow. They say go slow. I mean, Wilmer Leon (54:43): Yours will come by and by. Tom Porter (54:45): Yeah. But we are past that. The world is in a serious position. And last side, look, we're in the world whether we are talking about the environment, whether we are talking about violence in the street, whether we are talking about homelessness, whether we're talking about whatever we're talking about, black people are impacted about that. And if you ain't for that, then get back. And we have to say that. I mean, I have no problem with saying to people, including in my own family, now look, if you ain't going to do nothing, get the hell out the way. I mean, I say that to my daughters, my grandkids, my friends. If you ain't going to do 'em, don't come around me because that ain't my style. And my heroes were Dr. King and Malcolm X and Fannie Lou Hamer. They weren't AKAs or Deltas. We didn't care nothing about any of that. And some progressive people were part of those organizations. But we can't, if she can't get elected on a platform that's a progressive platform than how is she going to govern as a progressive. Wilmer Leon (56:02): I want to thank my guests, brother Tom Porter. Man, thank you so much for joining me today. Tom Porter (56:10): It's been a pleasure, brother. Wilmer Leon (56:12): Folks, thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon and Tom Porter. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow me. Follow us on social media. You can find all the links to the show below in the description below. And remember, folks, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here. Unlike a whole lot of folks, we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. I'm going to see you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Woman Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out Announcer (57:05): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is pushing for a new global order under its control. The push for a new international power structure came to the forefront after a meeting between CCP leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin during a gathering of leaders from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They now aim to create an alternative global security alliance, along with a new push for a “multipolar world” where the United States would no longer be the world leader. We'll discuss this new push, in this episode of Crossroads. Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.   ⭕️

World Economic Forum Director Klaus Schwab told attendees at a recent meeting that the time is now to force us to collaborate in depopulating the world. Who gets to choose who lives and dies? 5) Hurricane Beryl leaves 1.5 million without power in Texas; 4) Shanghai Cooperation Organization meets as global balance of power shifts; 3) Globalists believe time is now to force their agenda on us; 2) US State Department rolling out AI tools to combat “disinformation”; 1) Democrats plan to save Biden's campaign by depicting him as Yoda to Donald Trump's Jabba the Hutt. FOLLOW US! X: @WatchSkyWatchTV | @Five_In_Ten YouTube: @SkyWatchTelevision | @SimplyHIS | @FiveInTen Rumble: @SkyWatchTV Facebook: @SkyWatchTV | @SimplyHIS | @EdensEssentials Instagram: @SkyWatchTV | @SimplyHisShow | @EdensEssentialsUSA SkyWatchTV.com | SkyWatchTVStore.com | EdensEssentials.com | WhisperingPoniesRanch.com

Listen to the latest episode of Give The People What They Want! Prasanth R and Zoe Alexandra are joined by the international editor of the Morning Star daily Roger McKenzie to discuss the recently concluded elections in France and the UK, update on Leonard Peltier's parole, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting in Kazakhstan, US military exercises on the Pacific coast as well as protests in Kenya. Follow Peoples Dispatch on all social media platforms @peoplesdispatch and on our website peoplesdispatch.org

Today's Headlines: Donald Trump distanced himself from Project 2025, a plan by the Heritage Foundation to reshape American society under a second Trump administration, following public backlash. He also suggested changing election dates and supported imprisoning political opponents, while the private prison conglomerate GEO Group heavily backed his campaign. In international news, Russian President Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping discussed reducing Western influence at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting. In the UK, Keir Starmer became Prime Minister after Labour's victory, and France's left-wing coalition prevented far-right gains in parliamentary elections. Reformist Masoud Pezeshkian won Iran's presidential election, advocating dialogue with adversaries. President Joe Biden reaffirmed his commitment to the presidential race, dismissing the need for a cognitive test. Lastly, the EPA fined General Motors $146 million for excess emissions, highlighting the importance of regulatory oversight. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: WA Post: Trump tries to distance himself from Project 2025 plan  CNN: Trump amplifies posts calling for televised military tribunal for Liz Cheney  Citizens For Ethics: Private prison behemoth is first corporation to max out to Trump NBC News: Putin and Xi meet at Central Asian summit aimed at countering U.S. NBC News: Keir Starmer confirmed as Britain's new prime minister after Labour Party's decisive win  BBC: French turnout high as far right aims for power in key vote  CNN: Reformist lawmaker Masoud Pezeshkian wins Iran's presidential vote  CBS News: Biden tells ABC News debate was a "bad episode," doesn't agree to independent neurological exam Politico: Warner organizing discussion for Senate Democrats to assess Biden's path forward - Live Updates WA Post: General Motors to pay nearly $146 million for excess car emissions Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage alongside Bridget Schwartz and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Xi Jinping stressed on Thursday the necessity for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to bolster unity and cooperation, saying that the grouping must safeguard its security baseline, defend the right to development and build up its unity.7月4日，习近平主席强调了上海合作组织加强团结与合作的必要性，并表示该组织必须守住安全底线，捍卫发展权利，增强团结。In a speech delivered at the 24th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the SCO in Astana, Kazakhstan, the Chinese president said it is critically important for the world that the grouping always stands on the right side of history and upholds justice and fairness.在哈萨克斯坦阿斯塔纳举行的上海合作组织成员国元首理事会第二十四次会议上，中国国家主席习近平在发言中说，该组织站在历史正确一边，站在公平正义一边，对世界至关重要。The SCO formally approved the accession of Belarus to the grouping during Thursday's summit, and decided that China will hold the rotating presidency of the 10-member organization for 2024-25. The other members of the grouping are India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.上海合作组织于7月4日的峰会上正式批准白俄罗斯加入上海合作组织，并决定由中国接任2024至2025年度上海合作组织轮值主席国。该组织的其他成员包括印度、伊朗、哈萨克斯坦、吉尔吉斯斯坦、巴基斯坦、俄罗斯、塔吉克斯坦和乌兹别克斯坦。Xi noted that the SCO, which was founded 23 years ago, has seen its family, including observer states and dialogue partners, expand to 26 countries, spanning three continents.习近平指出，上海合作组织成立23年后，包括观察员国和对话伙伴在内的“上海合作组织大家庭”覆盖三大洲26个国家。With more partners, the foundation of cooperation is more solid, he said.他表示，伙伴越来越多，合作基础更加坚实。The organization must ensure the bottom line of security "in the face of real threats of the Cold War mentality", he said, highlighting the need for member states to practice the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security.他表示，“面对冷战思维的现实威胁”，本组织必须守住安全底线，强调成员国需要践行共同、综合、合作、可持续的安全观。The SCO must address complex and intertwined security challenges through dialogue and coordination, respond to the profoundly changing international landscape with a win-win approach, and endeavor to build a world of lasting peace and universal security, he stressed.他强调，上海合作组织必须以对话和协作应对复杂交织的安全挑战，以共赢思维应对深刻调整的国际格局，共建持久和平、普遍安全的世界。Faced with the real risks of the "small yard, high fences" approach, Xi called on member states to safeguard their right to development, saying that joint efforts must be made to advance sci-tech innovation, ensure stable and unimpeded industrial and supply chains, and stimulate regional economic vitality to achieve common development goals.面对“小院高墙”的现实风险，习近平呼吁成员国维护发展权利，表示必须联手推动科技创新，维护产业链供应链稳定通畅，激发地区经济内生动力，推动实现共同发展目标。The Chinese president also appealed for enhanced unity and strength inside the grouping in facing the real challenges of interference and division.习近平还呼吁加强组织内部巩固团结力量，以面对干涉分化的现实挑战。SCO members should jointly resist external interference, firmly support each other, accommodate each other's concerns, and peacefully resolve internal differences, he said.他表示，上海合作组织成员应该携手抵制外部干涉，坚定相互支持，照顾彼此关切，以和为贵处理内部分歧。Xi underlined the importance of peaceful solutions in resolving internal differences, and pooling strength to address difficulties in cooperation, so that the destiny of SCO member nations and regional peace and development can be firmly grasped in their own hands.习近平强调和平解决内部分歧的重要性，聚同化异破解合作难题，把本国前途命运、地区和平发展牢牢掌握在自己手中。The SCO has been able to withstand the tests of changing international dynamics thanks to its steadfast commitment to the traditions of unity and cooperation, the path of equal and mutually beneficial collaboration, the pursuit of fairness and justice, and a broadminded embrace of inclusiveness and mutual learning, he pointed out.他指出，上海合作组织之所以能够经受住国际形势风云变幻的考验，根源在于我们始终坚持团结协作的优良传统、平等互惠的合作之道、公平正义的价值追求、包容互鉴的广博胸怀。Xi reiterated the importance of the SCO remaining true to its original aspiration, upholding the "Shanghai Spirit", enhancing mutual support, and building the organization into a reliable backbone for the common prosperity and revitalization of its member states.习近平重申，上海合作组织坚守初心，继续高举“上海精神”旗帜，守望相助，将本组织打造成为成员国实现共同繁荣振兴的可靠依托。Addressing the summit, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev noted that the SCO has become an effective mechanism of friendship, good-neighborliness, equality and mutual support, based on the "Shanghai Spirit".哈萨克斯坦总统托卡耶夫在会议上发言指出，上海合作组织已成为基于“上海精神”的睦邻友好、平等互利的有效机制。"The SCO has established itself as a unique platform, where the interests and arguments of the member states are equally taken into account," he said.他说：“上海合作组织已经成为一个独特的平台，在这里，成员国的利益和主张都得到了平等的考虑。”He highlighted the strengthening of mutual trust and cooperation in security as the priority for the organization, saying that the SCO has unique capacities to ensure security in the Eurasian region.他强调，加强安全互信与合作是该组织的优先事项，并表示上海合作组织具有确保欧亚地区安全的独特能力。Tokayev also identified strengthening transportation network through the creation of efficient corridors and reliable transportation chains as the next direction for cooperation, saying "we place great emphasis on the further development" of the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative.托卡耶夫还指出，通过建立高效的走廊和可靠的运输链来加强运输网络是下一步的合作方向，他表示，“我们非常重视进一步发展”中国提出的“一带一路”倡议。The leaders of the member states also adopted the Astana Declaration and an initiative calling for solidarity among countries to promote world justice, harmony and development.成员国领导人还通过了《阿斯塔纳宣言》和一项倡议，呼吁各国团结一致，促进世界正义、和谐与发展。rotating presidency轮值主席国Astana Declaration阿斯塔纳宣言

*) Labour tipped for historic win in UK election https://trtworld.com/europe/labour-party-set-for-landslide-win-in-uk-election-exit-poll-18180306 In a historic shift in the UK's political landscape, the Labour Party so far officially wins 326 seats – enough to have a majority in the UK Parliament. Vote counting is still underway after the country's general election on Thursday, which brings an end to 14 years of Conservative rule. Exit polls suggest Labour will win 410 seats in the 650-seat Parliament and party leader Keir Starmer will replace Rishi Sunak as the new prime minister. *) Hamas ‘responded positively' to Israel on Biden's peace plan https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/live-blog-hamas-says-responded-positively-to-israel-on-bidens-peace-plan-18180313 Palestine's Hamas has responded positively to the latest US-backed Gaza ceasefire proposal, according to an official in the movement. The resistance group informed mediators that they are open to any proposal that meets the demands of the Palestinian people. Meanwhile, Israel continues its bombardment of Gaza with the Palestinian death toll surpassing 38,000, according to the Health Ministry in the besieged territory. *) Leaders of Russia, China attend summit of regional security grouping https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/gazas-population-shrinks-from-23m-to-21m-amid-palestinian-deaths-exodus-18179918 Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have attended the summit of a security grouping created by Moscow and Beijing to counter Western alliances. Putin and Xi joined leaders of other countries that are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization at its annual meeting in Kazakhstan's capital of Astana. In his speech, Putin emphasised the group's focus on ensuring security of its members while Xi cautioned the leaders to "resist external interference". *) More than 80 irregular asylum seekers drown off Mauritania's coast https://www.trtworld.com/africa/more-than-80-irregular-asylum-seekers-drown-off-mauritanias-coast-18180268 More than 80 irregular asylum seekers have drowned off the southern Mauritania coast, according to local media. A boat carrying around 184 people sank and so far “87 bodies have been recovered, while 36 survivors were rescued,” the local Alakhbar news agency reported. Local authorities continue to search for several missing individuals. And finally… *) Evacuation order for thousands in US state of California as wildfire rages https://www.trtworld.com/us-and-canada/evacuation-order-for-thousands-in-us-state-of-california-as-wildfire-rages-18179980 Thousands of people have been ordered to evacuate as a wildfire rages out of control in northern California. More than 14 square kilometres of grass and woodland have been consumed since the blaze erupted this week outside Oroville town near the state capital of Sacramento. Over 25,000 people in the area were under orders to evacuate, local NBC affiliate KCRA reported.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has just attended the 24th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Astana and paid state visits to Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. Among a series of documents on cooperation in energy, investment and more, the SCO meeting adopted the Astana Declaration, which reaffirmed commitment to building a new type of international relations and a community with a shared future for mankind.What's the significance of the SCO Astana Summit? Why does Central Asia matter for China, and vice versa? Host Liu Kun is joined by Dr. He Wenping, Senior Research Fellow at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Dr. Mher Sahakyan, founder and director of the China-Eurasia Council for Political and Strategic Research, a foundation in Armenia; Professor Doug Guthrie, Director of China Initiatives at Thunderbird School of Global Management.

Gaza's forcibly displaced run out of space to shelterMyanmar's military ‘doubling down' on its attacks against civiliansUN chief António Guterres urges peace above all else, and an end to multiple conflicts

The Chinese president has called on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to safeguard unity and development as a high-level summit kicks off in Kazakhstan (01:04). The 2024 World Artificial Intelligence Conference is now underway in China (09:56). And millions of Britons are casting ballots in the country's latest general election (17:30).

①Chinese President Xi Jinping says the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is on the right side of history. What role can the SCO play in fostering peace and stability in today's world? (00:49)②China has called for more inclusive development of artificial intelligence. How can countries work together to bridge the "intelligence gap" in AI? (24:06)③Foreign ministers of China, Russia and Mongolia hold trilateral meetings. (32:31)④The first Kenyan police officers have arrived in Haiti. Can they help stabilize the country ravaged by gang violence? (40:55)

What is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? Who are its members? How has it developed over time? Click the video to learn how this comprehensive regional organization ensures long-term peace, stability, and economic prosperity in the Eurasian region.

Israel says it has received Hamas' response to a proposed ceasefire deal. The United Nations says Haiti is making headway towards restoring democratic institutions and holding credible elections. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization holds its annual summit in Astana, Kazakhstan.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has arrived in Astana, Kazakhstan, for the 24th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, or the SCO. This annual summit is significant and China will assume the next SCO presidency after the meeting. President Xi highlighted the 32-year diplomatic relationship between China and Kazakhstan, calling it a "unique permanent comprehensive strategic partnership." This year's summit will shape the future of Eurasian cohesion, celebrate past achievements while looking forward to deeper regional cooperation.

President Xi Jinping said he looks forward to meeting with Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev to plan the way forward for closer China-Kazakhstan cooperation and draw a new blueprint for the further growth of bilateral relations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.Xi, who began a state visit to the Central Asian country on Tuesday, made the remark in a signed article published on the same day in the Kazakhstanskaya Pravda newspaper and by the Kazinform International News Agency.Having made four visits to Kazakhstan as Chinese president, Xi said the country's enchanting land, splendid and distinctive culture and vast and magnificent landscape, as well as its nice and friendly people, have been most impressive.In the article, titled "Staying True to Our Shared Commitment and Opening a New Chapter in China-Kazakhstan Relations", Xi said that, on his fifth visit, he expects to experience firsthand the new progress and new changes that have been made in Kazakhstan.It was in Kazakhstan 11 years ago that Xi proposed the initiative of the Silk Road Economic Belt, which was warmly received by people from different sectors in Kazakhstan."This marked a magnificent chapter in Belt and Road cooperation between our two countries. And the development of China-Kazakhstan relations has since entered a new stage," he said.Noting that China and Kazakhstan have always supported each other and have always been partners in times of challenge, Xi said such unbreakable mutual trust and support are invaluable, forming the strongest political cornerstone that underpins bilateral cooperation.The two nations have achieved new success in results-oriented cooperation and witnessed a new upsurge in people-to-people and cultural exchanges, he said, adding that Sino-Kazakh coordination and collaboration at the international level have also achieved new and tangible results.Last year, two-way trade registered a record high of $41 billion. China is now Kazakhstan's largest trading partner and its top export destination."China and Kazakhstan can and will accomplish a great deal in bilateral cooperation in the years to come. I hope my visit will help renew our traditional friendship and deepen the all-around cooperation between our countries," he said.Xi called on the two countries to further consolidate their political tradition of mutual support, and stay committed to the golden rule of mutual benefit and win-win cooperation.He also stressed the need to strengthen public support for an everlasting China-Kazakhstan friendship, and be responsive to the accelerated changes on a scale unseen in a century that are unfolding across the world.Besides the state visit, another important item on Xi's agenda in Kazakhstan is to attend the SCO summit.Xi said that China highly commends the successful and fruitful work that Kazakhstan has done in its capacity as the SCO chair to grow the influence of the organization."I have no doubt that the SCO Astana Summit will be a great success through concerted efforts of all parties and will help rally the SCO family closer and open up new prospects for SCO cooperation," he said.Reporter: Mo Jingxi

The Chinese president is now in Kazakhstan for a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and a state visit (01:04). The UN General Assembly has unanimously approved a Chinese proposal on artificial intelligence which stresses the development of AI should adhere to human-centered principles (12:23). And the U.S. Supreme Court has made a first-of-its-kind ruling on presidential immunity from prosecution (22:09).

① In a signed article published in Kazakh media, Xi Jinping called for opening a new chapter in China-Kazakhstan relations. We explore what's at stake in Xi's state visit to Kazakhstan. (00:52)② We speak to S.L. Kanthan, founder of the “Multipolar Strategy”, on development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. (13:21) ③ Why has the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a China-led resolution on artificial intelligence? (25:03) ④ Factory activities among smaller Chinese businesses hit three-year high. (35:59)⑤ Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has announced that his government plans to resume negotiations with the US. How could this affect a forthcoming election where Maduro will seek a third term? (45:40)

Hong Kong is vowing to remain competitive as the Asian financial hub celebrates the 27th anniversary of its handover to the motherland (01:06). The Chinese president is heading to Kazakhstan this week for an official visit and a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (10:24). And Israel's prime minister vows to continue military operations in Gaza until his country has achieved its goals, while Hamas says it is open to any proposal that could lead to a permanent ceasefire (21:13).

① Xi Jinping is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and pay state visits to Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. Why does the SCO summit matter to China? And what is China bringing to the two Central Asian nations? (00:56)② In France, far-right National Rally party has won a resounding victory in the first round of the country's snap parliamentary elections. We explore the possible scenarios of the elections' final result. (13:14) ③ 27 years after Hong Kong's return to China, how can the city increase its competitiveness? (24:43) ④ A China-Serbia free trade agreement has taken effect. We look at the momentum of the two-way trade. (34:46)⑤ Why has Japan's currency fallen to 38-year low? (42:04)

President Xi Jinping's attendance at the upcoming Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, is part of a major diplomatic move by Beijing toward its neighbors and will give a strong boost to the building of the SCO community with a shared future, analysts said.From Tuesday to Saturday, Xi will attend the 24th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the SCO and make state visits to Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying announced on Sunday.Xi has attended the SCO summit for 11 consecutive years since 2013 and delivered speeches to each gathering in a face-to-face or virtual format.He has frequently emphasized the need to carry forward the "Shanghai Spirit" — a tenet of the grouping that features mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for cultural diversity and pursuit of common development.In addition, Xi has issued China's initiatives at the gatherings on boosting solidarity and cooperation within the grouping. For example, at last year's summit, hosted by India, he announced that the country will carry out digital technology training programs in collaboration with the China-SCO Big Data Cooperation Center, and will host an SCO national green development forum.The upcoming visit is "another major diplomatic action of China toward Central Asian countries" and the Eurasian region, Xinhua News Agency reported on Sunday.Sun Zhuangzhi, director of the Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that Xi's visit will further pool strength for the SCO to work together in the same boat, promote the quality and upgrading of cooperation in many fields, including economy, security and culture, and "inject more positivity into world peace and development".At the summit in Astana, leaders of member states will discuss a wide range of topics such as politics, trade, economy and culture. Leaders of observer states and dialogue partner countries will also attend, according to the Kazakh government.The summit will witness the signing of a series of documents, including the SCO Development Strategy through 2035, Kazakh officials said.In the 23 years since its founding, the SCO has made remarkable achievements in maintaining the region's security and stability, deepening practical cooperation in various fields, and increasing its international influence and appeal, analysts said.SCO Secretary-General Zhang Ming suggested that the member states continue to carry forward the "Shanghai Spirit" and advance the implementation of the organization's teamwork in various fields.While attending a forum last month in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, Zhang also called for strengthened reform and improvement of the organization's work to ensure that SCO cooperation "keeps pace with the times and moves to new heights".Guan Xueling, director of the Renmin University of China-St. Petersburg State University Center for Russian Studies, said the Astana summit will testify to the organization's growing influence and international status.Topics will include the SCO's plans for further development, how to better synergize the Belt and Road Initiative with the development visions of other member countries, and how to truly realize the strategic autonomy of the Global South, Guan said at a recent seminar in Beijing."Given the dampened international turmoil, crises and global governance deficit, the SCO has become a very important player in maintaining the region's security and stability and fostering development and prosperity," she added.Zhao Huirong, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences' Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies, said the SCO faces a number of opportunities as well as multiple challenges."The opportunities include the fact that the SCO is being favored by an increasing number of developing countries because of its commitment to the 'Shanghai Spirit' amid the persistent geopolitical confrontations in the world," she said.At the same time, the SCO faces a much more complex geopolitical environment, a tougher regional and international security setting, and a number of alarming areas related to unconventional security, she added.Vladimir Norov, former SCO secretary-general and former foreign minister of Uzbekistan, said the organization's spirit of solidarity, mutual trust and collaboration is "particularly precious in today's world"."The SCO should keep on cooperating in this spirit in the fight against the three evil forces (separatism, extremism and terrorism), tackling climate change, the response to cyberattacks, and ensuring the security of artificial intelligence," he told the newspaper 21st Century Business Herald.Reporter: Zhang YunbiShanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)n.上海合作组织China-SCO Big Data Cooperation Centern.中国-上海合作组织大数据合作中心

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit will take place in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, on July 3rd and 4th. Established in June 2001 with six founding members, the SCO has expanded to include 9 member states, 3 observers, and 14 dialogue partners. The total population of the SCO member states represents nearly half of the global population, and their combined territory accounts for a quarter of the world's land area.In this special episode of Chat Lounge, host Xu Yawen joins journalist Mahnoor Makhdoom with Daily Mail Pakistan, correspondent Evgenii Pavlov with the Sputnik agency, and journalist and public relations director Dilyara Daulet with Toppress in Kazakhstan to discuss achievements and challenges of the SCO as its membership and agenda expand, and how this organization can help bring more stability as the world faces increasing uncertainties.

This week we talk about China, Russia, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.We also discuss BRICS, North Korea, and the post-WWII global world order.Recommended Book: Supercommunicators by Charles DuhiggTranscriptThe Shanghai Cooperation Organization, or SCO, is a defense and economic alliance that was started by China and Russia back in 2001, and which has since expanded to become the largest regional organization in the world in terms of both land area and population, encompassing something like 80% of Eurasia, and 40% of the global population, as of 2020.The SCO also boasts about 20% of global GDP between its member nations, which originally included the governments of its precursor regional alliance, the Shanghai Five, which formed back in 1996: China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.With the evolution of that group into the SCO, though, Uzbekistan joined the club, and in 2017 it allowed India and Pakistan in, as well. Iran joined in 2023, and the list of observer and dialogue partner nations is pretty big, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Cambodia, Egypt, Kuwait, the Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and the UAE.The original purpose of the Shanghai Five, which was inherited by the SCO, was to increase trust and diplomatic relationships between these nations, which otherwise have a lot of potential enemies surrounding them on all sides—this is why the advice to never fight a land war in Asia is so well-taken: there's just a lot of land and a lot of borders and pretty much everyone who's tried, with few exceptions, has found themselves depleted by the effort.Thus, while there are other components to the SCO, member countries' agreement to respect each others' borders, including opposition to intervention in other countries—invading them, messing with their politics, criticizing their approach to human rights, etc—the sovereignty issue is the big one here, with making sure that everyone involved is diplomatically tied-up with everyone else in a close second, so member states can focus on the borders that present the most risk, and invest less attention and resources on the borders they share with their fellow members.That said, the SCO also includes mechanisms that allow member nations to work together on big projects, like transportation infrastructure that passes through or benefits more than one country, and fighting local terrorist organizations. It also allows them to integrate some aspects of their monetary and banking infrastructure, among other ties, so there's an economic component to these relationships.Another intergovernmental organization that likewise encompasses a significant chunk of the global population, landmass, and economic activity is BRICS, which is an acronym that was originally coined to gesture at the economic potential of the then-burgeoning economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, but which in recent years has expanded to also include Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE.BRICS nations hold about 30% of the world's territory, 45% of its population, and pull in about 33% of global GDP, based on purchasing power parity.And BRICS has long served as a sort of counterweight to global institutions that often seem to favor the world's wealthiest and most powerful nations, many of which are Western nations, like those of North America and Europe.So while the G7's expanded iteration, the G20, brings nations like Brazil, India, and Indonesia into the conversation, the majority of the power in such institutions—and this includes institutions like the UN, because of who holds vetoes and soft power influence within those organizations—the majority of the power is still typically held by the world's currently most influential and wealthy governments.And BRICS, from the beginning, included those nations that were assumed to become the most powerful, or at least equally powerful nations, by many metrics, in ten or twenty or thirty years, based on demographics, economic growth, and so on.Both of these groupings, then, are attempts to lash together the governments of nations that are on favorable growth trajectories, or otherwise in interesting, upward-moving positions by various metrics, or which are located in areas that would benefit from some kind of unity, but which aren't always given the respect they believe they deserve within other globe-straddling organizations; in some cases because they're simply not there yet, in others because their governments are a bit more authoritarian, while entities like the UN, while including everyone, tend to favor democracies.What I'd like to talk about today is another loose grouping of nations that seems to be forming, and which, while it doesn't have an official designation or even membership roster yet, is becoming increasingly well-defined, collaborative, and active.—The geopolitical, military, and news analysis community has been struggling, over the past handful of years in particular, to come up with a monicker for a loosely defined, but increasingly impactful cluster of nations that are oriented, in part, around disrupting the current global status quo, including but not limited to the rule of law and establishment through which international things are typically handled that arose in the wake of WWII.Following that conflict, the US and the Soviet Union scrambled to figure out how to deal with each other in ways that didn't lead to, at first, conventional war, and then in a relatively short period of time, nuclear war, and that led to a flurry of geopolitical activity that culminated in the creation of, among other things, of the United Nations, which itself birthed a huge stack of other organizations and protocols, most of which favored those who were willing to play ball within these institutions, and made life a little more difficult for those who defied them; North Korea, for instance, following its formation after the Korean War, is famously excluded from a lot of the benefits of belonging to the modern international order, in large part because it's made it pretty clear it intends to do away with its neighbor to the south, and maybe the US and other perceptual enemies, as well, the first chance it gets.The group that analysts have been trying to label centers around China and Russia, but usually includes Iran, as well, and in some cases North Korea, as well. Iran's many proxy groups, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza, are also sometimes thus categorized.Some of the proposed labels have been clear and illustrative, others have been a little in the weeds—like the acronym CRANKs, which kinda sorta stands for China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, the Axis of Upheaval, the Axis of Autocracy, and in some more western and patriotic publications, the New Axis of Evil, and even the Legion of Doom, which arguably makes this group seem pretty hardcore, but I guess it still gets the intended point across.I personally like one that was posited by a writer for the American Enterprise Institute, the Axis of Disorder, as while there's still a fairly biased reference to the WWII Axis powers in there, which depending on whose side you're on and which governments you support, could be construed as an unfair comparison, but it also points at the seeming purpose of a lot of this group's actions, which seem to orient around disrupting the current world order—that one that was implemented post-WWII.And the seeming rationale for this is that this post-WWII order was established to favor nations with capitalistic economies and democratic values, including things like human rights, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, and the like; and while there's absolutely room for argument as to how well various nations uphold those values on a country-to-country basis, and across time, few would argue that China has a better reputation for human rights than Sweden, or that Iran has a better record for equality between the sexes than the UK.So we live in a world, today, that's shaped by a bunch of values that these loosely grouped oppositional nations don't really agree with, at least not to the degree that other nations think they should, and a lot of the levers of power are currently in other hands. And they believe, well, why shouldn't we hold those levers? Why shouldn't China have the economic power the US has? Why shouldn't Iran be as geopolitically influential as Germany? Why shouldn't North Korea be in charge of something like the UN?And on top of that, why should the US and its allies hold the reins of so many sanctions-related powers? Why should the USD and its vast underpinnings grant one nation, and its allies, so many benefits, while the rest of the world is forced to play ball and toe the line—play ball according to rules set by the US and those who believe similar things, and toe lines they draw according to their preferences—lest they find themselves, like Iran and North Korea, and increasingly, now, Russia, sanctioned into oblivion?It's a fair question, if you are ambivalent about those aforementioned human rights and press freedoms and such.And these governments, not really liking those limitations on their behaviors and how they run things, are doing what they can, in a loosely affiliated way, to disrupt these enforcement institutions and the powers and nations they support.So part of the strategy of this group is fairly direct and unambiguous: they playact toeing the line a lot of the time, but when they think they can get away with it.Some of these raw acts of violation, though, would seem to be performed with the intention of making people question those institutions and powers, and the larger order they add up to, which could, over time, bring some of the nations that are sitting on the sidelines over to their, oppositional side; courting those of the so-called nonaligned movement, basically, of which there are officially around 120, though about 25 of them are highly desirable allies that have become transactional in their dealings with members of both sides of this simmering conflict, with the roughly delineated west on one side, and that of China and Russia and their allies on the other.The economist actually called this group the Transactional 25, to T25, which is a nicely illustrative monicker, and that group includes nations as big as India and as small, but increasingly diplomatically important, as Qatar.So when the Houthis shut down the Red Sea passage to the Suez Canal, disrupting global trade, and when North Korea provides ammunition to Russia for use during its invasion of Ukraine, these are actions that are beneficial to these groups unto themselves—the Houthis gain more attention and recruits, and get to hurt, ostensibly at least, Israel and its allies, and North Korea gets more trade with Russia, while also helping set a precedent for invading and claiming a neighboring country, which is something they're very interested in doing at some point—but they're also actions that show the weakness of the current global system and the folks running it, which could, over time, nudge more nations over to their side.This isn't just theory: this is something we've already seen play out in parts of Africa, where Russia's Wagner mercenaries have been subbed-in for US and UN troops, for defending against extremist militants purposes, and we've seen other T25 nations in particular wobble on various, global-scale issues, to the point that it's a big question who India, who Indonesia, who Vietnam, who Israel would support if push came to shove and a global conflict broke out, or if some kind of geopolitical movement arose, intending to fundamentally alter institutions like the UN—who would these sideline-sitters throw in their lot with?These disruptions, in some ways, are arguments in favor of siding with the group that's trying to upend the way things are currently done, by showing the fragility of that existing system.This new Axis of Disorder, or whatever we want to call it, is not a fully unified front, however. Neither is what they're positioning themselves against, members of the UN, EU, NATO, and every other group regularly squabbling with each other; but the rifts between China and Russia are huge, with China becoming increasingly dominant over Russia, Russia's economy becoming more and more reliant on their neighbor, and that's created tensions within both countries, alongside existing concerns about the vast border they share.Likewise, North Korea worries pretty much everyone, and Russia's recent announcement of a defense pact with them has raised a lot of eyebrows, including in China. And while Iran has gained a lot of prestige in Russia recently, for the cheap and functional drones and rockets they offer, their ongoing tensions with regional neighbors that China and Russia would like to get closer to, like Saudi Arabia, makes them a bit of a liability, as much as an asset, and the actions they help their proxies take (like the Houthis in the Red Sea) are not ideal for shipping giant China.So there's a lot of scuffling and below-the-surface tension between the members of this so-called axis, and while they're doing an arguably solid job, so far, of testing the limits of the current system, and publicly airing its weak points, that doesn't mean they're set up for anything more substantial than that kind of testing the fence, seeing what they can get away with, asymmetric warfare sort of approach to this ambition.They're not as tight as the loosely defined west, then, but it also behooves them to keep things in the grey area, in some ways, lest they trigger alarm bells throughout those systems they're trying to throw off, so that looseness might serve them more than hinder them, at this point. It also allows them to work with grey-area members of this group, like Venezuela and Cuba, which periodically make nice with their western opposition, while still fighting against them at the macro-scale.Probably the biggest impact this group is having right now, though, with all that testing and vulnerability identifying, is increasing the number of threat surfaces the world faces, in terms of hacking and snooping and stealing, but also in terms of provoking military actions and threatening more of the same.Russia invading Ukraine was a big deal, and China threatening to invade Taiwan could be even bigger; and both of those acts, alongside all of the hacking they do, the stealing of intellectual property, the leaking of state secrets, and the messing with foreign elections, are all violations of what's supposed to be good and proper and allowed within that global system.And because they're pushing all those buttons all at once, they're spreading the response capability of the other side pretty thin, which could be a precursor to a more direct attack, but it could also just be a means of weakening that system, wearing it out to the point that it no longer functions even at the imperfect level it was at before, which could, over time, make way for some new model, run by a new set of hands.Show Noteshttps://archive.ph/bOr06https://nationalinterest.org/feature/meet-cranks-how-china-russia-iran-and-north-korea%C2%A0align-against-america-211186https://thehill.com/opinion/4094000-iran-just-joined-a-pact-with-moscow-and-beijing-heres-what-it-means-for-the-us/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/world/asia/putin-korea-china-disruption.htmlhttps://warontherocks.com/2024/04/the-axis-off-kilter-why-an-iran-russia-china-axis-is-shakier-than-meets-the-eye/https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/03/18/how-china-russia-and-iran-are-forging-closer-tieshttps://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/axis-upheaval-russia-iran-north-korea-taylor-fontainehttps://www.aei.org/articles/the-axis-of-disorder-how-russian-iran-and-china-want-to-remake-the-world/https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/never_fight_a_land_war_in_Asiahttps://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zynt2nb/revision/3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_Stateshttps://archive.ph/xVbrhhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zynt2nb/revision/3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

Massive crowds filled the main square of Tabriz in northwestern Iran as well as mosques in Teheran and elsewhere on Tuesday as Iranians prayed for and held funeral ceremonies for President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who were killed on Sunday in a helicopter crash.Raisi and Amir-Abdollahian are credited with resounding achievements in foreign relations that are likely to continue even after the new presidential election that is scheduled next month, according to analysts.Following mourning announcements by Iranian authorities tasked with arranging the services, funeral ceremonies for those who died in the crash were first conducted in Tabriz, East Azerbaijan Province, on Tuesday morning, the second day of the five-day national period of mourning.Huge processions of mourners were seen in online videos posted by Iran's Tasnim News Agency. Using their mobile phones, some mourners recorded their glimpses of the fallen leaders' caskets, which were draped in the colors of the Iranian flag.The mourning services will lead up to a funeral and burial ceremony for Raisi on Thursday in the holy city of Mashhad, his hometown, according to Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency.Speaking at the Tabriz ceremony, Iranian Interior Minister Ahmad Vahidi said that Iran "mourned the death of a beloved, popular and humble president", adding that the nation was also saddened by the death of a foreign minister "who left active diplomacy in the critical moments of the resistance as his legacy".Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Diplomacy Mehdi Safari on Tuesday in Astana, Kazakhstan, and again expressed his condolences over the deaths of Raisi and Amir-Abdollahian.Wang and Safari were in Astana for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's foreign ministers' meeting.No matter how the situation changes, China will as always strengthen strategic cooperation with Iran, safeguard the common interests of both sides and continue to make efforts for regional and world peace, Wang said.Safari emphasized that Iran's domestic and foreign policies will not change.Teheran attaches great importance to its relationship with Beijing and is committed to strengthening bilateral cooperation in various areas including politics, the economy and culture, Safari said.Ali Khansari, an international affairs analyst at Allameh Tabataba'i University in Teheran, said that Iran has come together despite the political and ideological differences of political parties, journalists, university professors and "even ordinary people"."In their eyes, this tragedy is very bad and sad," Khansari said.Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said that Raisi "did have measurable successes" when it came to his foreign policy, and did so on "two fronts" in particular — in improving relations with Iran's neighbors as well as with Russia, India and China.During Raisi's time in office, Iran made strides in its relationship with its regional and Asian neighbors, including its acceptance into BRICS in August, with official membership beginning on Jan 1. In addition, Iran gained full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in July.Carlos Martinez, a British political commentator, said, "Ebrahim Raisi fought with honor in the struggle against imperialism, for sovereignty, for peace and multipolarity."Martinez said that Raisi's legacy includes resolute support for Palestinian liberation, Iran's membership in BRICS and the SCO, a significant deepening of Iran-China relations, and a total refusal to succumb to the West's bullying and intimidation. Raisi also rejected speculation that only through rapprochement amid sanctions from the West could Iran achieve its economic success, Martinez added.Iran will hold a presidential election on June 28, according to a statement by the agency headed by acting president Mohammad Mokhber.Registration of candidates will be carried out from May 30 to June 3, with the campaign period taking place between June 12 and 27, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.Niu Xinchun, executive director of the China-Arab Research Institute at Ningxia University, said Iran's procedures for power transition are clear and well-defined.Niu said he believes that the overall situation in Iran remains stable and that Raisi's death will have a limited influence on the Palestine-Israel conflict and regional dynamics, as the ultimate decision-maker in Iran's domestic and foreign affairs is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.Shu Meng, an assistant professor at Shanghai International Studies University's Middle East Studies Institute, said that because Raisi had been viewed as a potential successor to Ali Khamenei, the tragedy leaves Iran without a clear candidate for successor, possibly forcing a future power structure readjustment.Also on Tuesday, Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani was elected as the new chairman of Iran's Assembly of Experts, a legislative body responsible for appointing Iran's supreme leader and supervising his activities, IRNA reported.Reporter: Jan Yumul, Mike Gu, Yang RanChen Weihua in Brussels and Zhou Jin in Beijing contributed to this story.

Follow this week's guest Scott Ritter on X/Twitter @RealScottRitter and his substack http://scottritterextra.com/ and read his latest article here: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/04/15/scott-ritter-the-missiles-of-april/ Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd   FULL TRANSCRIPT: Announcer (00:06): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:14): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon, and I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which they occur. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events in the broader historic context in which they happen, enabling you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before it says, what can we expect next? Now that Iran has responded militarily to Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria for insight into this, let's turn to my guest. He's a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is entitled Disarmament in the Time of Parika, and he is of course, Scott Ritter. As always, Scott, welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Wilmer Leon. Scott Ritter (01:37): Well, thanks for having me. Wilmer Leon (01:39): So Pepe Escobar wrote the following. He called it the Shadow Play, and he writes, so this is how it happened. Burns met an Iranian delegation in Oman. He was told the Israeli punishment was inevitable, and if the US got involved, then all US bases will be attacked and the Rai of Horus would be blocked. Burns said, we do nothing if no civilians are harmed. The Iranians said it will be a military base or an embassy. The CIA said, go ahead and do it. Scott Ritter, you've been writing about these issues in Iran for over 20 years. First, your assessment of Pepe Escobar's assessment. Scott Ritter (02:29): Well, I mean, clearly Pepe, he is a journalist. He is a journalist of some renno, and he has a source and he's reporting it. It's plausible. I can't confirm it. I can't sit here and say, I know that this happened. I have no idea if this happened. I do know that the CIA has over the course of time, taken on a shadow diplomacy role because the State Department in implementing America's hegemonic policies has alienated America with so many nations and that normal diplomatic relations are impossible. And so the CIAs assume this responsibility. Indeed, this is why William Burns was selected by Joe Biden to be the director of the CIA. He's not a CIA hand, he's not a man who has involved. He's a diplomat, former ambassador to Russia, and he's a man who has written a book called The Back Channel, which describes his approach, the back channel approach to resolving things. Burns has carried out similar meetings with Russia when trying to reopen arms control venues or talk about possible prisoner exchanges. (03:55) It's burns that takes the lead on these things. The CIA has played an important role in the past in facilitating dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The CIA had a very big role to play in making that happen. The CIA was behind the secret negotiations with the Taliban that led to the American withdrawal. So would it surprise me that the CIA has connectivity with Iran? Absolutely not. Especially given Burns' role and the importance of the back channel to the Biden administration. I think the Israelis might find it somewhat of a shock that the United States green lit the Iranian response. But then again, we're living in very strange times where the lack of, let's just call it the deterioration of relations between the United States and Israel is real. I've said for some time now that no American president or presidential candidate has won the White House by turning his back on Israel. (05:09) And I've also noted that no Israeli Prime Minister stays in power by turning his back on the United States. And yet we have a situation today where Joe Biden, a sitting president, is starting to turn his back on Israel because of the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu's government policies that are being carried out in direct defiance of American instructions to the contrary. So we live in unprecedented times, and it would seem to me that the United States has made it clear that their policy objectives, strategic policy objectives, and again, just a quick background, remember, part of the reason why we withdrew from Afghanistan in August of 2021 is that we were delinking ourselves from a two decade long commitment to the middle. We were going to lower our profile there as part of our pivot to the Pacific to confront China. And so we have, we no longer are actively implementing the Carter Era doctrine of guaranteed American military intervention. (06:21) Anytime something in the Middle East goes south that we don't like, we don't do Desert Storm anymore. We don't do Operation Iraqi freedom anymore. We don't do the invasion of Afghanistan anymore. We're not looking for a fight. We're looking to avoid a fight. And one of the reasons is that Iran has emerged as a very significant regional power with a tremendous amount of military capability. Iran is also a major player in the regional and global economy, and it's incumbent upon the United States to do what we can stabilize this economy to make sure that it doesn't go south, especially in an election year where the old James Carville mantra, it's the economy stupid factors in so large. So we don't want a war or a conflict with Iran that could lead to the shutting down of the straight or moves. This would've a devastating impact on global energy security. (07:20) Oil prices would go through the roof at a time again to remind people when Joe Biden has lowered the strategic petroleum reserve down to less than 17 days worth of reserves. So if there was suddenly a shutdown in oil transit, we'd be in trouble. Huge trouble in an election year, which is for Joe Biden. So it doesn't, what I'm trying to say is a long way of saying that there's a lot of reason to believe the reporting that's put out by Pepe Esquire. And again, when I say believe the reporting, I'm not challenging Pepe Escobar. I understand I'm saying that every journalist has sources and some sources are better than others. But what I'm saying is my assessment of the information that Pepe is reporting from the source would be that this is extraordinarily plausible, that it makes sense that this would indeed happen. Wilmer Leon (08:15): That was my takeaway, whether it was Bill Burns or whether it was Mr. Burns from whatever that cartoon is. I was really focused more on the point that there was a dialogue between the United States and the parties involved, and that those parties came to a consensus. In fact, when I read, it might have been, I guess it was Thursday, that Iran had seized an Iranian cargo ship in the Straits of Horus. Then there was the missile launching, and then that drones were used as the kind of foray or entree into all of this and that the drones traveled as far as they did. I said, oh, well, Iran was really sending a message more than they were an attack. And I think the message was, and is if you're looking for trouble, you found it and you found a very big bag of it, and you really don't want to mess around with this. It seems as though the Biden administration is starting to get that message. I don't know that Netanyahu, I think it seems like it's falling on deaf ears in Israel. Scott Ritter (09:45): What Iran did here is I have said that I've called it one of the most impressive military victories in modern history. Wilmer Leon (09:57): In fact, let me interrupt and say, folks, you need to read Scott's piece, the missiles of April. You can find it in Consortium News, Scott, you can tell me where else, but it's a phenomenal assessment of what recently transpired. Scott Ritter. Scott Ritter (10:14): Well, thank you very much. It was originally put out on my substack, it's scott ritter extra.com, but then Joe Luria, who I have a very good relationship, he's the editor of Consortium News, asked permission to publish it with Consortium News. And then he and I had a discussion and he asked some questions, follow on questions based upon the article, and I gave him some answers. (10:38) So he added some material. So for anybody who read my article on my substack, there's additional material in on the consortium news variant. You might want to read that as well. It's just basically an update when you write things about moving targets such as breaking news, you write based upon the data that's available. And in the time between, I published on my Substack and I spoke with Joe Lauria, there was additional information necessary that provided additional clarity to some of the points I made. So it's not that I changed anything in terms of my assessments, although that's possible too. When you get new information, assessments can change, they should change, and you shouldn't be afraid to change them. But my assessment regarding the Iranian, the efficacy of the Iranian attack remains the same, one of the most impressive military victories in time. Now, people say, well, wait a minute, how could that be? (11:29) They didn't blow up Israel. They didn't destroy anything. War is an extension of politics by other means. That's what everybody needs to understand. Military victories basically mean that you have achieved something through the use of military force. That's impressive, especially an impressive military victory. What Iran did on April 14th, on April 13th, 14th, and this attack is established deterrence, supremacy over Israel. Iran has had a problem with what I would say, making the world understand its declaratory policy regarding deterrence, it's deterrence strategy. Deterrence is basically a policy posture that says, if you want to hit me, understand that I'm going to come in afterwards and pummel you to death, that the price you're going to pay for hitting me is going to be so great that you don't want to hit me. I'm not threatening to hit you first. I'm sitting here saying, live and let live, but if you attack me, the price you're going to pay will be so overwhelming that it won't be worth what you thought you were going to achieve by hitting me in the first place. (12:44) Iran has established this deterrence superiority over the United States. We saw that when the United States assassinated QM Soleimani in 2020, the Iranians responded with a missile attack against the Alad airbase that didn't kill any Americans. It was telegraphed well in advance, but the purpose was to demonstrate the Americans that we can reach out and touch you anywhere, anytime with devastating force, and there's nothing you can do to stop this, nothing you can do. So now we get to William Burns meeting with his Iranian counterparts, and when they say, and we will strike American bases, burns is going, and they can, and if they do, there's nothing we could do to stop it and we will suffer horrific losses. Therefore, Mr. President, we should heed what the Iranians are saying. This is deterrent superiority over the United States, that the United States understands the consequences of attacking. Iran is not willing to live with those consequences. (13:45) They'll be severe even more so in an election year where any disruption of the economy is politically fatal to the incumbent seeking reelection. So they have successfully done that with the United States. Iran has also used missiles. Again, part of declaratory policy. It doesn't have to be necessarily spoken policy, but demonstrative, and we've seen Iran use missiles to strike targets in Iran, in Syria, Pakistan, in Pakistan. Wilmer Leon (14:17): In fact, on that Pakistan point, that was what about a month ago, maybe month and a half ago, and when I heard that Iran had sent, I think it was a cruise missile into Pakistan, I did my best to calculate how far that missile traveled. And then I checked, well, what's the distance between Tehran and Tel Aviv? It was about the same distance. And I said, I think Iran is sending a message to the Israel that we can strike Tel Aviv if we so choose. Scott Ritter (14:57): Yeah, I mean, first of all, just so people understand historically during the Gulf War, and not too many people know this, so Israel was very perturbed about Saddam Hussein's scud missiles hitting Israeli cities and locations, and they were threatening direct military intervention, which would've destroyed the coalition that George W. Bush had built up. And so we were doing everything we could to convince the Israelis that we had the scud problem under Control Pro. And you mean that you were personally involved in doing that? Yeah, no, this was my part of the war that, I mean, first of all, I wasn't a general, I wasn't a colonel. I wasn't lieutenant Colonel. I wasn't a major, I was just a captain. But as a captain, I played a bigger role than one would normally expect from a captain. I mean, when my name gets briefed to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and when General Schwarz cov not only fires me, but arrests me because of what I'm doing, I'm having an impact larger than what I was wearing on my shoulder, and I'm pretty proud of the work I did during the Gulf War, but that's beside the point. (16:04) The point is that Israel was being told, don't intervene because we've got it under control. But Israel needed to make a statement, and it was a statement being made not to Iraq, because what they did is they brought out a Jericho missile, which is a nuclear capable missile, but also can have control warheads, and they fired this missile into the Mediterranean Sea, and when you measure the distance that it went, it's exactly the distance from Israel to Baghdad and what the Israelis were telling, not the Iraqis, because the Iraqis couldn't monitor the attack and it wasn't publicly announced. They were telling the Americans who were monitoring that, if you don't solve this problem, we're going to solve it for you, and this is the weapon that we're going to use. And it was a wake up call. I remember when that happened. We're all like, stop. (16:55) We were only getting two hours sleep at night. No more sleep at night. Do everything you can to stop these Iraqi missiles from flying. We never did, but Israel stayed out of the war. But my point is, when you talk about, because to the lay person, they might be like, come on Wilmer, you're getting a little too creative. They're a little too conspiratorial. Wilmer Leon (17:17): I heard that. I heard that last Saturday night. I was at a buddy's house and he said to me, I walk into his house and CNN is on, as it always is, chirping in the background. And so finally he says to me, so what do you think? I said, think about what he said. What do you think about the Iraq? I said, oh. I said, man, that was collaborated. That was done with collaboration. He said, man, you always come in here with this junk. I said, well, okay. So I hear that a lot. Scott Ritter (17:53): Well, but in this case, it's not junk because I'm telling you, as somebody who has been in the technical analysis business of ballistic missiles for some time now, there are various ways to send a message. To give you an example, in the arms control world, sometimes the way to send a message is to open up telemetry channels that are normally closed down and launch a missile test. You're not saying anything. You don't put out a press release, but the people monitor because you don't want to say anything. North Korea does this all the time, all the time. They open up some telemetry channels and they just go, Hey, listen to this. And they send a to the Sea of Japan, and the technicians are going, ohoh. They got, oh, they did this capability. Oh, no. And then they're writing secret reports, and that message gets, meanwhile, the public is just sitting there, going to the beach, surfing, smoking dope, and doing whatever we do because we are not meant to get upset about this or worried about it. (18:52) It's a subtle message being sent to leadership through the intelligence agency. So your notion that the distance mattered because Iran didn't need to fire at that distance. They just could have fired at a closer range, whatever, but to fire at that distance is a signal to the people who are that distance away, that what we're doing here we can do here. But the problem is the Israelis weren't listening. This is the problem. Iran has through very indirect and direct means. First of all, Iran has never issued a public declaratory policy on deterrence and ballistic missiles until now. And it's one of the weaknesses of Iran is that they didn't make it clear what the consequences would be. The United States got it because they hit us and we're smart enough to go, oh, we don't want that again. Pakistan sort of gets it, but I mean ISIS and Syria, when they got hit with missiles, ISIS isn't going to sit there and go, oh, you're going to hit us with missiles, so we're not going to carry out terrorism anymore. (20:03) No, that was a punitive attack. The same thing with the various missile strikes in Iraq. It was punitive attack. It wasn't meant to be a declaratory policy statement. And so here you have a situation where Israel just isn't getting it because Israel believes that it has deterrent supremacy over Iran. And why would Israel believe that? I don't know. Maybe they've assassinated a whole bunch of Iranian scientists in Iran with no consequence. Maybe they've carried out covert direct action sabotage in Iran blowing up nuclear related facilities with no consequence. Maybe they've struck Iranian revolutionary Guard command positions in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, inflicting casualties with no consequence. So maybe Israel believed that it had established deterrent supremacy over Iran. Therefore, when they saw a meeting at the Iranian consulate in Damascus of these major people plotting the next phase of the operation against Israel, they said, take it out. (21:04) There won't be any consequence because the Iranians are afraid of us. The Iranians won't strike us because we have deterrent supremacy. Iran believes that if they attack us, we will come down on them tenfold. And so they struck the consulate and Iran went, guess what guys? Nope, it's over. We're done with the subtlety. We warned you don't attack our sovereign territory. The consulate is sovereign territory. We're going to respond. But now the problem with the Iranian response is you have to put yourself in the Iranian shoes because the last thing Iran wants, it's just like the United States. They don't want a war with Israel. They don't want it, as they said in the Godfather, it's bad for business, it's bad for business. And business right now for Iran is improving. They're members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. China has brokered a reproachment with Saudi Arabia, dismantling an American strategy of creating a Sunni shield against the Shia crescent and provoking permanent conflict that would empower American defense industry, Israeli security credibility and economic co prosperity between that part of the ward and Europe with Israel in the middle. (22:25) Israel's going, wow, we're back in the game, guys, when Israel was Benjamin Netanyahu, for all the criticism that people have out there, and I'm one of those biggest critics understand that on October 6th, he was on top of the world on October 6th, he had created a geopolitical reality that had Israel normalizing relations with the Gulf Arab states, Israel becoming a major player in a major global economic enterprise, the India, middle East, economic C and the world, not talking about a Palestinian state anymore. Israel was entering, becoming legitimate. It was like Michael Corleone and the Godfather when he was saying, I'm going to put all that behind me and I'm going to become legitimate, reached out and just drag them back in by October 7th. And then Israel was exposed for the criminal enterprise that it is, and now Israel has collapsed. But Iran, that was the Israeli process. (23:27) Iran is sitting here saying, we don't want to war. We're members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. We normalized relations with Saudi Arabia. We have an axis of resistance that's holding Israel in check and these plans, Hezbollah is very strong. The militias in Iraq and are strong. The Anella movement in Yemen, the Yemen strong, but we don't want to provoke war. What we want is to become economically viable again. The promise that we, the theocracy have made to the Iranian people over time that trust us, things will get better. We're in that, Hey, you trusted us. Now things are about to get better. We're joining bricks together with Saudi Arabia, so we're going to work with Saudi Arabia and these powerful economic interests that no longer are turning their backs on us to create economic opportunity. And the last thing Iran needed is a war with Israel. It's bad for business. (24:29) It's bad for business. And so now the Iranians are like, how do we set declaratory policy to achieve deterrent supremacy? I mean, not supremacy, superiority supremacy is where you have everybody just totally intimidated. Superiority is where you put the thought in people's mind, and they now need to tell the Israelis, you can't attack us or the price you're going to pay is tenfold. Normally you do that. It's like going in the boxing ring. Mike Tyson, even now, I don't know if you've been watching his training videos of him getting ready for this fight he's got in July 20th. The man's a beast. I'm intimidated if I could 57, what he's doing. Wilmer Leon (25:10): Well, lemme tell you. I don't know if you saw the report of the guy that was kicking the back of his seat on the airplane, and he came over. He kept asking the guy, Hey man, can you stop kicking my seat? And the guy wouldn't leave him alone. And the folks on the plane said, finally he came over the top of that seat like Iran and pummeled the guy. They had to carry the guy off the plane and a stretcher. Scott Ritter (25:42): Well see, that's deterrence supremacy. There you go. Deterrence supremacy is when I jump into the ring with Tyson and Tyson knocks my face in, kicks my teeth out, and I'm on the ground hospitalized and bites your ear, pardon? And bites your ear. That is a bonus. Yes. (26:02) The deterrence superiority is where I jump in the ring, ent Tyson comes up, takes the fist right to my nose and just touches it. But he doesn't in a way that I'm in my stance, but he's already there and I'm like, oh, oh, I got a problem. Yeah, okay. I don't really want to be in this ring, Mike. It was a misunderstanding. I'm backing off. I'm just going to go out here and pee my pants in the parking lot. So that's what Iran needed to do. But how do you do this? It's very delicate operation. That's why this was one of the most impressive military opera victories in modern history because what Iran did was make all the demonstration necessary to show potential, and in the end, they hit a base nem. And this is important for your audience to understand. The Naam airbase is the single most heavily protected spot on earth when it comes to anti-ballistic missile defense. (26:55) There's no spot on earth that's better defended than nem. It has at the heart of this defense, a and I'll give you a fancy name, a N TP Y two X-Band radar sounds like, well, not one, not one, but two. Well, it's the number two radar, not two radars. Wilmer Leon (27:13): No, I'm saying because I got one over my house. Yeah, they got two over 2.0. This is 2.0 man. Scott Ritter (27:20): They got this radar there that has the ability to do overheard the horizon surveillance, but it's not just the radar, which is the most sophisticated radar of its type in the world. It's linked into the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in the United States Strategic Command and the satellites that we have over hanging over the area. So all of that's linked in into a common command center that's shared with the Israelis. So this data is fed to the Israelis and around Nati. (27:48) And why is Naam important? I don't know. The F 35 I fighters are there. This is Israel's best fighter plane, their strategic deterrent. They have F fifteens, F sixteens, and they do other secret things there as well because of the notice that they were given, if I understand it, they were able to move those F 35. So the F, again, it was coordinated 100%. I mean, we'll get to that in a second. But they have the arrow two and arrow three missiles, which are joint Israeli American projects are deployed around Nevada. David Sling, which is another anti-ballistic missile capability, is deployed around Nevada. Advanced Patriot missiles are deployed around Nevada. And the US Thad system is deployed around Nevada. The bottom line is they have, and there's Iron Dome as well. So what they have is this multi-layered defense using the world's best anti-ballistic missile technology linked to the world's best surveillance and tracking technology. (28:56) And you read the literature on this stuff, we hit a bullet with a bullet. Okay, wow, you guys are good. Now here's the other thing. It's all specifically tailored for one threat and one threat only. Iranian medium range ballistic missiles. That's all it's geared to do. It's not like there's confusion. It's not like you have a multitude of missions. One mission, Iranian medium range missiles. Okay? So now that's like me watching Mike Tyson training videos, and I'm watching the training and I'm like, I got 'em. I can move. I got this guys, I got this. I go into training, bullet, hit a bullet, hit a bullet. I got this. And so now, Mike Tyson, Iran, they go a step further. Not only do they do the Pepe Escobar advanced notice, they build the attack in a way that says, Hey, this is really happening. They announce that the launch of the drones, and these aren't just any drones, guys. (29:57) These are slow, moving, loud drones. So you couldn't get a better air alarm system than what Iran gave Israel. They unleashed the drones, and here the drones go. Now Israel's got, they're like flying bumblebees six hours of advanced notice, which gives the United States time to say, take your F 30 fives out, anything value out. But the other thing the Iranians did is they told the United States, see, I think they went a step further. The Iranians made it clear that they will only strike military targets that were related to the action. Iran's whole argument. And again, I know in the West, we tend to rule our eyes, like when Russia says, we acted in Ukraine based upon Article 51, self-defense, preemptive self-defense, the Caroline Doctrine, all the people who hate Russia go, no, no. That was a brutal roar of aggression. Unprovoked. No, the Russians actually have a cognitive legal case because that's how Russia operates based upon the rule of law. (30:57) Now, the rule of law, Wil, as we all know, can be bent, twisted, manipulated. I'm not saying that the Russians have the perfect case. What I'm saying is the case that Russia has made is cognizable under law, right? It's defendable. You could take it to a court and it's not going to be tossed out asr. It's not Tony Blinken rules based order. It is not. And so now the Saudis, or not the, I'm sorry, the Iranians, they have been attacked and they have cited Article 51 of the UN charter as their justification. But now you can't claim to be hiding behind the law and then just totally break the law yourself. If Iran had come in, you can. You're the United States, correct? But that's the rules based international, not the law based international. That's the difference between the two. The rules say we can do whatever we want. (31:50) The law says no, you're constrained by the law. So in order to justify self-defense, Iran had to limit its retaliation to the immediate threat that was posed by those who attacked them, which means you can hit the two air bases where the airplanes flew out. And there's a third site that nobody's talking about yet. Is that the CIA site? Well, it's the 8,200, the Sgin site on Golan Heights that's looking out into Damascus. And according to the Iranians, that's the site that gathered the intelligence about the Iranians being in the consulate and then shared that intelligence with the airplanes coming in. And so these three targets are the three. Now, in addition to that, Iran is allowed to strike facilities and locations that are involved in the defense of these three things. So the ballistic missile defense capability becomes a legitimate target. But now, so Iran has to hit these three, and so they've broadcasted, we're coming, we're coming. (32:55) And that gives the United States do something politically smart, which is to tell the Israelis, we will defend you, but we will not participate in any Israeli counter attack. So we've limited the scope and scale of our participation in this. And so we came together, we started shooting down these drones, creating a fiction of Iranian incompetence, Iranian lack of capability. So this is part of the plan. This is all part of the plan. Now, Iran didn't sit down with the United States and say, this is what we're going to do. This is what we want you to do. Iran is scripting it for them. I mean, this is basically United States going, damn, I forgot my lines. Here you go. Here come the drones. Here come the drones. Shoot them down. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you. And so we're shooting it down, and then we're sending the cruise missiles, just in case you don't know, we're launching them live on TV Here. (33:51) Let me show you a closeup of what they look like so you understand the operational parameters of the system. And off go, the cruise missiles. Don't shoot pigeons, shoot cruise missiles. So now they're shooting. But then as they're doing this, the Iranians are sitting there going, okay, so we sent the drones. What's lightening up, guys? First of all, what people don't understand is before all this happened, the Iranians did a very targeted cyber attack and shut down. They attacked the Iron Dome system. Now, why do you want to attack the Iron Dome system but not attack the others? Because the Iron Dome system isn't designed to take down big ballistic missiles. It's designed to take down the other stuff. Medium range cruise missiles. No, well, cruise missiles and drones, low flying. It's actually designed to take down kaka rockets and the Hamas rockets. Okay? That's what it's supposed to do. (34:44) So you disrupt this so that the other systems have to take priority, and then the arrives, you go, oh, thank you very much. Now, some of the drones that were sent in aren't armed with explosives, but armed with radars and signals intelligence collection, which they're broadcasting the data back to Iran. These are guys are very sophisticated ladies and gentlemen. These aren't amateurs you're dealing with. And so they're sitting in going here. They come turn it on, collect, thank you. And now they have their targeters looking at a big map going, okay, we got a radar here. We got here. Okay, now they're shooting. Okay, we got missile launchers here, boom, boom, boom. It's all there. And they've looked at all. Then they say, okay, remember, because the goal now is to get the glove to touch the nose. The goal isn't to hit the knockout. (35:33) So they say, what do we need to do to demonstrate capability the Iranians used? Now, there's some mixed reporting out here. The problem is I like everybody else, I'm held hostage with the Iranians. I don't get to go on the ground anymore and look at the debris and do technical analysis. I used to do that, and I used to be able to come back. One of the things we did with the Iraqis, just so people understand, I am not the dumbest marine in the world. I'm one of the dumbest Marines in the world, but I do have some capability based upon experience. And when my time as a weapons inspector, I worked with the Israelis, their technical intelligence people on looking at debris of the missiles that Iraq fired against Israel. And we were able to ascertain several different variants of scud missiles that have different capabilities that the Iraqis had been denying or not declaring. (36:27) And by coming back to them with the technical intelligence from the debris on the ground, the Iraqis had to admit to certain capabilities that they had been denying. And this is important when you're trying to be able to stand before the world and say, we understand the total picture of Iraqi ballistic missile capability, and we can certify that we can account for it all. Because imagine going before the security council and saying that only to have the Israelis go, yes, but what about variant 3D alpha four? Well, I don't understand what you're talking about. What's 3D alpha four? That's the point. You're making a report and you don't understand what we're talking about, which means you don't know everything, do you? I don't like to be in that position as an expert, or I want to know everything. And so we did, and we got the Iraqis to come clean. (37:14) So when I say we could account for Iraq's ballistic missile program, we could account for every aspect of it. So I don't get to do that right now. So I'm at a disadvantage where I have to rely upon information. So I don't know if Iran used their hypersonic missiles or not. I don't know that, okay, reports, it's reported. There's reports that they did, and then there's reports that they didn't, and it's conflicting. The most recent press TV report and press TV is a organ of the Iranian state, says that they did use the fat two missiles against thetan airfield. So I'm going to run with that, but I want to put a big caveat on that, that I don't know for certain. (38:01) But we do know, just looking at the characteristics of the missiles that came in, that they used at least three different kinds of, they used more than that, but three that were designed to put the glove on the nose, other missiles that were sent were designed to be shot down again as part of the intelligence collection process. So you send in an older ballistic missile that comes on a ballistic missile trajectory. The first thing that you do by doing that is you are training the defense systems. These Iranians are smart. They understand these things. You're training them because you see, there's a whole bunch of computers, software, artificial intelligence. This is the proof that ai, please don't do it better than ai. Is the brain a train brain? Because ai, listen to what everybody's talking about. I mean, I get this phone call. I don't know if you get this up, Scott, I'd like to take the transcripts of your discussions and use them to train my ai. I don't know if you've ever received that request. And I'm like, no, I don't want you to do that. But I just personally go. But the point is, that's how ai, it's not artificial intelligence, ladies and gentlemen. It's just programmed, just programmed in a different way. And you can program in stupidity, which the Iranians said, which they usually do. Let's program in stupidity. Wilmer Leon (39:24): Well, for example, just for a quick example, that's why facial recognition technology fails to the degree that it does. It's limited by the abilities and capabilities of the people that are programming it. That's why facial recognition technology doesn't work on Asian people, and it doesn't work on people of color. Dammit, I'm the wrong race. I could have put that a long time ago. Go ahead, Scott Ritter (39:57): Touche. So the Iranians are programming the ai. They're sending missiles in, and the system is starting to normalize to come up with a, because it's wartime now. So now you're actually detecting tracking and firing. Then what you do is you throw in, it's like a pitcher, fastball, fastball, fastball, changeup, and here comes the changeup. First changeup they do is, and I don't know the sequence that they did this, but we see the video evidence. There's a warhead that comes in, and again, it's about timing. So you're sending these missiles in. Now they have separating warheads. So what happens when a missile has a separating warhead is the radar's picking one target. (40:44) All of a sudden, the radar is dealing with two targets, but it's not just two targets. When you separate the warhead from the missile body, the missile body starts to tumble and it starts sending differentiating signals, and it's no longer a ballistic trajectory. So the computer's going, oh my God, what's happening here? Meanwhile, this warhead's going this way, it's tracking that, and it has to make a decision. Which one? Which one? Which one, which one, which one? This one, pick this warhead. So now they've trained it to discriminate onto this warhead, which is what they want. Now, you'd say, why would they want to look at that warhead? You'll find out the warhead comes in and they're timing. It's like a track coach got the timer, warhead comes in, and the missiles fire up to hit it, and you go, we got it. We now know what the release point is for the missiles being fired. (41:29) So now they send in this other missile, it comes in, warhead separates the AI says, go with the warhead baby. They ignore this thing, which is good. It's just a distraction. They're focused on the warhead, they're on the clock. Everything's getting queued up just the way it's supposed to be. Everything's optimized. We're going to take this thing, a bullet hits a bullet baby, and all of a sudden, the warhead right before the launch on the ground, fires off a whole bunch of decoys. It's like a shotgun shell. And the computer goes, damn, what the hell just happened? We don't know. It's going crazy, trying to differentiate between all this stuff. And they're firing a whole bunch of missiles now in panic overload, and they're trying to deal with this. And meanwhile, they have a warhead here. They accelerated these shotgun shells out. So they're going faster. (42:17) Now, the computer's adapting to that. Oh God, what do we do? Fire, fire, fire. That warhead's hanging back. It's not the priority right now. And then once everything's committed, you see it on the film, boom. It has a booster engine on it. It gets fired through the chaff. Nothing's intercepting it, bam hits the ground. But not only that, as it comes in, it makes an adjustment. I don't know if people saw that. It comes in and you see it go up, up. Again, terminal adjustment to hit the precise target it wanted to hit. Iran sent a couple of those in, and they took out the Iron Dome sites, et cetera. A signal just got you. And they know that the Israelis are smart. They know that there's a bunch of Israeli guys who were smarter than I am that I used to work with who were looking at all this stuff going, oh God, they got us. (43:11) They got us. Damn. Now we come to Nevada, and it's the same thing. They send in the missiles. This is the most heavily layered system in the world. They send in the missiles, and this one's not even as sophisticated. It just comes in. They release it, hyper accelerates down. Then wham hits the ground and the Israelis, because the Israelis are like, okay, we got it. We got it. We don't have it. It's like a catcher used to catch 70 mile an hour fastballs, and it hits him in the head, and then the guy fires the 102 mile an hour. Bam. What happened? I wasn't ready for that. It comes in and it hits it. Wilmer Leon (43:47): Well catcher called a change up, and a fastball came through. Fast ball came in. Scott Ritter (43:52): So then they came into Na, Nevada, and they touched Naum at least five times. The Iranians were saying seven times. I would probably go with five. And the reason why I say this is that there is a chance the most heavily defended space on earth, there's a chance that they got two of 'em. I'm going to concede that point to the Israelis and the Americans that you put all these hundreds of billions of dollars into building something, and you got two out of seven, but five hit. But the idea, none of them were meant to be a knockout blow. Each one was just a, Hey, hey. And the Israelis know that They're sitting there going, and now they've come to the realization, and this is the whole point. After all of this, the Israelis have come to the realization that Iran can reach out and touch us anytime it wants to, any place it wants to, and there's nothing we can do to stop them. So now the Israelis are in a quandary because Iran has war is an extension of politics by other means. (44:51) So Iran has established a political reality using military means to establish a deterrence superiority without creating the conditions that mandate an automatic Israeli response. You see, they've allowed the situation a narrative to be developed by the United States and Israel that says, Iran sucks. He sent everything in there. We shot it all down. We're better than they are. We actually established deterrence over Iran by telling the Iranians that no matter what they do, you thought you were Mike Tyson. You came in and swang gave us all your punches. You miss, you, miss you, miss you, miss you, miss. It's like, Ali, I'm still here. You didn't touch me. You punched yourself out. Can't touch this. That's the narrative that Iran was allowing the West to do. But the reality though is that the Israelis got down there, and there was an interesting text, I don't know if you saw it by, not text, but a post by an Israeli insider who has connectivity with the war council. (45:58) And he said, if the Israeli public heard what was being said in the War Council, 4 million people will be leaving Israel right now. I'm going to tell you right now what was said in the war Council, Iran can destroy us. Iran can flatten us. There's nothing we can do if we allow this to happen to remain unanswered. We've lost everything that we've fought for over the past several decades. This deterrence, supremacy that we thought we had has gone forever. Nobody will ever respect us. Nobody will ever fear us, and therefore people will attack us, and we will be in an untenable situation Wilmer Leon (46:39): Wait a minute. That's that's very important politically, because that is part of the whole Zionist ideology, is we we're the persecuted people, and you all need us to protect you because the wolves are always at the door. And now what is the reality is all that insurance money you've been paying for those insurance policies, you've wasted your money. Scott Ritter (47:15): Absolutely. I used to live in Turkey, and when I've traveled through the planes of Turkey, they have shepherds with their flocks, and out there amongst the flocks are the sheep dogs. I don't know if you've ever seen a picture of an Anatolian sheep dog. Yes, big. Wilmer Leon (47:34): I'm a big dog guy. Yes. Scott Ritter (47:35): Okay, so these are like bears, right? Some of them are bigger than bears. And I remember we were walking once in a Kurdish village and we got too close to the sheep, and all of a sudden, these two things coming at us, and they're bigger than we are. I mean, these are bigger than humans, and they're coming at us, and they're going to kill us. And we knew that it was just all over. Then you hear, and the shepherd gives whatever signal, and the sheep dogs stop, and then they come up and they sit down and you pet 'em. (48:04) They have no ears because their ears have been chewed off. Their noses are scars their faces. They got these giant collars with spikes on to protect their throat, their faces like that, because they fight wolves. They hold the wolves off. Israel has been telling the world that we are the anatolian sheep dog. We are here and we will protect you. The rest of the world, the sheep from the wolves, they're getting ready. What Iran just did is went, took off the cloak, then went, you're just a sheep. You're just a sheep. We are the wolves. You're just a sheep. And the sheep's going, I don't want everybody to know this. We were faking them out, that we were the anatolian sheep dog, but we're really just a sheep. So that's a political problem for the Israelis, and this is important, and this is probably the most important part of this discussion, believe it or not, this isn't about Israeli security. This isn't about a real threat to, because Iran is a responsible nation. When Iran talks about deterrence, Wilmer Leon (49:07): oh, wait a minute now, wait a minute. Now, Scott, now you've crossed the Rubicon is Iran is responsible? Yeah, Iran is a, they're ravaging. Crazy. Raghead. Come on, Scott. Scott Ritter (49:25): That may be true, but they're ravaging, crazy Raghead who operate based upon a law-based system as opposed to a rule-based system. Not only that, a law-based system that is based on thousands of years of history and culture, right? I mean, that's their own national culture. I mean, a lot of people go the theocracy, the theocracy, theocracy, yes, but Persian. Persian, Persian. I understand that this is a civilized people who have been around. They invented cataract surgery. They invented a lot of stuff. They invented the agrarian watering system, the irrigation, the irrigation system. They invented the wheel. I think they probably did. (50:20) We've been reinventing the wheel over time. But mathematics, psychology, the whole thing, sociology, all comes out of there. And today, you see it when you Google International Math Olympics, the teams that are coming in at top are Chinese teams and Iranian teams, MIT, California technology, they're coming in down at the bottom. They're not one in this thing behind it. The Indian Institute of Technology, the Indians are getting up there too. They have good applied science and good applied skills. And it's not just that. I mean, to give you an example, the Iranians have the highest percentage of peer reviewed, not percentage, the highest number of peer reviewed PhD thesis published per year. So it's not like, excuse me, Iraq, I, forgive me for this, but under Sadam Hussein, where you went to an Iraqi university, it used to have a good reputation, but they were just punching out, handing out diplomas to Kuai. (51:26) And the thugs who went in there and said, I went to school. Here's your diploma. See, I'm a doctor. No, in Iran, you earn it. You go to the school, you earn it, and you earn it the old fashioned way, peer reviewed, which means your thesis leaves. Iran goes out of ranks the world, the experts, they review it, they come back and they say, this is PhD level work. Wilmer Leon (51:46): I just had a conversation with another dear friend. And when you look at their diplomats, when you look at their leadership, many of them are engineers. President Amad, the first time I went to Iran, I got to sit for two hours with then former president Amadinijad has a PhD in engineering and teaches engineering at the University of Tehran. I sat there for two hours listening to this cat going, oh my God. Yeah, he's not what? (52:22) He was sold deep. He's not some short madman. He's a short, brilliant man. Scott Ritter (52:31): A brilliant madman maybe. But the point is, brilliant dude, genius. No, they're all that way. They all have extraordinary. First of all, let's stop picking on Ayatollahs. If people understood what it took to become an ayatollah in Iran, the level of seminarian study, what you have to know, not just about. And here's the important thing about the Shia theocracy for all the Shia people out there, if I got this wrong, please forgive me, but it's my understanding, especially in the Iranian model, they have something called the Marja, which is basically, it's like your flock. (53:14) What do they call it? A diocese in the Catholic church, right? Congregation. Thank you. There's what we want, congregation. It's a congregation. Now, you have to, because in Iran, it's not just about knowing the religion, but having a philosophy that is derived from absolute understanding of the religion that is approachable to the people. It is religious democracy, because now I've done my ayatollah training and they go, Huma, I can't do the cross. Sorry, God, I just made a huge mistake. Forgive me. But they anoint you. They say, you're the dude. You're the guy that can do it. But now, to survive, you have to write a document that says, this is my religious philosophy as it applies to something today. There's a name for that, the, or something. Again, I apologize, but they put that out there. Now. People read it, the public, it's there for the public. (54:10) And then people go, I like this guy. I'm going to hang out at his marja for a little bit and see what he does. Now, if they come to the Marja and he's not impressive, then the Marja dissipates and they shut 'em down. They say, you failed. You couldn't win the people. It's not just about imposing religion on people. It's about getting the people to buy into what you're saying religiously. Wilmer Leon (54:35): That's what the Ayatollah Khomeini was doing when he was in exile in France. Scott Ritter (54:39): Bingo. Okay. But you have compete, for instance, Al Sistani in Iraq, he has a competing the Najaf. Marges compete with the coal Marges that compete with Carval, which compete with, there's competing margins. And even within Comb, there's different margins. Wilmer Leon (54:59): I'm drawing a blank on the guy in Iraq that was raising all kind of hell. Muqtada al Sadr. There you go. Yeah. Who is the son, if I have it right? He's the son of a the, Grand Ayatollah Scott Ritter (55:17): yeah, yeah, yeah. And he, in order to become credible, had to go to Cole and study and learn things because everybody, when he was out there talking, he had a lot of personality. He had the name, but people are going, you don't have the credentials, man. You can't sit here and play religion because we take our religion seriously. So we had to go disappear and go to calm and train up and all that. Wilmer Leon (55:45): Had to coach him up a little bit. Scott Ritter (55:48): But he also then has to go out and sell himself right? To an audience. And a lot of people weren't buying what he was selling. I mean, he's a very popular man, very influential in Iraqi politics today. But it's earned. It's not given. But the point is, the Iranians are a responsible nation, and if Israel was smart, they would've said, okay, we're in a bad position here, bad position. (56:12) It's not a good position for us to be in. We need to take a step back, take advantage of the fact that the Iranians have written a script that makes it believable that we did some amazing stuff. And then we have to reassess where we are. What do we have to do to get our defenses back up? What do we have to do to get capabilities to strike Iran? When do we want to do it? Because the United States isn't on our side right now, behavioral modification to get the world to love us. Again, things of this nature, strategic thinking. But Israel's governed by a crazy man named Benjamin Netanyahu, who doesn't care about Israel. He doesn't care about the Israeli people. He doesn't care about Israeli security. He doesn't care about alliances with the United States. He's a 76-year-old man in bad health who only cares about Benjamin Netanyahu. (56:58) And he right now has his butt in a sling because he got embarrassed on October 7th, and now he was just humiliated by the Iranians. And he can only stay in power as a wartime prime minister. And if they're going to either, they have to ratchet it up in Gaza. Every Israeli knows that they lost in Gaza that they haven't won Harts the day before, the Iranian attack front page headline, we lost. We lost everything. We haven't won anything we've lost. And that's the assessment of the Israeli intelligence service. And people who don't know need to know that Harts is a very prominent Israeli newspaper with a very good reputation of like, well, you said good reputation. I was about to compare to the New York, used to have, right? There you go. There you go. Like it used to have. But so he's lost in Gaza. (57:52) He was looking to maybe promote a conflict against Hezbollah to expand the war. And there's always that hope that we can drag the United States into a larger war with Iran. But the United States, it says, no, we're not doing that. Hezbollah now is linked to Iranian deterrence, superiority. So you can't do the Hezbollah thing like you wanted to do anymore. You're in a, and now you've got Ansara Allah in the Red Sea shutting down the Red Sea, shutting down the Israeli economy. Wilmer Leon (58:22): And on the other side, you have Iran shutting down the strai of Harmouz. And that's why I go back to that ship that they captured because they wanted the United States to understand will shut your oil off. Scott Ritter (58:36): And the United States, remember, we've been running guardian prosperity or something like that, whatever the name of our wonderfully named operation to deter the Hootie. And we, I don't know if everybody understands, we had to approach the Hoothie last week and beg them to stop it. Please, please, please, please, please. We'll stop bombing you. We'll do everything. We'll lift the terrorism thing, but just stop this, please, because we can't force you to stop it. And the Hootie went, no. Yeah. They said, here's another one. The missiles, you guys are deterring. That's a failure. But that's the thing. The failure of deterrents policy has been played out with the Hoothie and it's being played out. See, America no longer has deterrents, superiority. We no longer have deterrence. We can't deter a minute. Wilmer Leon (59:25): Wait a minute. We sent the Eisenhower into, now this takes me back to, so we sent a couple of aircraft carrier groups into the region when I think it was the Eisenhower. Oh, it was Gerald Ford. We first sent the Gerald Ford in President Putin says to Joe Biden, why did you do that? You are not scaring anybody. These people don't scare. And oh, by the way, we can sink your carrier from here with our Kenjal missile. Hypersonic missile. So stop it, Joe. You're not scaring anybody. Scott Ritter (01:00:08): But here's something else that happened, and I'm glad you brought this up. This is an important thing. The United States linked at least two of its ships to this system, and this is part of the American anti-ballistic missile strategy. We do this with Japan, we do this with Korea, we do this with Europe. We have a whole bunch of ages, class destroyers in Spain that we now are going to fan out to protect Europe from Russian missiles. And we're telling everybody, no worry. We got this. We got this. Remember guys, when that satellite was coming down, we shot it down. We're that good? We can pull it, hit a bullet kind of stuff. So we went to the Israelis and we plugged in to the world's most sophisticated anti-ballistic missile shield in the world. We plugged in and the Iranians went. (01:00:55) What the Iranians proved, and I just want this to sink in there, they can hit any American ship anytime they want with a warhead that will sink that ship. They just sent a signal to the United States that we will sink every one of your aircraft carriers. We will sink every one of your destroyers, all these wonderful ships you have. You can't stop it. The missile we sent in and touched, Nevada can sink any one of your ships. And how do we know? Because you plugged your ships into the system. Guys, up until then, we might've been theoretical about this, but now you plugged it in and you were playing the game. You committed your best anti-missile ships to the defense system, and you didn't stop us. We went in and went pop, pop, pop, pop, pop five times on the target. If Nevada had become the Gerald Ford or become the Eisenhower or the Carl Benson, we would've sunk that ship. (01:01:52) That's the other thing that the Iranians did here that nobody's talking about, because this is the scariest thing in the world to the United States. Iran just told the United States, your Navy is useless. Useless. It's done and now, but it's not just the Iranians, the North Korean, China China has everybody out there who has hypersonic missile capability is now basically saying, oh yeah, we can sink American ships too. And this is important thing. Wilmer Leon (01:02:22): I was talking to KJ Noh last week, and KJ was talking about the United States sending all kind of hardware into Taiwan and that the United States may even wind up sending personnel in Taiwan and in anticipation of China making a, I think this is what KJ said, making a land invasion in Taiwan. And I said, kj, why would China do that when all they got to do is sink an aircraft carrier with a hypersonic missile? And he said, well, that's a good point. Scott Ritter (01:02:58): No, I mean the United States, but now we come to, because America's facing the same problem that BB Netanyahu is, except there's not a political dimension to it. BB Netanyahu right now has to do something to stay in power politically so now Wilmer Leon (01:03:15): and not be prosecuted for theft. Scott Ritter (01:03:19): Correct. For his corruption. Yeah. Second, he leaves office, he gets arrested and he gets put on trial. Wilmer Leon (01:03:25): Ala Donald Trump. Scott Ritter (01:03:27): Except, yeah, I mean, yeah, Wilmer Leon (01:03:32): that's a whole nother story. But I'm just saying that right now is what Donald Trump is facing. Scott Ritter (01:03:38): Correct. Wilmer Leon (01:03:38): And I'm not saying it's legitimate or not legitimate. Scott Ritter (01:03:41): Yeah. That's my only reason why I did that is I don't want to get into the, no, Wilmer Leon (01:03:47): it's happening. Scott Ritter (01:03:47): Because Netanyahu is a criminal. He is a corrupt person. Donald Trump is an imperfect human being who may have committed some crimes, but in America, you're innocent until proven guilty. And he has these trials, many of which people believe are politicized, designed, and diminishes. We can move on. We don't need to go down that rabbit hole on this episode. But the fact is Israel right now is desperately looking for a face saving way out of this because the fiction of we were so good that we stopped this Iranian attack is not believable. It's not believable domestically. So now the Israelis are looking for the ability to do something that if not gives them deterrence, superiority they're looking for right now, deterrence, parody. Parody. And so here's the question, because you remember now we come back to Pepe, and this is probably a good way to spin this around. (01:04:53) William Burns met with Iranians beforehand and came up with an elegant solution to an extraordinarily difficult and dangerous problem. Iran now has established a deterrence philosophy, and they articulate the second Israeli airplanes take off. We launch our missiles. We're not waiting for Israel to attack us. The second your planes take off, we're firing. And Iran has said, we consider the matter settled. Settled. We consider the matter over. You struck us, we struck back, let it go. Correct. But it's not settled because there's thing called politics. And Iranians, again, are some of the most sophisticated political players in the world. So my guess is as we're speaking, Hey Pepe, if you're out there, call your source. I'm giving you a hint that behavioral patterns, one thing I used to do as an intelligence officer is do analysis and assessments, predictive analysis based upon behavioral patterns. Humans tend to repeat behavioral patterns. (01:05:59) And so now the CIA and the Iranians have talked to prevent one crisis. They're talking right now and the CIA saying, guys, what can we do to prevent Israel from doing something really stupid, which is the big attack, which politically we need a safety valve. This is the equivalent of a methane tank getting heat on it. And if you don't have a safety valve that goes, it's going to blow. So how do we get a safety valve? What can Israel do to save face that doesn't impact you? And you see the Israelis now ratcheting it down. It was, we're going to strike nuclear facilities. We're going to strike this, we're going to strike that. And now they're saying, well, what if we strike something outside of Iran? But it's clearly Iran like at seven 11. Yeah, at three in the morning when it's been closed and nobody's there strike at seven 11. (01:06:53) And so they're desperately looking for this outlet. The question now is, what will Iran do? My bet is that Iran will facilitate a face saving gesture by Israel because the Iranians don't want and don't need a war, a major war business. Well, it's horribly. The Iranian foreign ministry, just so everybody understands this, their number one priority now, one of their top priorities is they have all of their smart people right now writing papers for the Brick summit in October, which Iran will be attending and will be playing a major role in establishing new global infrastructure and institutions on how the world's going to be governed and a possible international currency off of the dollar bingo. These are big ticket things. Business. They don't need to be business. They don't need to be dragged into this stupidity of a mafia family dispute Wilmer Leon (01:07:54): Really quickly. One of the reasons why President Putin went into Ukraine light in the beginning was he doesn't want a war because it's bad for his economy. Scott Ritter (01:08:11): But the West didn't pick up on that. Now we got thing. Wilmer Leon (01:08:15): And now he's kicking ass and taking names and folks are all befuddled. Hey, you started. You went looking for trouble. You found a big bag of it. And now, so thank you for your time, Scott. Two things I want to hit quickly. One is the estimates are in very simple terms, that Iran spent a million dollars on this attack and Israel lost a billion in their response to it. Scott Ritter (01:08:50): I'd say 60 million for the Iranians, about 3.2 billion for the Israelis and the United States altogether. Wilmer Leon (01:08:55): Okay. Okay. And this other thing, is it velvet or violet, this AI program that Israel has developed that they assign a score? Are you familiar with this? They assign a score to Palestinians based upon a number of predetermined social behaviors. And when your score gets close to a hundred, you get assassinated. And this is all generated by artificial intelligence. You mentioned ai, so I want to just to quickly drop that one in there before we get out. Scott Ritter (01:09:31): No, I mean, again, it's a criminal enterprise. It's about killing innocence. And part of this AI too is that it calculates the number of civilian casualties that'll be assigned to that thing target. And unfortunately for the Palestinians, one would think if you're a rational, look, I keep telling people, I'm not a pacifist, and if you want to go to war, I'm old. You're the guy. But guys, I have no problem killing you. I mean, I know you're trying to kill me, so I will kill you, and I'm not going to weep at night when you die because you wanted to play this game. But I'm not in the business of killing you and taking out innocent civilians. Okay? (01:10:17) That's where I draw the line. Now there's collateral damage. If it happens, I'll be upset, but I have my parameters. If I'm going to take you and they're saying, you're going to take out this many civilians, I'm going, that's a bad target. Not the right time. Not the right place. We're not going to do it. But the Israelis have the opposite thing. It's not just when you're going to take out the target, but when you get the maximum impact of civilian casualties. The Israeli approach is AI program is designed to kill the maximum number of family members and civilians to maximize the impact of the attack on the morale of the Palestinian people. But see, that's where AI fails because it doesn't understand the human heart and doesn't understand rage, it doesn't understand hate, and they don't understand that the more Palestinians you kill, the more you train them to hate you. (01:11:05) And not only that, the world is turning against you. See, the AI program hasn't figured out the global factor that every time they do this, the world hates Israel even more. Hamas is a political organization. Hamas is a military organization. Hamas is an ideology, and you don't kill an ideology with weapons. You defeat an ideology with a better ideology, which is generally linked to a better lifestyle, better standard of living, economic prosperity. Again, Jane Carville's mantra, it's the economy. Stupid isn't just an American only. It's a global human reality Wilmer Leon (01:11:52

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd   FULL TRANSCRIPT: Announcer (00:06): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:14): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. And I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the historical context, the broader historic context in which these events occur. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issues before us are, what are the anticipated results of the most recent China Russia meetings is the US pivoting from Ukraine and Russia to China, and is the US independent is the US as an independent actor in Haiti as it claims, and we'll also discuss some other issues. My guest for this iteration of Connecting the Dots is a man who I am very proud to call a friend. His analysis is always spot on, and he's really just cool people. He's an author, two time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Knight Fellowship recipient with more than 20 years of journalistic experience. He's a former Washington Post Bureau chief and award-winning foreign correspondent on two continents. John Jeter. John, my brother. Welcome to the show. Jon Jeter (01:51): My pleasure, brother. Thank you. That's an outstanding introduction. I really appreciate Wilmer Leon (01:56): It. Well, I know my check is on its way, so I'll sit by the mailbox. So, hey, so earlier this week, the Global Times reported Chinese President Xi meets Russian foreign Secretary Lavrov and reaffirms China's emphasis on partnership with Russia and Chinese analysts said the meeting sends a strong signal that China will firmly develop its strategic partnership with Russia despite pressure from the West, and that the China Russias partnership continues to be key for the global strategic balance and the hope of promoting a multipolar world in which countries in the global south will have greater roles to play. John, your thoughts? Jon Jeter (02:49): Yeah, no, this is a tectonic shift and we've been talking about this for quite a while on your show, and it's like a tanker. And of course it takes a while for that tanker to move, but it is moving. It is in motion. We see that geopolitical shift from the west as the United States, as France, as the UK gets increasingly desperate as they grow increasingly out of favor with what they're doing in Gaza and backing Israel's genocide. And we see this is a victory lap for Russia, what they've done in Ukraine. It is all over. But the shouting, if I can use a phrase from my southern cousins, and this is, from what I understand, it's very rare for the president of China or any other country to entertain the foreign secretary. Usually it's foreign secretary or foreign secretary. (03:48) Yeah, exactly. So this is a big deal. Again, it's like a tanker movement. It takes a while. And if I can sort of mix metaphors, like Lenon said, history moves and spiral. So this thing is not just sort of a linear thing, but it's just kind of moving in a certain direction. And we see Russia and China starting to sort of take charge, starting to ascend very much like the United States did almost exactly a century ago. After World War I we're seeing China and Russia start to make their rise as this geopolitical force, the geopolitical almost like a ruling party for the global elite. And it's almost inevitable. It's almost inexorable at this point. The only real question is how will the United States respond? It can sort of go kicking and screaming or it can negotiate sort of its dissension into second place. So we'll see what happens. I think history says, of course it will go kicking and screaming, but hopefully cooler heads will prevail at some point and we'll see what happens. But this thing is going in a very definite direction. I don't think it's at this point, I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle. And I think China and Russia see the future and it's theirs. Wilmer Leon (05:13): I think people really need to pay attention to the next statement that I'm going to read because the western narrative of this is militarism. The focus of the West as it relates to this rising partnership is militarism. But Lee Ong, a professor at the Chinese Foreign Affairs University, said China and Russia will not target any third, but if hegemonic forces threaten China and Russia or threaten world peace, China and Russia will stand together and fight to protect their own interests and safeguard world peace together. And I want to reiterate, they will not target any third party. So I take this as they're saying, don't start, nothing Jon Jeter (06:17): Won't be, won't be none. Wilmer Leon (06:20): We're going to handle our business. Jon Jeter (06:22): Yeah, yeah, (06:26) I think so. I don't know if you've ever seen Oliver Stone's history of the world was the history world or history of the United States, I can't remember. But he talks at length about the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States and the Soviet Union, despite the depictions by Reagan and other presidents of the Soviet Union as this sort of aggressively hostile evil empire that want to take control of the world. The Soviet Union was really just terrified of the United States. They thought that the United States was insane that it was run by mad men. I think that still very much holds true. I think Putin understands that his error, if he made any his error, was entrusting the United States to some extent and hoping I think that he could sort of find some common ground within United States. I think he sees now that that is not possible. Although he said, interestingly enough, he said, apparently in a speech sometime ago, I heard someone else say this. I think it was Ray McGovern, former CIA operative who said that Putin said, Wilmer Leon (07:30): Analyst. Jon Jeter (07:31): Yes, analyst. I'm sorry. Yeah. He said in a speech recently that Putin had once said, or very recently said that the United States and Russia at some point will find common ground, but the EU in Russia will never find common ground. I think very interesting, but I think don't think the Putin, I don't think he's ever read Maya Angelou when she wrote, when someone tells you who they are, believe them, believe them. But I think he believes them now. I think he believes in the United States. And so we see this alignment where China and Russia, and this is our shock in all moment really. Right? We are not looking for the smoke, but we here for it. If you've got some, for us, I think this is a very direct message at Washington. At France, this thing in Ukraine is over. I mean, it's all over, but the shouting again, there's some loose ends to wrap up, including this terrorist attack that was very likely staged by Ukraine and Russia a few weeks ago. So there's some loose ends to wrap up, but this thing is all over, and I think the Russia and China are now turning to the next phase, which is this inevitable rise to the top of the geopolitical order. Again, it's not a linear thing. Take some time. We see them sort of orchestrating bricks and bricks has not really been the dynamo that we expected, but what we see is that other, Wilmer Leon (08:56): It's coming. Jon Jeter (08:57): It's coming though. And we also see that there are other countries, particularly in Africa, particularly in Latin America with Mexico and Venezuela has been there for a while, but we see countries sort of mimicking bricks, parroting bricks in terms of Zimbabwe is talking about a gold back currency. And we see, of course, what South Africa is doing, which is sort of defining itself outside the US orbit, the Western orbit. So we see some things that are in motion, and Russia and China are at the center and the United States and the West, the collective West is increasingly being pushed to the outer margins. Wilmer Leon (09:38): Well, and I'm going to stay with that pushed, let me just say, because people, I'm glad you brought up bricks because people have to understand that this isn't just China and Russia. This is China and Russia, and the Bricks is an acronym for Brazil, India, China, I'm sorry, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. And then you have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. So there are a number of countries that, Venezuela, Iran, there are a number of countries that are looking to join this group as well. And I'm glad you used the point that the United States is going to be pushed to the margins because what a lot of people really, particularly in the West really have to pay attention to is the fact that it's the sanctions regime of the United States. It's the threat of militarism by the United States. It's the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline by the United States that has really forced this relationship to develop and to grow, and now to become to the part where you've got G and Lavrov meeting for what will eventually be a meeting and a signing of documents between G and Putin. It's the United States fault that they have come to the point that they have John G. Yes. Jon Jeter (11:16): No, that's exactly right. And a couple of things I think it would be important to note. One is that Janet Yellen was just in China and compare her meeting with, I don't know if she met with G or not, but she met with, I know she met with her finance people. Wilmer Leon (11:35): She met with the finance people, and I think she met with Wang Lee, the foreign minister. Jon Jeter (11:39): Yes. And so her message was, you're overproducing and it's hurting us, which is foolish. And I'm being generous by saying that it's fool. That's a foolish message. It's almost like Rip Van Winkle waking up after 50 years saying, you're over producing too much. It's hurting us. What did you think was going to happen? Do you not understand how this capital system works? So you compare Wilmer Leon (12:05): That minute. And also I thought that the United States was all about free markets. Jon Jeter (12:12): Right, exactly. Wilmer Leon (12:16): I thought the market was supposed to determine what succeeds and what fails. The invisible hand and all Jon Jeter (12:25): This. Yeah. Jack Young's a socialist who knew, right? I think that's amazing though that we see this desperation. Wilmer Leon (12:35): She was begging Jon Jeter (12:37): Yes and no. I said this before, but I keep returning to it. It's amazing how this self adoration and self worship by the United States doesn't lead to self-awareness, right. This idea how this looks like to the rest of the world. The other thing too, I think this is a perfect segue. It is what the rest of the world is starting to see. And you might argue that it's late even for that to happen for them to see what's happening, but at least they are starting now to see that this world that was defined by the United States with neoliberalism, beginning with Ronald Reagan, really pushed by Bill Clinton, this whole neoliberal idea has failed, has failed. The idea was that if you do these things to open up your markets to us, you'll look like the United States one day. You will be as rich and prosperous as we are. (13:36) That hasn't happened anywhere, not even in the United States. It has not happened anywhere. No one looks like the United States in some ways. That's very good. And so the world is seeing that this was a snake oil, right, being sold by the snake oil salesman. And so we're at this pivotal point, and this is very much like what did Mike Tyson used to say? Everybody has a plan. You get smack in the nose, you get punched. Yeah. The United States has been smacking nose in Ukraine, and let me end with this. And the other thing in terms of it not working, and everyone else sees this, everyone else in the world, especially China and Russia, the United States, we have stolen money. We've stolen oil from in Syria. We are in Iraq, and they have problem, I think is at least two times, told the United States, one of the United States to leave Iraq. (14:33) And we're still there, like the guests from Hurricane Katrina who never want to leave. That's what the United States is there in Iraq. And now we've stolen money from Afghanistan, stolen money, we've stolen money from Venezuela, and now we're about to steal money. The international reserves from Russia. And so this is going to destroy the United States as a reliable or trusted partner in any kind of commercial transaction. If they're just going to steal money, no one's going to trust them. So they're really in a very difficult spot. The rest of the world sees what's happening. The United States has no idea, or at least the American people don't. I think our leadership knows, but they have no way out. Wilmer Leon (15:20): To your point about stealing money, for those that may not understand what you're referring to, many people remember the United States froze Iranian assets and was slowly returning some of those assets to Iran. Then the United States, when Juan Waid do became, was forced on the Venezuelan people in the world. Then the United States froze Venezuelan assets that I think were held in British banks, and now the United States is talking about freezing some of the Russian sovereign wealth fund that is being held in banks around the world. But the interesting thing is, a lot of those banks are telling the United States, that's not a good idea. Don't drag us into this because we don't want to have to deal with the repercussions of what Russia will do to us if we steal their money. And I think some of that perspective is coming from the reality that the United States is not the only game in town anymore. That's right. And Debo, if we go back to the movie Fridays, Deebo got hit with a brick, Jon Jeter (16:46): Right? That's right. He got knocked the F out, Wilmer Leon (16:51): Laying out on Craig's front lawns. So this is, man, this thing is unraveling. It is unraveling quickly, and folks really need to pay attention. President Xi said, he said, China and Russia have embarked upon a new path of harmonious coexistence and win-win cooperation between major countries and neighbors, which has benefited the two countries and their peoples and contributed wisdom and strength to international fairness and justice. A couple of things in that statement. One, win-win cooperation. A lot of people need to understand that win-win is not just some euphemism that is thrown around carelessly win-win is an actual international cooperation strategy that Russia tries to reach with the countries it does business with. They don't go in and overthrow your government. They don't come in and tell you how to run your country. You have resources, they have money. They want to buy your resources at relatively fair market value, and they want you to be happy and they'll be happy. And that's how they do business. And they contribute wisdom and strength to international fairness and justice. That's not just rhetoric that they hide behind as some kind of excuse for overthrowing your government. That's right. (18:48) People need to listen to Xi. People need to listen to Putin because you listen to what they say, and then you look at what they do. And those things seem to be simpatico, John. Jon Jeter (19:01): Yeah, there's no doubt. I just think as someone who considers himself a Pan-Africanist, I think this is a very exciting time. It's not written in stone yet, but there's a very real opportunity, I think for, we see things happening in Africa now, some bad things with the militarization of Africa by Africa in the United States, but we also see in some ways that has backfired. So we see this militarization as a result of, in these cos by soldiers who have been trained by the United States, but who are representative of their people, particularly in Burkina Faso with this young man. And these, we see Africa turning more towards Russia, which is actually where it was during the Cold War. But we see it turning back towards Russia finding these Wilmer Leon (19:52): Ties. Where is Patrice Lumumba University? Jon Jeter (19:56): It's Wilmer Leon (19:56): In Moscow. That's Jon Jeter (19:58): Right. That's right. And the Chinese, I don't think it's a thing where African countries can sort of just lay back and be passive and say, oh, China's going to save us. And I think they know this. I think China has cut a better deal than the United States, but one that's so far has not necessarily been favorable and has led to economic development, which is what Africa most needs is economic development. Their own industrial sector at this point, one that is more environmentally sustainable, but they need their own industrial sector. They, they grow coffee, but they don't actually roast the coffee. Things like this. This is what they need. But I do think this, Wilmer Leon (20:36): They need to wait a minute to that point, because that's a brilliant point. People need to understand that we all know that the continent of Africa is the repository of minerals, but in most instances, they don't process the minerals from raw form, raw ore, for example, into a marketable commodity Jon Jeter (21:10): Value added. Wilmer Leon (21:11): In fact, I think it was either Ghana or Guyana that makes cocoa, cocoa Jon Jeter (21:19): Beans, Ghana, I believe it's Ghana. Wilmer Leon (21:20): Okay. So Ghana had been selling the unprocessed cocoa beans to Switzerland, and Ghana decided we're going to start processing our own cocoa bean into cocoa powder domestically. Switzerland said, well, then we won't buy your product. China said, we'll buy it. You processed it, buy it. Jon Jeter (21:51): That's what I'm talking about. Yes, yes. That's a very different relationship. That's one where there's an opportunity to grow to, because these value added industries are where the money is, right? Correct. They raise wages for people. I'll tell a very quick story about my time in South Africa about 25 years ago when I was a young man, and I had a girlfriend at the time, and I was famously cheap. I'm still famously cheap, although I'm also broke, but I thought, I'm going to South Africa, so I'll buy some gold. And they have diamonds here, so I'll buy her a nice tennis bracelet. I thought thinking it would be cheaper there actually turned out it costs more there because while they mine the gold and the diamonds in South Africa, they have to send it all the way to Antwerp to get it cut, then send it back to South Africa. (22:33) That's where the money is. So this is what I think can happen if Africa, they have to be strategic, they have to cut better deals with China. But China, there's some daylight with China that did not exist with the United States or the West, where China is a better grade of capitalism, and they get very much like what China did with the United States, beginning with the Nixon administration, where China basically cut these deals. They knew what they were doing, and I don't think they knew that they were playing into the United States racism. And I'm not saying that China is racist like the United States, but they cut this deal knowing that eventually it would lead to this industrialized economy, right? Africa can do the same thing with China's investments. If they're strategic, I don't think that China's going to offer it just off the top of their head, but they can negotiate these things. I think China is willing a willing partner in this enterprise. So we're on the cusp of something I think that is transformative, not just for the United States, but for the world. And so it's exciting at the same time, of course, it's sort of traumatizing to see what's going on in the world, but it's just, what did KY say? This is the interregnum, the oldest dying and the new Wilmer Leon (23:46): Cannot be born, has yet been born or cannot be born. Cannot Jon Jeter (23:51): Be born, right? Yet Wilmer Leon (23:54): Two things, and we'll move on to talking about what's happening in Haiti. And that is, I was listening to Lloyd Austin, secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, and his testimony before the Senate, and I don't remember the senator, but one of them asked him, can you tell us that you'll support our move to break the ties, the supply chain with China? Because the Department of Defense, all of this rhetoric about China is our enemy, and we hate China. The Department of Defense buys critical components from China for defense equipment, for drones. And it's not just as easy anymore as saying, we're not going to get this stuff from China because some of these things, China is the only place you can get them. That's right. So on the one hand, we're standing here beating our chests about screaming at China, and at the same time, we're getting key military components from them. And by the way, Janet Yellen is there meeting with them about trade and finance. Why? Because they hold so much of our debt. That's right. That's right. And so those are elements, that's why I say, folks, you've got to connect these dots and things don't happen in a vacuum. There's a much broader historical context in which these things are operating, but CNN and M-S-N-B-C-I-A and the Washington Post, they won't give you the context. That's one of the things that is so invaluable, I believe about this show. And guests like my good brother John Jeter. (25:59) Oh, before we get to Haiti, one final point on this too, and that is there was a piece in the South China Morning post, the United States leaves a mess in Ukraine and moves on to China as the State Department, I'm sorry, at the State Department, the Ukraine girl is out, and the China guy is in. From Washington's perspective, it was a right assessment, whether that's good for Asia and world peace is a different matter. So basically what they're talking about is the United States has decided that Ukraine basically is lost, and they're now trying to pivot, going back to Barack Obama and the pivot towards Asia. They're trying to pivot away from Ukraine the same way they did in Afghanistan. 25 years of getting your hin parts whooped in Afghanistan, then you cut and run. And was it ironic that you then start the fight of Ukraine? And in fact, in listening to Lloyd Austin, they said since 2014, the United States has spent 300 billion in Ukraine. And I know that's a low estimate, but it's the number they quoted during the hearings, 300 billion. Jon Jeter (27:33): What did Tupac say? You got money for wars, but can't feed the poor. There you Wilmer Leon (27:37): Go. And what did Dr. King say? War is the enemy of the poor. Jon Jeter (27:43): That's right. John Jeter. Yeah, no, that's exactly right. I was listening to Jeffrey Sacks the other day. I spent half my time just listening to these podcasts with people like Jeffrey Sacks. But he was saying he was answering, he was on that show Rising, I think, and he was answering a question about his critics who said that he was a Putin apologist. And the anchor asked him, what do you say to your critics? He said, I told you so. (28:08) That's how I answered. I told you so. Right. Ukraine is wrecked, and the money they're trying to send over there now, it's not going to make any difference on the battlefield. This is war profit change. This is how the United States makes its money now. And this is all, it's very seamless too. You won't hear it in the press, but it's very seamless. We began to ship our manufacturing sector overseas, beginning with China in the seventies under Richard Nixon, in part to punish the radical black political movement that was kryptonite to capital, very much like Kryptonite. What kryptonite is the Superman, the radical black political movement was to our oligarchs. And so we started sending this. Wilmer Leon (28:56): How so explain that for the audience, Jon Jeter (28:58): Because what you'll see, and you'll see this actually cyclically going back to even radical reconstruction, where this radical black political tradition, what it's allowed to express itself freely as a way of galvanizing the people, or if you are Marxist or Marxist friendly, the working class, that's just what it is. And so I've interviewed people like Bernadine Dorn who was with the Weather Underground. She says she spent her first year as the head of students for a Democratic society going around to these white college campuses telling them the first thing you need to do is get in touch with the black college, the historically black college down the street. You need to get in touch with them, see what they're talking about. So this is, that's Wilmer Leon (29:48): Part of what Bois was writing about in reconstruction in America. Jon Jeter (29:53): That's exactly right. That's exactly, it goes back to that reconstruction. If you look at that era, right? A lot of things happened, but there was Confederacy in the former Confederate states. There was a interracial political party of some type in every Confederate state in the union after the Civil War. And they all had varying degrees of success, but they all redistributed wealth from the top to the working class. They have some success in doing that. And so it is that black political voice that really has shaped and modernized this country, especially when you look at the New Deal. We look at the blacks who are allowed finally to join the labor unions. And together we fought. And of course, I mean, honestly, whites just went back to being white after that battle was won or after we were winning the battle, they started going back to being white in the seventies. That's what Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were about. Really fast, Wilmer Leon (30:46): But minute, minute. Wait a minute. Just take a step back there, because I think it's important for people to realize that post the abolition of enslavement, you had newly freed Africans that were actually joining forces with poor whites. Oh, no question. And the industrialists realized that's a force that we cannot allow to grow in this country. And they then started injecting the whole construct of race into that relationship to draw a wedge between the two. So when you say that in the seventies, whites went back to being white, I wanted to be sure that people understood where that mentality came from. Jon Jeter (31:36): And just to be clear, if you understand, people who are of a certain age will remember in the seventies when we started to see these movies, I love Paul Newman, but he was in that movie, what was it? Ford, Apache, the Bronx, these movies and these television shows, which starts to show basically, blacks is unfit for public office or blacks is unfit for public to participate in public affairs. That's what it was, right? So we're criminals, we're drug dealers, we're unpatriotic. Just as one example, if you remember the movie Alien from 1980, the most dangerous thing, that movie, other than the monster that had crept on board was Koda, who didn't want, who was just concerned about his pay, right? So this image is what has shaped modern politics. The black as unpatriotic, as unfit to lead is unfit to participate. And so this is what we're really dealing with at bottom. This is why there's never been a socialist movement or working class movement in the United States the way there's been, even in Europe. Wilmer Leon (32:38): And Point could take us into a eugenics conversation. Yes, Dr. Chantel Sherman, I'm going to give you your props here and now, in fact, I got to get Dr. Chantel Sherman on, because you're talking about the way that we were misrepresented in the films. That's also been a history of eugenics supporting the whole argument that scientifically, that biologically, we are incapable of managing and blah, blah, blah, because our brains are too small, our heads are too big and all that. So anyway, again, connecting the dots, folks, this is why you watch this show. I'm sorry, go ahead, John, you. Jon Jeter (33:28): No, no. Yeah. So I was just saying, I think the understanding these connections are what really helps us find a way forward. I don't know, honestly, if black and white can unite and fight the United States at this point, but I do believe that as Fred Hampton said, we can achieve black power for black people, white power for white people, yellow power for yellow people, and X power for all the people we left out. I do think that's possible if we can start to eradicate this tribalism, or at least put it aside long enough to work together and understand that we're at war Ukraine, not because Putin is trying to Wilmer Leon (34:07): Take Jon Jeter (34:07): Over Europe. Yeah, he's not trying to. There's no history of that, right? Either the Soviet Union or for Putin, this is about the Wall Street profiteering. They don't have any way to make money. They shipped all the jobs overseas. They killed the goose, delayed the golden egg, and now they're trying to make money. That's what I'm just looking at at a television ad. I was watching the NBA game. They had an ad about gambling, and the gambling is illegal everywhere. Now why is that? Where Cuba is, like Cuba was in 1958, right? It's because they can't make money any other way or through gambling through these Uber, which is basically just rent seeking what the French call rent seeking, looking to profit off something that already exists. This is how they make money, and war is part of that. So you really do have to connect the dots. Your show is aptly named. You really do have to connect the dots historically and contemporaneously to understand what's going on, because that's the only way you can actually work your way out of this. As my father would say, my late father would've said this trick bag that we find ourselves in, Wilmer Leon (35:09): And the new Deputy Secretary of State, Kurt Campbell, to your point about profiteering quote, I would argue that working closely with other nations, not just diplomatically, but in defense avenues, has the consequence of strengthening peace and stability more generally. So what he's saying is dumping more military hardware into already very tense situations and making them more volatile somehow is going to strengthen peace and stability. Or as Orwell said, in terms of doublespeak war is peace. Jon Jeter (35:54): Right? I think Obama said the same thing. Did he not? Wilmer Leon (35:57): Yes, he did, Jon Jeter (35:59): Basically, which tells you a lot about Obama and why he was put in that place, why he was installed. It says a lot about Obama and this country. Wilmer Leon (36:08): So let's quickly move to Haiti because there's been a lot happening over the last, a lot of negative things happening for Haitians in Haiti. The Washington Post of all places had a piece. When Haiti's gangs shop for guns, the United States is their store. Now, there's a lot of crap and a lot of garbage in this piece because again, it is the Washington Post. But Jon Jeter (36:38): My former employer, I should, I should. Wilmer Leon (36:40): There you go. So am I wrong? Jon Jeter (36:43): Not at all. Wilmer Leon (36:44): Okay. Not Jon Jeter (36:44): At all. Wilmer Leon (36:46): So heavily. This is the Washington Post. Heavily armed gangs controlled 80% of Port-au-Prince, according to a un estimate where they rape, kidnap, and kill with impunity. Haiti doesn't manufacture firearms, and the un prohibits importing them. But that's no problem for the criminals when they go shopping, the US is their gun store. And what there is so much context and so much reality that is omitted from this piece. For example, Haiti doesn't manufacture weapons, but that's no problem for the criminals because the elite in Haiti that control the ports A, allow the weapons into the country. John Jeter. Jon Jeter (37:34): Yeah. And I even take issue with that phrasing, the criminals who exactly are the criminals. Wilmer Leon (37:38): That's my point. That's why I mentioned the elite. Jon Jeter (37:41): Yeah, yeah, exactly. I mean, the problem with Haiti, people think it's just these sort of animalistic Haitians who are always fighting. And this guy named Barbecue was just this crazy maniacal cannibal Haitian. Yeah, cannibal. Right, right, right. They Wilmer Leon (38:03): Were talking about him eating people last week. Jon Jeter (38:06): Yeah. Well, but if you ask the Haitian people, right? I mean, really the Haitian people, right? Not the elites, but they'll tell you if you really, everybody of course knows what happened with Haiti and Napoleon and then the debts and the United States going in in 1915. But they'll tell you, people in Haiti will tell you, well, you can trace this back to when they got rid of John Tron Air, Steve Credit elected president, who is I think still Wilmer Leon (38:34): You said they, who was the they? Jon Jeter (38:36): Oh, the United States. Thank you. Who at gunpoint. At gunpoint went in. They Wilmer Leon (38:41): Kidnapped him, Jon Jeter (38:43): Kidnapped him, and then would not, Obama did this first black president, my president is black, would that allow him back in the country to run for president? But when let baby doc back in to run for president? And then part of the reason was, and they've got all these arrangements sweatshops there. They're taking land that can be used for agriculture. Your Wilmer Leon (39:05): Levi jeans are probably made in Jon Jeter (39:07): Haiti, baseballs are made, Wilmer Leon (39:09): Baseball are made in Haiti. Jon Jeter (39:11): And this is a company apparently that Hillary Clinton fought to keep the wages low to make these baseball. I can't even watch baseball anymore knowing that. Right. And so we always, Wilmer Leon (39:22): Hang on a second, because you talk about the wages. So let me make this point so I don't forget it. So they talk about the arms that are trafficked, however you say it to Haiti, are purchased by straw purchasers in states such as Florida, a 50 caliber sniper rifle that sells for $10,000 in the US can get as much as $80,000. In Haiti, a 50 caliber sniper rifle that sells for $10,000 in the US can fetch $80,000 in Haiti. What is the average annual gross income per capita income for a Haitian, Jon Jeter (40:21): I don't think it's $8,000. I don't think it's one 10th of that. It's Wilmer Leon (40:25): 1000 as of 2022, which is the last time the data was collected, $1,247 and 89 cents, which averages $3 and 42 cents per day. So how is somebody who makes on average $3 and 42 cents per day going to buy an $80,000 50 caliber sniper rifle? Jon Jeter (41:07): Right? Right. Who's buying these weapons? Wilmer Leon (41:09): Thank you, John G. Who's Jon Jeter (41:11): Buying these weapons? The job of the media today is to, and it's always been this way, but now it's worse than ever. The job is to decontextualize the news is to disconnect it from the history. And that's why you get this sort of constant barrage of, well, the economy's doing great. I don't know why people are so upset because they're broke, fool. That's why people saying Wilmer Leon (41:34): To the position of decontextualization. So you see these pictures, or you see this footage of these Haitian young men roaming the streets with AR fifteens, AK 40 sevens. 40 caliber Berettas, which will run you close to a 40 caliber Beretta, depending on a model will run, you say between $700 and a grand. And nobody asks the question, where'd that kid get their pistol from? That's Jon Jeter (42:10): Right. That's right. That's right. Wilmer Leon (42:12): He's making $3 and 42 cents a day, $1,200 a year, and he's walking around with, and we aren't even talking about putting bullets in the thing. Nobody's asking that question. Jon Jeter (42:29): Right? Right, right. Jon Jeter (42:31): Yeah. Well, we are right. But the media doesn't want to ask because the answer is very uncomfortable. The answer is very discomforting. It's the Wilmer Leon (42:38): Core group. They're called the core Jon Jeter (42:40): Group. That's right. That's right. They're Wilmer Leon (42:42): Called Montana Group. Jon Jeter (42:44): Was it six families that run Haiti basically? Right. None of them black, by the way. None of them black. I think they're Lebanese and something Wilmer Leon (42:52): Else like that, that I'm not sure of. I think, Jon Jeter (42:55): But they're not black. Maybe some of them are, but most of them are not. Wilmer Leon (43:01): Most of 'em are not. Okay. So folks, you've got to understand the context here. And now, I can't remember the guy's name, but the United States has just appointed a new ambassador to Haiti. But here's the trick bag. If I can quote the late Mr. Jeter, in order for an ambassador to be recognized, he or she has to present his or her credentials to the president of the country that he's going to. Jon Jeter (43:43): There's Wilmer Leon (43:44): No Jon Jeter (43:44): President. There's no president. How does that work? So Wilmer Leon (43:48): How does an American ambassador land on the ground in Port-au-Prince? Who does he turn to? Jimmy Rizzi. Jon Jeter (43:59): Right? Barbecue. Right. Who Wilmer Leon (44:01): Does he turn to? There's nobody home. But again, I didn't hear Rachel Maddow asking that question. I didn't hear Joy Reed asking that question. And folks, look, you can look in the US Constitution article under Article two where they described the responsibilities of the president, one of the responsibilities of American president is to what? Recognize ambassadors from other countries. That's how the international diplomatic game is played. The American Ambassador to China presents his or her credentials to Xi Jinping and Xi Jinping goes, okay. Or Get out of my country. Jon Jeter (44:55): I don't think so. Right, right, right. Wilmer Leon (44:57): Don't play that. Jon Jeter (44:58): Right. And on another note, I related, but not quite at the point, but I just think this is so interesting. I was reading a recent piece, I cannot remember where, but they were talking about the origins of Hades gangs, and if you read it, they didn't mention this, but I know the history. It's the same as the gangs in Chicago, Los Angeles. They were formed to protect the community from the police, right? From harassment. The Black Wilmer Leon (45:23): Panthers. Jon Jeter (45:24): Exactly. Wilmer Leon (45:25): The Black Panther party for self-defense, for Jon Jeter (45:28): Self-defense. That's exactly right. And Huey Newton and Bobby Seale got their start getting a traffic signal on a particularly dangerous stop in Oakland. So this was, now, I'm not saying that they're still necessarily representing the people, but that's how they got their start. They filled this void that was left by the state because the state was just serving the interest of rich people and the United States and the West Canada and France and all that. So I just wish people was such a dumb down nation. I don't mean that to be judgmental, but it's just the case. Wilmer Leon (46:00): What was one of the major actions that the Panthers in Oakland performed every day on the street? They were policing the police. Jon Jeter (46:12): That's right. That's right. That's Wilmer Leon (46:13): Right. So when they came across cops in a traffic stop, they would pull over, locked and loaded. Right? Right. No, you couldn't have a round in the chamber, but they were armed, and they would stop and be sure that the traffic stop was proper and that the person being pulled over, usually the African-American driver of the car was not going to be. In fact, folks need to understand what was the Mulford Act in California? The Mulford Act was the law that was passed in California, I want to say 71, 72, when the Panthers went into the California State House, state House armed, legally armed, so long as you didn't have one in the chamber, legally armed. And the folks in California said, oh, no, we can't have this anymore. Jon Jeter (47:20): Gun control. Wilmer Leon (47:21): Gun control. That's why I've been saying for years, if you want gun control in the United States, let the government see law abiding black people legally buying and legally training with firearms. You'll find gun control, as they would say, liquidity split. Jon Jeter (47:45): It is gun control in the United States is very similar to our edict that Iran can't possess nuclear weapons. Why can't they? They're a sovereign country, right? Because we know we don't want them to defend themselves. That's why, just like we don't want black people to defend themselves. We've got this plague of black people being shot by the police, and we don't want black people to be able to shoot back. Wilmer Leon (48:06): And quite as it kept, Ron is a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation Jon Jeter (48:11): Degree, read the Israel Is Right, Israel, and they got, I think something like 300, 400 nuclear warheads. Iran don't even want nuclear weapons. They want nuclear energy. They've said that they banned, they had a fat wall that banned or needed from the, I told it banned nuclear. But on the news here, including one of my former colleagues of the Washington Post Gene, I can't remember his name now, but he says, well, of course I ran once nuclear weapons. Really? So you know something that the intelligence agencies of the United States don't know because they say that there's no such nuclear weapons programmed by Iran. Wilmer Leon (48:48): There isn't, and they don't need one because of the missile technology, the hypersonic missile technology that they have developed. And also they don't want a nuclear weapon because they understand the attention that brings to them, and it's negative. They don't want none of that smoke because also their military perspective is defensive, not offensive. Right, Jon Jeter (49:23): Right, right. Very protect the Soviet Union. Very protect the Soviet Union. Wilmer Leon (49:28): That's why Ukraine is being turned into rubble. Jon Jeter (49:30): Right? That's exactly Wilmer Leon (49:31): Right. Is because Russia has been planning for 25 years for this very type of ground ballistic missile ground or artillery driven ground war, war of attrition. I will just send missiles into your bathroom all day, every day for the next 10 years, and eventually you'll call and ask me, will you please stop sending missiles into my bathroom? I do Jon Jeter (50:03): Appreciate it. I don't know much about militarism and war strategy and things like that, but I've been reading up a little bit on Russia, and what I've concluded is you don't want nothing to do with Russia. You don't want no smoke for Russia. Look, Wilmer Leon (50:20): When the United States sent, I think it was the Eisenhower, I think it was USS Eisenhower into the Mediterranean about three or four months ago. No, it was in October in response to October 7th. Oh, right, Jon Jeter (50:37): Right. That's right. I Wilmer Leon (50:38): Remember that. The Biden sent, I think it was the Eisenhower Aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean, and Putin called Biden and said, Joe, why did you send that aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean? He says, you're not scaring anybody. Because he said, these people don't scare. And oh, by the way, I can sink your aircraft carrier from here with our SU 35 fighter jets with hypersonic Ken Jaw missiles. I can sink the thing before you even know the missile has been fired, Jon Jeter (51:24): Joe. Whatcha doing? Wilmer Leon (51:25): Yeah. Jon Jeter (51:26): We started by talking about Mike Tyson's theory about everybody's got a plan. I think it's appropriate to mention, just like Mike Tyson, he beat all these people, all these other boxes because they were afraid of him until he met Buster Douglas. Wilmer Leon (51:40): Buster Douglas. Jon Jeter (51:41): Buster Douglas was not afraid. He did not back up. He kept coming. And I don't want no smoke from Mike Tyson, but Buster Douglas was ready for him. And so yeah, this is the United States. Now we're Mike Tyson, but we're in the ring now with Buster Douglas. Putin is not afraid. Right. Wilmer Leon (51:57): And to your Mike Tyson analogy, the thing that Mike Tyson was always susceptible to was a jab. The problem was he didn't come across an opponent that was big enough in stature that had the jab until he fought Buster Douglas. That's Jon Jeter (52:20): Right. Wilmer Leon (52:21): What's his name from Easton, Pennsylvania, the heavyweight he was in. Jon Jeter (52:31): Larry Holmes. Wilmer Leon (52:32): Larry Holmes. Larry Holmes. Larry Holmes would've wiped the floor. Oh, is that right? Hands down. Yeah. Man, Larry Holmes had a jab. Jon Jeter (52:44): Oh, I remember Larry Holmes. Yeah, I know. He was a bad man. Wilmer Leon (52:50): I didn't mean to turn this into a boxing conversation, but just for the point. Larry Holmes' problem was he came in the shadow of Ali. Of Ali. Right. But you go back and look at footage of Larry Holmes in his day, man, that brother, he would've wiped the floor because that's, and I go through all of that here. I'm going to connect the dots, is you have to understand the weakness of your opponent and exploit that weakness. And that's what Russia does. That's what Iran does. That's why President Raisi of Iran, in response to the Syrian bombing of the embassy in Syria, he said, we will respond when we are ready. The United States Intelligence Services told us last week, expect a response within 48 hours from Iran. I said, no, we'll get to it when we're ready. And what has Israel already done? Closed 30 embassies around the world. So in Iran's mind, we've already won. You've closed 30 embassies. We didn't have to strike one of them. We skewed you into action. Jon Jeter (54:20): And from what I understand, again, I'm new to this sort of military strategy, but from what I've understood that the weakness of the United States is this overconfidence, it's arrogance that beginning, I think with, what was it? North Korea and China, when they lured them into the United States, lured them in and basically just, they just trapped. They knew they would come because they're so arrogant. They knew they would take the bait. And that's the Achilles tea of the United States is their overconfidence. Wilmer Leon (54:49): Look, that's what Iran isn't doing. They're not taking the bait. Russia did not take the bait as they went into Ukraine, but they went into Ukraine, not in the manner in which the United States thought they would. They didn't take the bait. China as it relates to Taiwan. They're not taking the bait. They hence the adage, you have the watches, but we have the time. Jon Jeter (55:20): We got the time. That's right. Wilmer Leon (55:22): We'll handle this our way when we are ready. Look at what's going on right now in Gaza. You've got Hamas, right? Hezbollah hasn't really jumped in like everybody thought they would. Right? You've got the Houthis or Ansar, Allah in Yemen. They're handling the Red Sea, but they aren't really in it. Not everybody's in the pool yet. And see, this is something that folks really need to understand is they are biding their time. All of those entities are sitting back watching the show, and there's a reason that Hezbollah hasn't jumped in because Hamas is winning. Jon Jeter (56:08): Yeah. I'm a big fan of all the podcasts. The one that I watched the most is Ali Abu Ma with the electronic ada. And from everything I'm getting from there, and they seem to really know what they're talking about. Hamas is handling this business. Wilmer Leon (56:21): And when I say Hamas winning, folks could look at this and scratch their head and say, Wilmer, have you seen Gaza lately? Yeah. Here's the thing. Hamas wins by not losing. When they live to fight another day, they win. Israel comes into Gaza. What is Israel saying? Now? We're getting out of Gaza. They come in, they get thumped, they get out. When the dust settles, Hamas will still be in existence. And by being in existence, they will have one. Jon Jeter (56:58): That's right. And I think this was all very calculated by Hamas. I'm not sure if they even understood this kind of blowback, but again, they were trying to pull Israel under this war because they realized they Wilmer Leon (57:08): Knew what Israel would do. I'm glad you brought this up because when you talk about that, I was trying to get that together in my head, and that was a point that I was trying to make, was that Hamas lured the IDF into strategy. They knew what their response would be because of their arrogance, and they are thumping them, Jon Jeter (57:36): And there's no way out. I can't repeat the lyric. I want to, I think it was Ice Cube said, I don't want to hear that. I ain't mean it. Right. That's what Hama is saying to Israel right now. I don't hear none of that. I ain't mean it. Right. I don't. Don't gloat for anyone's death. And what's happening there is horrific, and I'm not sure if it's worth the cause. It's a period victory if it is one for Hamas, but this is the way it's going to end. Israel is not going to exist as we have long known it. If I can quite a phrase from Bill Clinton, Wilmer Leon (58:13): Let's wrap up with this. The Nation magazine reports more than half a million Democratic voters have told Biden Save Gaza, the campaign to use uncommitted primary votes to send a message to Biden has won two dozen delegates. More than 500,000 Americans in states across this country have cast Democratic primary votes for either uncommitted, unconstructed or no preference. Jon Jeter (58:48): That's right. That's Wilmer Leon (58:48): Right. I think the Democrats are shaking in their diapers. Jon Jeter (58:55): It's a wrap for the Democrats, certainly for the Biden administration. And of those 500,000 votes, I believe a hundred thousand are in Michigan. Joe Biden can't win Michigan. Joe Biden does not win reelection. Wilmer Leon (59:07): And Joe Biden only won Michigan by about 130,000 votes. Jon Jeter (59:11): That's right. Yeah. If the vote was today, he would not win Michigan. Not because everybody would vote for Trump, but because a whole Wilmer Leon (59:18): Lot of people, a lot people stay home Jon Jeter (59:20): And Michigan, lemme just say this very quickly, Michigan and the Arab community and the board, I lived in Detroit for a couple of years in the early nineties. They are really impressed in terms of their organization, and they're showing us a roadmap for how we can fight back as a people. Wilmer Leon (59:34): Exactly. Jon Jeter (59:36): Organized, Wilmer Leon (59:37): Organized. And I've listened to a number of interviews from Arab Americans in Michigan, and the reporters will say, well, don't you realize that your uncommitted movement could wind up resulting in the election, the reelection of Donald Trump? And they look in the camera and say, we know. And we don't care about that. We have a bigger point than Donald Trump that we are conveying. And plus they realize, is it a blue car or a green car? It's still a car. You're going to wind up basically. And for the most part, in the same circumstance, because to a great degree, and you are much more adept at this than I am to a great degree. It's not Trump policy. It's not Biden policy. It's American foreign policy. Jon Jeter (01:00:37): That's right. That's right. Wilmer Leon (01:00:38): Irrespective of who the president is, John G. Yeah. Jon Jeter (01:00:42): No, and I just don't think they understand. What part of genocide. Don't you understand? I'm not voting for a genocide. Wilmer Leon (01:00:48): Well, if you ask Lloyd Austin, he doesn't understand it at all. He said during the Senate hearings, there's no genocide in Gaza. Jon Jeter (01:00:56): If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck Wilmer Leon (01:01:00): And it dies like a duck, it's genocide. Jon Jeter (01:01:03): Right. That's the genocide, man. It just is. You're a lawyer. So what is it low? Wilmer Leon (01:01:09): I went, I went to law school. I went to law school. I'm not Jon Jeter (01:01:11): A lawyer. Okay, okay. I mean, I didn't mean to defame you like that, Wilmer Leon (01:01:16): But I did stay at Holiday Inn Express last night. So what you got, Jon Jeter (01:01:20): So what is it, low ipso Ur, is it? The B is as it appears? It is as it looks. No, Wilmer Leon (01:01:29): You just combine two phrases, rest ips, aquir. Jon Jeter (01:01:33): Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't even go to law school and I didn't understand the Holiday Inn Express Wilmer Leon (01:01:39): Rest ips. Aquir, I think is what is the Latin you were going for? Jon Jeter (01:01:42): Yes. The thing is, as it appears, right, it is as it looks, yeah, that's the genocide. But it's most horrific thing I've seen in my lifetime, and it's just nothing else to say. I don't know how anyone's going to pull the lever for Joe Biden seeing the horror that's happening in Gaza. It's traumatized. It's traumatized. So I don't think there's a path victory. I didn't think there was a path of victory to victory for Joe Biden before October 7th. I certainly don't think there's one now. And I still think people laugh at this. I know Joe Rogan said, and I don't know that I believe very much in Joe Rogan's political acumen, but he said that he thinks that Democrats are going to replace Biden in May. I don't know if they're going to do it. I don't know if they're going to do it in May, but I still, Wilmer Leon (01:02:24): I've been saying that for a year and a half. Jon Jeter (01:02:26): Yeah, I think they might. I think they're looking to, I'll say that I think there's a fact of the Democratic party that's looking to, I think a year and a half ago, they were actively looking at Michelle Obama. I know that, as a matter of fact, I don't think she's going to do it. I'm not sure if that's still a movement, but I think because they know he can't win and it's too important, it's money that they will lose if he's not president. Because Trump, for all his flaws, is not the war profiteer that Obama was. And the Bidens, Wilmer Leon (01:02:55): I've been saying for almost a year and a half that I don't think that when you come out of the Democratic convention in August, I think right now it's the 19th, but we just found out that Ohio has told the Democratic Party that if it's held on the 19th, Joe Biden can't be on the Ohio. Oh, Jon Jeter (01:03:18): I heard that. Wilmer Leon (01:03:19): Yeah, because it has, you have to be the nominee 90 days before the election to be on the ticket in Ohio. And so Ohio has told them. But anyway, no, I've been saying that, I said almost a year and a half ago that when you come out of the convention, it's not going to be Biden. It's most likely going to be Gavin Newsom and what's her name from Michigan, Gretchen. And I said, the top of that ticket could go either way. Jon Jeter (01:04:01): That would be the best foot they could put forward. If they can't get Michelle Obama, that would be, and I don't think they can beat Trump, I'll be honest. But Wilmer Leon (01:04:07): No, I'm not saying that's going to win. I'm not saying that's going to win. But when you look at the numbers, and since I said this, Biden's numbers have only gotten worse. And Gretchen Whitmer most likely brings the Democrats, Michigan, the governor of Michigan. And because they're also, when you get rid of Biden, you got to get rid of Kamala Harris as well. Oh, yeah. So then you're going to wind up with a bunch of angry women, and you're going to wind up with a bunch of angrily black women. Jon Jeter (01:04:40): Oh, that's good. Yeah, that's good. So Wilmer Leon (01:04:42): Gretchen Whitmer brings the women back into the game. And I think, and I'll probably get bricks thrown at me for saying this, but I think a majority of black women will fall in line with the Democratic party. I seriously doubt that they would get so angry that they would abandon the party. I think they would be convinced to fall, because Kamala will be convinced to go away quietly and be a team. They'll offer her, Jon Jeter (01:05:20): Oh yeah, like they did with Al Gore. They'll offer her a bunch of money Wilmer Leon (01:05:24): Or something, or tell her, this is not your time, Jon Jeter (01:05:28): Dean of some university where she can go and Oh, Wilmer Leon (01:05:32): They might make her secretary of, I mean, ambassador to, I don't know, Botswana or, Jon Jeter (01:05:38): Right, yeah. I can play the Botswana might run her outfit into the seat though. Wilmer Leon (01:05:44): That's why they'll send her there. So anyway, so Gavin Newsom, young white cat, governor of California looks good in a suit, is articulate, can raise money, can raise his own money. And so I'm not advocating this. I'm looking at the landscape and saying they have no arms in the bullpen. I Jon Jeter (01:06:07): Wouldn't bet against that. I would not be. Wilmer Leon (01:06:08): This is baseball season. They have no arms in the bullpen, but Biden is behind in seven of the nine battleground states. Jon Jeter (01:06:20): Yeah. He can't, I think Pennsylvania's tied, but even that is trending Wilmer Leon (01:06:24): And trending in the wrong direction Jon Jeter (01:06:28): Because Wilmer Leon (01:06:29): In a lot of these states, in a lot of these states, Donald Trump is now ahead outside the margin of error of the Jon Jeter (01:06:39): Polling Wilmer Leon (01:06:40): And growing. So no, I've been saying that Joe Rogan, and I agree on that, and I've been, I'm on record for a year and a half saying Joe Biden is, and I don't think they can do it in May because the voters will cry foul at then. Why did we have primaries? You haven't had any debates. So I think they have to make the switch at the convention. I think the vote has to go down to the floor and it'll be the way it used to be when we were kids watching the conventions on television where there was all of this tension and all of this anxiety over how were the votes going to go as they did the roll call for the states from the floor. I think it's got to go that way. I don't know how they make the switch now before the convention. Jon Jeter (01:07:39): Yeah, I don't either. I don't know this though. What they don't want, their worst nightmare is for Joe Biden to appear on a debate stage with Donald Trump. They not, can't have that. They don't want that. That's just Wilmer Leon (01:07:53): No. Yeah, Jon Jeter (01:07:55): That can't happen. No, can't happen. Wilmer Leon (01:07:58): You don't even want to see, and I mean this very seriously. You don't even want to see Joe Biden, walk to the podium versus Donald Trump. Just the appearance of that. Stiff. Jon Jeter (01:08:13): Yeah. Oh, I, Wilmer Leon (01:08:15): No, no. You think Jon Jeter (01:08:16): About that. Yeah. Donald Trump is a dinosaur, but he still looks better than, he still is. More commanding than Joe Biden. Mr. That's, Wilmer Leon (01:08:28): Do you want pterodactyl or do you want, anyway, so I want to thank my guests and my dear brother John Jeter for joining me today. And John, when I say that you say, Jon Jeter (01:08:40): Thank you, brother. It was wonderful to be here. Wonderful. Wilmer Leon (01:08:44): And folks, thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wimer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share, share, share, share, share the show, subscribe. Doing this every week is not cheap, trust me. We need your help. Also follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. Go to Patreon. Please contribute to the Patreon account. And remember, folks, that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we do not chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out Announcer (01:09:41): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

This week our guest is the incomparable Mark Sleboda! You can find me and the show on social media by searching the handle @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube. Our Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd All our episodes can be found at CTDpodcast.com.   Transcript: Dr Wilmer Leon (00:48): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode of this podcast, my guests and I will have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This will enable you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, we will discuss the recent belt and road form for international cooperation. Recently, over 500 people were killed as a result of an Al Ali Arab Hospital bombing in Gaza. And the US has provided Ukraine long range attack s missiles for insight into this. Let's turn to my guest. He's a Moscow based international relations and security analyst, mark Sloboda. Mark, let's connect some dots. Mark Sleboda (01:58): Pleasure to on connecting the dots. Dr Wilmer Leon (02:02): So Russian President Putin recently went to Beijing to participate in the third Belt and Road forum for international cooperation. Mark, how significant was this meeting? Mark Sleboda (02:17): Yeah, so I think that this meeting was significant for a number of reasons. First, for President Putin on a personal situation, it is the first time that he has left Russia since the Wess pushed international criminal court charged Vladimir Putin with the crime of helping families and caretakers in East Ukraine move their own children out of the range of Kiev regime artillery that had been bombing them for the last 10 years, also known as abducting children, which evidently is a crime when Russia does it in a time of conflict, but is not a crime when the US does it, when they move thousands of children out of Afghanistan and many thousands of children out of Vietnam in a previous generation of conflict. But besides that, the Russian Chinese relationship bilaterally, I think is probably the most important bilateral relationship for both countries. And both presidents seem to have a good working relationship, often described as a friendship and a deep understanding with each other. (03:47) And each time one of the others has been reelected to their positions. The first country that they go to is each other's, and I think that is a symbolic sign of the relationship, how important it is with each other's countries. But in a wider perspective, this Belt and Road Forum summit, it is actually the 10th anniversary of China's launching of the Belt and Road Project with the goal of which is to build deep infrastructure all along certain geographic pathways along a lot of what could have been considered the old Silk Road to facilitate trade and connections between the countries of this part of the world. And this is something that China does wherever it goes and does business is build infrastructure because it considers that as a long-term investment, not only in the process of conducting trade, but of helping their trade partner develop to a level where they can better trade with each other. (05:09) So physical infrastructure, but also schools, hospitals, things like this. Now a lot of Russian and Chinese and many other countries, leaders have done a lot about talking about the construction of a new, more multipolar, fairer and more equitable world order. And this would stand, I think, in contradiction and an obvious opposition to the current rules based orders. We make the rules, we give the orders of US led Western global hegemony, but in this emerging, shall we say, nascent being born multipolar world order, there are several countries that come to the fore as the first among equals, but certainly China and Russia, our foremost political drivers amongst that. And China stands of course head above the rest if only in terms of their population and their economic strength, which by many measures already exceeds that of the United States. And if there is a meeting and a display of this alternate world order of which China is playing such an important part, a China centric world order, if you want to call it, that was on display in this Belt and road summit. (07:00) It was a bringing together of all the countries participating in this physical implementation of a more multipolar world order. The only Western leader in attendance, very interestingly is the right wing prime minister of Hungary, the foreign policy black sheep, victor or Bond who has refused to participate in the West's proxy war in Ukraine. And its existential economic war of sanctions weaponizing its control of the global financial and economic architecture against Russia, primarily from a Hungarian national interest perspective rather than any great love of Russia or the Russian president, which is I think a position that most people would agree is something that should be something that every world leader should aspire to, that they put their own nation's interest and people above all others. Although in the current world that's not even specific. It's not, we know that it's not the case. Dr Wilmer Leon (08:25): Just asked Olaf Schultz in Germany that question you mentioned each time gee and Putin get elected, we keep hearing from Western narrative, particularly from Biden authoritarians, authoritarians G is an authoritarian, Putin is an authoritarian, can just briefly explain the fact that they're elected, they don't control their elections. They have different electoral processes than we do. They have different democratic constructs than we have, but that doesn't mean that they're authoritarian. Mark Sleboda (09:14): Yeah, I mean this is a label that is tapped on essentially to any country now that lies outside of US-led western global hegemony that does not align itself and does not meet the West's self-reflective standard of what democracy looks like. And it really, it is a way of exerting moral superiority. The idea that we are both morally and systemically superior than those people over there who are our adversaries in a different time. It was communists of course, and there have been other labels in history and certainly labels are applied to the Western countries. They are imperialists. They are hegemons. This is a standard othering device. I live in Russia, I immigrated to Russia from the United States, and I have lived here for most of two decades. And I have to be honest, after having some experience as a volunteer for the US Democratic Party, I find that politics in Russia on a whole is no more or less substantive than the democratic nature beneath the sheets of politics in the United States. I don't want to go out of the way to make it seem like it's a democratic utopia or anything like that far from it. But on a whole, knowing the warts inside and out of political systems in US and Europe and now Russia, I think that over in a general context that they're expressed themselves roughly equally. There is Dr Wilmer Leon (11:18): Politics plus they also reflect the intricacies of their cultures. And so I was having a conversation with some folks a couple of days ago and I said they were, oh, well G is an authoritarian. And I said, well, I've seen polls from Harvard and Princeton and some other western universities that show like 96% of Chinese people like their government. And I think it was 87% of Russians polled like their government support government. So if it's working for them, then who in the world am I to say that it's not good, it's not right, or what we have is better. I know Joe Biden would love to see 60% approval rating, let alone 96% approval rating. Mark Sleboda (12:15): Yeah, I think not only approval of the current government, but I've seen similar polls that asking peoples of different countries whether they think they live in a democracy and quite overwhelmingly, certainly over the 50% margin, the people of Russia feel they live in a democracy and certainly the people in China do as well to an even greater degree. Again, it doesn't look like western liberal democracy, but perhaps you could consider it of a more technocratic bureaucratic nature. But as you point out, there is a thousand multi-thousand year history of Chinese bureaucratic constructs that they are laying their future and their choices on top of. Meanwhile, in the United States, people generally feel that they don't live in a democratic system, that their government is not responsive to their needs and interests. And you could say that that is, oh, I mean all the people in Russia and China are ignorant. (13:35) They don't know the real situation of what they live and what we live in. And I got to tell you, Russian people, even Chinese people, despite the great Chinese firewall, their coordinate of the internet generally have a far higher degree of reading and understanding western media than the other way around. That is they hear our perspective and thoughts, but as Westerners, you quite often don't hear at least on your own media unless you go actively looking for it, the opinions and perspectives of other countries. So I think that assumption that all the people over in that other part of the world, they don't live in a real democracy and that they think they do is only a sign of how brainwashed and ignorant they are compared to us enlightened people on the shining city on the hill. That is a hallmark of the supremacist ideology of exceptionalism that unfortunately has come to dominate not American political culture, but I think far more important, the American political elite, the ruling class. And that has disastrous consequences for us foreign policy and the world. Dr Wilmer Leon (15:05): You are absolutely right. I've been to Iran twice and was very blessed to lecture at probably somewhere between 10 and 15 universities throughout the country. And as I traveled throughout Iran, I was amazed at how well informed the questions that these students asked me. They were right on it, man, in terms of an understanding of the politics of the moment. And again, the questions that they asked me were spot on. It indicated that they were going beyond the rhetoric, they were going beyond the talking points. And it was shocking to me how well-informed in spite of the wall that you talk about in terms of the internet, they were on point, man. Mark Sleboda (16:11): Yeah, I think it's interesting that this label is applied to adversaries like Russia and China, Russia, which has opposition parties and elections. They don't do very good right now because since the economic catastrophe of the nineties, I think the Russian population has been more united in their political vision of a path out of that and forward and retaking what they see as their place in the world after the self dissolution of the Soviet Union. That will not last forever. And a lot of people question whether it will last after Putin at all. But there is opposition political structures. The biggest opposition political party in Russia is the communist party of the Russian Federation, which polls generally somewhere around 15% of the population. And in foreign policy, it must be said, they largely agree with the current government of Vladimir Putin, but in domestic issues, they constantly fight for the Duma for things that leftist parties always fight for, more social benefits, more spending on education and medicine and other things. And if anything, I think probably the communists would probably, if they were leading the country, would probably take a more hard line foreign policy position than the current government. I think that when the US Dr Wilmer Leon (18:02): Speak to that, because a lot of people listening this will say, wait a minute, a harder line than Vladimir Putin. Oh my God. You can't get a harder line than that when the people making those observations have never listened to the man, have never read any of the speeches that he's given. And so they, again, he's evil, he's insane, all of these, he's a dictator, all of these kinds of things. Mark Sleboda (18:36): Yeah. Again, the fact that they don't hear what Vladimir Putin has to say for himself because the western media specifically does not reproduce it for them. And I have to say that Russian media does this. I mean, there are still government funded projects in Somi that translate word for word western articles in print media and televised and put it out there for Russians to listen to, not only from the United States and Europe, but from all over the world. That tradition doesn't exist on the west. It's not that it is banned, although in some cases in Europe, Artie and Sputnik are banned, aren't they? Or everything is done to take them off the airwaves as is done in the United States, and of course not just with RT and Sputnik, but now with press TV from Iran. And there are calls of course to do the same to the Chinese CCTV and now even Al Jazeera in the current climate because as the state media arm of Qatar, they are now seen as being anti-Israeli. (19:55) So a very similar phenomenon is now taking place. And in a previous conflict, there was very much the same argument being made about Al Jazeera over the situation in Iraq. So this rears its head regularly, but why is the authoritarian label not linked to actual authoritarian countries? That is dictatorships, that are politically geopolitically allied with the United States, right? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, these are states that are starting to diversify their foreign policy. Saudi joining Brix and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is a dialogue partner and identifying China as their most important trade partner, but still they are very much linked to the United States, and certainly they have been for decades. Qatar has a giant US army base, similarly in Kuwait, the UAE. Why are the actual monarchic oligarchic dictators of these countries not referred to as authoritarian? Because the label is more about oppositional geopolitical alignment than it is in domestic, Dr Wilmer Leon (21:27): Domestic government leadership, Mark Sleboda (21:29): Any real assessment of their domestic political system. And I have to Dr Wilmer Leon (21:34): Say mbss is chopping heads. I mean Mark Sleboda (21:38): Literally as a chopping more than heads, these bones aren't sorry. Right. As a veteran, well, I'm both a military, a US military veteran and shall we say a veteran of the US political system with all the warts that the US political system has with its systemic suppression of third party movements. And I'm talking, I mean Americans don't even know this for the most part, but their own two parties of power, the Republicans and Democrats regularly sue third parties to keep them off the ballot, right? I mean, they regularly go to court every election cycle to keep them off the ballot and the whole structure of 50 separate elections and the intricacies run by the party in power, either the Republicans or the Democrats in the state does everything possible to prevent the emergence of any other voice than those two and the electoral college and the eternal problems with campaign finance and lobbying. But Americans somehow feel their political systemic superiority so strongly that they don't even think when their political and media elites judge the political system of another country. And as far as most Americans reflexively are concerned, they think they are the only democratic country on earth and the only good people, which is really kind of another iteration of we are the chosen people of God, political meme throughout history. Dr Wilmer Leon (23:35): What is more authoritarian than not having a presidential primary in a system that is based on primaries? What is more of a dictatorship than imposing Joe Biden upon Democrats instead of holding a primary look at what the Democrats did to Bernie Sanders during the Hillary Clinton campaign, hence Julian Assange's email leaks, which demonstrated all the machinations that the Clinton campaign went through to see to it that Bernie Sanders could not become the Democrat nominee. What is more authoritarian than that? Mark Sleboda (24:28): I got to tell you. Dr Wilmer Leon (24:31): Am I right? Mark Sleboda (24:32): Yeah, you're absolutely right. And I don't want to go too much myself into US domestic politics because Dr Wilmer Leon (24:40): I just raised that Mark Sleboda (24:40): As examples myself from that. I don't want to cast stones. I don't necessarily feel that it's my place to, but I'm actually a confession. I'm originally from Scranton, Wilkesboro, Pennsylvania. That's where I was born. Anyway, that's also Joe Biden's hometown, where he was born. And I distinctly remember the video. I mean, I was too young at the time to remember it politically, of course, but I've seen the videos of Joe Biden running for Congress admitting open, right, that the system is corrupt, that corrupt people are elected to office, and that at the time, the only reason he wasn't corrupt is because he wasn't given the money by the oligarchs, by the rich of the country that he had asked for because he was too untested of yet, but that if he was, he would've taken, I mean, I think there is no greater condemnation of the US political system than admissions like that coming from the very seat of the president, or I mean, shall we take the words of prior presidents Jimmy Carter coming right out and saying, America is no longer a democracy. It is an oligarchy. Dr Wilmer Leon (26:11): You mentioned that President Putin went to China for the conference and that this was the first time that he had left the country in quite a while. That to me speaks volumes in how comfortable he must be in the midst of the Russia, Ukraine conflict. His country is at war, and he feels comfortable enough to leave his go to China for a couple of days. That to me says that he's comfortable not only in his position domestically, but he's also comfortable in his country's position internationally. Mark Sleboda (26:59): Yeah, I don't think Putin does. He perfectly understands, I think as a leader what he knows and what he doesn't know. And he has made it quite clear that he does not micromanage his generals in the conflict and in the intervention, the special military operation as they call it in Ukraine, the intervention in the Ukrainian civil conflict that has been going on for a decade. Also, of course, neither Russia nor China, nor it must be said, or the United States or India, are signatories to the Rome statute of the international criminal court. So that is not an issue on the trip. In fact, when the international criminal court tried to bring charges against the US, US leaders and military leaders for crimes, alleged crimes, yeah, committed in Afghanistan, in Iraq, they sanctioned the court, they sanctioned the judges, they sanctioned the prosecutor, they threatened to remove funding from the United Nations. They put arrest warrants out for the judges and the prosecutor until the issue was withdrawn. From my understanding is there were even threats made against the families and lives of Dr Wilmer Leon (28:44): SDA was the judge. Yes. I don't remember her first name, but her last name is sda, and her family was sanctioned and threatened. Mark Sleboda (28:54): Yes. So I don't place any credits to that. And one of the reasons I don't place any credits on these charges is anything more than an instance of geopolitical capture of a un institution, which unfortunately happens far more often than it should. But my full disclosure, my wife is from Crimea, which is considered, at least according to the us, to still be part of Ukraine. And we have family all over East Ukraine, and there are some 5 million Ukrainians living and working in Russia. And that is a side of that conflict. The fact that there has been a civil conflict in that country since the openly US backed overthrow of the government there in 2014 is the internal divide in that country. And again, I know Americans think that through their propaganda bubble of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the ancient three networks and Fox and CNN, that they have a better idea what is going on in Ukraine than most Russians do. No, they don't because there are 5 million Ukrainians living in Russia who tell them all the time on tv, in media and in person because of how much families are interrelated on both sides of the border, they know far, far more about what is happening and has been happening politically in that country, not only for the last year or two, but of course going back decades. And it is the height of hubris, I think, to think otherwise. Dr Wilmer Leon (30:48): Switching gears a bit, recently, over 500 people were killed as a result of the Al Ali Arab Hospital bombing in Gaza. And we are seeing this escalation of the conflict in occupied Palestine. As I've been listening to President Xi, as I've been listening to President Putin, they have been trying to find a way to first of all bring about a ceasefire and second of all, negotiate a settlement. I listened to Joe Biden talk about peace, but all he really seems to say is we back Israel a hundred percent. We'll provide more weapons into the region, but we need to have peace. So Mark Sleboda (31:44): Go ahead. Joe Biden has also said, you don't need to be Jewish to be a Zionist. And I think Dr Wilmer Leon (31:49): And has said very clearly that he is a Zionist Mark Sleboda (31:52): And has said that if Israel did not exist, then the United States would have to create it to pursue its interests in the Middle East because it serves such as a convenient platform for the US projection of power into the Middle East. Dr Wilmer Leon (32:11): Wait a minute, lemme throw one more in there. Tony Blinken said the last time that he was in the region, he said, I am not only here as a Secretary of state, I am here as a Jew. So forget independent thinking. Forget being a neutral arbiter here in a Jewish state. That sounds more like imperialism and Mark Sleboda (32:38): Neocolonialism than anything. Mark Sabota. Yeah. Tony Blinken also by the way, mentioned that his family were originally from Russia and that they left the country, his grandfather because of pilgrims in Russia. And I'm really interested in the timing of pilgrims and his grandfather because certainly in the distant past there were pilgrims against Jews in Russia as there were many countries, but within the lifespan of his grandfather, it would make me really seriously question that characterization and feel he's inflating his family's political disagreements within the country. But that certainly also says in the current tensions with Russia in Ukraine and the proxy war there, that he also has a personal ax to grind as do so many people driving US foreign policy on the region like Victoria Newland, whose own family is originally from Ukraine, so there is that as well. But Putin, the Russia has already put forward at the UN Security Council a resolution calling for immediate ceasefire, and this was shot down by the US and Western countries with the US saying that the resolution could not, they couldn't vote for it because it did not criticize Hamas enough, which is obviously the most important thing when you're trying to craft a ceasefire to stop people from actively killing each other. (34:24) Russia and China have been in lockstep on their calls from this. They to a certain extent have been trying to be neutral in the sense that they are refraining from, I think overt criticism of one side or the other in the interest of attaining that ceasefire. Brazil, by the way, also put forward a UN security council resolution calling at least then for humanitarian ceasefires. And that was actually vetoed by the United States as well as France and the UK in lockstep there. Russia and China have been clear, while they don't support the tactics of Hamas, they feel that this is just the latest consequence of a long-term policy of a pretense of a peace process while backed by to the hilt by the us. Israel goes about its process of what it calls settlers, which is a policy of ethnic cleansing and colonization of Palestine, of the Palestine. (35:41) America, of course, does not recognize the state of Palestine, Russia and China both do, and they think they've made it clear that this is a result of the West, the world, but most importantly the West because they're not do it, not recognizing the Palestinian state, not granting its sovereignty and its own borders, and its right, of course, to defend its own country and borders and people a right that they extend to Israelis, but not to Palestinians. Because you'll hear from multiple US politicians and political elite that they don't believe that the Palestinians are a people to, which I would say you really, really need to go visit Gaza or the West Bank then. And Americans also seem to not understand, and I'm not so sure it would make a difference, maybe it would that a third of the Palestinians are actually Christians. I mean, would that help their perception, help them get past the inherent Islamophobia involved in the issue? (36:54) I don't know, but maybe people should point that out to them that it might help the situation some. But yeah, Russia and China have been quite clear net. Putin has talked to Netanyahu. He has also of course talked to the Palestinian leader, ABAs in the West Bank, and his government has been in contact with Hamas and the other political factions in Gaza. He's also been nonstop on the phone with every major Arab and other world leader that has interests in this conflict, Iran, Hezbollah the like. And he has been trying to do his best towards trying to come to some kind of sane cessation of hostilities. But instead, what we get obviously from the Biden administration, from the eu, the Western countries in general, is they have obviously given a green light to Israel to do a ground operation in Gaza. And Israel has demanded of the, it's a city of some more than 2 million people that has been rightly called the world's largest concentration camp or an open air prison with walls built around it. The real solution is the recognition of the Palestinian state, and that's the only way to relieve the pressure of the people in Gaza. Dr Wilmer Leon (38:59): One of the things that I found incredibly telling and quite a contrast was as Tony Blinken was on his Middle Eastern tour talking to US allies, the foreign minister of Iran was on his tour of the region talking to Iranian allies. In fact, lemme take a step back. When Trump assassinated Qem soleimani, the revered Iran in general, Iran said, we will retaliate. And a lot of people thought that that meant, oh my goodness, well, over the next few days, Iran's going to do something and Iran didn't do anything. Now we've got Tony Blinken, he was on his trip. Joe Biden was there on his trip, and at the same time, the Iranian foreign minister was talking to Iranian allies, and now the Iranian foreign minister has come out and said, Israel, your time is up. Talk about what an even height, another escalation of this conflict could mean in the region and what it could mean in the world. Mark Sleboda (40:21): Yeah, there was an interesting article out yesterday in the Financial Times where an anonymous US official acknowledged that as a result of the US and the rest of the West, so wholeheartedly backing Israel in this to the degree that they have, and this obvious green light for the ground operation, which is a ethnic cleansing of Gaza, of the Palestinian population, ordering 1 million people to get out of the way. Of course it's an impossibility, where would they go is the most obvious question, even if you were able to order a million people at a time to leave their houses. But there is an alignment of global sentiment and forces, political forces going on the financial Times. This US official and the Financial Times laments that as a result of this, that this is incredibly damaging to us influence in what the US usually likes to call the global south, where if you think of the West, you think of the rest and he says they will never listen to us again. I mean, if they were already, then we've lost them, not just the Islamic world, but more broadly. And because of the recent reproach month between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the normalization of diplomatic relations, thank Dr Wilmer Leon (42:18): You, China. Mark Sleboda (42:19): Yeah. It's brokered by China and not all peaches and cream. But the last week saw the first direct phone call between the president of Iran and the Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, and they both agreed, they expressed a common position on what is happening in Palestine, in Gaza, and is what Israel is doing and how unacceptable it is. And that is already an amazing geopolitical change. Like the world has shifted, and I have to constantly ask myself, is this real right that the world has changed so much? And there's a saying attributed to Lenin that decades pass and nothing changes. And then at other times in weeks, decades pass decades of change ensue. And we're I think, living in one of those periods, one of those latter periods now where things are changing so fast and we Dr Wilmer Leon (43:37): Minute, wait a minute, a minute. Because to that point again, China helped to broker the reproach mon between the Saudis and the Iranians and the United States was in the process of brokering a reproach mon between the Saudis and Israel, and then Hamas attacks Israel and the Saudis say out Israel, that conversation we were about to have, let's put that on hold because that decade of change has taken place in the matter of a day. Mark Sleboda (44:17): Yeah, Saudi Arabia was really looking for under, shall we say, a newly foreign policy mature Moham bin Salman, who has obviously changed himself a lot in recent years from what he was when he first came into power as the heir to the ailing king who has really been running the country. He is looking for a multi-vector foreign policy with a minimal amount of conflict. So he wanted to have the foreign policy options with bricks, with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, but it doesn't mean that he wanted a complete severance of relations with the United States either. And since the Trump administration, the US has been pushing very, very hard on their policy of trying to get Arab countries to recognize in Israel and to normalize relations, diplomatic relations, and others, which would also be tantamount to accepting Israeli occupation of large parts of Palestine and ever increasingly more so, you can see where the Palestinians probably regarded a normalization deal being pushed by the US between Saudi Arabia and Israel as an existential issue for them. (45:55) Because as by many standards, the most important Sunni Islamic country, because of its holding not only of world's energy reserves with oil, but also the two holy mosques, the way Saudi Arabia goes, the rest of the SUNY Arab world would inevitably follow, and that would end any hope of Arab support for them if this deal went through. It. Also, by the way, the sweetener is a security guaranteed deal with Saudi Arabia, which would effectively elevate Saudi Arabia in security technical terms to the status of the relationship between the US and Israel, IE preferential deals on weapons systems, access to more advanced military technology, full access to intelligence training. Everything that the US provides now to Israel would also be provided at the same level, the same prices and so forth, more or less to Saudi Arabia. That was the sweetener of the deal, and I believe that Hamas' motivation in the, they killed civilians. I mean, there's been a lot of, I think, obvious beheading of babies. That's Kuwaiti incubator, baby type disinformation ized to, but that's not to excuse that they use terrorist tactics. They killed civilians. On the Dr Wilmer Leon (47:36): Other hand, wait a minute, and don't forget the Russian killing of babies in the Ukraine, the women's hospital that wasn't a women's hospital. Mark Sleboda (47:48): That is I think, a case for the point, again, for the way the US wages information war mostly against its own people, which is another fascinating at a rabbit hole to go down. But I mean, it's not to say that Israel doesn't routinely kill, I mean, on an essentially daily basis, Palestinian civilians through its process of settling, ethnic cleansing, political Dr Wilmer Leon (48:18): Oppression, it bulldozers, villages, indiscriminately arrests, detains people without charge, and basically Mark Sleboda (48:29): Regularly summarily executes people who resist that, Dr Wilmer Leon (48:34): Right? Mark Sleboda (48:35): So anyway, I believe that Hamas' primary motivation in launching this attack, a wasting military resources that they had spent years building in secret plans that they had. The timing of this tells me that it was to prevent that Saudi Israeli reproach month deal being pushed by the US from going through, because they saw it as existential for them. And if that was the goal, then it has been successful because as a result of Saudi's disproportionate response to, if Israel had said, we are going to do a targeted anti-terrorist operation in Gaza against the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad leadership who were responsible for this, and the people who carried it out, I think there would've been a very different global reaction to this. If instead we didn't have Israeli leaders saying that we're going to destroy Gaza, that we're going to wipe Gaza off the face of turn it to Dr Wilmer Leon (49:54): Dust, Mark Sleboda (49:54): Dust, and that all Palestinians civilians are the enemy. We heard that from Naftali Bennett. That would've been a very different situation. And there is, I think a much more substantial reaction, not only from the usual suspects, we've heard that from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, the Sufi, sorry, the Shia organization there. That is demonized wrongly in this particular case because it doesn't use terrorist tactics by the US and Israel, and no country in the world really outside the West as a terrorist organization that if Israel goes a ground operation and begins cleansing Gaza, then Hezbollah will open up a second front war on the Israeli north, and then there will be a two. Iran has voiced very similar that prospects that if the Israeli government's atrocities against the Palestinian people, which as a result right now are approaching 4,000 dead, which by the way is almost four times the number of people that the Hamas' operational s of flood attacks killed four times. (51:35) So obviously proportionality is not an issue when it comes to Israel, but that Iran would feel the need to intervene. We've heard even further, surprisingly, from the government of Jordan and the king of Jordan, right? Not called authoritarian by the way, but because he was educated in Oxford, I mean, he's largely regarded across the Arab world as a western puppet, as a western aligned Arab leader with a very large Palestinian refugee population, and a people who feel very close to that situation. Jordan has come out and said that if Israel looks set to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza as they appear to be planning to do, then Jordan would consider it an act of war. Which I mean, that totally surprised me coming from the modern. Now, a lot of it is probably motivated out of self-interest of the Jordanian king. If I don't react the way my people want me to, they will overthrow me in order to be able to do something. (52:53) But regardless of his personal motivations for it, it is certainly something I did not expect. And if Jordan does, so other countries around will become involved, and then there's the prospect of other countries or say Hezbollah as an organization becomes involved, that the US becomes involved. The US has two aircraft carriers. Well, the second one's steaming on its way to the Israeli coast right now, as well as a marine amphibious expedition ships with some at least 2000 Marines. And Joe Biden has kind of, I don't know on some type of idiotic loop reel, been saying about Hezbollah and Iran don't even, as it shovels tens of billions of dollars of emergency military support of crucial military supplies into Israel. And Biden is calling for 10 billion in military emergency, military or financial aid, sorry to be transferred as well. Russia is sitting there. Russia has military bases in Syria, naval base, several other military bases where it helped prevent a US backed jihadi overthrow of the Syrian government there with the us it must be said, still illegally occupying eastern Syria, east of the river, Syria's oil fields and wheat fields, and Turkey still sitting in northern Syria with a hundred thousand Jihadists still on its payroll. (54:46) But Russia has these military bases in Syria, and it sees the US just down the coast a little bit with two aircraft carriers. And Putin has asked the question, what are you going to do with those two aircraft carriers? And they're resulting fleets, Hezbollah seriously. And Putin was obviously expressing that he doesn't believe that. So Putin ordered that Russian jet fighters, they're most modern variants, fifth gen fighters will now be patrolling the Black Sea, the extent of it with al hypersonic long range missiles that have a range of a thousand kilometers. And he very directly pointed out that fired from the Black Sea that those missiles can hit US aircraft carriers where they're sitting in the Eastern Mediterranean and again, hypersonic. Hypersonic, yeah. So very, very hard to shoot down, if not impossible. And he said, this is not a threat. This is a response. (56:03) And basically he is saying, if you attack Syria, and it has to be said that Israel has already bombed Damascus airport very heavily again, and they've been shelling Southern Lebanon, if you attack our military bases in Syria, then will take out your aircraft carriers, right? I mean, you see where this spiral of escalation is leading, right? Israel goes into Gaza, Hezbollah, maybe Iran go in, Israel conducts cleansing operations in Gaza and Jordan and probably half of the rest of the Arab world join in. They join in, and the US joins in the US attacks Syria as part of this, because Iran power projects through Syria, Russia has bases in Syria. Russia bases get attacked. Russia attacks the US boom. We're in World War III in another conflict, right, that is going on simultaneously with ripple effects from the geopolitical tension and the conflict going on in Ukraine. So all of this has me feeling very much as my used to say, as a long tailed cat in a room full of Dr Wilmer Leon (57:22): Rocks, rocking chairs, and I want to reiterate hypersonic missiles. That means that Joe Biden has basically sent two targets for Russia to attack. Mark Sleboda (57:40): Now, Russia is not going to just attack American aircraft carriers Dr Wilmer Leon (57:45): World Mark Sleboda (57:46): War ii realize. No, I realize that it's meant as a deterrent, Dr Wilmer Leon (57:50): Which, so what is a deterrent that does not deter? Mark Sleboda (57:55): That's a good question. Unfortunately, I think Russia has seen several red lines be crossed in the recent years with the US escalation in Ukraine and hasn't responded, which has led numerous White House officials to say outright, we don't believe in Russian red lines. That means that we can keep poking the bear. And no matter what they do, they won't respond because they fear a nuclear conflict more than we do. That is, well, it's more than madness. It is the death of mad. It is the death of mutually assured destruction, which takes us back to a very early Cold War era that we should all be afraid of. Dr Wilmer Leon (58:44): Just really quickly, we have just about two minutes left, and I'm glad you made that point, because whether it's Ukraine, whether it's Syria, whether it is the Black Sea, the United States seems to continue to believe a, when Vladimir Putin or when Xi Jinping says something, they don't mean it. And when they make a commitment, they will not honor it. And what I have come to see over the years is they don't bluff. They don't play, they don't joke. We got a minute. Mark Sleboda (59:22): Yeah. So how to mesh that difference between, I think demonstrable reality and what the US ruling administration as seeing as their politicized reading of their opponents, that does not match up with reality. That's a recipe for disaster, Dr Wilmer Leon (59:46): Really. Wow. Well, I want to thank my guest, mark Sloboda. Mark, thank you for joining me today. Mark Sleboda (59:54): Thanks for having me, Dr. Leon. It's been an honor and a pleasure to be on the show. Dr Wilmer Leon (59:58): Thank you, mark. Big shout out to my producer, melody McKinley. Thank you so much for joining the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wimer Leon. This is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history, converge talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share my show, follow me on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. I'll see you next time. Until then, treat each day like it's your last, because one day you'll be right. I'm Dr. Wier Leon. Peace and Blessings. I'm out.

Minilateral and multilateral organizations like the United Nations, BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Quad have become arenas of competition between India and China. Host Tanvi Madan discusses India-China interactions in these domains with Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin, a former Indian permanent representative to the UN, and Indrani Bagchi, former Times of India diplomatic editor and now CEO of the Ananta Center in New Delhi. Show notes and transcript. Listen to Global India on Apple, Spotify, and wherever you listen to podcasts. Learn about other Brookings podcasts from the Brookings Podcast Network.

Changes we are seeing around the planet now that Saudi Arabia is in motion to no longer accept dollars for oil payment, which means the synthetic demand for dollar dries up. The USA dollar inflating away, but what does that mean for non BRICS aligned nations?  Thank You for Visiting my Sponsors: 

Chinese Premier Li Qiang will attend a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Kyrgyzstan next week.

We kick off our Fall 2023 season of International Horizons with Upendra Choudhury from Aligarh Muslim University discussing the role of India in the contemporary international system. Prof. Choudhury argues that India's vision of a multipolar world order consists of acting as a balancing mediator between the traditional West and a rising China. In that sense, Choudhury claims that India cannot afford not to participate in different multilateral organizations such as the BRICS+, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and I2U2 because it carries an important role in stabilizing the world order. Choudhury also introduces the three lines of thought in India's foreign policy, arguing that India can both focus on its domestic problems and increase its power capabilities. Moreover, Prof. Choudhury explains that India's stance in the Russian war on Ukraine is not strategic ambiguity. Instead, India is often in the spotlight when it does not align with the West, but its pacifist actions behind the scenes are never appreciated. Finally, he argues that in order to become a global leader, India needs to unify its population around the country's national project. International Horizons is a podcast of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies that brings scholarly expertise to bear on our understanding of international issues. John Torpey, the host of the podcast and director of the Ralph Bunche Institute, holds conversations with prominent scholars and figures in state-of-the-art international issues in our weekly episodes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

We kick off our Fall 2023 season of International Horizons with Upendra Choudhury from Aligarh Muslim University discussing the role of India in the contemporary international system. Prof. Choudhury argues that India's vision of a multipolar world order consists of acting as a balancing mediator between the traditional West and a rising China. In that sense, Choudhury claims that India cannot afford not to participate in different multilateral organizations such as the BRICS+, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and I2U2 because it carries an important role in stabilizing the world order. Choudhury also introduces the three lines of thought in India's foreign policy, arguing that India can both focus on its domestic problems and increase its power capabilities. Moreover, Prof. Choudhury explains that India's stance in the Russian war on Ukraine is not strategic ambiguity. Instead, India is often in the spotlight when it does not align with the West, but its pacifist actions behind the scenes are never appreciated. Finally, he argues that in order to become a global leader, India needs to unify its population around the country's national project. International Horizons is a podcast of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies that brings scholarly expertise to bear on our understanding of international issues. John Torpey, the host of the podcast and director of the Ralph Bunche Institute, holds conversations with prominent scholars and figures in state-of-the-art international issues in our weekly episodes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

We kick off our Fall 2023 season of International Horizons with Upendra Choudhury from Aligarh Muslim University discussing the role of India in the contemporary international system. Prof. Choudhury argues that India's vision of a multipolar world order consists of acting as a balancing mediator between the traditional West and a rising China. In that sense, Choudhury claims that India cannot afford not to participate in different multilateral organizations such as the BRICS+, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and I2U2 because it carries an important role in stabilizing the world order. Choudhury also introduces the three lines of thought in India's foreign policy, arguing that India can both focus on its domestic problems and increase its power capabilities. Moreover, Prof. Choudhury explains that India's stance in the Russian war on Ukraine is not strategic ambiguity. Instead, India is often in the spotlight when it does not align with the West, but its pacifist actions behind the scenes are never appreciated. Finally, he argues that in order to become a global leader, India needs to unify its population around the country's national project. International Horizons is a podcast of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies that brings scholarly expertise to bear on our understanding of international issues. John Torpey, the host of the podcast and director of the Ralph Bunche Institute, holds conversations with prominent scholars and figures in state-of-the-art international issues in our weekly episodes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Iran has become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, along with China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Central Asian nations. The SCO represents 40% of the global population and one-third of the world economy. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi called for challenging "Western hegemony" and de-dollarizing trade in the region, instead using local currencies for international settlements. VIDEO: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YVKNh1gLSO0

On this week's Defense & Aerospace Report Washington Roundtable, Dr. Patrick Cronin of the Hudson Institute, Michael Herson of American Defense International, former Pentagon Europe chief Jim Townsend of the Center for a New American Security, and former Pentagon Comptroller Dr. Dov Zakheim of the Center for Strategic and International Studies join host Vago Muradian to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act and its nearly 1,500 amendments that will hit the floor next week and the many contentious proposals that will provide problematic, outlook for appropriations to avoid a government shutdown, Vladimir Putin's hold on power in the wake of the aborted mutiny by Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin, takeaways from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization virtual meeting, NATO's Vilnius Summit next week and Sweden's proposed membership as well as how the alliance will finesse Ukraine's future role, Washington's decision to send cluster weapons Ukraine as Kyiv calls for more weapons, India's decision to back the International Court of Arbitration's decision in favor of Manila and against China's sweeping territorial claims to the South China Sea, Indo-Pacific headlines, Israel's Jenin operation, the US Navy's role in preventing Iran from seizing more ships in the Gulf, and Russia's interference with US Reaper aircraft over Syria.

Hosts Miles Yu and Wilson Shirley discuss a new cadre of "agricultural management officers" targeting Chinese farmers, what a recent report from Reporters Without Borders says about the state of press freedom in the People's Republic, and Beijing's heavy-handed attempts at diplomacy during last week's meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the coronation of King Charles III.Follow the China Center's work at: https://www.hudson.org/china-center

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is a looming problem with global consequences. Russia and China are in the beginning phases of what could be a very dangerous and powerful axis partnership. This, I believe, is happening largely due to perceived weakness from the United States. It's time we address it.LEARN MORE:Website: https://stephenmansfield.tv/Instagram: https://instagram.com/mansfieldwrites/Twitter: https://twitter.com/MansfieldWrites

Derek busted through the window with a boombox to “school” Danny on “how it is”, also known as giving the News Roundup. This week: an Israel update (0:31), the DPRK sees Kim ordering more nuclear material (6:39), Russia might be positioning nukes in Belarus (9:20) and the US pulls out of another part of New START (12:02), a Ukraine update on the situation in Bakhmut (14:01), France continues to see protests and King Charles delays his visit (15:39), an ELN attack threatens peace talks in Colombia (16:45), the US hosts the glorious Summit for Democracy (19:10), a New Cold War update featuring Honduras officially switching recognition to China (21:23), Saudi Arabic investing in Chinese companies and affiliating with Shanghai Cooperation Organization (22:33), and Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen visits the US (25:15). This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.americanprestigepod.com/subscribe

On COI #403, Kyle Anzalone and Connor Freeman cover the White House's plan to form an international tribunal to prosecute Russian leaders for war crimes, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's warning that if he loses Bakhmut he will be forced to “compromise” with Moscow, Russia's claim that Ukraine is using longer-range US-provided rockets, Israel's escalated bombings of Syria including the capital Damascus, Riyadh working toward joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's admission that US Sanctions have created a “real economic crisis” in Iran while failing to influence Tehran's policies. Odysee Rumble  Donate LBRY Credits bTTEiLoteVdMbLS7YqDVSZyjEY1eMgW7CP Donate Bitcoin 36PP4kT28jjUZcL44dXDonFwrVVDHntsrk Donate Bitcoin Cash Qp6gznu4xm97cj7j9vqepqxcfuctq2exvvqu7aamz6 Patreon Subscribe Star YouTube Facebook  Twitter  MeWe Apple Podcast  Amazon Music Google Podcasts Spotify iHeart Radio