are going out in different ways. china is talking about economics and the u. s. is always about security. but you know, i have a question. there's this idea. there was one of my compatriots there and said, depending on the us for defense, defense, what, who is going to invade europe? who is going to invade australia? you know that over 50 percent of the people in australia have been convinced by the media that they might be invaded by china. i mean, anybody who knows try, sees what they have. it knows that that would be virtually impossible. second, there be absolutely no appetite for trying to doesn't want more people. they have quite a bit quite enough as it is. and they certainly don't want to go to foreign lands and take on the headache of ruling other people. that's not to say that they obviously the europeans took that challenge under their wing quite some time ago and that didn't work out very well either. so at this juncture, i mean no one can make abner chelsea. i understand your confusion. it just seems that we're on this kind of customer, this break in

here is that the u. s. continues to rely upon military solutions. it's always the military, you know, more project, you know, the pentagon loves it. ok. but you know, when i look at china and, and i try to be objective here. i mean, china is a, is a massive business trading partner, you know, a belt road initiative. and things like this, which the americans are terrified of because they don't have the wherewithal to do that. but china is okay, creating prosperity, jobs, trade, all of these things that the world needs here. and it's because the u. s. is unwilling or unable to do that. i mean, you can't even fix its own infrastructure. good for goodness sake. ok. i mean that in the default position is need more missiles. okay. oh, and taiwan, all of a sudden taiwan is a big issue here. no, it's no coincidence. you know, that it's suddenly, these are put on the agenda here because it's a gemini, they see. so in a country challenging, it's a gemini, and this is white reacts that we all the time with military

s. wages. these words with sanctions that are so cruel and barbaric that they're designed to star people so that people will rise up against these governments. so yes, there is a lot that needs to be exposed about a b s policy of receives, but more importantly, we need a stronger movement that will give some spine to those in congress. even those who call themselves progressive to say enough is enough. we need to slash the military spending in put it into people's needs. yeah, i know everybody knows i'm a conservative here and i and i and my panel members here i consider all good friends because we have a common cause on, on many issues here. but you know, when i look at some of them, i don't need to use names here, but some of the progressive or so called progressives in congress when they're specifically like about cuba, about venezuela. they answer is always this. it's kind a complicated. no, it's not complicated, it's wrong. okay. and that's why these progressives, you know, iron dome for i

that the u. s. was involved in that the international criminal court would like to pursue, but can't because of us pressure. the corruption that is talked about is always talked about on the part of the afghans but not the u. s. companies. the weapons companies that made hundreds of millions of dollars from this disastrous fiasco a scenario like blackboard or the interrogators like tight and the i'm believable, we're profit during that wind. i'm for 20 years. yeah. we didn't hear about all the civilian gas. we didn't hear about any of the things that the american people deserve to know or why the generals year after year were telling us that victory was just around the corner. so yes, as far as i'm concerned, i didn't grab the scratch the surface of what we needed to hear and we still, i deserve to know. you know, david, the, the way i look at this 20 year old fiasco deadly and very expensive. it was just a grip, there was a business model, and everybody made out except for a soldiers that died n

and, you know, understandably in those countries, the u. s. doesn't have much in the way of a, of embassy officials. it's all politics. it's the us now on this, this anti russia campaign that i've been going on really, you since the late obama administration. okay, before we go, i want to bring you a opted a significant one that's on what is happening in sudan. nuts is where the sovereign counsel chief has not declared a state of emergency and is all the constantly cabinet and has announced elections for july next year. and just to recap earlier today, the sudanese information ministry said the country's prime minister. i've been taken by the military to an unknown location not followed his arrest. earlier on monday morning, the nation's capital is also unlocked on. so a state of flux very much in the african nation right now. and not indeed is, are up for this. our more great programs here going in moments than worries. here with all your global news updates up the top hope you can join in ah, [000:00:00;00] ah, hello in welcome across the do

s. military in africa, on so gamma way of the after an army which was trained and abundantly equipped by washington, it took the taliban a matter of weeks to conquer the whole of the country. now, any one we've just an ounce of enlightenment about military affairs will concludes that it will simply inconceivable for the taliban on their own. so conquered afghanistan, a country exceptionally large, exceptionally diverse. and with the american military presence, that is why pizza leading up to the taliban. victory in our kind of stone. and on the day they entered, oh, i stood almost alone on television by saying that i believe the west america. and also britain arrived at an informal agreement with the taliban, where by the americans and the british would allow the taliban to emerge victorious . so long ask on his tongue and in return the taliban would have to ensure about american america and britain retained that strategic influence in afghanistan and what we have seen since. in fact, what we saw within days of the kind of an entry into campbell was maintained between the taliban and

s. there's no question about that. but other people don't see that way. even the united kingdom, which of course is, is one of the closest allies, arguably one of the most subservient allies of the u. s. and of u. s. foreign policy is cautious when it comes to china in terms of not wanting to, or if you like, burn its own economic britches with china because of the potential for the future relationship there. and so you've got a situation up with nato, especially nato, for example, wanting to expand into this sir asia pacific area. and it may not be that that's particularly welcome from even many in the united states. those in the know would realize that just as when britain announces that it's going to expand its operations in endo pacific a ships if an area that of course this rate raises some hackers or alarm bells because these are former colonial powers that are now wanting to be seen to be asserting themselves again in that area as opposed to just sticking to their own regional interests, legitimate defense interests. and so it might well be that th

s. and his trans atlantic partnership. i was under unit polar orders was intended for collecting money with the us on an equal partnership. now that the arrangement entailed at the us, you know, pay for european security and in return europeans all americans. but my point is simply that this belong to a eurocentric world because with the rise of china in the emergence of unit world, we see that this former format for you as your partnership, no longer really works because interests are changing and becoming more and more divergent so the u. s. is focusing more on china anesha and thus it's shifting both his resources and so forth. accordingly, that was very obviously obvious with supreme dealer with australia, by the way. so when the us so years will give less to europe, but ask for more in terms of asking you to, for example, come from china. and this is where i'm one of the tensions are these like a common interest. and when you're against the way, i think they do have a dilemma one ha

so the u. s. is focusing more on china asia and thus it's shifting both its resources and it said priorities accordingly. that was very obviously obvious with supreme dealer with australia, by the way. so when the us so years will give less to europe, but ask for more in terms of asking to you to, for example, come from china. and this is where i'm out of the tensions are these like a common interest and with europeans. the way i think they do have a dilemma one hand, they seek to maintain the relevance to the u. s. by, for example, accepting but nato should also be an anti chinese allies. however, no matter what they do with this will be very superficial in temporary because china to far waiting and the investment also a threat to the european union to the same extent. pregnancy dominance in the asia pacific. so it's also the problem for the youth. by joining this, u. s. chris, a crusade against both the russia and the chinese, the u. s. isolated south because it becomes less able to diversify pi

so my guess is that we will not follow too much the u. s. when they want to go to war and, and talk about trade war war, which china, and we will continue to do business with china as we always did. and we're doing more and more business with china and besides human rights, which is a major problem in china, we need this business definitely does business and china and euro as the market. so my guess is that it will continue whether at the american likes it or not. ok, well they found us. i mean, i think we're all kind of come to a consensus here. there has to be, you know, it was really interesting. it was during the trump years, the u. s. s a d couple from china, but it really, it has to be europe in whatever form has to start the coupling from the united states. if it, because europe needs its own google, its own amazon and needs all these things here. and, and so already been mentioned this program, then you'll just always be, you know, i'm 2nd rate junior partner and the world is such a dynamic place. you don't want to be junior and anyt

one hand, they seek to maintain the relevance to the u. s. by, for example, accepting but nato should also be an anti chinese allies. however, no matter what they do, it will be very superficial in temporary because china's too far waiting and the signal nothing else. a threat to the european union to the same extent pregnancy dominance in the asia pacific. so it's also the problem for the youth. by joining this, u. s. chris, a crusade against both the russia and the chinese, the u. s. isolated south because it becomes less able to diversify pies and thus excessively reliance on the us. so i and i only use the bus and prioritize your so the solution is simply for the you, in my opinion, at least a diversified ice. so develop an independent foreign policy towards the extent as possible and towards both the russians and the chinese. and by all means keep the trans atlantic partnership alone. 1 but also find a place in his chin on you greater your ation partnership with these marcia ration powers. he owned a minute. it seems to me when i, when i