RT — Worlds Apart
20261011 020000 UTC
485 transcript segments
Google Speech-to-Text API Automatic Transcription (Chirp)
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:29] of Hello and welcome to
[00:00:32] a worlds apart. If you were asked to describe the United States
[00:00:35] relationship with other countries in three words, what would you
[00:00:39] choose? Constructive, strategic and
[00:00:43] stable, are almost certainly not near the top
[00:00:46] of the list, and yet, according to President Trump and President
[00:00:49] She, this trial will supposedly form the basis
[00:00:53] of the US China relationship going forward. How realistic
[00:00:57] is that? Well, to discuss that I'm now joined by Andrew Lung a
[00:01:01] China specialist and Hong Kong's former chief representative
[00:01:05] for the UK, Russia and number of EU member states.
[00:01:09] Mr. Lung, it's great to talk to you, thank you very much for your
[00:01:12] of time. Thank you very much indeed, great to be on the show. We
[00:01:16] are recording this interview fresh after the Chinese president's visit to the
[00:01:20] United States, which resulted
[00:01:21] in a placatory tarif reduction agreement,
[00:01:25] but it's very hard not to be skeptical
[00:01:29] about how long it will stand given all
[00:01:33] the
[00:01:34] of complicated relationship between China and the United States in recent
[00:01:38] months, how do you take it? well, you have to look
[00:01:42] at the read out from Beijing,
[00:01:46] even before the meeting, and the meeting is
[00:01:49] expected to be defined by three words, according
[00:01:53] to in line with your opening remarks, but the three words are quite
[00:01:57] different, the three words are:
[00:02:00] in constructive, strategic and stability, constructive,
[00:02:04] strategic, stability are the three words which
[00:02:08] a
[00:02:09] of Chinese side, they hope that would define the
[00:02:12] relationship, first of all, what does these three words mean?
[00:02:16] constructive means um both countries should
[00:02:20] stay away from asser
[00:02:24] some mentality, looking
[00:02:27] at what could be achieved. realistically on both
[00:02:32] of sides um strategic means both sides should address each
[00:02:35] other's core interests
[00:02:37] of because
[00:02:37] the core interests do not go inside um stability
[00:02:41] means that both countries should avoid a zero some
[00:02:45] in game which could spiral out of control towards
[00:02:49] hot war confrontation so these are the three words but
[00:02:52] reality yes i say more complicated well
[00:02:55] of when the chinese president is using this exact phrase
[00:02:59] constructive. strategic stability, and I fully understand what it
[00:03:03] means, but this phrase uh seems to be uh completely out
[00:03:06] of the Trump's administration uh scope and style of
[00:03:10] operation,
[00:03:11] in so when the Chinese uh rely on that, is it more
[00:03:15] about value projection about perhaps a virtue
[00:03:18] of signaling
[00:03:19] of or they indeed believe that the Americans can
[00:03:23] commit themselves to behaving like that with any nation,
[00:03:27] let let alone China, well of course that's what China. hopes,
[00:03:31] because what China wants is not to replace the United
[00:03:34] States dominance, because
[00:03:37] of neither China is interested, nor is China capable
[00:03:42] of me of replicating 800 military bases around the
[00:03:45] world, and China does not have the
[00:03:48] dominance of his currency, um, and
[00:03:52] and
[00:03:52] of let alone does China's philosophy, so China wants a more
[00:03:56] stable world, so as to grow is economy, so... to
[00:04:00] achieve is vision of renaissance,
[00:04:03] achieving the so-called second centenary goal, whereby by
[00:04:09] of 2049, which is the 100th anniversary of Chinese republic of China, China will
[00:04:13] become an advanced socialist country,
[00:04:16] bringing the standard of living of his people, but of
[00:04:20] course that that would mean that China
[00:04:23] has find itself challenging the
[00:04:26] dominance
[00:04:27] of the United States in various fields. in the fields of
[00:04:32] a technology, in the field of of courseum group supply and
[00:04:36] value chain. China after all, it's the largest trading
[00:04:39] partner to 128 countries around the world, so I think that these are
[00:04:43] structural differences which translate into a
[00:04:47] long-term um riley between the two
[00:04:50] countries. Now m, just as you said, President She and
[00:04:54] of President Trump represent very different systems and they
[00:04:57] also personally and nationally. operate on such
[00:05:01] drastically different world views that it's hard to believe that
[00:05:05] in they could ever come to a lasting and mutually
[00:05:08] satisfying arrangement and from the
[00:05:10] of outside, at least from Russia, it
[00:05:12] looks like... the americans are trying to manage their own
[00:05:14] decline by trying to drag China
[00:05:18] down, is it uh how it's perceived in
[00:05:21] China? well of course that was perceived by
[00:05:25] many people in China that the United States is placing
[00:05:29] road blocks to contain China's rise, but on the
[00:05:33] end, as I explained earlier, that's a structural kind
[00:05:37] of result um from the
[00:05:40] continuing dominance the... stays in many fields
[00:05:43] and also President Trump's agenda of
[00:05:47] making American great again, thinking American can
[00:05:50] maximize its dominance to to
[00:05:54] prolong his agemony, so
[00:05:57] that's is
[00:05:58] not a matter of rhetoric is a reality, and I think China understands
[00:06:02] that, but I think that China hopes that by bringing
[00:06:06] to leaders together, they can better understand each
[00:06:09] other um without kind of.
[00:06:12] ri kind of vision, but at
[00:06:16] least the truth is now some sort of a truth
[00:06:20] as is being realized, but for very short
[00:06:23] term, you can see that that
[00:06:25] there was a stoppage of terrorists, but only for a couple of months and the
[00:06:29] reason for this very short periods suggest that the
[00:06:33] rivery is likely to continue, why a couple of months because
[00:06:36] president Trump wants to have a scenario
[00:06:40] where where he can narrate? kind of um
[00:06:44] long-term peaceful relationship with China um in the light the
[00:06:48] upcoming mid-term elections. You mentioned some uh statistics
[00:06:51] and uh my statistics, my figures slightly differ, I rely on
[00:06:55] the uh latest 2026 IMF report,
[00:06:59] but it also suggests that China is now the largest
[00:07:03] trading partner for 151 countries around the world
[00:07:07] as opposed to uh the United States being uh
[00:07:11] 58 or 50. now any case it shows
[00:07:14] very substantial disbalance and if the Americans
[00:07:18] want to change that,
[00:07:19] I suppose they will need to offer the world something both
[00:07:23] positive and palatable, some genuinely new
[00:07:27] added value, just like China did to
[00:07:31] all these nations and encourage them to trade with it first
[00:07:35] and foremost, but the Americans still rely on the old narratives,
[00:07:39] on the old threats, plus you know the old...
[00:07:42] instrument of tariffs, why do
[00:07:45] you think they're so stuck in their ways? well, let's
[00:07:48] underestimate the United States, I mean United States
[00:07:52] have lot of very clever people, um, but all the reality
[00:07:56] stares them in the face in sense that after decades of
[00:07:59] outsourcing the manufacturing um facilities to
[00:08:03] around the world, not least to China, um, their
[00:08:07] manufacturing capacity is been hollow out, they
[00:08:11] no longer produce a lot of... products around the world, but they are good good
[00:08:15] at producing high end goods, they want to to to
[00:08:18] maintain their control over semiconductors
[00:08:21] and also um in AI there's a
[00:08:25] very keen competition, so they want to zero
[00:08:29] in on the commanding heights the
[00:08:33] the trade, not just every trade, but on the other hand, as
[00:08:37] I said, for the broad areas of trade, the
[00:08:40] capacity's been hot
[00:08:41] a while, but the... to focus on the commanding
[00:08:45] heights, so I think that this is the keen competition that slightly
[00:08:48] intensify on AI on high-tech
[00:08:51] technology, on on robotics
[00:08:55] and and drones and that kind of thing. now you talked about
[00:08:59] the American aspiration to secure that dominance at
[00:09:03] the so-called commanding heights and China has also
[00:09:07] made some inroads in that direction, I'm talking about its
[00:09:10] leverage over the Americans, it's uh
[00:09:14] access to rare earth materials which are critical for American
[00:09:18] manufacturing, including military manufacturing, how big of
[00:09:22] factor is that and without it, do you think the geopolitical
[00:09:26] situation between Washington and Beijing and perhaps even more broadly around the
[00:09:30] world, do you think it would have been the same? well, let's concentrate on the two
[00:09:34] examples as an illustration on the kind
[00:09:37] of continuing rivery, the first one is on
[00:09:41] maybe first you mentioned and the second is on
[00:09:45] AI, well as
[00:09:46] far as rare es concerned, let's not
[00:09:49] conflate the supply of rare earth with
[00:09:53] the processing, because supplied of rare earth is
[00:09:57] everywhere, mean the rare earths in in united states, rare earth in
[00:10:01] ukraine and greenland, canada, australia, all over the
[00:10:04] place, but then the rare earths are the
[00:10:08] rare elements, they need to be refined '
[00:10:12] and highly sophisticated and highly polluting process which China
[00:10:16] has perfected, China would continue to maintain this
[00:10:20] dominance, but again this dominance is not going to last
[00:10:23] forever and - countries um and not just the United
[00:10:27] States are going to find their own way to develop their
[00:10:30] capabilities, but it's likely to take maybe
[00:10:33] decades before that happens. now on
[00:10:36] AI, I think that the there's no
[00:10:40] doubt that again America is slightly ahead,
[00:10:43] but even then um the top officials
[00:10:47] admitted that the china is now 80 or even
[00:10:51] 90% and only few months behind. but
[00:10:55] the big big difference is that the American put um almost
[00:10:59] selling their farm and putting all they have on um
[00:11:03] AI data centers. the second big difference is
[00:11:06] that the American AI ecology is based on
[00:11:10] fee charging, you can't use the AI model unless you pay, whereas
[00:11:14] China is now opening up, there's
[00:11:16] the open um open forum
[00:11:19] um and you like the internet at the beginning,
[00:11:21] it's open to everybody, so China's strategy is... based
[00:11:25] a, the mold is much cheaper, much more affordable
[00:11:29] um and to use and because it's free after all,
[00:11:33] secondly, it's compare very closely with
[00:11:36] the you fees pay kind of model, and then you have more people
[00:11:40] embrace the china's model, then china would have the
[00:11:44] advantage. now uh, I heard you also say in another interview that
[00:11:47] Trump's capriciousness could lead to a more balanced
[00:11:51] world as more and more countries seek various part. partnerships
[00:11:55] as a way of ensuring uh predictability of
[00:11:59] ensuring stability and also ensuring better deal as you
[00:12:02] licitated just now, if you can get a cheaper technology
[00:12:06] and with uh less restraints, why wouldn't you do that? mean
[00:12:10] ultimately the nation still have a
[00:12:14] degree of choice in the economic affairs, now that would still leave
[00:12:17] the united states as this wild card of
[00:12:21] international affairs as a disrupting force and I do want to
[00:12:25] ask you about that, do you think the Americans will continue
[00:12:29] relying on this uh disrupting strategy going forward or
[00:12:33] do you think sooner or later they will get they will have enough of it and
[00:12:37] will also want to ensure some predictability and
[00:12:40] stability for themselves perhaps on less grandiose
[00:12:44] grounds? well let to understand the dynamics are
[00:12:48] going ahead, one has got to understand American's dominance
[00:12:52] um um the unipo left. the polar world which
[00:12:56] existed after the second world war, other countries can
[00:12:59] compare American influence not only on the military but also in
[00:13:03] trade, in finance and in is the size of his
[00:13:07] economy and so on, and this so-called American
[00:13:11] led liberal world order is based on even though
[00:13:14] American own interests, because after all the
[00:13:18] rules are skilled and in favor the United States, but
[00:13:21] nevertheless there are some norms and some
[00:13:25] rules which American try to uphold so as to lift
[00:13:29] the bow for everybody and so that's to benefit um
[00:13:32] other allies and traders including especially china is benefit
[00:13:36] hugely
[00:13:37] by this American world liberal order but
[00:13:40] as I said at the beginning this orders now lies tatus as the Trump
[00:13:44] administration is imposing sanctions and tariffs and
[00:13:48] making petitory demands even for territory of his
[00:13:52] closest allies including Canada Greenland. and and and so
[00:13:56] on um and then um it's so capricious because one
[00:14:00] one hand they negotiating with Iran and while the negotiation
[00:14:03] going on the sending bombers and and and steal fighters and
[00:14:07] destroy their leadership so I think many countries are
[00:14:11] now um have now lost heart uh in this
[00:14:14] american world order but China is not prepared is
[00:14:18] notum entirely capable of replacing that because
[00:14:22] as I said China is now benefiting hugely. so I think that what
[00:14:26] China wants is a um at least growd is
[00:14:29] in self-reliance and technology, b) to be
[00:14:33] less succeptable to American dominance
[00:14:37] using the US dollar using bilateral
[00:14:40] trade currencies, the UAE or the Middle East are
[00:14:44] selling oil to China, why do they need to use the US dollar? so I think
[00:14:48] the same applies to country selling soy beans to China and so so
[00:14:52] forth and and gradually um more... countries
[00:14:55] trading between countries, not between individuals, because after
[00:14:59] all the US dollars still very useful,
[00:15:01] but between countries trading with China um directly in
[00:15:05] their own mutual currencies and that would have the effect of
[00:15:09] eroding the dollars dominance. well, Mr. Long, unfortunately
[00:15:13] you still haven't answered my direct question of whether you think the Americans will have
[00:15:17] had enough their sort of dominance
[00:15:21] claims and may resort to a more gradual and stable.
[00:15:25] arrangement with other nations, but let's address that question after a short
[00:15:28] break. We will be back a couple of moments. Stay
[00:15:31] tuned.
[00:15:53] There was a time indeed when we were quite accustomed
[00:15:57] to having half the globe dance to our
[00:16:00] tune.
[00:16:04] Who could possibly have imagined that in the 21st.
[00:16:43] Welcome back to World's Apart with
[00:16:46] Andrew Lung a China specialist and Hong Kong's former chief
[00:16:49] representative for the UK, Russia and number of
[00:16:53] EU member states. Mr. Lung, just before the break we discuss that
[00:16:57] the Americans are pretty used to uh getting their
[00:17:01] way uh a hard way by threats, by demands,
[00:17:04] by trying to be domineering uh
[00:17:07] and I ask you whether you think that uh soon or later they will find
[00:17:11] it that uh the strategy is no longer working,
[00:17:15] especially as more and more nations uh do take the
[00:17:19] liberty to build their relationships, diplomatic and economic
[00:17:23] relationships with China and with other international players, so
[00:17:27] do you think uh the Americans will ever get
[00:17:30] enough of this domineering strategy? well, I think that
[00:17:34] this
[00:17:36] um um hegemonic kind of mind. sit um is um
[00:17:39] deeply um within Donald Trump's
[00:17:42] personality um he think that the American of course is is is
[00:17:46] still the the greatest and most powerful country on the
[00:17:50] planet and and the United States according to
[00:17:53] his uh him and his followers has been short changed by
[00:17:57] is even by his allies so it's now um
[00:18:01] incomment upon him to change that uh by maximizing
[00:18:04] American's dominance on finance. with us
[00:18:08] dollar is military, so it's likely to continue with the
[00:18:12] Trump administration, but of course there are um increasing head winds
[00:18:16] as we have covered, both in China's able to
[00:18:19] withstand resilience and other countries a
[00:18:23] group of south recalibrating relationship with away
[00:18:27] from the United States, not to forsake United States all
[00:18:31] together, but at least balancing the trade, which result as you
[00:18:34] pointed out earlier uh in China. achieving huge
[00:18:38] surplus by pivating to the global south, so I think that
[00:18:42] this is like to continue, but I think that with democratic
[00:18:45] administration, things may be again recalibrated,
[00:18:49] because still Americans, the people set brick
[00:18:53] store on American's leadership the whole world
[00:18:57] order since the second world war, and then as you pointed out, they
[00:19:01] find that this kind of unilateral hegemonic mindset
[00:19:05] maybe hasn't is not working. and they may be
[00:19:08] recalibrating back uh towards a more
[00:19:11] beny relationship, but still
[00:19:13] the they will rely on Americans adominance in many fields including the
[00:19:17] military. let ask you about perhaps
[00:19:21] taking this relationship from a
[00:19:24] unilateral or bilateral format to a trilateral one, because
[00:19:28] there is lot of talk ahead the upcoming apac
[00:19:32] summit uh in China in November about a possible
[00:19:35] meeting between uh President Trump. President she and President
[00:19:39] Putin, um, do you think it's likely? Well,
[00:19:43] I would roll out the possibility, because after all President
[00:19:46] Trump has expressed the wish to attend the
[00:19:49] meeting, and as far as the host of that meeting, China's
[00:19:53] concerned Beijing of course would prefer Trump
[00:19:57] attending, and of course President Putin, which is
[00:20:01] very good friend with President C, so if the three leaders
[00:20:05] are there, why not organize?
[00:20:07] trilateral, at least dialogue, um, even though is
[00:20:11] unlikely to change the fundamental and structural
[00:20:15] differences, so I think that this is possible, but whether
[00:20:19] that happens um still remains to be seen, again there could be
[00:20:23] informal meetings and even if there's a formal meeting, I don't think it's
[00:20:27] unlighted to change the dynamics, for example the war on Ukraine is
[00:20:30] still going on, and the United States approach to the
[00:20:34] war um and is not always um
[00:20:38] and all force with russias and national security
[00:20:42] and then the Europeans of course are putting spanners in the works
[00:20:45] and the Europeans are al also some them are still maintaining
[00:20:49] very close. relationship with the United States
[00:20:53] to contain Russia over Ukraine, so
[00:20:57] I think that there are still fundamental differences, but as far as the trilateral
[00:21:01] meeting idea, it's no better idea so
[00:21:04] that the two or three dealers together at least talk things,
[00:21:07] not
[00:21:08] to talk things over, but at least establish a deeper understanding of each
[00:21:11] each other's position, for a long time the Americans had
[00:21:15] habit of treating such high-level visits not as a meeting
[00:21:19] of... or diplomatic necessity, but as reward
[00:21:23] for good behavior. now that clearly is not
[00:21:26] gonna work for either president Putin or president she, but I wonder
[00:21:30] if the tables by now have turned a little bit
[00:21:34] that President Trump may seek such an
[00:21:37] occasion more than the the the other two presidents,
[00:21:41] not because of any concrete deals, but just for the
[00:21:44] sake of groundstanding and personal gratification being
[00:21:48] pictured you know to... together with other
[00:21:51] presidents or leaders of great powers,
[00:21:55] wouldn't that tantilize president Trump's
[00:21:59] ego? well of course President Trump is a great master
[00:22:02] theatrics, um, he can turn the perception
[00:22:06] as according to the China saying, deer into a
[00:22:10] horse, you thinks is a horse, it would become a horse instead of
[00:22:13] deer, um, and so I think that his master of
[00:22:17] narrative, but on the other hand um "I think that if
[00:22:21] he wants things badly, he could really bend backwards as
[00:22:24] exemplified by his um fawing
[00:22:27] reception of president sea you ruling out the red carpet and
[00:22:31] meeting presidency and and his first lady a tamit
[00:22:35] has never been seen before, so I think that again is a
[00:22:39] theater, I think the both all the leaders and see through
[00:22:42] that, but it doesn't stop president C
[00:22:46] continue to play the game is very very good at, well..."
[00:22:50] "good rapport among leaders is definitely a very valuable asset
[00:22:53] in geopolitics, the Putin Shia relationship is a good
[00:22:57] example of that, but what do you think it means in case of Donald Trump,
[00:23:01] and isn't there a risk that President Trump, if that meeting
[00:23:05] indeed comes to pass, may feel a little bit left out
[00:23:09] given the puchin she bonchame that exists
[00:23:12] already, because president shi and president Putin do understand each other
[00:23:16] much a much deeper level and than President Trump." "
[00:23:20] relates to either one them? i think that the Beijing
[00:23:24] is much better master the kind of
[00:23:28] international and geopolitical dynamics
[00:23:31] even the perceptions in such important
[00:23:35] meetings witness president Trump's last visit to the brick
[00:23:38] summit. um, you can see on the theater, obviously India
[00:23:42] was trying to cosey up to president Putin and
[00:23:46] leaving the China's leader in the cold sometimes.
[00:23:50] with and also presidency afterwards
[00:23:54] make hasty exit from the the bricks
[00:23:58] meeting um but I think that as far as the Beijing is
[00:24:02] the host obviously he want to be to be seen to be
[00:24:06] respectful to both leaders to as United States
[00:24:10] and and after all Putins long-term
[00:24:13] allied and very good friends and so I think that this
[00:24:16] is um
[00:24:19] um presidency. trying to cheat both leaders with great respect and on
[00:24:23] even kill, now if that meeting uh indeed
[00:24:26] materialized, one the issues that seems to be offering itself up
[00:24:30] for discussion would be the resumption the talks on
[00:24:34] some sort of trilateral nuclear arms control treaty,
[00:24:38] and CNN reported the other day that China and the United
[00:24:42] States have already discussed reciprocal nuclear sites
[00:24:45] visits, do you think that um...
[00:24:51] you know deal has any potential given that China's nuclear
[00:24:54] arsenals at this point of time are substantially smaller than
[00:24:58] those the United States and Russia and clearly China wouldn't want
[00:25:02] to be uh reduced at that level, it would want to
[00:25:06] feel on on equal kill with other players,
[00:25:10] well
[00:25:10] I don't think the Briging necessarily wants a complete parity,
[00:25:14] because after all the modern nuclear weapons are warheds and much
[00:25:18] more powerful that those drop. on and
[00:25:22] nagasaaki and Hiroshima multiple times more
[00:25:25] powerful, so you don't need 100 nuclear warheads
[00:25:29] um to destroy nation, and now you look at the stock pile,
[00:25:33] um, Russia is the largest world's largest stop pile over
[00:25:36] 3ous, maybe 3,300, the United States is
[00:25:40] very closely behind over 300 and China is not even reaching
[00:25:43] 1ous, um, even though China doesn't want
[00:25:47] parity, obviously um um "you need a
[00:25:51] sufficient number to deploy them in strategic
[00:25:55] assets and theaters, but on the other hand,
[00:25:58] it's not in China's interest to see nuclear proliferation." as
[00:26:02] well as because then the more weapons um
[00:26:06] if there is an arms race especially with what's happening around the
[00:26:10] world over Ukraine and and on
[00:26:14] over Iran uh countries are beginning to feel
[00:26:17] especially the middle power countries they feel they're so
[00:26:21] now vulnerable to American military dominance and the only defense
[00:26:25] is possession and nuclear powers this could lead to proliferation around the
[00:26:29] world now what worries China of course is the perration in the Asian
[00:26:33] Pacific, particularly Japan and also other
[00:26:37] countries, and this was stabilized China's neighborhood, so China doesn't
[00:26:41] want to liberation, but nor does China want
[00:26:44] deliberate limitation of his nuclear arsenal. Mr.
[00:26:48] Long, you said that China is not striving towards nuclear
[00:26:52] parity, but at the same time it's been investing lot of
[00:26:55] resources into various nuclear facilities, and it has
[00:26:59] enormous technological and economic... provis
[00:27:03] something that perhaps neither Russia nor the United States can
[00:27:07] uh afford at the moment, and therefore there's been a lot of articles
[00:27:10] about how the Americans are concerned about uh
[00:27:14] China secretly expanding its nuclear weapons
[00:27:17] infrastructure. I guess my last question to you is whether you think that
[00:27:21] perhaps China doesn't mind the Americans being
[00:27:24] concerned uh about that issue and using it as a
[00:27:28] sort of psychological deterrent so that the Americans know...
[00:27:32] that while China is not uh like it's part of China's doctrine
[00:27:36] not to attack first, not to use nuclear strike first, but that the
[00:27:40] Americans know that it has something to respond
[00:27:44] with. I think no country wants to reveal is
[00:27:47] coreum military
[00:27:51] hardware or software completely to his
[00:27:54] arch um enemies or potential rivals
[00:27:58] and no doubt that technology is
[00:28:01] advancing or... nuclear war head front, for example, as I
[00:28:05] mentioned before, the war head drop in hirushiman aragasaki
[00:28:09] is now only as very very small fraction the power that can
[00:28:13] be unleashed with more than warheads, so I think that there is
[00:28:16] continuing research not only in China but in other countries,
[00:28:20] now whether China is remains ahead in certain
[00:28:23] technologies, that cannot be root out, but I don't
[00:28:27] think China is ready to reveal everything, no the United
[00:28:30] States, no Russia, um... but I think the danger
[00:28:33] is um on the one hand there is keen competition on
[00:28:37] AI, drone warfare and all that,
[00:28:41] because the technology is changing and then
[00:28:43] that the world becomes much more
[00:28:46] disruptive, on the other hand um and each
[00:28:50] country would stay ahead with the um as I said
[00:28:54] commanding highs in in in all
[00:28:56] the all fields where been AI or nuclear weapons or
[00:28:59] space technology um and even in
[00:29:03] how tray is going to be conducted, so I think that we are
[00:29:07] seeing a world which is totally up ended um
[00:29:10] and we are we are in for major change a number of
[00:29:14] key fields across the group. Okay, well Mr. Lung, this is
[00:29:18] all we have time for for now. Thank you very much for your
[00:29:22] insights, thank you very much indeed and thank
[00:29:25] you for watching, see you next week on world's
[00:29:28] apart.
[00:29:57] The deep state has its hands in everything. I was in the middle
[00:30:00] of it for decades. When I blew the whistle on CIA
[00:30:04] torture, the Deep State turned on me. They ruined my
[00:30:08] life, took away my rights, threw me in
[00:30:11] prison, but they didn't break
[00:30:13] me. I fought back
[00:30:17] and I still do. I'm John Kiriaku, on my
[00:30:21] show, the deep state, I take you behind the geopolitical moves, the color
[00:30:25] revolutions, behind the politics and the
[00:30:27] politicians. We shine a light on where the deep state is
[00:30:31] hiding.