Jacob Smulian: Hello Geopolitical cousin Land.
It is producer Jacob, Marco and Jacob Shapiro.
Only have time for a short pod today, and so they squeeze in
some hot takes on the Middle East.
They talk about Burkina Faso's social media presence.
And then take a deep dive into Marco's new concept of geopolitical tightening.
And then try to figure out if multipolarity is a good thing or
a bad thing for global stability.
That's it.
Let's get into it.
Jacob Shapiro: All right, listeners, uh, Marco and I usually have the luxury of
relaxing for a two hour conversation, but we've got, we've got a tight
57 minutes 'cause I've gotta run.
So we are gonna absolutely blow your minds.
There's no time for foreplay, there's no time for jokes, there's
no time for basketball, even though the Knicks are up two oh oh my God.
We, we've gotta get straight into it.
I will integrate Jason Tatum metaphors throughout this though.
'cause you might remember Marco last year on a podcast with you.
I said there was no chance that Jason Tatum.
Was good enough to lead a team to the NBA championship.
I think in retrospect, that was the correct call.
It was just everybody else was so shitty.
Anyway, we're not supposed to do that.
So anyway, why don't we start here.
Um, there's been a lot of weird stuff in the Middle East the past couple of days.
Um, I. Kind of started with actually something you sent me with RFK Junior
and Nancy Pelosi, both raging at King Abdullah the second of Jordan.
Also, star Trek's most famous Extra, made an appearance in
the Star Trek Voyager for you.
Star Trek nerds out there.
And apparently the, the issue is that King Abdullah said that he would
accept 2000 till children from Gaza who had cancer and other illnesses.
Um, he's only taken in 44 now.
He's slow playing it.
And Jordan says that the king is slow playing it because he is not sure
they're gonna be able to return to Gaza.
I don't know who would wanna return to Gaza.
There's nothing left of it, but we can get into that later.
And Kennedy and Pelosi are taking this as a personal affront and a betrayal.
We can get into that, um, later.
Then earlier this week.
The Houthis struck Israel with a missile.
Um, this was not your garden variety missile.
It got past missile defense.
It made a huge crater near the Tel Aviv airport, shut down flights
in and out of Israel for a while.
So it got the Israeli's attention.
Israel went back and hit them.
In the meantime, uh, apparently Donald Trump had a call.
With the Houthis and agreed that the United States would stop bombing them
as long as the Houthis stopped bombing shipping to which the Houthis, and I
mean, we're, we're, we have to take this, you know, at face value from the source.
But according to Mr.
Trump, the Houthis said, cool, we're just gonna keep bombing Israel.
And Trump was cool with that.
Uh, there was no objection from the United States that the Houthis
were gonna keep on with Israel as long as they stopped bombing ships.
Um, I, some of the quotes here about the Houthis are also incredible.
Trump's saying that he had a good outcome, they had a great capacity,
withstand punishment, uh, quote.
You could say there's a lot of bravery there.
It's amazing what they took.
End quote, um, Israeli Prime Minister of Benjamin Netanyahu has come out and said,
fine, the Israelis will defend themselves alone against the Houthis, if they must,
if the United States is not on their side.
Um, and then amidst all of this, Israel also in the last week
or two, has been talking about.
Basically just annexing the Gaza Strip.
There have also been rumors and various reports that the United States has
agreed to administer the region on a temporary basis until the Israelis
or some other group of countries or whatever else can take it over.
Like there's a lot that is unclear here and in the background.
Iran and the United States continue to have negotiations, and Marco
Papich has been running around the Middle East briefing clients and
learning things from the ground up.
Marco, where should we start?
Marko Papic: Uh, well, I mean, I, I thought that was, uh, you know, I, I
think one of the interesting things that Trump does is that he actually gives
props to, you know, America's rivals.
And it's very old school.
It's medieval.
You know, um, and I think that he had, this isn't the first time he's done it.
He actually did that to Iran after the, uh, killing of general
Soleimani Iran retaliated.
And President Trump said, okay, I respect that.
I consider this matter over actually Vice President Harris is, you know, brought
that up in the debates, if you remember.
And she actually accused him of being callous and glib about,
uh, American servicemen being, you know, put in harms ma away.
Um.
You know, I think it's appropriate given that the world is multipolar
and you can't, uh, enforce some sort of a unipolar normative hegemony.
So you've got to, you know, recognize the reality.
But what's interesting to me is just how quickly apparently the deal was
struck between the US and the Houthis, and what's not clear to me, but I lean
towards the view that President Trump.
And the Houthis actually agreed that they would not target American
vessels and American shipping.
It didn't seem to me like the Houthis said that they would like
stop targeting all shipping, but I.
You know, I guess that's yet to be confirmed or, you know, seen in reality.
So, um, it does seem to me like the US is, you know, effectively
just pursuing its own interests.
And I think that, uh, most countries in the Middle East, uh, already knew that.
In fact, one of the interesting things that I did found out while
I was in, uh, Saudi Arabia was that for many Saudis, it was really after.
Various drones attacked their infrastructure, energy, infrastructure,
um, that Saudi Arabia took seriously.
Uh, this idea that Americans wouldn't be there to actually prevent any conflict
with Iran, and therefore they went ahead.
And made their own detant, I don't wanna call it a peace deal 'cause it's
not Iran and Saudi Arabia are always gonna be rivals and they're all always
gonna look at each other as skew.
But, uh, it was interesting that that was, that was the narrative that, uh,
was very prevalent in Saudi Arabia.
It was like an obvious thing, like Yes.
I mean, once we realized that Iran can strike in inside Saudi Arabia,
you know, relatively, uh, with little costs from the American perspective, we
decided to make our own deal with them.
Jacob Shapiro: Huh?
You, you were right.
Uh, so President Trump himself, he, here's the quote from him.
They said, please don't bomb us anymore, and we're not going to attack your ships.
End quote.
Um, but then most of the media is covering it as the houthis agreeing to stop
interrupting important shipping lanes.
So I don't know how we got to that leap.
Um, sort of in the media there, I'm also fairly certain that, uh,
the Houthis did not call President Trump and say, please don't bomb us.
But, but that's neither here.
And nor there.
Um, well, let me just, let me cook on Israel for a second, uh, for
all three of our Israeli listeners and Yes, yes, I'm gonna do that.
The thing I hate the most in the world, a guy with the last name Shapiro, is
gonna tell you about Israeli geopolitics.
Um,
Marko Papic: but, and I, and the guy with the name Papi, is just
going to sidestep that land bind.
Elegantly.
Yeah.
And let you fall right on it.
No,
Jacob Shapiro: I jump on it.
Oh, by the way though, I mean, you know, in our last podcast, Marco, it was the
Jew who read the Vatican correctly.
You thought the next Pope was coming from Asia.
I said, no, I think he's coming from somewhere more traditional.
You nailed
Marko Papic: it.
Jacob Shapiro: The Jew.
The Jew won.
Nile is zero.
But here I'm probably gonna give up the victory right here.
Oof.
Yes.
Marko Papic: Well, you know what?
That's just gonna launch a, a steady stream of new conspiracies
that Jews also run the Vatican.
Uh,
Jacob Shapiro: what's, that's a conspiracy.
Conspiracy implies lack of truth.
Um, so,
oh, I'm gonna get in trouble.
So when it comes to Israel, though, I think Benjamin Netanyahu.
Um, is an incredible domestic politician and he has survived for as long as he
has by creating this Iranian boogeyman.
And I think long term in Israel's grand strategy, it's the exact wrong thing to
do because the long term threat to Israel is not from Iran, from a Shiite Persian
country that is many thousands of miles or however much it is away from Israel.
It's from.
Local Sunni Arabs and from Turkey, and those forces have been sort of gaining
in power, gaining in wealth around Israel, even as some of them, like the
Saudis are batting their eyelashes at it.
And Netanyahu continues to hammer on the Houthis.
The other thing that Netanyahu did was he completely tripled down in
his relationship with Donald Trump.
Thought that Donald Trump was gonna look out for Israeli interests, thought
that, you know, he had the measure of the man, and that was a miscalculation.
Huge.
He didn't have the measure of the man.
I have been saying for years that the United States would jettison
Israeli interest just as soon it was as it was in US interest to do so.
And that would've been Biden, it would've been Harris, it would've been Trump.
It would've been anybody.
There was nobody who was gonna have that ironclad commitment.
I. With Israel, and I don't care that Jared Kushner's in the background, like
it's just, it's just not gonna work.
And Israel long term, if it's thinking about its future, it really needs to start
thinking about a world in which it doesn't have, um, sort of unqualified US support.
It needs to think about threats that are much closer to home, whether that's
Turkey, in its navy, in its backyard, or going after their natural gas
interests or, uh, you know, the breaking up of trees with Egypt and Jordan
or real insurgency in the West Bank.
Because the Palestinians realize they have nothing less left to lose.
Like it's a very difficult position that Israel has put itself in.
And I, I think from just a grand strategy point of view, it's short-term
politics is affecting Israel's long-term strategic interests.
And this should be a big warning sign to Israeli strategic decision
makers, security officials, they probably won't listen to it 'cause
they're all obsessed with, you know, the Iranian nuclear weapon.
And I get it, I get why you're obsessed with that.
But there are much bigger fish to fry closer to home, and I don't
think anything's gonna change.
And, and that's just the way that it's.
And, and ramp.
Marko Papic: No.
I mean, I wish there was something to disagree with you on, but I think
you're a hundred percent I, I don't know whether I said it on the podcast
or whether I said it to my clients in meetings, but I think that it's incredibly
naive to triple down on Donald Trump.
I. So he moved the embassy to Jerusalem.
Whoop d Do you know, like, okay, that means nothing.
I, I would disagree with one thing.
I think it would be very difficult for Joe Biden or Vice President
Harris, uh, to turn on Israel.
I. I think that they would've been accused immediately by
the Republicans of being weak.
Donald Trump can do it in a second.
And by the way, Donald Trump can pretty much do anything he wants,
and there's very little criticism he will receive, um, from I would
argue a majority of Americans.
And so this is, this is a big one.
This is, this is where I think, um, you know, president
Trump has a mix, I think of.
Pretty solid instinct on us.
Interest at times.
At times, particularly tactically, maybe long term no.
But tactically, yes.
And second of all, you know, Donald Trump's interests are what's good for
Donald Trump and continued conflict in the Middle East is not, I. He
has branded himself very powerfully.
This is important.
Part of his brand is someone who can get deals done and more importantly,
create geopolitical, equilibrium, equilibrium around the world.
And I think Israel is making a, a, you know, a very big mistake
by continuing the Gaza operation.
Uh, and I don't mean that from a operational perspective or
tactical perspective of like, let's find hostages and destroy Hamas.
You know, that's all fine and good, and Israel could do whatever they want.
I understand that, but it's more from a perspective of like, is that aligned
with President Trump's interests?
And they should probably fall in that line.
I. If they want to continue to receive his support.
And I think this Houthis deal is a great example of that.
I mean, like the Houthis attacked Tel Aviv airport either right after the deal
was struck, or while President Trump was, you know, phoning the Houthis.
And uh, and there was no, and there has been like no comment
from the United States on that.
And that should be a really, that should send very cold sweat down the spine
of anyone in Netanyahu's government.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
What about, what about, uh, king Abdullah and, and Jordan and RFK
Jr? I'll, I'll let you cook on that.
Marko Papic: Well, no, I mean, that's, that's also aligned with
your view, which is, I mean, again, maybe where I would disagree with
you is a little bit on Turkey.
You know, I, I don't see why.
You know, I think Turkey has interest in designs on Iraq and Syria and Lebanon, but
I also don't think that Turkey in any way, shape, or form has ever, you know, um,
considered or thought or even fantasized or dreamed or had a nightmare about, uh,
Israel not having the right to exist.
So that's where I think I disagree with you.
I think Turkey and Israel can coexist.
They can be rivals, they can be even enemies, but it's not an existential risk.
I I, I don't see why Turkey would have that kind of a, you
know, confrontation with Israel.
Jacob Shapiro: May, maybe it's not an existential risk, and maybe that's like
the outlier scenario, but it is certainly a geopolitical imperative for Turkey.
Once it, it has to have control of the Levant first and of,
you know, uh, Iraq and all.
And it has to subdue, uh, any threat from Persia or whatever.
But eventually, um, the Neo Ottomans.
Have to have, what is today, Israel, like Ottoman Palestine was taken, like, it
wasn't a Palestinian state that the, the Jews took, uh, Ottoman Palestine from it.
It was the Ottoman Empire that they, they inserted themselves and then the
British Empire that held it afterwards.
And if you are, if you have imperial ambitions in the region, that the
area that is Israel or Palestine or whatever you wanna call it, based on
your politics, has always been important for those types of regional powers that
are thinking about connecting Middle East, Eurasia, all these other things.
So.
Marko Papic: I think it's tough.
I think it's tough for them to repeat.
You know, I, I don't think water will flow down the same channels, you
know, 200 years later, but it's okay.
We can disagree on that.
I mean, ultimately, uh, it doesn't to, to me that's like step two, step three,
and we can debate it at some other time.
But to me, I would say the biggest threat is, um, collapse
of states that have treaties.
You, you framed it like Egypt and Jordan one day decide they
don't want to tear up the.
Treaties that they have with Israel.
Um, and I would say that that could happen because those states
collapse due to Israeli actions.
Now, that's less likely to happen with Egypt because it's such a large country
and an influx of Palestinian refugees into Egypt I think is relatively manageable.
And it's uh, you know, it's basically run by the military and so on and so on.
But what's happening in Jordan is I think, very concerning.
And this is, uh, this is where the west can really be callous.
Like if we had a TikTok camera, I would ask for you to like, shine
it on me, because here's a country that's done nothing but like
right by the west, by its allies.
It's, uh, it's stable monarchy, uh, you know, king Abdullah is
doing the best job he can do.
Um, it's a country where Palestinian, uh, Palestinians either descendants
of refugees or refugees themselves, uh, form a very large majority.
It's a country where the PLO.
At one time in its, uh, in its sort of rambunctious youth when
they had their hair down and they were smoking cigarettes and.
Running around hijacking planes, tried to overtake King Abdullah's
father King, uh, in, uh, 1971, where the United States effectively had to
bring in the pa, uh, the Pakistanis to save the Hashemite kingdom.
So this is a country with a history of problems between the
monarchy and the Palestinians.
I think King Gah has really, uh, worked on fixing that.
He is married to a very eloquent, very, uh, I think, uh, you know.
Well-spoken Palestinian himself.
Um, so he's tried to create this kind of syncretic culture, but
the, that makes it more difficult for him to ignore what's going on.
And over the past, you know, 18 months, I would say.
Did the delta, the change in tone.
From the monarchy of Jordan is probably the most severe when it comes to
Israel out of any country in the world.
You know, people talk about Europeans not sending weapons to Israel anymore.
Like that's, that's neither here nor there.
The real change in attitude and tone is from Jordan, and I think
King Abdullah is basically telling the world like, Hey guys, like.
I can't hold back the dam any longer.
And if, uh, you know, if Israel Annexes Gaza, I think that's, you know, uh,
perhaps neither here nor there, but I think the biggest problem is what
happens to the Po Palestinians, the West Bank, and if they start coming
across the border to Jordan, I think that Israeli threat perception
is going to diametrically change.
Israel has not had to guard its eastern borders, which are massive.
It hasn't had to deal with them in over.
You know, 30 years, it hasn't had to really worry about them at all.
And so I think that this is an existential risk to Israel.
I believe that the pers, the preservation of the Hashemite monarchy dynasty in
Aman is more important to, honestly, Israeli continued existence then.
I mean, anything in the world.
And yet they're treating it so callously because you're completely right.
Benjamin Netanyahu is perhaps one of the greatest domestic politicians in
the world, but I think that he has absolutely no interest in what happens
to his own country 24 months after today.
Jacob Shapiro: Can't argue there.
All right, let, let's move on from that.
I'm sorry, I'm,
Marko Papic: I know we're short on time, but I just wanna say Nancy Pelosi and RFK.
What the hell do they even know about this region?
I mean, they're blaming king of this is the hypocrisy that I, I just, I, I'm
like 2000 children in Amman hospitals.
The third richest country on the planet has the gall I.
To criticize Jordan for not taking 2006 kids from Gaza.
What?
There's no space in American hospitals like, are you kidding me?
This is a country of like 12 million people.
You know, I mean, like it is shocking that they would've publicly voiced this.
And anyone who's watching this and hates Trump and the Republicans or
hates Democrats, uh, and you know, Joe Biden, please for the love of God,
realize they're kind of all morons.
You know, the Nancy Pelosi and RFK can be on the same page.
And that page is quite frankly, like.
I mean it, it's embarrassing for the United States of America to be
putting that kind of pressure on a country that's trying to balance.
I. Incredibly difficult politics and geopolitics.
So, you know, God bless Jordan.
Obviously I'm biased.
I spent four years of my life there as a kid, and I think it's an awesome
country and I think that, uh, they're doing the best in a very, very
difficult region to balance all sorts of different, very difficult landmines.
Um, so.
I think it's embarrassing what, uh, Nancy Pelosi and RFK said, they're
basically accusing, you know, king Abdullah of reneging on his promise
to bring sick children into Ahman.
But it's not that simple, you know?
And if, and if, if they understood that, they would just, you know, swallow
the bullet and say, you know what?
United States of America will take them, because it's become a very
difficult thing for King Abdullah too.
To, to act on.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
It's, it's tone deaf and I, I also appreciate Jordan, just from an
intellectual perspective, because on paper, if you just look at all the things
that like make up Jordan and all the challenges they've had, that country
should not exist geopolitically, I.
Like it doesn't make sense.
The fact that the hash mites have held on as long as they
have doesn't make any sense.
It's actually a, a nice piece, a nice slice of humble pie for geopolitical
analysts, because everything that I know about geopolitics
tells me that Jordan should have collapsed during the Arab Spring.
And the fact that they're still, they're still alive and kicking after taking
all the Syrian refugees after everything with the Palestinians, after Isis on
his borders with the rock, Saudi, all these things, sorry, lemme go further.
Marko Papic: Can I interrupt you and go further that country?
Jacob Shapiro: Please, please, please.
In
Marko Papic: that country may very well in some sort of parallel
universe be a bastion of terrorism.
I mean, you have all these refugees from all these conflicts, uh, vast
majority of them with a bone to pick with Israel, and yet it's been nothing
but an absolute oasis of stability.
And there's many reasons for that.
I think that obviously the Hashemite Marky has done a great job and King Abdullah
has followed in the footsteps of his dad.
But I would also say that it has to do a lot with the Bedwin
culture that they've adopted.
The ability to sort of, you know, listen to everyone, you know, try to be.
Try to take a cold shower before making any big decisions.
So there's a lot of reasons for that.
And obviously the support of the United States has helped, uh, support
of Saudi Arabia as well at times.
Although King Hussein kind of made some mistakes, specifically with
supporting Saddam a little bit during the Gulf, the first Gulf War.
But the point that I'm making is you're absolutely right, and it could
be even worse, not just not exist.
Israel cannot ask for an, honestly, a better neighbor.
And, and yet the actions of Israelis are in the long term imperiling.
That.
So if you are pro-Israeli, if you care about Israel and its existence
in the long term, cast your eye across the river Jordan, and take a moment
to consider what would happen if Jordan, um, you know, destabilized.
What's gonna happen then?
Israel's gonna take the East Bank, you know, I mean, I mean, yeah.
So anyways, that's, I'm, I'm, that's a ran today.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
Yeah.
I, I'm sure there are, uh, Zionist zealots who think that, but yeah,
let, let's not get too far down the
Marko Papic: rabbit hole.
Now we, uh, do our, uh, first commercial read.
Uh, this, uh, podcast is sponsored by, uh, Royal Jordanian visit Jordan.
I'm just kidding.
It's not at all.
Jacob Shapiro: But this was, but, but if anybody from Royal Jordanian
would like to talk about that, please, please email the podcast.
We would love to talk to you Flights to New York
Marko Papic: from Aman three times a week.
I actually have no idea.
Jacob Shapiro: Uh, it's from what I understand from friends who, uh, it might
be the worst airline in No, come on.
One.
One of the worst.
Worst.
I'm sure you have
Marko Papic: clearly not flown Sub-Saharan air lights.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, I was just gonna say, which is a great segue to the
second thing I wanted to talk about.
I know you wanna talk about social media and branding.
But you were the one who sent me that you've been getting.
Pro Ibrahim Chore, I don't think I'm pronouncing that correctly.
Videos, um, on your YouTube algorithm, uh, this is the leader, dictator,
president General, whatever he wants to call himself of Burkina Fasu.
Uh, probably most of our listeners, uh, I don't know, we have a lot
of nerds here, but so Burkina Fasu, landlock country in Africa.
Uh, borders on places like Mali.
Uh, yeah, Mali to the north, Ghana to the south.
Um, doesn't quite touch Nigeria has some Niger, um, that's in there.
Um, also to the south is, um, ivory Coast.
Um, it's about in terms of population, the size of Florida, so landlocked
Florida in the middle of Africa.
Um, over 40% of the population below the poverty line.
Um, agriculture is the primary sector.
It employs 80% of the workforce producing 35% of GDP.
So we're basically in the middle ages here.
Basically, peasants, uh, gold is their biggest export, roughly 70% of exports.
They also export some cottons, some zinc, some phosphates, some livestock.
I hope you're getting the picture of what kind of country this is.
Um, they have a penant for coups.
Um, gosh, how many coups have they had in recent years?
Uh, it's, uh.
19 66, 19 80, 19 82, 19 83, 19 87. Twice in 2000, 2020, uh, 2022.
They also had failed coups in 19 89, 20 15, 20 23.
Um, so, I mean, not exactly the most stable place.
They actually did have a very famous leader named Thomas Sakara.
I was reading about him.
I didn't know about him until I was, uh, doing the background on this.
Marco, who was the 1983 successful coup guy, he got assassinated a
couple years later in coup of 1987.
Um, but was a really interesting guy.
Um, embarked on a nationwide literacy campaign, land re redistribution
to peasants, vaccinating Burkina Faso's children, outlawing, polygamy,
and, uh, female general mutilation.
I mean, was a really, really interesting guy and talked about
Burkina Fosso being the vanguard of the Third world again, assassinated
after like three or four years by his friend in the Burkina Fa military.
Amidst all that Ibrahim chore is now the dictator.
Uh, it seems to me that he has none of.
Those classically liberal, uh, policies of Thomas Sankara.
Uh, but he fancies himself a dictator.
He is cozying up with Russia.
He, uh, went to, I forget which country he was going to for an inauguration,
but he came with a sidearm strapped and like gloves on, like has a whole like
thing for theatrics and things like that.
And Margo, you're getting pro videos of this guy on your YouTube algorithm.
So I hand it over to you.
What have you been watching that?
This is what you get on YouTube my friend.
Marko Papic: So, uh, hopefully we can get smooth to, uh, plug some of them,
you know, just to, uh, to have some of our listeners, uh, sample these.
So basically, I don't really wanna talk about Burkina Faso.
Um, you know, it, it is a large gold producer in the world.
Gold prices are shooting up, so, you know, good for them.
That's, uh, drawing a lot of interest and chore has, uh, kicked out the French.
He's kind of cozied up with the Russians, the Wagner group.
So there's geopolitical sort of side issue here, but I wouldn't overstate it.
No one's gonna fight over Burkina Faso in his gold mines.
Like I bet you anything geopolitical YouTubers are
like all up in arms about that.
No, that's not gonna happen to me.
What's interesting about it is that basically I'm sitting out, I'm sitting,
uh, I think like, I don't know, somewhere trying to watch some NBA highlights.
You know, and one of these YouTube shorts pops up and it's about,
it's a pro like video, so I click on it 'cause I'm like, what?
Burkina Faso.
I haven't heard that country in a long time.
And it's basically some, you know, chill dude who keeps pronouncing
the country's name as Burkina Facia.
Well, I mean, and he just goes, I'm not an
Jacob Shapiro: expert.
May.
Maybe that's the right way to pronounce it.
I don't actually, I don't think so,
Marko Papic: but like he goes off about how it's awesome and I'm like, whatever.
I don't understand where this person came from, but sure.
Going back to watching my Lakers get shredded by the Timberwolves
and then a couple of days later, boom, another one this time.
It's a cute girl.
You know, young Hip, like it would be one of those videos for like how
to put on nice foundation before the makeup goes on and boom, she's
staring at a camera and talking about Burkina Faso and how TRO is awesome.
And then I realized like, wait a minute, this guy is literally.
Like paying people around the world to make these videos.
Like can we just stop for a second and acknowledge that Ibrahim tra dude with
a sidearm and white gloves and like he's actually paying people around the world
or some PR agency to create these poorly engineered yet organic videos about how
he's an awesome revolutionary leader.
I'm just like, wow, geopolitics is gone.
Like, no.
All I'm thinking about like, Jacob, you and I are gonna become like
absolute millionaires and here's why geopolitics is gone like mainstream.
You know, just this guy tr he's, he's on our side.
He's on our corner.
God bless him.
In fact, let me tell you something.
He has shown perseverance.
Fighting off the colonial French who wanted his minds.
I, I'm just kidding.
He actually hasn't paid me yet, so I can't really do the whole bit.
But the point is, it's insane.
Like social media has become a geopolitical battleground now.
I know a lot of people are gonna say, dude, that's always been the case.
Like, you know, Russia has stole the election.
Like, no, no, no, no.
This is much more organic, much more low key, much more lowbrow,
and it's kind of awesome.
Jacob Shapiro: You know, um, he is the exact same age that
I am, so he's younger than you.
In some sense, we should view him as a competitor.
And maybe Marco, it shouldn't be you and I talking.
Maybe we should get some cute girl putting on her foundation and then looking in
the camera and being like Multipolarity and Royal Jordanian Airlines.
What is the combination of these things and why should you listen
to Marco Papich and Jacob Shapiro?
Um.
But so, so, so he is younger than you?
Yes.
And I, I will say, I'll, I take that, I'll take a little bit of the other side, which
is to say, this is obviously Russia is pushing this like the, like this has the
Kremlin's propaganda fingers all over it.
And why they're, maybe they're testing something out.
I don't know.
Like I don't think that Chori was sitting there and was like,
haha, I will use you YouTube.
No disagree.
In order to
Marko Papic: I disagree.
You disagree, Aaron?
Fine.
Go.
I disagree.
I think you nailed it.
And actually I noted his age.
I looked him up.
Yes.
He's like 37.
Right.
Jacob Shapiro: He is 37.
There you go.
So
Marko Papic: I noted that and I was like, no man.
I bet you, I bet you he's doing this himself.
Actually, he may not even like this.
There is a department right in his like communication administrator or something,
and he has literally hired the person to do this because he's 37, because he's
tech savvy, because he probably spends like seven hours a day on YouTube.
This guy is literally paying people to do his branding and pr.
To what end?
I'm not really sure, but I, I for sure hope that he listens to us.
I will do a live show out of Burkina Faso, like bring it.
Jacob Shapiro: Do you know what the capital, Burkina Faso?
Yes, it's
Marko Papic: uga.
Uh, wait.
Jacob Shapiro: Wow.
Something like that.
Okay.
I, yeah, I, I wasn't even gonna try to pronounce it, but I see that.
I see that you have it there.
He also Is that, what is this?
Wait, wait.
How do you, you got
Marko Papic: it, pronounce it.
Jacob Shapiro: I don't know how to pronounce it.
It's spelled O-O-U-A-G-A-D-O-U-G-O-U.
I think it's wa, yes.
Wagu.
It's got some French stuff in there.
Um, he's also got not an, not on an interesting past.
He studied geology and university.
He was part of an association of association of Muslim students and a
Marxist association when he was in school.
Oh.
At the same time,
Marko Papic: this guy is just hedging, hedging, Islamist and Marxist.
You know, like he doesn't care.
I mean, no, this guy, well, his biggest challenge
Jacob Shapiro: is the Jihadists, like Burkina, FASU, Niger,
all these different countries.
I mean, this is like smuggling Central and the Jihadists and all these others
are moving weapons and drugs and people through all these different things.
And the reason that he's in the position that he is and that you've had coups
in all of these different countries, and why they're also mad at the French
is because nobody could stop this and they're dealing with massive insecurity.
And you're probably gonna have a population that is willing to trade.
You know, whatever the heck he wants to do, wearing gloves with his side arm.
If he gives them security, I don't know if he's gonna be able to give them security.
This is a tall task.
This is not, uh, this is not like bouquet le where he can just lock
them all up and then start, you know, uh, uh, harvest, uh, mining Bitcoin
with the powers from the volcano.
Like Burino FSU doesn't really have much that it can really go with, and
he's gonna have to really defeat the GI and listen and he's gonna survive.
So,
Marko Papic: listen, listen.
So what if the gold bugs are right and gold goes to 5,000, right?
Like, look, I just, I just wanna say right away, uh, I Raheem, uh, sorry.
President Tro I, Marco Poppi, I was pretty much the first to notice what you're doing
on social media and call it brilliant.
Uh, when you set up your Sovereign Wealth fund, I. You got your CIO right here.
Boom.
There you go.
Jacob Shapiro: I don't think gold going to 5,000 is gonna
make enough of a difference here.
I think you're overstating it.
It
Marko Papic: probably, it probably won't.
It's actually, uh, look, it's a large country, as you said, the size of Florida.
Uh, lots of people.
Um, I think it's like 38 million or something like that.
Um, and, uh, so yeah, uh, lots of challenges.
This isn't, uh.
This isn't an easy country to run, actually.
What is the population?
Let's see here.
I don't think I got that
Jacob Shapiro: right.
Think's like 0.3 23 million.
Marko Papic: It is 23.
My bad.
Yeah, I just doubled.
Well, you know what?
I'm already thinking and I already took Ghana, uh, for my future,
uh, president, so there you go.
I just combined it with Ghana.
But anyways, look, the point is, joking aside, I think that it's fascinating.
Like I should not, my, my YouTube algorithm obviously
is trying to figure me out.
Knows I'm a basketball fan and I guess love geopolitics,
so he just like targeted me.
But I wonder if any other of our listeners were targeted with these
random videos of a random president.
Like, and, and to what end?
I don't know, but I do know that geopolitics is becoming far more
mainstream than just a bunch of nerds.
You know, IR nerds who like went to model United Nations in high school.
Jacob Shapiro: Maybe one of our listeners will tell us that there's
much a do here about nothing.
But there, you're not the first one to notice it.
I hate to burst your bubble, like in just the last month.
Oh.
The, the Economist had a profile of him.
The Council on Foreign Relations had a negative profile, like most of these
things being anti his policies and talking about him as a pro-Russian
Force, anti French, anti the west.
That's not the point.
But did talk
Marko Papic: about social media.
Jacob Shapiro: Uh, they all, uh, not as much that you, you have the social media
thing, but I'm just saying that like, they got in the economists' algorithm
and they got in the CFRs algorithm so that they're like focusing on this
guy, which there are tons of different places all around the world where you
probably have leaders who would love to have a profile in the Economist, even
if it's a negative one and they don't.
And this guy does.
So something is happening where he is like, he's winning, getting on
the radar of, of Western states and of English press to, to what end?
Like, like with you?
I'm not quite sure, but it's happening.
It's, it's interesting that it's happening.
So, um, okay.
Um, that is segment number two.
Segment number three.
You wanted to talk about geopolitical quantitative.
Quantitative titan.
Yeah, I have no idea where you're going with this.
Why don't you lead us off?
Marko Papic: Alright.
Well, the, you know what, uh, two, so I've been traveling the world,
um, over the last three weeks.
So I did an around the world trip to visit my clients and give some speeches.
It started with Hong Kong, Singapore, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, musket, Riyadh.
I'm actually recording this out of Vadu in Liechtenstein, um,
where I had some great fun with clients and, and, and good friends.
And, uh, it's interesting to me that nobody's really panicking.
You know, Americans are kind of panicking about President Trump and the tariffs.
The rest of the world is not, they're not happy about it.
But I didn't get a sense of, you know, that the rest of the world
thinks that the world is collapsing.
So that was, that was interesting.
I did not get asked about a recession at all.
No, I got asked about
Jacob Shapiro: because we're already in one.
Sorry.
Marko Papic: Yeah, no, and that's fine.
Like we, we, we might be already in one, but you know, it's like whatever.
Sure.
Whatever.
It'll be fine.
Uh, and maybe that's a sign that it won't be fine by the
way, and that's perfectly fine.
Um, I understand that.
But what was interesting to me was, first of all, everyone's already kind
of comfortable with this world, and I mentioned earlier Saudi Arabia.
You know, and I uh, mentioned basically how after the up cake cur attack in 2019.
Saudi Arabia realized that it was, you know, it, it was kind of on its own,
and so it had to make the deal with Iran without American participation.
And then two things happened over the past week or so.
First of all, we have India, Pakistan exchanging fires.
We talked about that last podcast.
And Vice President Shady Vance said very similar to President
Trump's comments in the Houthis.
He basically said like, look.
America wishes that these two countries would settle their differences peacefully,
and we certainly would hope that they do so, but it's not our fight.
So you've got JD Vance basically saying like, look, India and
Pakistan, like, God bless you both.
We hope that you figure it out.
And then President Trump saying like, well, we made a deal with the
Houthis, like everyone else have fun.
And so there are two ways to interpret this one.
Is this hegemonic stability thesis, you know?
This is why Unipolarity is so good.
Charles Kindleberger famous economic historian, wrote
about this in various books.
Um, this idea that the Hegemon provides, uh, it solves the collective
action dilemma of the world by providing global public goods such as
literally the freedom of navigation.
So the Houthis ex, uh, example being very important because the US has effectively
just announced that it will no longer.
Provide a very expensive global public good, which is
free seaborne transportation.
Like they, they will do so for their own ships and so.
So the, the consensus view is basically that without hegemonic stability, you
have, you know, multipolar instability.
There is no more America ensuring that the rest of the world is going to be safe.
This is effectively the beginning of the end of the world as our former,
uh, colleague and, and good friend Peter Zion, you know, wrote his book.
But then.
I have a different way to interpret this, especially when I look at what's
happened with Iran and Saudi Arabia making a, a, a very stable detant,
which has ensured that the Israeli Palestinian conflict doesn't actually
spill over the rest of the Middle East.
I mean, yes, Iran and Israel Exchange missile fire, but it hasn't spread
to the rest of the Middle East.
And in fact, the rest of the Middle East is quite.
Quite stable.
I just visited three countries in the Persian Gulf and they're awesome.
There's absolutely nothing.
No, I mean, there's absolutely nothing going on there.
That's wrong.
It would be like saying West Germany and Denmark are unstable because the Iron
Curtain is next door during the Cold War.
Well, that wasn't the case.
Yes, iron Curtain countries behind it.
Were in a bad shape, but West Germany was freaking awesome.
So what I'm saying is that.
Iran and Saudi Arabia actually came to an agreement.
They had to sit down like adults.
They had to, they had to talk, they had to delineate their interests
and they had to resolve their differences in, in a very frosty way.
No one's saying there's peace between them.
What I'm getting at is this, yes, you can view American hegemony and provision
of all these public goods as a very.
Very stable, but at some point it can also become like quantitative easing qe and,
and many people in finance know that with a central bank flooded the economy with
effectively cheap money with qe, it's.
It saved us from the great financial crisis and it's aftermath.
Absolutely.
I'm definitely not one of those people who shaked their little fist and angrily,
you know, because I was short for the next four years and got my face ripped off.
But at the same time, we all know that it created distortions in the economy.
So, in other words, when, when a hegemon provides stability, it does so in a way
that distorts reality and often countries and regions and entire geographies
become addicted to that provision of, you know, cheap geopolitical.
Um, stability.
You have vassal states that effectively act with impunity because
they are supported by the hegemon.
You have rivals that feel slighted, that feel normatively and ideologically
opposed in an existential way where they cannot come to an agreement
and that creates instability.
So the Withdrawal Withdrawal of American support or American oversight or American
Geopolitical qe, so that you know, in financial terms would be quantitative
tightening, which by the way, the Fed has been doing for several years and
everybody thought it would end humanity.
It hasn't at all.
Similarly.
The United States of America withdrawing its overarching
support may not create instability.
In fact, it may create stability because countries have to act
with each other, like adults.
They no longer, you know, countries that are American allies like Israel
or Ukraine or Taiwan, may not have the blank check that they once had.
Which is not a bad thing.
It may force them to actually consider their security and threat environment
and say, look, we don't have America at their back all the time, so we
should actually sit down with our neighbors, with our rivals and create
a geopolitical equilibrium that is effectively, you know, uh, more durable.
They can, they can withstand a Donald Trump, they can withstand
in the future a president, a OC.
And so that's, that's kind of my lesson over the last couple of weeks
that that's gotten me thinking that maybe we overstate how beneficial.
Hegemonic stability is,
Jacob Shapiro: yeah, I think I would, I think I would push
back or, or caveat in two ways.
I think you're right that I think you're right for strong and developed
powers, because now stable balances of power have to emerge rather than a
hegemon being responsible for everything else and people pushing against
the hegemon and things like that.
But as you can see in places like Burkina Fasu or in Congo or with Indian
Pakistan, like places on the periphery.
Those places get worse because those places become the proxy wars
that the Olympians use to fight their battles because they're
not gonna fight their battles.
So sort of to your point with real wars, Russia tried to do that and
look where Russia is right now.
Nobody else is gonna do that, China included with Taiwan in my opinion.
But it's in those like forgotten places of the world that nobody really cares about.
I think that actually the lack of hegemonic power, and it's not even
hegemonic power, the lack of international order, like those are the places
that I think it shows up the most.
And the second is, um.
I think you're right for, for the snapshot in history where.
Countries are all trying to take advantage of the multipolar system.
But previous area eras of multipolarity eventually go to the point where you
have countries that get strong enough in their own backyards where they think
they can be the global hegemon, or they have an imperative, say like Japan in
the early 19 hundreds to become a hegemon because otherwise they can't continue to
grow or can't continue to do the things that geopolitics is forcing them to do.
So you have this.
Period.
I think you're right of like stable dynamism where you have
balancing against each other.
But if you get to the point where say, uh, and we're not there,
people have been calling this about China for example, for decades.
The moment where China really can't feed itself or can't power itself and
it has to go out and get those things from other places, and it needs, you
know, a Blue Water Navy to do that.
It needs to fight the Americans or the Russians or anybody else, wherever
they are, in order to secure access to those resources, and they think
that they're strong enough to do it.
Well, suddenly you can get sort of global war.
So I, the caveat there is, I think you're right in the short term, I just think
that if you go too far in that direction and you get countries that begin to
drink the Kool-Aid and believe that they are themselves, regional hegemons,
then you get the, the possibility of some of these global conflicts.
And I think the hardest thing for countries in
navigating the multipolar era.
We'll be 20 years from now that we're not in World War ii because I think if
things go unchecked and if you get the US on one side and China on one side, and
Europe and all of these mutually exclusive interests and countries that think they
are strong enough or deserve different things, like then you can get into the
situation that we were in in the early 19 hundreds and, and mid 19 hundreds.
But I, I think broadly speaking, like that's the reason I am so
like optimistic from an investment perspective over the next 10 to 15 years.
This should be a time of booming, not of, to your point, like constraint.
Marko Papic: Well, I mean, uh, but let's, let's put ourselves
back in 1914, you know?
Mm-hmm.
I may have done this with the podcast before, so stop me if I have, but
Jacob Shapiro: you know, I don't think, I don't remember this.
Marko Papic: Okay, so let's, let's say the go of Princip,
you know, shut out to my people.
Serbs original terrorists since 1914, uh, started World War I, right.
Um, shot.
The, uh, crown Prince of basically Aster Hungary in Sarajevo, and
that launches World War I. Now, let's imagine, let's create a
scenario, a game where that happens.
But every great power is a nuclear power.
Mm-hmm.
So Serbia is not a great power.
So no nukes for Serbia, but also Hungary is, they have nukes, Russia has nukes.
Uh.
German Empire has nukes, France has nus, have
Jacob Shapiro: nukes,
Marko Papic: uh, let's say no.
Jacob Shapiro: Oh, okay.
That's, that's, uh, throwing some shade at the Ottomans, but, okay.
What, let's throw some shade.
I mean, like, they, they had the Janice series.
They were ahead of most people and, but fine.
No, no nukes for the Turks.
Yeah.
Well put Turkey.
Turkey.
Please remember that I was sticking up for you in this conversation.
You can have Burkina Fasu, uh, to, to our listeners in Istanbul and Ra with
Marko Papic: you.
Yeah, well, I mean, Janice series were mostly serves in Albanians, first of all.
But, uh, let's, let's not forget that.
Also, also, uh, United Kingdom has nukes, but here's what happens in that scenario.
I think in that scenario, what happens is Austria-Hungary attack Serbia as
they did, they get their asses kicked, which, which happened in real life.
They, they, they're shockingly loose.
Then they invade Serbia again, and as in real life, they get their asses kicked.
So it was only with a third attempt that the Austrians actually won,
and it was because the Germans came along this third time.
And so I think what happens in.
The world, if everybody has nukes, is that basically Austria-Hungary versus
Serbia becomes a Russia versus Ukraine conflict, United Kingdom, France.
Then Russia supports Serbia with weapons, um, and Germany supports
Austria-Hungary with weapons.
And it's basically, you know, like these two blocks fighting a proxy
war such as the Korean warp, such as Vietnam warp to an extent.
And ultimately what's happening right now, uh, in other words,
we don't get to World War I.
We get to an Austria-Hungary versus Serbia conflict over effectively Bosnia
here, governor, which Austrians lose.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
And, and to your point, I mean, and maybe, maybe not a lot of people even die
because both sides at this point also have drones and artificial intelligence, and
it's just a battle of who has the best drones and robots and things like that.
And then whoever wins gets to conquer the social media, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, of that country.
And you go forward.
But, and obviously,
Marko Papic: yeah.
Sorry, go ahead.
Jacob Shapiro: No, I just, the, the, the devil's advocate is.
Um, at the time when World War I broke out, like the, I, the prevailing
conventional theory was that economies were so interconnected that no country
would choose to go to war because it would be catastrophic for their
economies, and therefore they wouldn't.
Um, I think we've already, like that was proven wrong, like
countries were willing to do that.
Um, and we, I think we've seen that with the trade war.
Now, the extent to which the trade war has already gone shows you that
economic interconnectedness does not stop countries when they think their
geopolitical interests are at stake.
The, the way I'm gonna push back against you though, is that.
The notion that nukes will prevent great power conflict from breaking out feels
a little bit to me, like, oh, economic interconnectedness will obviously prevent
countries from going to war with each other because it would destroy them
like it has worked that way thus far.
But I, I don't know.
I'm not so saying when that, that is always gonna be the case.
Marko Papic: Well, look, there's two ways to look at this Jacob.
Number one is that I'm right.
Because people,
wait, wait.
Just lay.
Let,
Jacob Shapiro: let, let.
I know it was, it was just funny the way you phrased it.
There are two ways to look at this.
First of all, I'm right.
Marko Papic: First of all, I'm right.
Second of all, you're wrong.
No, that would be the same thing.
No.
First of all, I'm right, and the reason I would be right is because it's much
easier for a mere pleb to understand.
Being incinerated by thermonuclear device.
Then like how the web of interconnected finance and economy prevents conflict.
In other words, like there is a, there's a real challenge in accepting nuclear war.
Even amongst the dumbest of us.
Right?
So that's, that would be the first.
The second way to think about it is that you are correct.
I'll be wrong.
There'll be the nuclear war and then we'll all die.
But I'm gonna stick to my view because, and I'll tell you why.
If there is a thermonuclear war and you are correct.
The entire listening base of geopolitical cousins will, for a split second,
think that Marco Pop is a moron, and that will be the last thought they
have as they're incinerated, and I'm just comfortable with that view.
I'm comfortable with being wrong for three seconds, so I'm gonna
say that I'll be correct the
Jacob Shapiro: best, the best three seconds of my life.
Um, well, I I I don't, I don't wanna make it, I don't wanna get too grim
and too dystopian here, but Ha have you read, um, Mustafa Suleiman's book,
the Coming Wave Technology Power?
21st Century's greatest dilemma.
It's about like the sort of artificial intelligence and there's a chapter about
the intersection with biotechnology where the point that like some kid
in his garage with CRISPR could like create a virus that could go after
a particular family or a particular ethnicity, ethnic group you can.
Um, so like, you're, you're probably right, like in the outlier, thermonuclear
war, like, probably not gonna happen.
The nuclear powers aren't gonna do battle against each other.
Maybe Austria-Hungary, nukes, uh, Serbia in your, in your
metaphor or something like that.
But nobody's gonna nuke Austria-Hungary.
'cause then Austria-Hungary is gonna nuke them.
But could you have some radical in Austria-Hungary?
He was like, okay, I have now created a weapon that will wipe out the Serbians.
And then like, you know, what's gonna happen next is somebody gonna create
a virus that tries to wipe out the leaders of the, of Austria-Hungary
or the Austro-Hungarian themselves.
Like I, I think it starts to take us down these paths where maybe things
get really dark and, and really twisty.
So, so maybe it's not nukes that we should be worried about.
Maybe there are other ways that, that conflict and other weapons that,
that make that conflict less safer.
Marko Papic: That's fair.
That's very dark, very fair.
Um, I think to me thus far, look, I mean, the problem with nukes is
that I. 99 out of a hundred times.
Marco may be right, but the one time he's wrong.
I mean, obviously it will be very bad.
Um, and yet here we are, India and Pakistan have a clear
security dilemma be between them.
Uh, Pakistan used to be equivalent to India in terms of military strength.
In the past, that hasn't been the case for like 50, 60 years.
I mean, I, I don't even know.
Uh, and yet there's a balance of power.
And yet there's this very choreographed, you know, conflict every time.
Like nuclear weapons.
Clearly.
I think clearly like if, if, if the, if the, if the South Asia subcontinent
didn't have nuclear weapons, I mean, don't you think that India,
given its massively overwhelming now advantage over the last at least 50
years, would have at some point just said like, what are we doing here?
Like, these guys can't fight us.
Jacob Shapiro: No, I think, I think you're actually making my point for me, which
is I think neither e Indian nor Pakistan believes it can conquer the other.
And that the noster there, to your point, is a defensive fail safe.
But we have not reached a point where either side can confidently
say to itself that we can conquer them and our government can survive
the political consequences or the pain that would come from doing this.
Like, sure, there's a billion Indians and there's 300 million Pakistanis.
How many Indians would have to die and a conventional war to number, wait a
minute, number one, conquer Pakistan, and then to actually govern it, like
it's just not realistic, but you could.
You could get to a scenario.
I don't think China's gonna do this, but let's, so let me say that now, right?
This is absolutely fantastical.
But let's say United States continues to decline.
We don't make ships anymore.
We only have 200 ships in the Navy.
We're having measles outbreaks everywhere.
China has become a true blue water Navy.
It's the everything else, and they decide.
Um, you know what?
We're gonna sail up the Mississippi and, and take the United States like
we think we can do this and we're tired of this Western power, whatever.
And it does.
The United States at that moment say, oh, the only thing we have
is nukes, like existentially.
We have to survive.
We fire the nukes back.
Like it has to be some type of scenario where a great power thinks
it can off another great power and then they have to resort to nuke.
'cause it's like a last.
Sort of ditch effort that,
Marko Papic: but I, I actually, I think you're creating a straw man
and way too much of a high threshold because, you know, India and
Pakistan could have a conventional war where a lot of people die.
But overall limited.
I mean, because I, I just don't see what would be the point of India conquering
Pakistan for what end to what end?
I don't think they would ever contemplate that, but Kashmir like
taking all of it like that is a reasonable goal for a country to.
Decide to start a conventional war over, and even that conflict has been prevented.
And by the way, India has, has genuine, genuinely an overwhelming
conventional military superiority.
So clearly the reason it hasn't decided to do that is because of
the Pakistani nuclear deterrent.
So even a smaller conflict has been prevented.
Jacob Shapiro: Or, or because it doesn't have the imperative to do it
and the capability to do it, you're right that India is the, is a bad
example from that point of view.
The good example is the one I brought up earlier, which is early
19 hundreds Japan, which is to continue to survive and to grow.
Japan was forced to become imperialistic and like, you
know, dominant and militarily aggressive, and so they had to take.
C the, the East Indies, they had to take parts of China.
They had to take parts of Russia.
They had to continue to expand until they had enough control to actually maintain
their economy the way that was gonna be.
So you'd have to have a, a, a country with that kind of imperative that says, no, I
will go after the great powers, because if I don't, then the United States can just
cut off my oil and I'm done in six months.
Or, you know, China can just say something, great example, and I'm done.
That's a, so, um, I think that's a very, a very good
Marko Papic: example.
That's how Ity fails.
Yep.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, exactly.
And it's why China's maybe the scariest of, of all the countries,
because China has echoes of that.
Like China in its, in its vast history, usually can do things itself.
It's the middle kingdom.
It looks inwards, it thinks everybody else is barbarians.
But if you get to the point where China does truly have to look outward and has
to secure its interest by being a global hegemon, and if it starts to believe
that it can do that or must do that, like then you then multipolarity starts
to shift into a sort of darker place.
Marko Papic: And there, there are two.
You know, we should probably dedicate a whole hour to China at some point,
but I think there's two, there's two views on this, including in
China, including with mainland China strategists and scholars and academics.
And one is that no, China is genuinely different civilization.
And then there's the other view which says no.
Uh, you know, since the end of the last basically dynasty and
the collapse of the SEN temporary regime, China has effectively
adopted the operating software.
I. From, you know, Europe of a nation state.
And that does mean that they will eventually think like Japan did, like
the United States does, thinking in terms of spheres of influence, regional
hegemony, global hegemony, and so on.
And so, uh, you know, I guess, I guess given your example, the world
better hope that the Chinese do think there are different civilization,
that they won't fall down the same path as every other regional and, uh.
Global Hegemon.
Jacob Shapiro: I think they do, and I think they are.
But the United States one thought that it was too and
like history and defend it too.
Marko Papic: To your point, of all the countries that decided to wholeheartedly
just adopt the operating system of European nation state, I mean,
I think Japan is a great example.
And so studying that early 20th century Japan and why it embarked on.
The decisions it did, I think is very interesting.
Of course, at the time imperialism was on mode, you know, so like the,
you know, Japanese models at the time, their, their example were the
expanding German empire talking about its place in the sun, the Russian empire
next door, um, you know, Europeans.
And so I can see how they.
They thought that they were behind on imperialism, but nonetheless,
I think your point is valid.
Imperialism's back,
Jacob Shapiro: baby.
Uh, we, we've got pictures of William McKinley in the White House.
Remember?
Like, it's, it's back.
Yes, it's, it's, it's here to stay.
All right.
I gotta go pick up my kit.
That was a good 55 minutes.
We'll get back to y'all next week.