If the West Is Collapsing, What Comes Next in 2027? - Prof. Jiang Xueqin

So I guess one of the darker predictions of yours is that we are now well on our way to uh World War II. Um I just wanted to ask uh why why this is um what are you looking at? Is this possible triggers? Do you look at the chain reactions? because well as we saw from the previous two world wars uh one thing tends to lead to another and u one gets sucked in and there doesn't seem to be a a reverse button at any point. Uh so what is it that you're assessing? Okay. So uh my first piece of evidence

is the American national security strategy which is which was just published um one or two weeks ago and it and it and it's very clear in that America uh maybe four years ago saw uh the world as possibly being organized and coordinated by multilateral organizations. was important was for America to be the um enforcer or the police officer to ensure that people abide by the uh rulesbased national order and in this document uh Trump is very clear this order has dissipated

it's gone and so now that the only thing that matters is national national self-interest so America needs to protect its own national self-interest that primarily means protecting the western hemisphere what it calls the mineral doctrine there something called a Trump corery to the mineral doctrine which is to say that trouble want to enforce the world doctrine. Um so um America believes that Russia and China have been encroaching too deeply into South America especially China which has

a lot of um trade investment agreements with South America to the benefit of the people there. But America has always always believed that South America is American territory and so now it will protect its territory and that's why we are seeing the escalation in Venezuela. We're seeing uh 10% of America's naval assets um um consolidate in the Caribbean. And recently there's escalation um American forces have have basically stolen a Venezuela oil tanker and diverted it to Houston, Texas. Um so

America by enforcing the mineral doctrine um this means that America will now come into conflict with the entire entire South America because when America is now threatening Venezuela, Brazil, um Colombia, Mex Mexico, they all see their sovereignty being infringed upon. Um so that's um one piece of evidence. The second piece of evidence is of course what's happening between Russia and Ukraine. This war between Russia and Ukraine is essentially over. Uh Russia is storming

in the battlefield. The morale in Ukraine has collapsed. There's about 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers who have deserted. There are millions who have fled abroad. So Ukraine doesn't have the manpower nor the resources uh nor the willpower to continue this fight. At the same time, the Europeans insist that the the Ukrainians continue to fight. Um, so there's talk among Europeans of confiscating, stealing those 210 billion euros that it has um from from Russia assets and giving it directly to

Ukraine. It's up this idea because they they understand it's suicidal. And so now they're they they've um they're about to give Ukraine 100 million euros um in loans and interest free loans to continue continue this war. And the reason why is that Europe needs to needs to enter this war at some point and it's afraid that if there's a peace treaty then uh Russia will will be able to consolidate its gains and then use Ukrainian resources to challenge European supremacy. So that's a second

Ukraine. It's up this idea because they they understand it's suicidal. And so now they're they they've um they're about to give Ukraine 100 million euros um in loans and interest free loans to continue continue this war. And the reason why is that Europe needs to needs to enter this war at some point and it's afraid that if there's a peace treaty then uh Russia will will be able to consolidate its gains and then use Ukrainian resources to challenge European supremacy. So that's a second

major front. Then of course what what we're seeing in the Middle East is a continuing escalation between Israel and Iran. So there was a peace treaty signed uh between Israel and different parties, Hamas, Hezbollah. It seems as though Israel has no respect for these treaties. Uh it seems as though that Israel is planning to attack Hezbollah and Lebanon in the next two weeks. um the Hamas peace treaty will not hold because Hamas will not uh agree to give up all its arms because if it does so

major front. Then of course what what we're seeing in the Middle East is a continuing escalation between Israel and Iran. So there was a peace treaty signed uh between Israel and different parties, Hamas, Hezbollah. It seems as though Israel has no respect for these treaties. Uh it seems as though that Israel is planning to attack Hezbollah and Lebanon in the next two weeks. um the Hamas peace treaty will not hold because Hamas will not uh agree to give up all its arms because if it does so

then it will be it will wipe out it will be wiped out by these Israeli proxies. So the middle Middle East will only flare up. You know, there was this um shooting in America of this nuclear physicist and then there was this tragedy on Bonnie Beach in Sydney in Australia where 16 uh people died and Israel is is pinning the blame on Iran with absolutely no evidence. There are these MSAD officers who flown to Australia to participate in the investigation and we can suspect that um

they will blame Iran in some way for what has happened. So all around the world we're seeing the potential for massive flare-ups in 2026. >> Well, it seems like uh one of the major things uh which are changing which you suggested as well is the the change of the entire world order though. But usually new world order would only consolidate itself after a world war. That is if you have massive distribution of power, there's often little ability of the international system to reform

itself. Usually we need a big war and then a new status quo can be cemented in agreements. But this is such a critical time it seems because the whole world order after the cold war again the uh has been based on hedge money dominance and now of course that distribution of power is gone. It is a multipolar distribution of power. So it's very or near impossible to transition peacefully though because uh the old war which was based on US primacy now needs to find a

itself. Usually we need a big war and then a new status quo can be cemented in agreements. But this is such a critical time it seems because the whole world order after the cold war again the uh has been based on hedge money dominance and now of course that distribution of power is gone. It is a multipolar distribution of power. So it's very or near impossible to transition peacefully though because uh the old war which was based on US primacy now needs to find a

whole new system on a balance of power. I mean this changes absolutely everything. The rules of the games change as as you suggested. Uh I mean why did the US says no now China and Russia can't be in this backyard but the US of course can still be in the backyard of Russia and China. So there there's no acceptable rules. Uh the institutions will change the security. Well, I mean should should I still be based only on deterrence and dominance? If there's now many centers of power, it

doesn't really make sense. Uh how diplomacy is conducted. Uh I I just feel like this is very difficult topics. But no one seemed willing to accept the reality or even discuss it. I mean here in Europe um the the the overall sentiment or narrative is that all was well and peaceful. Freedom and democracy was just uh spreading and then you know evil showed up and usually has to be personified by Putin or Xiinping and um it has to be confronted must be destroyed and then peace somehow can

return. I mean this is a very childish way of uh saying that they want hedgeim money back and um I guess I say childish because there's no strategy in terms of what they want to achieve how they can achieve it means that's required it's just this emotional outburst and slogans about what is unjust and uh as our hedgemony was so virtuous everyone was benefiting uh but you see this is a problem the inability of our actual political leaders to address the critical time we're at and

return. I mean this is a very childish way of uh saying that they want hedgeim money back and um I guess I say childish because there's no strategy in terms of what they want to achieve how they can achieve it means that's required it's just this emotional outburst and slogans about what is unjust and uh as our hedgemony was so virtuous everyone was benefiting uh but you see this is a problem the inability of our actual political leaders to address the critical time we're at and

uh why we we need to essentially find a new status quo or or is is it the inability to let go of hedgeimon is it just that the rules are changing I mean how can we explain this >> yeah I completely agree your assessment um so before this idea of the liberal rulesbased natural order it's basically these western nations uh bullying exploiting and colonizing the rest of the world so uh For 20 years, NATO was expanding um into Russian sphere of influence. Um and for 20 years, Putin

has been warning uh NATO, you have to stop, otherwise we have to react. We have to protect our sovereignty. Um and NATO refused to listen. Um NATO was extremely arrogant and that force is put in his hand. Then China for the longest time was the um basically the factory to the world and China agreed to produce really cheap products to to the world which increased people centered living and that made western consumers really happy. But then came the 2009 financial crisis when basically because of

circulation because of um uh stupid policym because of greed the western economy collapsed and so what happened was that the western central banks demand that China um invest in infrastructure and so for next 10 years China was digging digging itself into a hole with all this infrastructure spending and eventually China decided we don't have enough resources is to continue all this um spending on infrastructure. And now the American economy has collapsed because the

American consumers have maxed out their credit cards. The American consumers have been exported for the past few decades and they can no longer uh afford to spend any more money. So now what America demands is that Chinese consumers start spending money. Chinese consumers start maxing out their credit cards and that China liberalize its financial markets and China says we we will not surrender our sovereignty and so uh China China is being bullied by America uh under the first Trump

administration they start to levy all these terrorists on China um and it's continue under the um Trump administration and America insisted on all these um bullying tactics for example denying uh China access to technology to markets. Um re um a few years ago the Huawei executive uh Mwen Joel she was arrested transiting in Vancouver and she was put under detention for a number of years until she was finally let go. So um for the longest time America and his allies were

able to bully the world and over time Russia and China have stood up and Europe and America don't like that and that's that's the world we live in today. >> Well I feel like we watched this movie before to some extent or that is uh before World War I. We saw with the rise of Germany that it effectively outgrew the British dominated system. So again a shift of power the British hedgeimon was declining Germany as a regional power inc increased. So in 1871 for example uh Britain produced twice as

much steel as Germany which was a good indicator of economic power. And 22 years later by 1893 the German steel production had already then surpassed the British. And uh by the time World War I broke out in 1914 uh German steel production had doubled that of Britain. So that's a very short period of time for the whole relationship to be put on its head. Now you know you can say power shifts up and down but this is uh this is uh quite critical because the whole European

security architecture then was still British dominated. So you have then Germany producing twice as much steel yet all its major waterways that is outside you know internally in Germany are patrolled and controlled by the British. It's it it doesn't really make much sense. uh but uh it seems you know after World War II we saw the same the Germans outgrew the the the the regional uh security architecture and um I was wondering do you see this historical patterns because

we have a similar thing now I mean the Chinese economy has been the biggest in the world in terms of purchasing power parity since 2014 while in in Russia we had you know after co after the cold war we decided let's develop a European security architecture where they wouldn't have a seat at the table because we thought they're weak. They're only going to get weaker. We're going to manage their decline. That that would be the new Europe. So, another treat of Versailles essentially. So, but

now we ended up in a situation where the Russians reversed and now they have the largest state, this largest economy, territory population military yet they're supposed to be the only country in Europe which doesn't have a seat at the table. So, all these red flags should be going up. I feel that this system is not going to produce stability but war. But yet again, we we we can't even discuss this. I mean, if you listen to the the European politicians and uh

there's stenographers in the media, it's it's just well, you know, we have freedom and democracy and Russia want empire and then this is it. It's just a good old-fashioned good versus evil. I mean, it's quite extraordinary. But do you see um historical continuity on some other levels? Look, I mean, for the past 20 years, um, Britain, Great Britain has been the chief insecure of wars throughout the world. Um, you know, you look, you go back to World War I, and one of the

great injustices of that war was that Germany was forced to accept all guilt for causing the war. Um, when in fact, you could argue that Britain had more to do with the cause of World War I than than German uh than German Germany did. Okay? And the reason why is that Britain subscribes to an idea called the Mckender Heartland thesis. And the idea is that Britain is a small country with very little manpower but it controls the seas. So in order to maintain its

hijgemony, it needs to create as much chaos and conflict within the Eurasian continent as much as possible because if a major power to arise in the Asian continent, whether it be France or the Oman Empire or Germany or Russia, then it would unite the Eurasian continent by railway and it would negate um sea trade and so Britain would collapse economically militarily um demographically and so for the past 20 years uh Britain has been sowing as much chaos as poss possible throughout the

Eurasian continent. So you go back to the nepotic wars when Britain sponsored finance seven major wars against France. Napoleon had basically conquered the continent by the by the battle of Arcelitz. Austrian and Russia were suddenly defeated but Britain was still working behind the scenes financing um wars because Britain could not afford for France to consolidate Europe and create a continental system which is what Napoleon wanted. And then you fast forward to Germany in the same same

Eurasian continent. So you go back to the nepotic wars when Britain sponsored finance seven major wars against France. Napoleon had basically conquered the continent by the by the battle of Arcelitz. Austrian and Russia were suddenly defeated but Britain was still working behind the scenes financing um wars because Britain could not afford for France to consolidate Europe and create a continental system which is what Napoleon wanted. And then you fast forward to Germany in the same same

situation. Um so Britain is cannot allow any power to emerge in Eurasia. And today America subscribes to the same concept where um as you say there's a parallel between what happened before war between Britain and Germany and now between China and America where China is a manufacturing superpower and it needs all these resources from South America. South Africa has something called the lithium triangle. Uh Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia. And that that's about 50%

situation. Um so Britain is cannot allow any power to emerge in Eurasia. And today America subscribes to the same concept where um as you say there's a parallel between what happened before war between Britain and Germany and now between China and America where China is a manufacturing superpower and it needs all these resources from South America. South Africa has something called the lithium triangle. Uh Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia. And that that's about 50%

of the world's lithium, which is crucial for EVs, for um AI um for for for the future basically. And so um China's been invested heavily in South America building roads, building infrastructure. There's this mega port that is building in Peru to uh facilitate trade. Um and South America has been very receptive and welcoming of Chinese investment. But America cannot allow China to continue to rise and that's why America is going to use its sea power to disrupt global

trade. Right? So um we we we've seen American troops boarding this Venezuela oil tanker. But you know um there was also this Chinese ship headed to Iran and it was boarded as well. So um this is this blatant piracy. America for the past 50 years says that we will defend global trade and now America in order to defend its empire in order to weaken China and Russia is now resorting to global piracy. Basically, >> what is interesting about the end of World War I though is uh every historian

trade. Right? So um we we we've seen American troops boarding this Venezuela oil tanker. But you know um there was also this Chinese ship headed to Iran and it was boarded as well. So um this is this blatant piracy. America for the past 50 years says that we will defend global trade and now America in order to defend its empire in order to weaken China and Russia is now resorting to global piracy. Basically, >> what is interesting about the end of World War I though is uh every historian

or more or less every historian recognizes that the treaty of Versailles put in place at the end of the war set us on a path to a second world war because it didn't create a sustainable place for Germany in the new Europe. However, if you would say that Germany was provoked to start World War II, then you're a Nazi sympathizer. So, so it's it's very strange, you know, it's more or less the same thing, but I think it speaks to the to the mentality that if you if you recognize something, you

acknowledge it, then you legitimize it. It just feels like we're a little bit back there at the moment because this the Russian invasion, it couldn't possibly be more in provoked. This was provoked in every way, but uh and you can easily prove this, but you're not allowed to say it because then you're legitimizing the invasion. And of course uh you have to be cancelled immediately. But um I I thought the Eurasian heartland comment was interesting though as you said it derives to some extent

from the Napoleonic system when they wanted to consolidate Europe, cut off the British as a maritime power and then that that that would destroy them. So this kind of made the British convinced that you just have to keep the European powers divided. Of course, 120 years ago, this came into a more cohesive theory in terms of machiner. But uh but in the 19th century, the British were fighting Russia as a potential hedgeimon of Eurasia. And in the 20th century, the

American security strategists also refer to the heartland theory because they saw uh yeah, they also saw them as the maritime power versus the Russian land power. But today though, Eurasia is not hegemonic. And while the goal in the past was primarily to split the Russians from the Germans, you know, always to push them out to Asia. This is why we did the Crimean War against the Russians as well in the mid-9th century. But now when you push Russia into Asia, it doesn't push it into an economic

backwaters. It pushes it straight into the arms of the most the largest industrial power and technological power now in the world, which is China, at least one of the two. So uh it's it's a very different setting. So how do you assess this new new eur new Eurasia? I mean one shouldn't overestimate the ability of them to harmonize their interest and work cohesively. But there is a commonality though. The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, I mean Iranians, many of them have competing

backwaters. It pushes it straight into the arms of the most the largest industrial power and technological power now in the world, which is China, at least one of the two. So uh it's it's a very different setting. So how do you assess this new new eur new Eurasia? I mean one shouldn't overestimate the ability of them to harmonize their interest and work cohesively. But there is a commonality though. The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, I mean Iranians, many of them have competing

interests. But none but none of them wants to be dominated by uh by a maritime power anymore. So how do you see this impacting or does it impact this path to World War II? >> Yeah, I mean exactly. So um you know the Mckender Hogan thesis is is something that's ascribed to both by the American Empire as well as the British Empire. And so what's happening is that because of American aggression that because this system the final system where the US dollar is the world's reserve currency

interests. But none but none of them wants to be dominated by uh by a maritime power anymore. So how do you see this impacting or does it impact this path to World War II? >> Yeah, I mean exactly. So um you know the Mckender Hogan thesis is is something that's ascribed to both by the American Empire as well as the British Empire. And so what's happening is that because of American aggression that because this system the final system where the US dollar is the world's reserve currency

which gives America exorbitant privilege which is say you can print print as $30 trillion and not have to suffer anything and the rest of the world has to absorb this debt. Um it's driving uh the BRICS countries uh and in Iran into each other's arms. So the great nightmare for the Anglo-American Empire is an alliance between Russia, Iran and China. And of course India will also um come into this alliance eventually at some point because it benefits India. And this

creates the Eurasian trade continental system, right? And and Iran is the key because Iran's the pivot. It's the center of the world. Um all these trade alliances run through Iran. So uh the Europeans have something called EMAC uh the European uh India Middle East corridor. Uh Russia has something called the north south corridor. China of course has a has a belit initiative. So Iran is a key um and that's why America is intent on regime change in Iran. Um America cannot afford for this alliance

to take shape to manifest itself because then America would lose uh trade access in the Eurasian continent. China, Russia and Iran can just trade amongst themselves and then provide um energy and food and manufactured goods to uh the Middle East to Africa uh to Europe and so and then America just stuck with $30 trillion in debt and the American Ponet scheme would collapse. So for this this is a life this this is a life and death struggle for America. So what it

needs to do is go to Iran and make sure this alliance cannot take shape. um it doesn't have to win the war, but it needs to create as much chaos as as possible. And that's why I think in 2026 2026, we'll see an escalation in rhetoric and conflict between America and Iran with with Israel as of course as a pit dog for the American Empire. >> It's funny when the complexity of this geopolitics has to be sold to the public. it's uh sold in the most uh absurd ways such as well we want to have

uh more women rights in Ukra sorry women rights in uh in Iran like this is apparently what drives the great power rivalry. Uh but to what ex uh sorry no I mean like you look at this Pony Beach um tragedy where 16 people were killed and we know that the person who committed the crime was an Islamic State sympathizer. Um and already they're putting the blame on Iran. Why is Mossad involved in this signate police investigation? I I mean it seems as though they're looking for every single

pretext to create public anger at Iran. >> Yeah. Well, uh a key problem as well if you look at the all the previous two world wars if you're going to look towards the well hopefully not the third one coming uh uh it's also been the assumption that the wars could be limited. Again by definition they had this uh chain reaction that uh you know one thing led to another. I mean I remember when at university when I was teaching um uh causality I would use World War I as an

example. This leads to this this you know nobody wanted to go down this path but much of it seems to be based on the premise that they're able to limit the wars. In other words it's this illusion of escalation control. Uh you know we see some indications of this in Europe today. that is the Europeans say, "Oh, we can send some troops to Ukraine." The idea is we can just tip the scales a bit towards Ukraine's favor to re rebalance it and then uh and then stabilize the

example. This leads to this this you know nobody wanted to go down this path but much of it seems to be based on the premise that they're able to limit the wars. In other words it's this illusion of escalation control. Uh you know we see some indications of this in Europe today. that is the Europeans say, "Oh, we can send some troops to Ukraine." The idea is we can just tip the scales a bit towards Ukraine's favor to re rebalance it and then uh and then stabilize the

front lines so we can keep it the war going. But uh uh but but it's it's um it seems like a the delusion the fact that they will be able to control this and somehow that the Russian responses to Europeans entering the battlefield and then let's just contain the war to Ukraine and Russia. Uh you know Europe should not be be a part of this war with just sending troops and weapons and uh you know the targeting. How how do you see this in a wider historical context and and what what

we're seeing in the world today though? I know that's a very big question. >> Why look look yeah I mean but it's a common pattern in history where all wars started out as limited wars where one party is trying to trying to achieve certain strategic objectives and it always escalates into a full-scale war uh beyond anyone's control. Okay, this idea of mission creeps. So think about Vietnam where at first um America is sending in some advisors or trainers into um Vietnam to bolster the Salines

regime and eventually escal to the point where you know the entire American military was involved in a full-scale war in Vietnam. Um so I think one major flash point that we should look at is Venezuela, right? Because Trump is very clear. Trump is saying that you know I'm not going to declare war. This is just a uh operation to destroy drug cartels because Maduro he is a drug kingping kingping and we will we will we will uh make we are trying to save as many American lives as possible. Okay. So

that's just the rhetoric for public consumption. We all know that Venezuela has the world's largest proven oil reserves and um Trump is trying to um create uh make Venezuela into an economic vessel. Okay. So, you would think that this war would be only limited to Venezuela and and America, but this war has the potential to escalate very quickly because um Cuba and Nicaga would be on the on the next hit list after Venezuela. Also, if you're Brazil, you would think that your

real the real target is you because what happened was that um before the trade war between China and America, America was providing China's um soybeans. Uh, China imports a third of its food and it gets it used to get most of its so soybeans from American farmers and because of the trade war China started to import uh soybeans from Brazil and um ever since then the economic relationship between Brazil and China has only improved dramatically and so u China right now is uh Brazil's biggest

trade partner and this is and this is true for for every nation in South America. So, um, if you're a South American nation, first of all, you're outraged at the fact that, um, Trump is trying to conduct regime change in Venezuela, you don't like the Yankees. Uh, you've had this long history where the CIA plots coups in your in your nation, killing millions of people. Um, you also want to maintain good tribulations with China because China actually gives puts real uh investment

in your country. They build roads. Uh they build good infrastructure. Uh they contribute to the livelihood of your ordinary citizens and America wants wants wants to take that take that away. So um this war could escalate to a point where okay maybe American ground troops in Venezuela but Brazil and other nations covertly send troops to reinforce the Venezuela regime because they know that if Venezuela falls, they all fall together. So, um, it's it's it's it's it's a lake of gasoline right