Arnaud Bertrand
@RnaudBertrand • 408,398 subscribers
Entrepreneur. Previously HouseTrip (sold to TripAdvisor), now https://t.co/C4SmZQ8bl6 Subscribe if you like what I write
Shorts
![When you thought Macron had reached peak tone-deafness and condescension, he just tops it. He's now literally berating Africans for not thanking France: "I think [Africans] forgot to thank us. It doesn't matter it will come with time. Gratitude, I am well placed to know it, is a disease not transmissible to humans. But I say this for all African rulers who did not have the courage with respect to their public opinions to say it: none of them would today have a sovereign country if the French army had not been deployed in this region"](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1876516635026366929/ext_tw_video_thumb/1876515758676885504/pu/img/4au8dP6uP3D2lyVT.jpg)
Videos
![Wow. François Fillon, the 2nd longest serving Prime Minister in France's 5th republic, just said that "the most significant foreign interference" that Europe faces is "first and foremost, that of the Americans," and that "the Americans are constantly interfering in the organization of European countries." We all knew it, of course, but it's quite stunning for someone of Fillon's stature to say it out loud. Full transcript: "When I was Prime Minister [2007-2012], I already had the opportunity to say this: the most significant foreign interference was, first and foremost, that of the Americans. Here in our country, the Americans are of course constantly interfering in the organization of European countries, and in particular through a very insidious mechanism that allows them to sanction Western companies. That is how, for example, BNP was ordered to pay several billion in fines to America. That is how America can sanction a Western company like Airbus, for instance, to give an advantage to Boeing. So the most effective interference - and I'm not even talking about social media, about big tech which are all American, and so on - I'm speaking simply about the actions of the American government." Full interview here (from 2 days ago):](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2094949518135677394/amplify_video_thumb/2094947977404248064/img/tkLaJCSnJ0Tq9y6f.jpg)
Wow. François Fillon, the 2nd longest serving Prime Minister in France's 5th republic, just said that "the most significant foreign interference" that Europe faces is "first and foremost, that of the Americans," and that "the Americans are constantly interfering in the organization of European countries." We all knew it, of course, but it's quite stunning for someone of Fillon's stature to say it out loud. Full transcript: "When I was Prime Minister [2007-2012], I already had the opportunity to say this: the most significant foreign interference was, first and foremost, that of the Americans. Here in our country, the Americans are of course constantly interfering in the organization of European countries, and in particular through a very insidious mechanism that allows them to sanction Western companies. That is how, for example, BNP was ordered to pay several billion in fines to America. That is how America can sanction a Western company like Airbus, for instance, to give an advantage to Boeing. So the most effective interference - and I'm not even talking about social media, about big tech which are all American, and so on - I'm speaking simply about the actions of the American government." Full interview here (from 2 days ago):
Arnaud Bertrand136,632 views • 12 hours ago
If you can watch only one video to understand current geopolitics, make it this one by George Yeo, one of Singapore's longest-serving cabinet ministers (23 years!) As Yeo explains, current global geopolitics is fundamentally driven by US "retreat" and "decline", forced by a financial reality that no US administration can reverse: its debt servicing already exceeding its entire defense budget. To Yeo, this explains why the US insists so much that its "allies" in Europe and Asia spend more of their GDP on defense - to basically pick up the tab for an empire America can no longer afford - but it also means that, inevitably, "once your allies begin to have their own military capabilities, they will think differently, and they will not follow you in everything that you want to do." As such, American decline becomes self-reinforcing: the more it asks allies to carry their own weight, the less reason they have to follow its lead. Still, Yeo says that a similar dynamic to one that happened after the fall of Rome could occur where America - like Byzantium did - sheds its empire and consolidates around its own hemisphere, allowing it to remain self-sustaining and powerful for a very long time. He believes it's the direction things are heading - which would also explain Trump's obsession with Canada and Greenland. It remains however obviously an open question whether an American "Byzantium strategy" is even achievable: Canada, for one, clearly wants no part of it. Full video available here:
Arnaud Bertrand306,520 views • 2 days ago
François Fillon, former French Prime Minister, reveals for the first time what Putin privately told him right before the war, about why diplomacy with the Europeans - Macron in particular - failed. Putin, on the advice of Fillon, had tried to engage with Macron, but came away with this verdict: "When Emmanuel Macron comes to see me, he tells me what I must do." In short, in Putin's telling, Macron didn't want to negotiate, but to dictate. In other words, there was never a genuine effort at diplomacy - at least as far as Putin (and Fillon) see it.
Arnaud Bertrand191,597 views • 2 days ago
This is absolutely priceless. And probably the most frightening clip you'll ever watch on the people in charge of the US economy. Jared Bernstein is literally the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, the main agency advising Biden on economic policy
Arnaud Bertrand15,370,517 views • 2 years ago
Absolutely extraordinary exchange between Israel and China 👇 I've never seen such a heated exchange come out of top-level forum in China (this is from the 12th Beijing Xiangshan Forum that started yesterday), this normally never happens. The guy speaking is Yan Xuetong, the dean of the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University, the most prestigious university in China. Speaking for Israel is a military officer apparently called Elad Shoshan. Yan Xuetong truly doesn't hold back: - When the Israeli officer tries to bullshit him around how Israel supposedly protects civilians in Gaza, he replies: "You killed more than 70,000 civilians!... The fact is not decided by you... It is not decided by your government. Your government has no legitimacy or the right to decide or defend what is fact" - And when told that the war will end when Hamas release hostages he replies: "No, this kind of propaganda have too many. No one believe it! Too many! Too much! No one believe it, except a few Israelis"
Arnaud Bertrand5,015,808 views • 11 months ago
![Eric Schmidt saying the quiet part out loud: "What I don't like about [China's AI] is that it's all open source which means it's largely uncontrolled and not controlled in any way by us." He adds, "if that makes you feel any better," that only 2 or 3 countries can be independent AI powers. In other words, it's all about hegemony: the ideal scenario is a world where AI is controlled by the US - and the fewer countries that can resist that, the better. Src for the video:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2068555149505925354/amplify_video_thumb/2068548577157423104/img/zUhLcFOaFRuprJve.jpg)
Eric Schmidt saying the quiet part out loud: "What I don't like about [China's AI] is that it's all open source which means it's largely uncontrolled and not controlled in any way by us." He adds, "if that makes you feel any better," that only 2 or 3 countries can be independent AI powers. In other words, it's all about hegemony: the ideal scenario is a world where AI is controlled by the US - and the fewer countries that can resist that, the better. Src for the video:
Arnaud Bertrand872,221 views • 2 months ago
This is genuinely incredible and says SO SO MUCH about the perception of China in the West. This is the #1 news show in France, and the host - David Pujadas - asks the pundits around the table (a sample of the top media figures in France) if they can name 3 living Chinese people. That's it: they just need to say the names of 3 living Chinese people, anyone. This should be extremely easy. Yet not of a single one of them can name a single Chinese beyond Xi Jinping. They do not know a single living Chinese person beyond the president. That's the level of ignorance of China we're dealing with in the West today, in 2026. This is the source for the video: Aired live yesterday 28th of May 2026.
Arnaud Bertrand1,139,317 views • 3 months ago
![Absolutely masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who famously led France's opposition to the Iraq war and who, IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades. This is so important, so incredibly well argued, that I decided to translate it in full: "Hamas has set a trap for us, and this trap is one of maximum horror, of maximum cruelty. And so there's a risk of an escalation in militarism, of more military interventions, as if we could with armies solve a problem as serious as the Palestinian question. There's also a second major trap, which is that of Occidentalism. We find ourselves trapped, with Israel, in this western bloc which today is being challenged by most of the international community. [Presenter: What is Occidentalism?] Occidentalism is the idea that the West, which for 5 centuries managed the world's affairs, will be able to quietly continue to do so. And we can clearly see, even in the debates of the French political class, that there is the idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war. That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage. This is not the way, especially since there's a third trap, which is that of moralism. And here we have in a way the proof, through what is happening in Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle East, of this double standard that is denounced everywhere in the world, including in recent weeks when I travel to Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. The criticism is always the same: look at how civilian populations are treated in Gaza, you denounce what happened in Ukraine, and you are very timid in the face of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. Consider international law, the second criticism that is made by the global south. We sanction Russia when it aggresses Ukraine, we sanction Russia when it doesn't respect the resolutions of the United Nations, and it's been 70 years that the resolutions of the United Nations have been voted in vain and that Israel doesn't respect them. [Presenter: Do you believe that the Westerners are currently guilty of hubris?] Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers. [Presenter: What is the historical drama? I mean, we're talking about the tragedy of October 7th first and foremost, right?] Of course, there are these horrors happening, but the way to respond to them is crucial. Are we going to kill the future by finding the wrong answers... [Presenter: Kill the future?] Kill the future, yes! Why? [Presenter: But who is killing whom?] You are in a game of causes and effects. Faced with the tragedy of history, one cannot take this 'chain of causality' analytical grid, simply because if you do you can't escape from it. Once we understand that there is a trap, once we realize that behind this trap there has also been a change in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue... The situation today is profoundly different [from what it was in the past]. The Palestinian cause was a political and secular cause. Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas. Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, there has also been a development. Zionism was secular and political, championed by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. It has largely become messianic, biblical today. This means that they too do not want to compromise, and everything that the far-right Israeli government does, continuing to encourage colonization, obviously makes things worse, including since October 7th. So in this context, understand that we are already in this region facing a problem that seems profoundly insoluble. Added to this is the hardening of states. Diplomatically, look at the statements of the King of Jordan, they are not the same as six months ago. Look at the statements of Erdogan in Turkey. [Presenter: Precisely, these are extremely harsh statements...] Extremely worrying. Why? Because if the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian issue, hasn't been brought to the forefront, hasn't been put on stage [for a while], and if most of the youth today in Europe have often never even heard of it, it remains for the Arab peoples the mother of all battles. All the progress made towards an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, where one could believe... [Presenter: Yes, but whose fault is it? I have a hard time following you, is it Hamas's fault?] But Ms. Malherbe, I am trained as a diplomat. The question of fault will be addressed by historians and philosophers. [Presenter: But you can't remain neutral, it's difficult, it's complicated, isn't it?] I am not neutral, I am in action. I am simply telling you that every day that passes, we can ensure that this horrific cycle stops... that's why I speak of a trap and that's why it's so important to know what response we are going to give. We stand alone before history today. And we do not treat this new world the way we currently do, knowing that today we are no longer in a position of strength, we are not able to manage on our own, as the world's policemen. [Presenter: So what do we do?] Exactly, what should we do? This is where it is essential not to cut off anyone on the international stage. [Presenter: Including the Russians?] Everyone. [Presenter: Everyone? Should we ask the Russians for help?] I'm not saying we should ask the Russians for help. I'm saying: if the Russians can contribute by calming some factions in this region, then it will be a step in the right direction. [Presenter: How can we proportionally respond to barbarism? It's no longer army against army.] But listen, Appolline de Malherbe, the civilian populations that are dying in Gaza, don't they exist? So because horror was committed on one side, horror must be committed on the other? [Presenter: Do we indeed need to equate the two?] No, it's you who are doing that. I'm not saying I equate the faults. I try to take into account what a large part of humanity thinks. There is certainly a realistic objective to pursue, which is to eradicate the Hamas leaders who committed this horror. And not to confuse the Palestinians with Hamas, that's a realistic goal. The second thing is a targeted response. Let's define realistic political objectives. And the third thing is a combined response. Because there is no effective use of force without a political strategy. We are not in 1973 or in 1967. There are things no army in the world knows how to do, which is to win in an asymmetrical battle against terrorists. The war on terror has never been won anywhere. And it instead triggers extremely dramatic misdeeds, cycles, and escalations. If America lost in Afghanistan, if America lost in Iraq, if we lost in the Sahel, it's because it's a battle that can't be won simply, it's not like you have a hammer that strikes a nail and the problem is solved. So we need to mobilize the international community, get out of this Western entrapment in which we are. [Presenter: But when Emmanuel Macron talks about an international coalition…] Yes, and what was the response? [Presenter: None.] Exactly. We need a political perspective, and this is challenging because the two-state solution has been removed from the Israeli political and diplomatic program. Israel needs to understand that for a country with a territory of 20,000 square kilometers, a population of 9 million inhabitants, facing 1.5 billion people... Peoples have never forgotten that the Palestinian cause and the injustice done to the Palestinians was a significant source of mobilization. We must consider this situation, and I believe it is essential to help Israel, to guide... some say impose, but I think it's better to convince, to move in this direction. The challenge is that there is no interlocutor today, neither on the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side. We need to bring out interlocutors. [Presenter: It's not for us to choose who will be the leaders of Palestine.] The Israeli policy over recent years did not necessarily want to cultivate a Palestinian leadership... Many are in prison, and Israel's interest - because I repeat: it was not in their program or in Israel's interest at the time, or so they thought - was instead to divide the Palestinians and ensure that the Palestinian question fades. This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle. [Presenter: The "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth".] Yes. That's why the political response must be defended by us. Israel has a right to self-defense, but this right cannot be indiscriminate vengeance. And there cannot be collective responsibility of the Palestinian people for the actions of a terrorist minority from Hamas. When you get into this cycle of finding faults, one side's memories clash with the other's. Some will juxtapose Israel's memories with the memories of the Nakba, the 1948 catastrophe, which is a disaster that the Palestinians still experience every day. So you can't break these cycles. We must have the strength, of course, to understand and denounce what happened, and from this standpoint, there's no doubt about our position. But we must also have the courage, and that's what diplomacy is... diplomacy is about being able to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel. And that's the cunning of history; when you're at the bottom, something can happen that gives hope. After the 1973 war, who would have thought that before the end of the decade, Egypt would sign a peace treaty with Israel? The debate shouldn't be about rhetoric or word choice. The debate today is about action; we must act. And when you think about action, there are two options. Either it's war, war, war. Or it's about trying to move towards peace, and I'll say it again, it's in Israel's interest. It's in Israel's interest!"](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1718201487132885246/amplify_video_thumb/1718102257437458432/img/nm5gd_FnM_-fNIJb.jpg)
Absolutely masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who famously led France's opposition to the Iraq war and who, IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades. This is so important, so incredibly well argued, that I decided to translate it in full: "Hamas has set a trap for us, and this trap is one of maximum horror, of maximum cruelty. And so there's a risk of an escalation in militarism, of more military interventions, as if we could with armies solve a problem as serious as the Palestinian question. There's also a second major trap, which is that of Occidentalism. We find ourselves trapped, with Israel, in this western bloc which today is being challenged by most of the international community. [Presenter: What is Occidentalism?] Occidentalism is the idea that the West, which for 5 centuries managed the world's affairs, will be able to quietly continue to do so. And we can clearly see, even in the debates of the French political class, that there is the idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war. That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage. This is not the way, especially since there's a third trap, which is that of moralism. And here we have in a way the proof, through what is happening in Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle East, of this double standard that is denounced everywhere in the world, including in recent weeks when I travel to Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. The criticism is always the same: look at how civilian populations are treated in Gaza, you denounce what happened in Ukraine, and you are very timid in the face of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. Consider international law, the second criticism that is made by the global south. We sanction Russia when it aggresses Ukraine, we sanction Russia when it doesn't respect the resolutions of the United Nations, and it's been 70 years that the resolutions of the United Nations have been voted in vain and that Israel doesn't respect them. [Presenter: Do you believe that the Westerners are currently guilty of hubris?] Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers. [Presenter: What is the historical drama? I mean, we're talking about the tragedy of October 7th first and foremost, right?] Of course, there are these horrors happening, but the way to respond to them is crucial. Are we going to kill the future by finding the wrong answers... [Presenter: Kill the future?] Kill the future, yes! Why? [Presenter: But who is killing whom?] You are in a game of causes and effects. Faced with the tragedy of history, one cannot take this 'chain of causality' analytical grid, simply because if you do you can't escape from it. Once we understand that there is a trap, once we realize that behind this trap there has also been a change in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue... The situation today is profoundly different [from what it was in the past]. The Palestinian cause was a political and secular cause. Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas. Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, there has also been a development. Zionism was secular and political, championed by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. It has largely become messianic, biblical today. This means that they too do not want to compromise, and everything that the far-right Israeli government does, continuing to encourage colonization, obviously makes things worse, including since October 7th. So in this context, understand that we are already in this region facing a problem that seems profoundly insoluble. Added to this is the hardening of states. Diplomatically, look at the statements of the King of Jordan, they are not the same as six months ago. Look at the statements of Erdogan in Turkey. [Presenter: Precisely, these are extremely harsh statements...] Extremely worrying. Why? Because if the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian issue, hasn't been brought to the forefront, hasn't been put on stage [for a while], and if most of the youth today in Europe have often never even heard of it, it remains for the Arab peoples the mother of all battles. All the progress made towards an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, where one could believe... [Presenter: Yes, but whose fault is it? I have a hard time following you, is it Hamas's fault?] But Ms. Malherbe, I am trained as a diplomat. The question of fault will be addressed by historians and philosophers. [Presenter: But you can't remain neutral, it's difficult, it's complicated, isn't it?] I am not neutral, I am in action. I am simply telling you that every day that passes, we can ensure that this horrific cycle stops... that's why I speak of a trap and that's why it's so important to know what response we are going to give. We stand alone before history today. And we do not treat this new world the way we currently do, knowing that today we are no longer in a position of strength, we are not able to manage on our own, as the world's policemen. [Presenter: So what do we do?] Exactly, what should we do? This is where it is essential not to cut off anyone on the international stage. [Presenter: Including the Russians?] Everyone. [Presenter: Everyone? Should we ask the Russians for help?] I'm not saying we should ask the Russians for help. I'm saying: if the Russians can contribute by calming some factions in this region, then it will be a step in the right direction. [Presenter: How can we proportionally respond to barbarism? It's no longer army against army.] But listen, Appolline de Malherbe, the civilian populations that are dying in Gaza, don't they exist? So because horror was committed on one side, horror must be committed on the other? [Presenter: Do we indeed need to equate the two?] No, it's you who are doing that. I'm not saying I equate the faults. I try to take into account what a large part of humanity thinks. There is certainly a realistic objective to pursue, which is to eradicate the Hamas leaders who committed this horror. And not to confuse the Palestinians with Hamas, that's a realistic goal. The second thing is a targeted response. Let's define realistic political objectives. And the third thing is a combined response. Because there is no effective use of force without a political strategy. We are not in 1973 or in 1967. There are things no army in the world knows how to do, which is to win in an asymmetrical battle against terrorists. The war on terror has never been won anywhere. And it instead triggers extremely dramatic misdeeds, cycles, and escalations. If America lost in Afghanistan, if America lost in Iraq, if we lost in the Sahel, it's because it's a battle that can't be won simply, it's not like you have a hammer that strikes a nail and the problem is solved. So we need to mobilize the international community, get out of this Western entrapment in which we are. [Presenter: But when Emmanuel Macron talks about an international coalition…] Yes, and what was the response? [Presenter: None.] Exactly. We need a political perspective, and this is challenging because the two-state solution has been removed from the Israeli political and diplomatic program. Israel needs to understand that for a country with a territory of 20,000 square kilometers, a population of 9 million inhabitants, facing 1.5 billion people... Peoples have never forgotten that the Palestinian cause and the injustice done to the Palestinians was a significant source of mobilization. We must consider this situation, and I believe it is essential to help Israel, to guide... some say impose, but I think it's better to convince, to move in this direction. The challenge is that there is no interlocutor today, neither on the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side. We need to bring out interlocutors. [Presenter: It's not for us to choose who will be the leaders of Palestine.] The Israeli policy over recent years did not necessarily want to cultivate a Palestinian leadership... Many are in prison, and Israel's interest - because I repeat: it was not in their program or in Israel's interest at the time, or so they thought - was instead to divide the Palestinians and ensure that the Palestinian question fades. This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle. [Presenter: The "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth".] Yes. That's why the political response must be defended by us. Israel has a right to self-defense, but this right cannot be indiscriminate vengeance. And there cannot be collective responsibility of the Palestinian people for the actions of a terrorist minority from Hamas. When you get into this cycle of finding faults, one side's memories clash with the other's. Some will juxtapose Israel's memories with the memories of the Nakba, the 1948 catastrophe, which is a disaster that the Palestinians still experience every day. So you can't break these cycles. We must have the strength, of course, to understand and denounce what happened, and from this standpoint, there's no doubt about our position. But we must also have the courage, and that's what diplomacy is... diplomacy is about being able to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel. And that's the cunning of history; when you're at the bottom, something can happen that gives hope. After the 1973 war, who would have thought that before the end of the decade, Egypt would sign a peace treaty with Israel? The debate shouldn't be about rhetoric or word choice. The debate today is about action; we must act. And when you think about action, there are two options. Either it's war, war, war. Or it's about trying to move towards peace, and I'll say it again, it's in Israel's interest. It's in Israel's interest!"
Arnaud Bertrand10,936,982 views • 2 years ago
This is what $100 a night buys you in a hotel in China today: an absolutely enormous master suite on the 21st floor. We're in Kuche Hotel (库车饭店) in the city of Kuche, Xinjiang. As you can see, the girls are VERY excited to get a break from sleeping in the RV 😅
Arnaud Bertrand216,161 views • 27 days ago
This is unreal. The new Japanese PM just told an audience of Saudi investors, quoting from a manga: "Just shut your mouths and invest everything in me!!!" Even worse, in said manga - "Attack on Titan" - the character saying that line (Eren Yeager: ends up dying while attempting to kill all of humanity outside his island nation ("Paradis Island"). Not exactly a great character to emulate when you're Japan - an island nation with a long history of imperial expansion and atrocities. Very awkward and disturbing on multiple levels... Official transcript of the speech on the PM's website:
Arnaud Bertrand2,432,148 views • 9 months ago
![This is, without exaggerating, one of the most extraordinary things a US Treasury Secretary ever said. It should be mandatory viewing for all citizens of US "allies", Europeans first and foremost. What Bessent is saying is that the US will now treat US allies' wealth as an American "sovereign wealth fund" (his words), "directing" them, "largely at the [US] president's discretion", how to use their money in order to build American factories and reshore American industries. Even the Fox News host can't believe it, calling it "offshore appropriation", another word for theft. That's exactly what it is: straight up unabashed colonial plunder. That's the pattern we see emerge: unable to extract wealth or win wars against an increasingly strong Global South, the US has turned inward to feast on its own "allies" - who can't resist precisely because they depend on their exploiter for military "protection". They're as defenseless against American wealth extraction as any 19th-century colony was against its colonial "protector." That's exactly what I wrote in my latest article on "Europe's colonial moment":](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1955575252324433977/ext_tw_video_thumb/1955575201598427136/pu/img/0eJyypzKWEKp_Rmx.jpg)
This is, without exaggerating, one of the most extraordinary things a US Treasury Secretary ever said. It should be mandatory viewing for all citizens of US "allies", Europeans first and foremost. What Bessent is saying is that the US will now treat US allies' wealth as an American "sovereign wealth fund" (his words), "directing" them, "largely at the [US] president's discretion", how to use their money in order to build American factories and reshore American industries. Even the Fox News host can't believe it, calling it "offshore appropriation", another word for theft. That's exactly what it is: straight up unabashed colonial plunder. That's the pattern we see emerge: unable to extract wealth or win wars against an increasingly strong Global South, the US has turned inward to feast on its own "allies" - who can't resist precisely because they depend on their exploiter for military "protection". They're as defenseless against American wealth extraction as any 19th-century colony was against its colonial "protector." That's exactly what I wrote in my latest article on "Europe's colonial moment":
Arnaud Bertrand3,400,807 views • 1 year ago
This is genuinely one of the things I like the most about China: there is literally no problem that cannot be solved in 15 minutes with a bit of pragmatism. This is anecdotal but so illustrative of this: we got our RV stuck during the night in a street parking in Kashgar. Really stupid situation: we parked the RV at the end of the parking when it was relatively empty and it filled up during the night, in such a way that we couldn't get out anymore. Not to worry: seeing our predicament, the local parking guard got a screwdriver, and started to unscrew the street bollards in order to create an escape route 😅 In the space of 5 minutes, we were out! Bollards re-screwed immediately behind us, done! I can't even begin to imagine how long we'd have stayed stuck had this happened in good old Europe: "Sir, we can't possibly unscrew street bollards, we'd first need to file a request with the municipality, and that's going to take several days, bla bla bla..." That's incidentally one of the most common misconceptions about China: that a "communist" country must drown in red tape, with everyone paralyzed by fear of stepping out of line. My experience is systematically the opposite: at the grassroots level, when something pragmatically makes sense, people feel empowered to just do it, period. The "I know it makes sense but the computer says no" mentality that plagues so many countries basically doesn't exist here. This is undoubtedly one of the biggest hidden strengths of China and one of the key reasons why it moves so fast and efficiently. In a country that size, without this empowerment at the grassroots level, you'd get complete paralysis.
Arnaud Bertrand219,808 views • 1 month ago
I heard many Uyghur songs during my recent trip to Xinjiang but this one was my absolute favorite: "Xohlayliya" by singer Abduwali Tohti. In fact it's genuinely now one of my favorite songs, period! I searched and the song seems completely unknown outside of China: as far as I could see, it's not referenced on any Western platform. Only on Chinese platforms like Douyin (here: This is such a shame so I decided to share it with you 👇
Arnaud Bertrand77,971 views • 13 days ago
This is the perhaps best illustration that Trump's new "Monroe doctrine" is objectively achieving the exact opposite of what it intends. Carney is currently in Beijing describing a "new era of relations between Canada and China" and explicitly talking about both countries becoming "strategic partners" on a comprehensive range of issues, including "issues on security." There is no overstating how extraordinary this is to anyone who's followed Canada-China relations in the past few years. Canada was probably THE country globally most aligned with the U.S. when it comes to China. As a reminder they literally abducted the daughter of Huawei's founder on the U.S.'s behalf and held her hostage for years despite severe Chinese retaliation - all in service of Washington's containment strategy. So for all intents and purposes Canada used to actually embody the Monroe Doctrine in practice: they were all-in on the US! And now Trump has achieved the extraordinary feat of changing that calculus, impressing upon Canada that HE was the threat and that they needed to hedge their US exposure. I mean, imagine telling anyone during the Meng Wanzhou episode that 4 years later Canada would be in Beijing, asking them for a strategic partnership on security matters while America threatens to annex it 😅
Arnaud Bertrand1,431,651 views • 7 months ago
It's day 22 of our Xinjiang RV roadtrip and today... I had to go to the hospital 😥 I felt lightheaded and had vertigo, in such a way that it might be dangerous for continued driving, so I figured I should see a doctor. Which enabled me to visit yet another hospital in China. If I have one claim for a potential Guiness record it might be this one: I'm probably the one foreigner who's been - as a patient - to the most hospitals and clinics in China 😅. I think I've been to some in at least 20 provinces at this stage! I went to Kashgar's number 1 hospital (literally the hospital's name), which is massive: 2,700 beds and 4,000 medical staff! The experience was pretty standard, similar to what I describe in my article on the Chinese health system from earlier this year ( with two exceptions: - Pretty much the entire staff was Uyghur - They had a special "foreigners channel" which not all hospitals have, although it's becoming more common to encourage medical tourism and serve tourists generally. I also went to a hospital in Harbin, Heilongjiang province, fairly recently and they too had a foreigner channel. The service was astonishingly excellent: probably the best I've ever received in any hospital, ever, in China or elsewhere. They assigned me an English-speaking doctor named Memeti (which I understand is the Uyghur equivalent of Mohamed) as well as a nurse (both on the picture below 👇) who helped me navigate the entire experience. And not just in a "you can ask us questions if you want" way: they physically followed me and stayed with me during 3 hours as I was doing consultations and health tests! Never had that level of service anywhere! The Chinese health system was characteristically efficient. In the space of 3 hours I had two consultations with specialists (a cardiologist and a neurologist) as well as 3 health tests: a MRI, an ECG and an ultrasound. Total cost for all of this (I have zero insurance and pay everything out of pocket at the rack rate without any form of rebate): RMB 737 (roughly $108) - including RMB 463 for the MRI (see receipt) and RMB 230 for the ultrasound. Overall result: I still don't know what I have, results of the tests and diagnosis later this afternoon (we need to go back to the hospital at 6pm) but don't worry about me, probably a small thing.
Arnaud Bertrand206,202 views • 1 month ago
I just arrived in Xinjiang for our family holiday and the one thing that immediately strikes me is that, so far, there seems to be virtually no foreign visitors (other than myself). We're in one of THE most touristic spot in the entire region, the central bazaar in Urumqi (which has great food, by the way, offering full refunds if the food doesn't taste good, see picture 👇), and it's fully packed but only with local Uyghurs and visiting Chinese tourists - not a single foreigner around! This is pretty crazy to me: there's so much being said about Xinjiang but obviously people don't bother coming here to check things with their own eyes. Despite there being absolutely zero restrictions to do so: as a French man I can even stay here 30 days visa-free, I just need to book a flight and show up, that's it 🤷♂️ I know I sound like a broken record on this but that's the biggest illness affecting commentary on China: people simply speak about it in the abstract without engaging with the reality of the place.
Arnaud Bertrand331,042 views • 1 month ago
This is quite funny: just spotted cannabis growing in the wild in China. We're in Xinjiang in the Zhaosu valley, at the bottom of the TianShan mountains. It's actually not that unsurprising to see wild cannabis here since the plant originates from the region. And cannabis is traditionally an ingredient in TCM (under the name dà má - 大麻) although today it's of course banned, for the most part: interestingly the seeds - called huǒ má rén in TCM - are still allowed AFAIK (see the details of the ingredient here: ) Necessary addendum: don't ever think about doing drugs in China, the regulation is extremely strict here - in part due to the extremely bad experience they had with widespread opium addiction during the century of humiliation.
Arnaud Bertrand251,727 views • 1 month ago
This absolutely blew my mind: today I learned that China still has a living princess who resides in a royal palace - and she is Uyghur. She is, in a very real way, the last princess of China. So we were walking around Kuqa (库车), where we just arrived on day 19 of our Xinjiang RV roadtrip. This town was once the capital of the region under the Tang Dynasty, it's built around an oasis North of the Taklamakan Desert. On a town square, we noticed a palace called "Prince Mansion of Kuqa" (see video). We looked up the place and were astonished to learn that this place - to this day - genuinely has an actual princess still living there. Her name is Reyanamu Dawut (热亚南木·达吾提), and she is the widow of the 12th and last hereditary Prince of Kuqa. The lineage goes back to the beginning of the Qing dynasty when emperor Qianlong rewarded a local chief - Mirza Ödui - for siding with him during the suppression of the Khoja revolt. Qianlong rewarded him with a hereditary princely rank and sent Han craftsmen to build him a palace which - at the time - was named "hereditary mansion of the Muslim-region prince." The last prince, Dawut Mahsut (1927–2014) gave up the title, and was hit hard by political campaigns in the early years of the PRC but he was rehabilitated in the 1980s and served as vice-chair of the Kuqa CPPCC until his death. Reyanamu, born 1966, was his fifth wife - she married him at 30 when he was around 70, and they had eighteen years together. Dawut Mahsut explicitly asked that the state give her no special treatment after his death, but she was still given residence rights in the palace. It's apparently extremely common for visitors of the palace to see her. So yup, China still has a princess in 2026: the last aristocratic line of the Chinese empire is a Uyghur one, living in a Uyghur-style palace. Fit that into the story you've been told about Xinjiang... PS: we ended up not visiting the palace because it was too late in the day, but maybe we'll go tomorrow!
Arnaud Bertrand202,089 views • 1 month ago
![This is absolutely insane, I literally cannot believe France has come to this point. This 👇 is Aurore Bergé, the French Minister for the Fight against Discriminations, who just announced on Radio J (a Jewish community radio station in Paris) that she’d stop funding all French feminist organizations that do not promote Israel’s understanding of “Oct 7 and what happened afterwards”. Here’s an exact translation of what she said: “On behalf of the government, I have requested a meticulous review of all statements from all feminist organizations related to October 7th and its aftermath, because I refuse to allow the state to financially support associations that cannot clearly define what happened [...] I have asked for all financially supported organizations to be thoroughly scrutinized - hundreds and hundreds of associations - because being feminist means speaking out, it means supporting the women who were mutilated on October 7th. If there is any ambiguity about statements that have been made, it would not be right for these associations to continue receiving government subsidies, it's as simple as that.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1756710448710500582/amplify_video_thumb/1756690316185260032/img/fi5154Td9pX_sVhP.jpg)
This is absolutely insane, I literally cannot believe France has come to this point. This 👇 is Aurore Bergé, the French Minister for the Fight against Discriminations, who just announced on Radio J (a Jewish community radio station in Paris) that she’d stop funding all French feminist organizations that do not promote Israel’s understanding of “Oct 7 and what happened afterwards”. Here’s an exact translation of what she said: “On behalf of the government, I have requested a meticulous review of all statements from all feminist organizations related to October 7th and its aftermath, because I refuse to allow the state to financially support associations that cannot clearly define what happened [...] I have asked for all financially supported organizations to be thoroughly scrutinized - hundreds and hundreds of associations - because being feminist means speaking out, it means supporting the women who were mutilated on October 7th. If there is any ambiguity about statements that have been made, it would not be right for these associations to continue receiving government subsidies, it's as simple as that.”
Arnaud Bertrand5,171,287 views • 2 years ago