361Firm Briefing "End of Global Conflict or Start of Something Else?" - (Feb. 25, 2025)

361Firm Briefing "End of Global Conflicts or Start of Something New?" (Feb25, 2025) SUMMARY KEYWORDS Global conflicts, economic uncertainty, UN resolution, Russia-Ukraine war, China-US rivalry, NATO modernization, Trump administration, defense spending, Middle East instability, South China Sea, energy independence, rare earth minerals, geopolitical instability, disruptive technologies, global governance. SPEAKERS Stephen Burke, Andrew Fisch, Adam Blanco, Hamlet Yousef, Speaker 1, Mark Sanor, Maxwell Nee, Bill Deuchler, Speaker 2, Michael Hammer, Anthony Gordon Stephen Burke  00:00 Which Putin thought went in quite quickly. It's been about 16 months since you had the attacks in Gaza on October 7 of 23 and you've had a little over a month since President Trump has returned to the and nothing's been the same since any of those days in the world yesterday, we had a good sense of that with the UN resolution, which basically said Russia didn't start the war in Ukraine. So I'm going to basically ask hamly to join to put some clarity into where the conflicts are going, and are we getting close to an end or the start of something new? Last week on our calls, unless nobody raised this question, and we had the view that this started something new Hamlet and I that we're not as close to the end as everyone would hope, certainly as close the end as President Trump was kind of indicating what's going on right now has created a highly elevated economic uncertainty, but also policy uncertainty around the world. This report is takes a look at newspaper mentions of uncertainty. It looks at shifts in government policy. And it looks at surveys of Professional Forecasters, and you can see the economic uncertainty today is higher than it was when the pandemic was going on, and significantly higher was than it was when Russia invaded Ukraine back in 2020, 2022, and what you can see here, this is a survey from an armed conflict survey, which actually looks at the human impact, and they define it by the number of fatalities due to violent events in a specific country, number of refugees originating in a select country, and the number of internally displaced people. So you can see the hardship that the conflicts around the world are extracting. But it's not just Ukraine and Gaza, it's many other places around the world, and that is actually stress and government abilities to deal with is in a spot where they're paddling   02:20 free front   Stephen Burke  02:22 as we get here, I think this really comes down to a very simple fact that China has risen to a level that they are challenging the US for global leadership, and there's a conflict in how they resolve that shift. And I think we're also seeing the fact that United Nations, NATO and other post world war two institutions probably about live there, have outgrown what their original incentive was, and they need to be modernized to deal with a world that's very different than it was, not only post World War Two, but even 20 years ago, with China's rise and the rise of other nations as well. I think we've had a problem with bad leadership. I've talked about that in the past. It, to me, is one of the most scary issues we're facing is weak leaderships, making bad decisions that are short term oriented just about the next election cycle, and not dealing with the pain, the necessary pain that comes with making hard decisions, which has led to significant under investment in critical areas, then the last thing that led to what has us where we are today is really the Trump factor. And if you want to follow and understand what's ahead of us and what's going on right now. All you have to do is look at the 2024 Republican platform. And this is the play book that Trump follows. And whether you like him or hate him, one thing you should know about the Trump administration is he's going to try and do what he laid out in this platform, whether it's good policy or bad policy, in his mind, is good policy, and he's going to push forward with it. So even things that don't make sense, he's going to move forward with. He's also going to create a lot of conflicting statements that are going to be challenging for foreign leaders, for domestic CEOs, and for CEOs and business leaders around the world, and also for people investors trying to make strong investment decision. But understand these 20 points, because this is the play book that he is following right now. Global defense spending is on the rise, and we know that it's been carried over very heavily by the US, China and Russia, and purchasing power parity, you would see Russia and China spending over four $60 billion each last year. Europe combined spent a little less than a third of what the US has spent, and part of what the goal is is to get that increase accidentally. And ease some of the burden on the US, while a lot of people think it may be for them to redirect money to other areas, I think one of the challenges that the US has is there some modernization, rebuild, and to be able to be prepared for fighting on free front, where Russia is fighting on one right now in the Gaza, it's really Ukraine, and I'm sorry, Gaza, it's really Israel, and the US take on Iran and their proxies, and then you have what's going on in the South China Sea. The US cannot afford to fight China and three other than two other battles at once. And that's really what's weighing on the US, because number one on the US is mine, I believe is dealing with China, not dealing with Russia and the Middle East is more of a short term issue. The big longer term issue is the ascension of China, and how do we deal with that? But I think the other issue is because we're fighting in three fronts. Right now we're preparing to battle on three fronts. I think this quote from Finland foreign Prime Minister really is quite true. It's it's not reasonable right now for the US to be able to do this, whether it's not just financially, but practically, can we afford to do it? We don't have the military build up right now, and we've exhausted a lot of our military supplies being at work for most of the last 20 years. So European leaders are facing a very harsh reality right now. What you can see from this chart is defense spending as a proportion of GDP, and it shows how I balance it's been and those closes to the action either with migrants coming through or with being close supporters of Russia, or where the higher spend is, and the lower spend has been not coming through from the rest of Europe. And this is creating a big problem. As you can see, the demands for future spend are going to be much higher. They're talking about 3.7% or 5% and this is what additional spending would look like over the next decade. And this is coming at a time that most of these governments have massive demands from the domestic population that are go well beyond the defense spending that's going to help other parts of the world. But I think it was NATO had said the other day, if they don't get the 3.7% they better start learning Russia and Europe. I think that may be an extreme, but maybe not. This is a problem that chronic under investment has been going on for way too long, and the catch up is going to be the problem. And if we're doing better all along, this would be less of a burden, but it's coming at a particularly bad time, particularly moving up to the 4% level, and we don't have the benefits of free money that we had for the last 15 years. So we're in a tough spot in Europe. We're trying to figure out is, can trump force a settlement in on these people in different in different parts of the world? I'm skeptical of it. I don't think we're close to the end of a war. I mentioned that last week, but I asked Hamlet to join Hamlet, if you could just give a little bit of your background first, and then we'll jump into the Q and A,   Hamlet Yousef  08:23 yeah, that sounds good. Appreciate it. Looking forward to the conversation here so I could be there in person. My name is Hamlet. You said one of the managing partners at Iron Gate Capital Advisors. We're a defense tech focused venture fund. This thesis was built about six, seven years ago, when we thought that the world was going down a new direction, where the kind of the global war on terror was winding down. That's an issue that we're going to continue to have to deal with. But the near conflicts, or the issue that was going to face us, geo politically, was a re emergence of a second Cold War, or, if not, a much greater conflict. I think it was right after the Ukraine invasion. On one of the calls here with the folks at 360 I talked about how the world is going down, how the path of almost like a three act tragedy. Act one was going to be the invasion of Ukraine, and the destabilizing impact that was going to have in the region and globally. Act Two of this geo political tragedy was the emergence, or was going to be, the emergence, of a very belligerent Iran with a nuclear undertone, trying to destabilize the Middle East. And act three was the emergence that the kind of driving force behind this was a desire by xi and the Chinese Communist Party to become the only super power, not a super power, but the only super power, and supplant Western influence, job, which includes the US globally. Unfortunately, I think a lot of that has been happening just quick. Color again, on background. Prior to running Iron Gate, I had a long career in. In the federal government, in the national security, diplomacy and intelligence area. So this is an area that I've been pretty, pretty keen on and falling for a good chunk of my adult life. So I think Steven's earlier slide, or the opening slide, says very clearly I think this is the beginning of a much greater conflict. I do not think global peace is breaking out anytime in the near future. I think the three main hot wars, or the hot zones you see right now, Ukraine, the Israel, Gaza, Iran conflict, and the South China Sea and Southeast Asia. I think the tenor of those conflicts is going to change in the coming months and year. I think there is potentially, quote unquote, a a grand bargain that President Trump is going to try to strike to stabilize matters to a certain extent, but I think that's going to bring more of a kind of a calm before the eye of the storm, rather than ever lasting peace. So I'll start, I'll stop there. And then, Steve, I guess, let me know in what direction you want to take the Q, a   Mark Sanor  11:06 Can I ask a question. Steven, can you hear me? Yeah. Long day, Mark, did you see this veto coming and the and the the way the alignment is shifting with Trump and Putin.   Hamlet Yousef  11:21 Oh, the UN ve though, as far as negating the UN the resolution, yeah, no, I definitely do not see that coming. I think the one thing that is going to be probably very predictable for the next four years is unpredictability, loan or hate him. I think Trump style of governance and leadership is to completely upset the apple cart, create chaos and operate through it, whether that's through willful intent or just that's how he operates. So I'll leave that for another call. So I don't think anybody saw that coming. To be honest with   Mark Sanor  11:58 you, the questions from from others. Oh, Michael, you're you're on mute. Steve. Michael Hammer, sure,   Michael Hammer  12:12 more of a comment than a question. I mean, yesterday, I felt like I was in a bizarro world where the US voted with Russia and North Korea against allies of 80 years. This is crazy. So my comment on this is, and I've, I've been speaking with friends in Europe who are involved with government and the military, and some folks here in the States, everybody is in shock. And the sense that I get from the Europeans is we are going to see a schism between the US and Europe, and they're going to be going towards a war time economy. Most folks are denying it these days, but this is huge. And I think China is just sitting there, xi is just sitting there laughing at what's going on, because it all falls in their favor. And I'll stop with that. What do you think you said? That   Speaker 1  13:24 was actually a question I had. Do you think China wants any of these words to end as Trump   Hamlet Yousef  13:32 does? I honestly, I don't know. I don't know. I think, I think China benefits through continued destabilization. I think what China wants to do is, he wants to weaken all powers, so a prolongment of a conflict in Ukraine. Kind of help? Help helps. Help does that? It distracts the West and the US in Eastern Europe, and it continues to weaken Russia to a certain extent, which is, I think what G wants, I think Xi's ultimate goal is to expand his influence in southeast China and potentially in the Nepali step. So the weaker your adversaries become, the stronger you become. One dynamic to consider is a good chunk of the first Cold War. The West really try to keep the two communist powers apart in terms of China and Russia. What's happened over the last couple of years, obviously, is you have this formation of an access of authoritarianism between Xi Putin and the regime inside Iran. So almost the exact opposite is happening. But to me, I think this is where xi sees these nations as his quote, unquote, proxy allies in a longer term effort to destabilize the US and the West and to assert their dominance in the region. But I don't think that's going to end well for a whole host of reasons. I'm still, I think, very skeptical on how long. This, this g Putin romance remains, and I want to point to just a couple of anecdotal observations, kind of at the height of the explosion of the Ukraine war. This is going back to September 2023 Xi made a tour, I believe, throughout the the scans the former Soviet states and began courting these, these nations of which a large chunk of them are Asiatic in their in their ethnicity and makeup. I think this is an effort for him to pull those folks away from the Vlad and closer to his ring of influence, the Chinese have a very long memory, and I think they view things almost like you heard this before, in a centuries long optic, not an election cycle like we do in the West. I don't think they fully forgotten or or forgave what happened to them at the back end of the Opium Wars, and that was an effort that they blame squarely, obviously, on Europe. But in 1850 1860 when the war ended, out of Manchuria, better known as Siberia today, was annexed by the Russians away from China, and is now part of the Russian government, or Russia the entity. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to see to say that at some point, Xi doesn't want to look at the lands to his north that are grossly under populated, grossly under defended, and rich of natural resources as an area that he can eventually march into. So he hear the quote that I think McCain, Senator McCain first coined, that Russia is not nothing out of the big gas station for China. I think there's some truth and merit in there. So if this conflict continues, and I think it's going to China actually benefits, now, I do think there's a greater, an increasing probability that we have some sort of a grand bargain or an agreement between Putin in the west and potentially China, where you'll see a near term cease of the firing and the fighting in Ukraine. But that's that doesn't mean global peace is breaking out and the conflict is over. If anything, I think what you see happening is, if that does happen, Ukraine is not ready to give up that land. Russia is not going to retreat and give back Eastern Don Boston in Crimea. So I think what you have is potentially a formation of almost like an East Germany, West Germany that we had at the end of the Second World War. From there, we had a decades long Cold War where both sides are starting to destabilize the other. So if you play this out and Putin does get to hold on to the lands that he sold Eastern in eastern Ukraine, I think he then spends the next decade trying to destabilize Odessa, trying to destabilize Kyiv, trying to put his own proxy, or his own person in charge, and then continue with that Western influence that he wants, in terms of reforming, reconstructing that western border. He's doing the same thing in the caucuses. So that, I think, changes the 10 of the conflicts. It may end the near term direct conflict in Ukraine, but I don't think by any means that's going to be the beginning of the   18:17 end. Andrew fish, do you want to ask your question?   Andrew Fisch  18:20 Yeah, Hamlet, you're involved, obviously, in military acquisition technology, the push for getting Europe to spend more, you know, still kind of a slow, slow move, but, but one of the issues is spending it on what? So I'm just going to give you, like, an analogy, and then what you answer the question. So if you take Poland, Poland has ramped up their military acquisition, and they're not worried where it comes from. They're buying Korean tanks, they're buying American weapons, they're buying anything and get their hands on, I think Jack, I think even Japanese jets, whatever. The point is, they're doing it quickly. The other nations upping their expenditure. They didn't spend any money for so long, their military industrial infrastructure. And you comment on this is not ready to ramp up and and they don't want to just buy American so how much would they have to spend to do a Poland like catch up? And is that even possible?   Hamlet Yousef  19:32 Yeah, great question. Look, I think, I think you're starting to see the awakening of this defense tech initiative throughout Europe. It's something that I think shock the system in 2016 to 2020 under Trump's first term. I think the explosion of the conflicts on Europe's eastern flank is sending shock waves throughout the continent. You are starting to see all the countries. Us, for the most part, wake up and start allocating more and more dollars. I think there's a bit of a variance in terms of what that percentage of GDP needs to look like, is going up and exponentially for it was 456, years ago. But this is also something that the US wasn't necessarily all that worried about when we first started our fun thes just six, seven years ago, defense tech and defense investing was this kind of back water thesis that nobody cared about. It's all the rage right now here, inside the US, there's, every time you turn around, there's another venture fund or growth equity fund or a private capital source that has Defense Innovation dual use defense tech as part of their thesis. So it is becoming a key area of focus and spend for us here in the US. Well, you seen that same thing start happening in Europe over the last several years, where more and more countries are shifting focus on on the need to drive innovation and technology and and spend in their defense sector. Now, in terms of dollars. You gotta understand the economics of warfare have changed, and this is a thing so the people have not fully grasped and understood. What I mean by that is the wars of having to march columns of tanks and airplanes and ships into a theater to win. That's that's changing, if not, fully ended. And I think the world is starting to realize what does disrupt the technologies mean, and how is that reshaping the battlefield. So examples here, if you look at what happened at the at the beginning of the Ukraine war, you had a column of of arms and in tanks and in armored vehicles that was marching on Kyiv, and this is where everyone thought the key was going to fall within 40 hours and and the war is over, you had a couple billion or billion dollars of armament those, those heading down for Kyiv, and he had a handful of Ukrainian special forces bouncing around on ATVs drones and some explosive ordinances, couple million dollars worth of overhead and cost, and that was able to nullify billions of dollars worth of armaments. Look at what happens in or what's happening right now, in, in, in the Red Sea, you have the Houthis, who have no real economic base, and they're launching hundreds of in expensive drones towards global shipping, and they're shutting down global shipping to a certain extent, in that part of the country or in that part of the world, and they're spending a couple million dollars in the US. In return is deploying a couple of billion dollars worth of ships and airplanes and rockets and knock down a couple pieces of flying lawn mowers, is what it seems like. So that's not sustainable. Look what happened in Ukraine. About six months ago, you had a handful of Ukrainians with a couple million dollars of modified jet skis with explosives put onto them in a remote control device, literally sink and nullify half of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. So the economics of war are changing, and I think we're starting to grasp and understand what that means to control a battlefield in a conventional war. Two of the things you need to do is you need to control the skies, and ideally, you need to be able to control the seas. In order to do that, you need to field trillions of dollars, or deploy trillions of dollars to create and manage a comprehensive Air Force and a navy. But with where things are going in terms of drone warfare and the collapsing cost of drones, you're starting to get to the point now where nation states that traditionally could not field an Air Force or a Navy are able to basically replicate and recreate that same kind of effect for pennies on the dollar. So I wouldn't necessarily focus as much on on the spend in terms of percentage of GDP and how big that war chest needs to be, because you get to understand the technology and the tools and the platforms that are going to be needed to reshape and kind of win this, this concept of the 21st century is changing because the economics of war, sharing of warfare, completely changed.   24:13 Bill, the other question,   Bill Deuchler  24:16 here we go. Yeah. I was wondering if Hamlet, in particular, if, if you saw the interview with Marco Rubio and Cathryn herring, I think it was just the other day, it was on, I saw it rep posted on The Rubin Report that That, to me, was quite interesting. It seemed almost like not even real politic, but like real economic in terms of that's those are the terms of the deal that we're trying to push through, and at the same time, get peace between Ukraine and Russia. And any thoughts on that one? Well,   Speaker 2  24:57 I missed that interview or the specific term. They discuss, what so the the top levels that he discussed, yeah,   Bill Deuchler  25:03 it was, it was fascinating because it really centers pretty much all around the rare earths opportunity and negotiations. Essentially, the way that it boiled down for me is that if, if Ukraine is willing or to to give us a piece of that pie. We will come in, you know, with the full weight of everything that we have, and sort of demand a piece. But the price of that is, is absolutely an economic interest in their rare earth production.   Hamlet Yousef  25:39 Yeah, like, I mean, there isn't a single piece of modern technology that functions without some some critical minerals or rare earths in China for a better part of 20 plus years, has been slowly trying to monopolize that segment, in that sector. So it would make sense for us to say, Listen, if we come in and kind of help help moderate or help bring about peace, one of the things we want to return is access to those critical materials and minerals. So to strike that kind of a bargain, to me, doesn't, doesn't, doesn't. To me, seen out of the ordinary. But just think about it though. Let's just kind of play this out. If there is a grand bargain and there is, quote, unquote peace between Ukraine and Russia. In return, we get access to we the US and the West get access to rares and critical materials and minerals that basically make our function, or make our society function, not to mention play a key part in basically every piece of modern defense like that's out there. That's a good thing from a stabilization standpoint. But again, it does not mean the conflict is over. I don't think that that Xi broke up one day and decided up to upset the apple car. I don't think Putin woke up one day and decided to mark March westward and kind of light Eastern Europe on fire. I think both of these guys, to a certain extent, have been operating off the same sheet of music, which is expanding their influence in the region and replacing, not counter balancing, but replacing western US influence. So just because there is a cessation of or ceasing in the conflict, direct conflict of shooting each other in eastern Ukraine, I think the 10 minutes that conflict do not go away. That's why I think we are kind of in the beginnings of a much greater conflict. The difference is going to be, it's going to it's going to turn from being a a war where people are shooting each other to a more cognitive warfare campaign, more than a regular warfare campaign, which is exactly what we had in the Cold War. The role that technology is going to play in this is, I think, disruptive technologies. When you're talking about artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, counter, drone technologies, drone platforms, swarms, quantum cyber security, space based platforms and communications network all this, to me, is analogous to what nuclear was in the first Cold War. The West and Russia got to a point of detent because there was this massive arms race around nuclear, and each side began to realize that this thing ever went to war, nobody wins, because the Arsenal on both ends is so debilitating that conflict was not an issue. Conflict was not a solution. And I think what's going to happen now, where we're going right now is we're going through that same kind of disruptive, technology driven arms race, where it is going to be a foundation, where detent is going to be the focal area, where, okay, the US and the West is such an incredible arsenal of autonomous and robotics and swarms, as does Russia, as us as does China, then conflict is not an issue. So if that's the case, then I think what you need, you need to understand you have the foundations for each very sound, strong economic base. Because if you have a foundation for a strong sound economic base, you have a strong foundation for political base. If you have that, then you have a nation. You don't have those two, then you think you see the potential for an erosion of a nation to be able to function. And that's kind of what happened with the Soviet Union, is, is we did not get into a physical conflict. We prolong the cognitive warfare long enough to allow the constructive powers of Western democracy and Western society to prevail, and to allow for the corrosive powers and authoritarian regime, or communism, in this case, to collapse. And I think we're gonna see that same exact thing play out over the next 20 years,   Bill Deuchler  29:34 if I could follow up just real quick on a point, on a whole bunch of points that you made. You think that that the economics and the political points that you've brought up are driving us and or making it easier to become much more of a multi polar world, as opposed to a unipolar world, which is pretty much what we have now. Yeah.   Hamlet Yousef  30:00 Good question, if, like, if I became for the day, I think the future of global society is, is almost like an expansion of the original American model, where you have a network of independent states that have agency and authority to do to whatever they want at the local level, and they're working under a set of ground rules that basically puts us in the same sheet of music. That's what the foundation the US was supposed to be. And that's, I think, where we were heading for a good part of our history. And I think over the last probably couple election cycles, we're starting to VA slate of whether we want to go to a form of governance and government that is based on strong, centralized authority, or do we want to revert back to what we were, which is a bunch of Independent States? I think if you look at what's going to happen globally, I think globally, we're facing that same kind of decision, whether it's Europe or Asia. Countries are starting to have to decide what kind of future do they want? Do they want to have a future of independent agency and autonomy, or do they want to be under a bit of a centralized state authority? And this is where I think it comes back into play, which is what the CCP wants, and is desires is they want to be the leader of a movement or an effort where you have a couple of strong centralized states or entities that help drive global governance and all kind of report back into a central authority, or, in this case, Beijing, where I think the opposite is, what, where I would hope, and I would think the West wants to go to, is we can all be a bunch of independent nation states. Nationalism is perfectly okay. We're all going to operate off the same sheet of music. There's going to be some bit of of basic ground rules and norms. We're going to intertwine our economies and our societies to to extent that there's going to be a greater bit of self, a great bit of of a reliance upon each other, where conflict is not an issue, or conflict is not an option. So, and I use that to kind of articulate what it means here in the US. 2020 to 2020 24 is all the rage. All we're getting to a set and we get we're going down a path of civil war. No, we're not. Because, I mean, if you, if you, if you Canvas this room, if you Canvas any room in the US, depending on the part of the world you're on, anywhere from 5050, 6047, 30 people are on one side of the political aisle or the aisle. We may agree and disagree with a great ton of vitriol, but our society as a country, I think, so well intertwined that we're going to find our way to sort our issues out and resolve it and not get into conflict. My hope and my desire is to see the same thing happen globally, where you don't have a central authority that's dictating governance and dictating authority and rule, you have a bunch of independent nation states highly nationalistic doing whatever they want, as long as it doesn't encro on your neighbors, as long as it doesn't come at a level of conflict to get there, I think would require for us to to a certain extent, begin to intertwine our economies, inter society and culture, where there is going to be a reliance on each other, but without authority. Hopefully, that makes sense. Yeah,   33:14 no. Thank you. This   Mark Sanor  33:17 is fascinating. Wait, Bill, I like the art behind you. Three years ago, two days, our community gathered every single day, 7:30am because we came to Ukraine, Ukraine, I'm wondering, because we're just trying to also that was more of like help. I feel like we're adding a moment where a weekly meeting isn't good enough. This is so happening very fast. If you were to form a panel with diverse opinions, I'd like you to think about who would you invite to this next discussion? Definitely on Tuesday, we should be almost meeting twice a week. Steve is like going to prepare for No, no. I mean, we do this anyways, but I feel like we're this is happening very quick. Now you've got the 24 point playbook. We should just read that play book 20 points. But I feel like you're a great resource. I'd like to bring some others to the table in a 360 like style. And I know as a few people, they didn't want to be on record today, that's an issue, so maybe some private gatherings. But we're all here today to figure out how to we all agree on tech transformation, yeah, but geo political context, where do you do that? And but bigger picture, just like mechanically, of how our community should be? Nothing in   Hamlet Yousef  35:02 each other like I've been I've been tapped to speak to a couple of other groups like this, where it's a syndicate of thought leaders, business leaders and community leaders that began very US centric, but things very quickly morph into an international network of of vested capitalist Michael, better word, I think it's important for us to continue that conversation. I'll go on the record here in terms of my politics. I do not believe in a strong, centralized government. I think government is something that we elect to help kind of manage this enterprise. But I think society should be run in a bit of an open architecture, where industrialist, investors, people of influence, capitalists, are working together to create an open market of free and fair competition, and kind of let the let the winners go from there. So the more engagement, the more dialog we have with stakeholders in the US, but obviously in Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia. I think it's critical, because I wanted to make sure that this concept of We the People, which was the foundation of the US system, is something we export to the world. It's we, the people mindset of we're going to take agency and authority and control over our future and try to create a network of intertwined business, personal and social relationships that allow us all to benefit. If there's conflict, we'll sort our shit out. But sorting that out won't happen through direct conflict of warfare. It won't happen through through engagement and dialog.   36:45 We haven't touched on the Middle East.   36:49 Yeah, so look the Middle   Hamlet Yousef  36:52 East. The Middle East is an issue China, China and Russia, to me, represent some significant strategic challenges that we need to we need to fix full bias. I was born in Iran, came here to the US, and I lived through the Iranian revolution. So my comments here are 100% bias against the Iranian regime. I abhor them, but I also view the regime inside Iran as the single most grave threat near term to political, geo political stability and peace in the world, primarily because you have a regime right now that's being run by a very narrow group of people who not only view and want to run it as a theocratic state, but their specific SEC of ideology in Shia, Islam believes in the the ascendancy of the hidden Imam, or the return of the hidden Imam that happens on the region When the region is is under complete turmoil and chaos. That's not who you want to have becoming nuclear power. And I think the failure of the West over the last 20 years is a failure to understand that it is that is who is in charge of Iran. That's not who you want in charge of Iran when the country becomes a nuclear state. On the positive side. I think the Middle East, more than ever, is on the precipice of a significant Renaissance, Geo, politically and economically. I think if you look at the the Arabs, if you look at the folks inside Iran, not represented by the government, you look at Turkey, Israel, demographics are in their favor, and I think you have the potential for massive growth in the region. The issue there, obviously, is the Iran piece, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens over the next, next couple months. I think, no doubt, Trump did not agree with the the Obama approach to Iran, which was, I want to get his assets also recall. But I think he obviously put a max pressure campaign on Iran in 2016 and 2020 I would not be surprised to see obviously a return of that. Because I do think if you look at the regime inside Iran is it is on very thin ice, and actually it's very similar to Putin and Xi. All three are authoritarian regimes that don't have a thick foundation of stability below them, but with Iran, if you do get regime change inside Iran, you're not going to get exactly what we want. You might get more of a Russia style cryptocracy or oligopoly that's going to run the country. But what you do, and what you should get, hopefully, is a removal of of the shia sect that has almost like an End Times view of the world. Now you're stuck with a regime that is not, maybe not ideal when it comes. Of human rights, but is one. It's not hell bent on light in the Middle East on fire. That's the issue I think we're facing near term here with Iran.   Speaker 1  40:11 And can we shift gears to the South China Sea and your thoughts on where we are there? And what does it mean, given how the US spread sales and fighting these multiple conflict phase, these things resolving themselves over in South China Sea and Taiwan,   Hamlet Yousef  40:31 yeah. Well, depending who you listen to, the South China Sea is going to turn into a hot war as early as 2025 2026, 2030 the list is pretty wide in terms of where the one of the speculation is going to be. The one thing that gives me a little bit of hope is, is China and generally, is not a a country that likes to fight directly. Their view, I think, is more indirect. So, yes, there's a threat of them, one day, waking up tomorrow, invading Taiwan. It's a real, real threat that we need to be obviously concerned with. But I think one of the things that they've seen, and this has been a lesson learned for Xi, and it's probably why he wanted Putin to go first in terms of a in nation state land grab, is he wanted to see what global cancel culture was going to look like on a geopolitical stage. And he saw that, but he also saw is it's not easy to conquer another country, and this is a flat terrain where you got a bunch of embeds within eastern Ukraine to help you win that war. And Russia has had a pain, and there a lot of difficulty in doing that. Taiwan has been getting ready for this for decades, and it's a it's an island. So invading an island is a lot more difficult than invading a sovereign piece of territory that's flat. So I think what China is probably going to try to do is much more of a longer term campaign in terms of what they've done with Hong Kong, which is the slow as fixation of trying to bring the Taiwanese into their fold. So do I think the South China Sea is going to go hot. God, I hope not do. I think you have a potential for hot conflicts, whether it's with the Philippines or other, other, other, other fires. And the reason, I think that's that's a real concern, the dynamic that would change that, though, is if you have a rapid decline or ascension of challenge to xi, because xi is the Communist Party, is no longer what rules China. I think what Xi has done over the last several years is very quickly consolidate power. This is no longer a country that's run by a single party. It's a country that's run by a single individual. At some point, xi is going to have to deal with some part truths driven by collapsing demographics or collapsing real estate sector, migration of jobs out of China, and real pressures on their economic foundation. At some point, 1.3 billion Chinese people are going to wake up and realize that, though they were on the path to being part of the global economy in a in a major power house, they're facing some significant issues that have been mismanaged by one person in that g1, point 3 billion people. If you look at the Communist Party and the folks that are around g keep it in power. Estimate is estimate. Estimates range anywhere from a couple million to 20 to 30 million people. 30 million people. So if things get really bad at home, that's when I think you have a risk of xi doing something stupid, which is going after the South China Sea. In terms of the conflict, I think there's probably a greater chance that Xi actually marches north and starts constituting land back in his favor in Siberia than he does heading inside into the South China Sea. Hope I'm right on that one, but we'll see.   Speaker 1  43:47 So we have, we have a hard stop Mark told me at nine. So going to rapid fire some questions. So short questions and a quick answer. So Adam first. Michael, up.   Adam Blanco  44:05 Thank you. Steven Hamlet, always a pleasure listening to you always while reading your stuff, too. Thank you. My question to you is your thoughts on the negotiations with Putin Trump has literally given away a number of negotiating chips, such as having the discussions with Putin, giving him status as as legitimate leader, inviting him to the g7 How do you explain that? Can you do you have insight on   Hamlet Yousef  44:43 that? I do not. I'm not going to begin to try to figure out how Trump operates. Like I said, I think if you look at his style, to a certain extent, He probably likes to operate in a world of chaos, doing the unconventional. That's That's who he is. He's not. A refined political savan who's been a political operator for decades. He is what he is. He is a shrewd, hard, charging negotiator who cut his teeth in probably the most brutal fight there is, which is New York real estate. I think he's bringing, he's bringing his style and his 10 minutes to that if I was president, is that the approach I would take? Probably not. I'd probably take a different approach. But he's the guy who's in charge right now, and this is the the style he's taken. And I think to a certain extent, it's, it's, it's, it's unconventional, to put it mildly, is it going to work? Look, obviously, he's betting it is in that kind of a style, though, if you do like to operate through chaos and uncertainty, you can't look at every action and judge it in a vacuum. You got to understand that this is one movement many. So I would think, in his mind, this is a way of getting to some sort of near term physical piece, while allowing us to work on a much greater, grander piece, which is hopefully the removal of these authoritarian misfits in xi, in Putin and in the regime that's inside Iran. And this is, I think, the beginning steps of it. What that means, going back to Stephen's earlier slide, is geopolitical instability, I think, is just beginning. It's not ending anytime soon. Yeah,   46:25 I would agree with that.   Maxwell Nee  46:29 Max, yes. Hi everyone. Max will here from Singapore, really appreciate this earlier call. So you know, feels like Hamlet we've been in, you know, conflicts. I don't know ping pong for just forever, but I remember distinctly there was a period where this sort of stuff just wasn't happening over and over and over again. So I guess my question is like, what do you think you would take for all of this conflict, ping pong, to start to dissipate, and for the war to get back to what some of us might remember 10 years ago? You're   Hamlet Yousef  47:15 not going to like the answer, more conflict. And I don't more conflict in terms of more war, but I think a conflict in ideology. We're not going back to where we came from, if anything. I think within with the last couple years and the next couple of years represents is basically the end of the world war two era as we've known it. I think world is the world is about to change as we know it, between 1890 and 1950 the world changed. You had the rise and fall as you had, I'm sure. You had the fall the British Empire. You had the rise of the US, the US as a superpower. You had a complete balkanization and factoring of the Middle East and Eastern Europe. You had two world wars. You had a pandemic and you had a global market crash. The world went from the horse and buggy and oil power to lamp to the nuclear age and landing on the moon. All that happened in 60 years. Disruptive technologies were, I think, a key driver that had significant impact on geo politics and global governance. We're going through that same kind of innovation cycle and change right now, but it's not going to take 60 years for this to sort itself out. I think it's going to take probably the next 10 years, which means massive, massive, massive, massive amounts of geo political instability and uncertainty and change. I think we can come through this, but I think it's imperative for private capital and leaders within industry to be attached to hit so we can navigate this as allocators and as investors. If you do the kind of a long term buy and hold approach that had worked in in the prior 67 years, you're not going to do well if you're plugged in and if you're informed, and you're trying to develop information edge and advantage, and you can allocate in a very, very nimble, focused fashion, I think there's an opportunity for significant wealth creation in The next 10 minutes. Thank you. We're   49:22 going to, we have to   49:26 Anthony Oh, one part question, only one question.   Anthony Gordon  49:35 Oh, yeah. Well, first, there is no one question, because, as we know, it's extra inextricably linked, content, impetus wise, etc, so I'll ask it, and then just cut me off, etc. So basically, and forgive me if I didn't hear my memory short, I didn't hear talk about energy independence, us. And so I would say that there is a forward during the course of time that you. But you know you described. And so the question is, if I'm correct, does some form of us, energy independence, create a change into this forward mantra Trump as a headline is less or no war, right? And so what does that actually mean? And then how the fact that China has put down its roots into the rare earth minerals in Africa. And then how does that feed from that north up into the south? And then lastly, in that regard, Europe, which is part of the impetus for this, from whether it's Mid East or the gas prom cut off. How does that now play into it. I'm just trying to create these tangible things. Means. And then the other thing I didn't hear is that what I would say is not necessarily a 70 style resurgence, but there is clearly a lot of disruption.   50:58 Alright, I love you. I will answer that. I'm   Hamlet Yousef  51:04 reading lip sir, I think no, but great, great, multi part question. I think it actually answered back and tie a lot of these pieces together. First of all, I think China has some significant issues. I think what China has done over the last 20 years through their Belt and Road Initiative is they put out a lot of money and influence throughout the world to basically to colonize is exactly what they've done, physically and financially. They're taking over nations and resources. That's no different than being a predatory pay day loan provider. And I think what's starting to happen in the Global South and Latin America, particularly as well as Africa, I think you have nations are starting to wake up and read the finer details of the loan docs that they signed and realize that they're royally screwed. But what's starting to happen is, I think you're starting to see and I think you will see more of these nations begin to default and basically tell China to go pound sand. That opens up the opportunity for Western capital, both European and US, to come in and start partnering with local families, local industrials in the global south who want to rebuild and reshape their country and want to bring in that Western style capital. The issue there with China is, if all these countries begin to default, that is going to significantly accelerate the pressures that xi is going to have at home, which, going back to, I said earlier, could be a trigger for Xi becoming more desperate, more violent, if he faces him in a collapse at home. In terms of energy independence in the US, I think, under the under the current administration, and hopefully going forward, energy independence is gonna be a key foundation for the US. I am pretty bearish in terms of geo political instability in the near term, the next 1015, years. I think as a society, we can come out of this, but we gotta sort our own stuff out. If I look at near shore or kind of what's happening in the Western Hemisphere, I think there's a real opportunity for the creation of a super economic base or a super power in close collaboration between Canada, the US and Mexico, and I think eventually that movement can move out throughout the Americas. I don't say I don't care about what's happening, what's happening the rest of the world, or Europe or Asia. I do, but I think there's a real opportunity for there to be almost a bit of self reliance, at least in North America, if not throughout throughout South America. On the European front, I think Europe is going to have to go through their own kind of growing pains here. I think the European model of creating the EU and the EC thing worked on paper. I think it failed in execution. I think they're going to have some some serious issues. Again, they're going to sort through, not only economic but also geo political ly and from a demographic standpoint. So I think Europe is, I think they're probably entering, entering their quote, unquote lost decade, where they're going to have to find a way to soul search and fear or figure out what their form of of self self reliance and self governance is going to be, and what scares the shit out of them is you have a belligerent bear on the Eastern Front that wants to march westward. So Germany, I think, is is deflated. And I think who comes out very strong in this process is, is, I think Poland. I think Poland now is probably positioned to become one of the de facto leaders in Europe, because they're massively spending on their own self reliance and autonomy and defense, and they view themselves as kind of the guardians or the plug that's initially going to prevent that western expansion by by Putin. I think that that address all the questions you had or points you brought up.   Stephen Burke  54:47 Michael, I'm sorry at the nine o'clock mark, so next week, please, and Hamlet, thanks very much. Any closing thoughts for you, Hamlet,   Hamlet Yousef  54:59 I'm near term. Near term bearish, long term bullish. And I think the future is in our hands as leaders in capital industry. I think we need to work together and create this, this network of inter reliance of capital. I think the future is very bright. I think the amount of innovation that's going to happen is going to reach reshape the way we live our lives. As a technology investor, I just hope that we continue to invest in technology that liberates and integrates and does not give authority and power to the central agency or central authority to control us, because that's what you have in China, but the future is in our hands at this point.   Speaker 1  55:38 Thank you very much. Great, great session, and we appreciate your providing the insight. Steve, thank you everyone.   Speaker 2  55:47 Thanks for the opportunity. We'll see bye you shortly.   56:02 Simon, you on your way. Still live.   56:12 Very good. You. You can subscribe to various 361 events and content at https://361firm.com/subs. For reference: Web: www.361firm.com/homeOnboard as Investor: https://361.pub/shortdiagOnboard Deals 361: www.361firm.com/onbOnboard as Banker: www.361firm.com/bankersEvents: www.361firm.com/eventsContent: www.youtube.com/361firmWeekly Digests: www.361firm.com/digest