Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: My reason to thank to this country is moving backwards.
Speaker 1: Freedom is being reduced. A little while ago, I spoke
Speaker 1: with President Biden, who pledged all support. The White House
Speaker 1: can provide the bipartisan gun bill address as many of
Speaker 1: the aspects of these mass shures. Floomberg Sound On Politics,
Speaker 1: Policy and Perspective from DC's top name. This is truly
Speaker 1: an historic moments for we're discussing this and working to
Speaker 1: align these haphazard tariffs in our priorities. Sloomberg Sound On
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. President Biden prepares to
Speaker 1: cut Trump tariffs on China, but who will it help?
Speaker 1: Welcome to the fastest hour in politics, as we opened
Speaker 1: a short and trading week with some big decisions looming
Speaker 1: at the White House that we'll discuss them in a
Speaker 1: moment with Cleet Williams, one of President Trump's economic advisors
Speaker 1: when the tariffs were first put in place. Is Russia
Speaker 1: winning the war in Ukraine? Will Ask retired at Air
Speaker 1: Force General David Deptula with new American weapons on the
Speaker 1: way to the Daun Boss and analysis today from our
Speaker 1: signature panel Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeannie Chanzano and Rick Davis
Speaker 1: back with us for the hour. President Biden said weeks
Speaker 1: ago he was thinking about cutting tariffs that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: put in place on China several years back, and he
Speaker 1: could be preparing to do so in the next couple
Speaker 1: of days. According to Bloomberg News, White House Press Secretary
Speaker 1: Karine Jean Pierre talked about it on the way back
Speaker 1: from Europe last week on Air Force One. Here she is,
Speaker 1: we're discussing this and working to align these haphazard tariffs
Speaker 1: and our priorities to safeguard the interest of our workers.
Speaker 1: Could get a decision again in the coming days, they say,
Speaker 1: knowing now. The Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen spoke over the
Speaker 1: weekend with a vice premiere of China. It's getting to
Speaker 1: be a high level conversation, but unclear what round of
Speaker 1: tariffs might be cut, what impact is well it would
Speaker 1: have on prices here in the US, if any. So
Speaker 1: we wanted to talk with somebody who is in the
Speaker 1: room when these terrorists were conceived and implemented. Cleet Williams
Speaker 1: was Deputy Director of the National Economic Council in the
Speaker 1: Trump White House and served as Deputy Assistant to the
Speaker 1: President for International Economics. He is now with the firm
Speaker 1: partner at Akin, gump Strauss, Howard and Feld and a
Speaker 1: nonresident Senior Fellow with the Atlantic Council's Geoeconomics Center. It's
Speaker 1: a long business card, cleet, Welcome, It's great to have you. Uh.
Speaker 1: You must be chuckling a little bit today as everyone
Speaker 1: becomes an expert suddenly on tariffs, which are incredibly complex.
Speaker 1: But the fact is China has not really changed the
Speaker 1: behavior that led to them in the first place, and
Speaker 1: people a lot smarter than I am say it wouldn't
Speaker 1: have much of an impact. So I ask you, is
Speaker 1: it worth it? Is it worth bringing them down to
Speaker 1: try to get to inflation? Sure? And I think this
Speaker 1: is a little bit more of a complicated topic than
Speaker 1: it's being made out in the press. And in many
Speaker 1: respects this is being painted is simply a question or
Speaker 1: do we want to get rid of tariffs to fight
Speaker 1: inflation versus do we want to maintain the status quo
Speaker 1: because China hasn't changed its behavior in the way that
Speaker 1: we ask and and look, my my personal view is
Speaker 1: that that's really the wrong question. I think what the
Speaker 1: administration should do is take a step back, look at
Speaker 1: these tariffs holistically, figure out which ones are putting pressure
Speaker 1: on China, which ones are hurting China versus which ones
Speaker 1: are hurting our economy, and look at increasing tariffs on
Speaker 1: the ones that are that are harmful to China and
Speaker 1: get rid of the tariffs and the ones that are
Speaker 1: harmful to us. And that could be a more holistic
Speaker 1: restructuring of this whole list. But I think, what, yeah,
Speaker 1: But what I think what the administration is looking at
Speaker 1: in the short term is much more modest than that,
Speaker 1: um and maybe they'll get to where I'm suggesting over time.
Speaker 1: But I think, you know, investors in the next couple
Speaker 1: of days really should only be looking at some sort
Speaker 1: of minor tariff relief for inflation, and then maybe a
Speaker 1: longer term process to do a little bit of what
Speaker 1: I'm describing. So this is interesting that Dow Jones is
Speaker 1: reporting that, you know, the Biden deministration might choose to
Speaker 1: cut tariffs on some seasonal consumer items. I mean, they
Speaker 1: actually seemed pretty trivial sunscreen bicycles, uh, waiting pools, and
Speaker 1: I think I saw the Bloomberg story uh while hiking
Speaker 1: not just maintaining but hiking tariffs on things like heavy
Speaker 1: machinery and transportation equipment. Are we getting warmer their cleap Well, look,
Speaker 1: I think that's more in the line that the administration
Speaker 1: should go. I will be a little bit surprised though,
Speaker 1: if they fully articulate that strategy in the next couple
Speaker 1: of days. As as I understand it, I think you're
Speaker 1: going to get that short term tariff relief and then
Speaker 1: probably the start of a process to look at some
Speaker 1: of those tariffs increases, because they don't necessarily have the
Speaker 1: right legal tools right now to just simply increase tariffs
Speaker 1: without going through a whole process. Yeah, I would look
Speaker 1: at this as a short term and a long term action,
Speaker 1: and hopef we will the long term they get in
Speaker 1: the direction you're discussing understood, Then comes the impact you
Speaker 1: Barclays calls it a drop in the bucket, three tenths
Speaker 1: of a percentage point, maybe an inflation. The Peterson Institute
Speaker 1: quarter percentage point, maybe more, though they say a FUS
Speaker 1: companies that you know then cut their prices in response,
Speaker 1: which is a big gift of those numbers sound real
Speaker 1: to you, No, I think that's right, And what some
Speaker 1: of the reports have suggested is that the order of
Speaker 1: magnitude of these short term cuts is around ten billion dollars.
Speaker 1: And if that's true, you're talking about ten billion out
Speaker 1: of three d and sixty odd billion and tearraffs. So
Speaker 1: it's a pretty small percentage. And I do think in
Speaker 1: terms of effecting overall CPI, inflation, in disease, it's unlikely
Speaker 1: to be significant. But I think what the Biden administration
Speaker 1: is gambling on is that on some very specific products, UH,
Speaker 1: people are gonna go to stores and see an immediate
Speaker 1: price reduction. And that's a big one. If I know,
Speaker 1: they're trying to get retailers to make those commitments, but
Speaker 1: I'm not sure whether they've been successful. And I guess
Speaker 1: we'll see. You ask Katherine Tye and you get a
Speaker 1: different answer on all of this. The US Trade representative,
Speaker 1: you know, suggesting there is an argument inside the White House.
Speaker 1: Our reporting says Katherine Tye wants the tariffs to stay
Speaker 1: right where they are. She says, you take away the
Speaker 1: tariffs and you lose the leverage. It's kind of the
Speaker 1: only leverage we have over paiging. Have these helped in
Speaker 1: retrospect as a diplomatic tool. So look, I think they
Speaker 1: were helpful as an initial matter. They did help yield
Speaker 1: the Phase one deal, which I will continue to defend
Speaker 1: as at least making some incremental progress in opening up
Speaker 1: China's market, But I think at this point in time
Speaker 1: they aren't having much effect. Now I don't I want
Speaker 1: to be sympathetic to what Embassador Tie is saying. I
Speaker 1: get the idea that we don't want to just let
Speaker 1: China off the hook, and that's why I think you
Speaker 1: do need to look at other products in which we
Speaker 1: should actually increase tariffs. But at the same time, I
Speaker 1: would point out, you know, she she talks about leverage,
Speaker 1: but there isn't any real I'm going negotiation with China,
Speaker 1: So so leverage for what what is it she's she's
Speaker 1: seeking leverage for? And so again I think if she
Speaker 1: wants to have active negotiations with China, that's a valid question.
Speaker 1: But if not, again my vote remains, let's look at
Speaker 1: these holistically, figure out which ones are hurting us, and
Speaker 1: let's change those and then maybe be more strategic about
Speaker 1: where we put the pressure on China. You mentioned Phase one,
Speaker 1: the deal, the trade deal you signed with China, in
Speaker 1: as part of the Trump administration has never been fully
Speaker 1: realized because China never reached the purchasing goals that it
Speaker 1: agreed to. Should Joe Biden be taking a harder line
Speaker 1: on that side of our trade agreement? So I think
Speaker 1: it's important that the Biden administration do pressure China to
Speaker 1: fully implement the agreement. But I would actually point out
Speaker 1: that China's record is a little bit more mixed than
Speaker 1: they get credit for because the purchases were only part
Speaker 1: of this. There were systemic changes, structural changes they agreed
Speaker 1: to make on intellectual property and on agriculture that they
Speaker 1: actually did did follow through on. So it's a it's
Speaker 1: a mixed bag rather than a total a total waste.
Speaker 1: But not what if they've done an intellectual property question?
Speaker 1: What's that? What if they accomplished on intellectual property? That
Speaker 1: that gets your that gets your thumbs up. Well, they've
Speaker 1: passed the trade secrets law, they have made some moves
Speaker 1: to enforce, to create an enforcement rite in courts for
Speaker 1: various types of patent protection, and so you know, there's
Speaker 1: some some moves that they've made. How they achieve everything
Speaker 1: we set out to do? Are they still requiring force
Speaker 1: technology transfer. Yeah, that's that's that's a problem. So it's
Speaker 1: not it's not a complete victory, but I think it's
Speaker 1: unfair to say that it achieved nothing. And I think
Speaker 1: the terro ups that we put in place in initially
Speaker 1: did contribute to some of those outcomes. Click Williams. He
Speaker 1: was there, and we thank you for your insights on
Speaker 1: an interesting day here in the world of politics, talking
Speaker 1: about China tariffs again and whether or not we're about
Speaker 1: to get news. We do want to air this out
Speaker 1: and we assemble our panel, if only to hear the
Speaker 1: voices of Rick Davis and Jeannie Chanzano after a long weekend. Uh.
Speaker 1: Great to have both of you guys back, now that
Speaker 1: your ears have stopped ringing from fireworks all night. Rick,
Speaker 1: I wonder if you see some action here, something that
Speaker 1: would be worthwhile, or if we're gonna keep nibbling around
Speaker 1: the edges and and and calling this, you know, another
Speaker 1: another swing at the inflation bowl. Well, you know, it's
Speaker 1: the reporting that I've got, and and that is the
Speaker 1: nibbling around the edge of strategy, which is incredible because
Speaker 1: you would think that this administration would get out of
Speaker 1: this defensive crouch related to anything Trump, and and and
Speaker 1: and make some changes. I mean it's almost like he's
Speaker 1: got Trump in his head renting space, you know, don't
Speaker 1: change any of my policies on immigration or on trade
Speaker 1: with China. I mean, it's it's really phenomenal. Even some
Speaker 1: some ghosts of Russia putin are in there. So I
Speaker 1: think this administration needs to make a break. And I
Speaker 1: think again, follow a little bit of Larry Summer's advice,
Speaker 1: you know, drop these tariffs, reduce inflation, and get on
Speaker 1: with the economic business of our country. This be across
Speaker 1: the board, Genie, or as we were talking with Cleatney,
Speaker 1: in a little bit more of a of a scalpel approach,
Speaker 1: and try to figure out what actually might be putting
Speaker 1: the squeeze on China and keeping it there. I think
Speaker 1: Clee is exactly right. I think it is going to
Speaker 1: be narrow. And here's why. Because you've got competing camps
Speaker 1: in the White House. You talked about some of those
Speaker 1: in the administration yelling versus tie. You've also got competing
Speaker 1: interest groups that have the president's ear business groups, the
Speaker 1: US Chamber, labor progressives. So he's hearing from a lot
Speaker 1: of these knowing Joe Biden the way he do we do.
Speaker 1: He's not going to go big like Rick is talking about.
Speaker 1: He is going to take a narrow scout, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of strategic approach. He's going to try to cut tariffs.
Speaker 1: I bet in areas that he thinks can impact consumers.
Speaker 1: I've heard people talk about things like school supplies, clothing, food,
Speaker 1: things like that that hopefully impact. But the question, of
Speaker 1: course that you raised, is is it really going to
Speaker 1: be effective? Is it going to hit cost and help people?
Speaker 1: And that's the big question. I think he's going to
Speaker 1: take a chance that might but he won't go big.
Speaker 1: You know they could do is pass this trying to
Speaker 1: competes legislation. Rick, that's got the chip AC. Now Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell is threatening to withdraw Republican support, or at least
Speaker 1: his own support, if Democrats pursue a reconciliation package this year.
Speaker 1: I don't want to walk too far away from this
Speaker 1: tariff story, but that is one of the most tangible
Speaker 1: ways we could actually do something with China. And here
Speaker 1: it is on the rocks again. Are you hearing this
Speaker 1: is going to pass anyway that there's enough support, Well,
Speaker 1: there's enough support for it. It's just a question of
Speaker 1: you know, whether or not you're using the Chip Act
Speaker 1: as a leverage item in Congress. But but this is
Speaker 1: really the point, Joe, is that are these these these
Speaker 1: tariffs aren't actually getting us anything from China. They're not
Speaker 1: even implementing almost the one. So where are we getting
Speaker 1: from these and what leverage are is Tai talking about?
Speaker 1: The leverage we have is on chips and we need
Speaker 1: to pass that bill. Caught him all, Genie, or or
Speaker 1: take the narrow path you just mentioned. I think he
Speaker 1: should go big, but my guess is he goes strategically,
Speaker 1: will go narrow because he's facing a lot of competing pressures.
Speaker 1: We stick with the panel, Rick Davis and Jeannie Chanzano next,
Speaker 1: as we look back on the president's remarks on America's birthday.
Speaker 1: This is sound Off and this is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: So on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. We come
Speaker 1: fourth on the fifth, even though we were kept up
Speaker 1: all night by amateur fireworks. But hey, it's only once
Speaker 1: a year. I do hope you had a great Fourth
Speaker 1: of July. President Biden seemed to have a good time,
Speaker 1: a good holiday at the White House, the military, families
Speaker 1: on the lawn, special guests, the cookouts going yes, you
Speaker 1: read on the terminal. Biden urges unity despite economic worries
Speaker 1: and deep divisions, celebrated at the cookout, noting the nation
Speaker 1: has made great strides, but also well, listen to the
Speaker 1: president the reason days there's been reason to think that
Speaker 1: this country's we're backward, that freedom is being reduced. We
Speaker 1: assume we're protected, are no longer America has taken a
Speaker 1: few steps backward. At the fourth of July picnic, we
Speaker 1: reassembled the panel with Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie Chantano and
Speaker 1: Rick Davis. Is that the time to strike that that
Speaker 1: note here? And I know I've asked this before, but
Speaker 1: I mean, isn't that kind of his version of the
Speaker 1: Malay speech? Here? Jeannie, That's exactly what I thought when
Speaker 1: I listened to it. That and the fact that July
Speaker 1: four has not been kind to Joe Biden in the
Speaker 1: last couple of years. So last year he was declaring
Speaker 1: independence from COVID, that of course blew up several months
Speaker 1: later in all of our faces. And this year, you know,
Speaker 1: comments like you know, he was shocked by the what
Speaker 1: happened in the horrific shooting in Chicago. But you know
Speaker 1: the fact is you listen to people on the ground
Speaker 1: and they're saying, you know, the president doesn't seem and
Speaker 1: most only invested in any of these issues, and he
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to have the sort of you know answer,
Speaker 1: He doesn't seem to have the sort of drive that people,
Speaker 1: particularly on the left, want him to. And quite frankly,
Speaker 1: the emotion of somebody like the governor from Illinois who
Speaker 1: spoke out after the shooting. So there's a lot to
Speaker 1: be to be you know, sort of um, you know,
Speaker 1: reconsidered about the way in which this communications team is
Speaker 1: getting him out there. It's really problematic, Rick, you spent
Speaker 1: a career of helping to prepare elected officials for speeches
Speaker 1: and and being in the moment reading the room, realizing
Speaker 1: he was talking about, you know, referring to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decisions last week. Uh, in recent days there was
Speaker 1: reason to think this country is moving backward? Is that's
Speaker 1: something that should that should ever come from a president?
Speaker 1: Never mind on the fourth of July. Well, I think
Speaker 1: he's echoing every man. This is every man Joe Biden
Speaker 1: and I guess he forgot he's president United States and
Speaker 1: responsible for that movement. Um. You know, posters I've talked
Speaker 1: to you say we're in rare fight air. As of
Speaker 1: July four, holiday, over any percent of the American voting
Speaker 1: public are saying that the country's on the wrong track,
Speaker 1: and Joe Biden seems to agree with him. You know,
Speaker 1: I think that he should be the guy showing us
Speaker 1: the way forward, not um, you know, reacting to how
Speaker 1: everyone thinks we're going backward. Well, so how about now
Speaker 1: we start a fight about the economy with one of
Speaker 1: the most successful entrepreneurs in American history, That, of course
Speaker 1: would be Jeff Bezos. You guys saw the tweets back
Speaker 1: and forth, uh that you know. The President was going
Speaker 1: after uh, the the oil and gas companies, saying, hey,
Speaker 1: how come prices haven't come down gas prices with the
Speaker 1: price of crude And he got an answer from Jeff Bezos,
Speaker 1: who called him out for not knowing very much about
Speaker 1: the economy. Karine john Pierre, the Press secretary at the
Speaker 1: White House, was asked about this today coming off the weekend.
Speaker 1: Here's her answer. As you know, we we completely disagree
Speaker 1: with Jeff Bezos. Look we will continue to call on
Speaker 1: everyone along that distribution chain, as I just mentioned, from
Speaker 1: oil companies to refineries, to distribt distributors to to retailers
Speaker 1: to pass their low lower cost through two consumers. That
Speaker 1: is what is important to make sure that we should
Speaker 1: not make again consumers pay first and get that room
Speaker 1: and get that relief. Last this after Jeff Bezos responded
Speaker 1: to a presidential tweet, again saying in part, it's either
Speaker 1: straight ahead misdirection or a deep misunderstanding of basic market dynamics.
Speaker 1: Is that a conversation you want to get into, Genie,
Speaker 1: Absolutely not. And you know, you look at this tweet
Speaker 1: and the tweet ends with forwards. Anybody who has kids. No,
Speaker 1: you never say and do it now unless you can
Speaker 1: force the person to do it, and he can't. He's
Speaker 1: going after gas stations here. You know, it would be
Speaker 1: one thing if what Jeff Bezos was saying was, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of holly crazy. But this was a tweet that
Speaker 1: got attacked some sort of all sort of cycles. And
Speaker 1: you know, the thing is is that they have to
Speaker 1: be better about their message, and this tweet displays that
Speaker 1: they are not. And that's the problem with it. Apart
Speaker 1: from anything Jeff Bezos had to say about it. So
Speaker 1: he's he's gone after gone at it with Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: Now Jeff Bezos, uh speaking of rarefied air. I mean
Speaker 1: he's keeping good company. I guess here, Rick, But how
Speaker 1: does this play politically? I can't wait for the Bill
Speaker 1: Gates tweet. I mean, like, is he just picking on
Speaker 1: the wealthiest people in the world? I mean, is that
Speaker 1: the new strategy? Honestly, I don't get it. Um what what?
Speaker 1: What in the world does does Jeff Bezos have to
Speaker 1: do with gasoline prices? And in other words, like I
Speaker 1: get where he sits in the supply chain and how
Speaker 1: important he is as a you know, distributor of goods
Speaker 1: all around the world. But do you think there are
Speaker 1: any voters who are thinking about the November election going, Hey,
Speaker 1: that guy Bezos is the problem with gas prices? I mean, like,
Speaker 1: this is this is something that these guys in the
Speaker 1: White House have to get real on shore not have
Speaker 1: replied to that reply. I think, why pick a fight
Speaker 1: with a guy who has a newspaper, he owns the
Speaker 1: Washington Bios, he buys ink by the barrel. You don't
Speaker 1: pick fights with people like that. Is he's onto something there.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming they are prime members though, yeah, you bet
Speaker 1: they are. They have to do something over the weekend
Speaker 1: like the rest of us. Um. You know. But but
Speaker 1: but again, you know, I think this is broader than
Speaker 1: the President. I think it has to do with this
Speaker 1: communications team at the White House. They've had a really,
Speaker 1: really tough time and we're hearing it on abortion, We're
Speaker 1: hearing it on guns from the left, and they are
Speaker 1: frustrated that the President can't get out and say this
Speaker 1: is what I'm going to do to address these crazies
Speaker 1: in the country. Rick and Jennie stay with us for
Speaker 1: the hour. Up next is Russia winning the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about it with retired Air Force General David
Speaker 1: Deptula on the fastest hour in politics. It's great to
Speaker 1: have you back with us. We'll check traffic and markets
Speaker 1: for you on the way. I'm Joe Matthew. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg broadcasting live from our nation's capital. Bloomberg to New York,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg eleven trio to Boston, Bloomberg one oh six one
Speaker 1: to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine sixty to the Country. Serious
Speaker 1: x M General one ninety and around the globe of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Business app then Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sond On with Joe Matthew. Russia tightens its grip
Speaker 1: on the Don Boss, leading some military analysts to suggest
Speaker 1: the tide has turned for Russia and ask whether the
Speaker 1: US is being realistic about its goals. We'll have the
Speaker 1: latest on the war and discuss it all with retired
Speaker 1: Air Force General David Depp. To look, Turkey is still
Speaker 1: causing some trouble inside the family when it comes to
Speaker 1: NATO admitting Finland in Sweden. This seemed over for a
Speaker 1: minute when President Biden met with Urdwan. Now not so much,
Speaker 1: as Turkey renews its threat to block the expansion if
Speaker 1: these two countries do not extradite people that considers terror.
Speaker 1: Turkey today though still joined allies and signing off on
Speaker 1: plans to get the ball rolling on bringing the two
Speaker 1: into the Alliance, just simply maintaining the threat. Here's NATO
Speaker 1: Secretary General again Stoltenberg. Today we will formally sign the
Speaker 1: protocols of accession. This marks the start of the gratification courses.
Speaker 1: So from here, the parliaments of each of the thirty
Speaker 1: NATO nations must then ratify the expansion. So this is
Speaker 1: going to take a minute. This is could be a
Speaker 1: few months even before Sweden and Finland are in the fold,
Speaker 1: as long as Turkey doesn't have a problem. So what
Speaker 1: shape will Ukraine be in by then? I ask you
Speaker 1: that as the front page of the fourth of July
Speaker 1: Washington Post with the headline more military advisers suggesting the
Speaker 1: U S maybe too optimistic about the outcome of this war.
Speaker 1: And we're joined now by a reliable voice, retired Air
Speaker 1: Force General David Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute for
Speaker 1: Aerospace Studies. General, it's great to have you back. I'll
Speaker 1: start simply by asking you, is Russia winning this war? Well,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me on, Joe. UM, I'd say no,
Speaker 1: Russia is not winning winning the war yet. UM. It
Speaker 1: is still very much contested UH conflict, with the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: doing their best to hold on. But as you suggested,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, the Russians have an enormous stockpile of
Speaker 1: weapons and ammunition UH, and Ukraine has made it clear
Speaker 1: that Western nations need to come to their assistance if
Speaker 1: they're going to be able to hold out against the Russians.
Speaker 1: I still think that, Um, the issue is yet to
Speaker 1: be decided and it will take some time. UM, but
Speaker 1: you know, we we've got to stop procrastinating. When I
Speaker 1: say we, I mean the collective Western nations that are
Speaker 1: in support of the principles of Ukraine and send them
Speaker 1: weapons that matter. UM. So we've been sending a lot
Speaker 1: more recently, as as I'm sure you've seen in reporting
Speaker 1: the high mobility artillery rocket systems. I think I think
Speaker 1: you call them the him our systems. We just gave them,
Speaker 1: or at least approved, whether they're on the ground yet
Speaker 1: and being used, uh more advanced longer range ground to
Speaker 1: air missile defense systems. What are we not giving them then?
Speaker 1: In general? Well, well the point in thanks for bringing
Speaker 1: that up, um, High Mars uh is a excellent medium
Speaker 1: range rocket system, but we've only given them eight in
Speaker 1: that new air defense system you mentioned, we've only given
Speaker 1: them too now in we just supply them, you know,
Speaker 1: with about a week's worth of artillery ammunition. So is
Speaker 1: it more high Mars or stuff they don't have yet, No,
Speaker 1: it's stuff they don't have yet. What Ukraine has stated
Speaker 1: and the President has made is very clear as they
Speaker 1: need air power. They've stated the need for F sixteens
Speaker 1: and F fifteens to replace their Soviet Air Air Force
Speaker 1: as their legacy air force is becoming non viable. Um
Speaker 1: and I can speak to that, but I want to
Speaker 1: pack up too much time. But the obstacles to supplying
Speaker 1: the capabilities that they actually need that can make a
Speaker 1: difference to the Russian um A really centered in the
Speaker 1: National Security Council and the current administration policy of appeasing
Speaker 1: Russia to the extent permitted by current politics. So how
Speaker 1: do you get him F sixteens if we couldn't get
Speaker 1: a dozen bigs in there at the beginning of this war, Well,
Speaker 1: that's part of the issue. Unfortunately, since Russia invaded Ukraine,
Speaker 1: Putin's rhetoric has done more to deter action by the
Speaker 1: United States and NATO to assist Ukraine than the US
Speaker 1: and NATO has onto the turb Putin and you just
Speaker 1: mentioned one of the prime examples. Those May twenty nine
Speaker 1: should have been gotten to Ukraine early on. Uh and
Speaker 1: then there's been the reluctance to send advanced unman aial
Speaker 1: vehicles or drones the MP on m Q nine the Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So then cheddyal, you understand why people are asking is
Speaker 1: it too late here? As as Russia advances to to
Speaker 1: finish its job, things are looking pretty red all the
Speaker 1: way down to the eastern borderline. Well, that's true. However,
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians have done a magnificent job in halting and
Speaker 1: then reversing their initial assault. Um. The Russians have been
Speaker 1: dug in in the eastern portion of Ukraine and been
Speaker 1: fighting for eight years, so it's not surprising that they've
Speaker 1: restrengthened their initiative there. But I think you'll see the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians do a good job in halting them in that location.
Speaker 1: It's not too late, but we need to send the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians weapons that matter, not just something minimal to get
Speaker 1: by to say that we've done something. If we don't
Speaker 1: give them fighter jets, can they win the war? No,
Speaker 1: because you don't have air superiority, you're gonna lose. Your
Speaker 1: superiority is contested. Um, But they're their Their current air
Speaker 1: forces have been reduced due to attrition losses UH in
Speaker 1: constant use. So unless Ukraine acquires replacement fighter force of
Speaker 1: Western origin, they're gonna lose the ability to defend their
Speaker 1: airspace and support its ground forces. And we both seem
Speaker 1: to understand each other that that's not likely to happen, right, Well,
Speaker 1: I don't know if the If the administration doesn't do it, um,
Speaker 1: then it may take Congress um to legislate the necessity
Speaker 1: to provide this equipment necessary to Ukraine's survival in the
Speaker 1: face of Russians aggression. How based on your experience in Washington, General,
Speaker 1: in our in our remaining minute here, when do you
Speaker 1: start hearing the uproar about war fatigue and concern about
Speaker 1: rebuilding our own war chest after we've given them, frankly,
Speaker 1: quite a lot of stuff. So you know, I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you, Joe, I think you're already hearing it, um,
Speaker 1: And it is not rebuilding the war chest, is that
Speaker 1: we have neglected our war chest for thirty years. We're
Speaker 1: half the size that we were when we won Desert Store.
Speaker 1: We have to buy a lot of stuff. Yeah, if
Speaker 1: we're half the size then and we've neglected our own
Speaker 1: military for years and years, we don't have the numbers
Speaker 1: of weapons required, or the systems or the type to
Speaker 1: fight the Chinese and men in the South China seats.
Speaker 1: And that's a whole other conversation that I'd love to
Speaker 1: have you back for General David Deptula with some strong
Speaker 1: opinions about this. We want to play it to the
Speaker 1: panel next. Rick and Genie will be with us on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Sound On. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg So On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. General
Speaker 1: David dep Tila just told us Ukraine cannot win the
Speaker 1: war against Russia without new fighter jets. It sounds like
Speaker 1: not just a few of them, based on everything we've
Speaker 1: heard from the administration, this White House not getting any
Speaker 1: new fighter jets. Let's reassemble the panel for more on this.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Genie Chancey know, Rick,
Speaker 1: I think you supported given them the MiGs, you know,
Speaker 1: six months ago or five months ago, whatever it was
Speaker 1: at this point. But there there does seem to be
Speaker 1: a growing concern that the tide is turning in Russia's favor,
Speaker 1: that this will not be over anytime soon, and it
Speaker 1: may actually not end in Ukraine's favor. Do you see
Speaker 1: this as stark as the general and that if they
Speaker 1: don't get a new air force basically they can't win. Look,
Speaker 1: I think obviously we're in a very critical time where
Speaker 1: Russia is starting to make gains after repeated failures on
Speaker 1: the field of play. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: I think the point you make is we're probably in
Speaker 1: it for a long haul. That Russia isn't going to
Speaker 1: sue for peace. Ukraine wants its territory back and wants
Speaker 1: the AMMO and and equipment to do that, and and
Speaker 1: it's really up to the policy makers in Washington and
Speaker 1: Europe to determine whether they're going to give them that.
Speaker 1: And we can cry over spilt milk. We should have
Speaker 1: armed Ukraine long before Putin went across the border, but
Speaker 1: you know we were, oh, we don't want to provoke Putin. Well,
Speaker 1: the lesson we should learn is we should do what's
Speaker 1: in our interests and that in the world's interest for
Speaker 1: peace and stability, and not worry about Vladimir Putin. And
Speaker 1: by the way, the next lesson to learn is in Taiwan,
Speaker 1: are we upgunning Taiwan now? Because the same lesson, oh,
Speaker 1: we don't want to provoke g Well, what is the
Speaker 1: lesson we just learned? In the Ukraine needs president but
Speaker 1: I need to rethink. The Jets had a pretty hard
Speaker 1: line on this idea when it first came up, but
Speaker 1: it's been five months. If he's listening to the general,
Speaker 1: he does need to rethink this. And you know, I
Speaker 1: heard the General say, you know, to your point there,
Speaker 1: they can't win the war without the jets and without
Speaker 1: the air power, and if the administration doesn't do it,
Speaker 1: we're gonna wait for Congress. Well you know you might
Speaker 1: as well just yeah, I mean, that's you know, that's
Speaker 1: not going to happen. So the Biden administration is going
Speaker 1: to have to rethink this. But I think the problem
Speaker 1: here is is that they are sort of trapped. They
Speaker 1: don't want to commit to this war and the way
Speaker 1: they need to so Ukraine can win by the end
Speaker 1: of the year or you know, in the near future.
Speaker 1: The United States the West doesn't want to commit that much,
Speaker 1: and so we don't want to commit. We're doing this,
Speaker 1: you know, in a sort of with a hands off
Speaker 1: approach with these big investments, and in this way, we
Speaker 1: are really playing into Putin's hands. Because you play the
Speaker 1: long game on these things. There is going to be
Speaker 1: a point at which Americans are going to say enough
Speaker 1: is enough, and we will have to, you know, stop
Speaker 1: the investment. So the Biden administration has to think long
Speaker 1: and hard how does this thing end? And if Russia
Speaker 1: is going to be beat, an investment is going to
Speaker 1: have to happen, and it's going to have to be big.
Speaker 1: All the while, Brittany Griner is sending letters to the president. Rick,
Speaker 1: you've probably heard about this by now. The w NBA
Speaker 1: player who has been in jail, has been jailed in
Speaker 1: Russia now for months, told Joe Biden in the letter
Speaker 1: that she is terrified I might be here forever. Was
Speaker 1: the quote, according to the Associated Press. Uh. This was
Speaker 1: delivered to the White House by a representative. The Press
Speaker 1: Secretary today said the President read it in her presence.
Speaker 1: Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, talked about this recently.
Speaker 1: Here's what he said about the engagement the administration has.
Speaker 1: We are actively working to find a resolution to this
Speaker 1: case and will continue to do so without rest until
Speaker 1: we get Britney safely home. Rick, how do you solve
Speaker 1: this right now? And what leverage, if any, does the
Speaker 1: United States have as Russia conducts this proxy war for Ukraine. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's tough, right because we can't really add sanctions to sanctions,
Speaker 1: because if we could add more sanctions, we would anyway.
Speaker 1: Um uh, you know there the solutions that seem to
Speaker 1: make sense in this kind of a problem are prisoner swaps. Right,
Speaker 1: You're not negotiating for a release of Brittany Grinder, You're
Speaker 1: you're just making a trade. And and there are trades
Speaker 1: going on every single day on the on the on
Speaker 1: the front between Ukraine and Russian soldiers and prisoners of war.
Speaker 1: And so you would hope that that that that something
Speaker 1: like that could be expedited in this process as quickly
Speaker 1: as possible. Every day matters to somebody like Brittany, and
Speaker 1: and frankly, this administration's ability to look strong in in
Speaker 1: the of this it's been getting noisy lately, especially now
Speaker 1: today with the letter today in the yesterday Jeannie, but
Speaker 1: we're talking about a two time Olympic gold medalist, Uh,
Speaker 1: could be in Russia in jail for a decade, accused
Speaker 1: of of carrying cannabis oil vape cartridges into the country.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised this hasn't gotten more coverage? How how
Speaker 1: come this hasn't been discussed more openly by the White House?
Speaker 1: You know, I think early on the family, we understand
Speaker 1: was told, you know, not to make it an issue
Speaker 1: in the press, that they should try to go through
Speaker 1: back channels with the administration. They clearly have grown tired
Speaker 1: of that and they have gone public. But let's think
Speaker 1: about this. There's a nine conviction rate in Russia. She
Speaker 1: will be convicted. She will be convicted, and she will
Speaker 1: be sentenced to ten years and her probably best bet,
Speaker 1: to Rick's point, is some kind of prisoner swap. Now,
Speaker 1: the administration was able to do this successfully in April,
Speaker 1: in the midst of the war with Trevor Reid, so
Speaker 1: they may be able to do it. But she's got
Speaker 1: a long road if you look at that trajectory, because
Speaker 1: she's going to have to be convicted and then they're
Speaker 1: going to have to do some kind of prisoner swap
Speaker 1: if they are willing to do it. So, you know,
Speaker 1: it is a devastating, devastating issue. She's a hostage, not
Speaker 1: a prisoner. But it's not That's what I wanted to
Speaker 1: ask if this, if we're talking about a prisoner swap, Rick,
Speaker 1: is Britney Grinder a hostage? Well, I think you can
Speaker 1: assume that the Russians are treating her as a prisoner.
Speaker 1: But I think the way we look at it is
Speaker 1: she's a hostage and and and and in semantics are
Speaker 1: only important to get something done here, right. Uh it's
Speaker 1: if if if she's a prisoner by Russian standards, and
Speaker 1: we do a prisoner swap, then then for the purposes
Speaker 1: of getting her out of there, you know that that's
Speaker 1: the decision. But what if she actually stays stuff with her?
Speaker 1: It almost is irrelevant at this stage, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: like anybody who we have cooling their heels, you know,
Speaker 1: from Russia in our prison system, or people who we
Speaker 1: have um detained around the world. Uh, we're not gonna
Speaker 1: We're not going to spend the time thinking guilt or
Speaker 1: innocence if we want to be able to get her
Speaker 1: out of the happen it was one of us, um,
Speaker 1: I would hope. So if I'm asking genuinely if this
Speaker 1: might go, We've got a two time gold medal medal winner,
Speaker 1: and and it's taking months for this to get on
Speaker 1: the front page. Genie, Yeah, you know, I think if
Speaker 1: it was you were Rick, you'd be out. I think
Speaker 1: I may be there like Britney Grener, but you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: I do think we should discuss Yeah, I do think
Speaker 1: we should. We should call her a hostage, you know.
Speaker 1: And I think the frustration with many of these families,
Speaker 1: whether they're in prison or hostages. The United States has
Speaker 1: a policy of not negotiating with terrorists and not negotiating
Speaker 1: for hostage release, and yet we will do it with Russia.
Speaker 1: And that is a point of real frustration. Goes well
Speaker 1: beyond the Biden administration to u S policy more broadly
Speaker 1: for many, many decades, which has long been questioned. Well,
Speaker 1: the administration says she has been wrongfully detained. You'll know
Speaker 1: something's going on if they refer her as a hostage, certainly,
Speaker 1: or a political prisoner. Uh. This is the New York
Speaker 1: Times rights over the weekend that it's time to or
Speaker 1: at least some orchestras are rethinking the use of the
Speaker 1: eighteen twelve overture. Of course, a right, as they say,
Speaker 1: of July fourth celebrations. Of course, this is Tchaikovsky's overture,
Speaker 1: written as a commemoration of Russia's defeat of Napoleon's army.
Speaker 1: So how exactly it became associated with the fourth of
Speaker 1: July has a lot of people wondering. You know what
Speaker 1: we're talking about, right, Let's let's do it right here
Speaker 1: from the Esquimator. Yes, the great moment every year. The
Speaker 1: Boston Pops made this what it is today, and the
Speaker 1: great David Mugar, who suggested then to Arthur Feedler, the conductor,
Speaker 1: that if you want to get people to turn out
Speaker 1: for this thing, play the eighteen twelve and I'll bring it.
Speaker 1: A bunch of howitzer cannons will play, church bells will
Speaker 1: have the full smash, as Fiedler said, so all hell
Speaker 1: could break loose. And indeed this has become copied all over, duplicated,
Speaker 1: a nicer word all over the country. Every year on
Speaker 1: the fourth of July. Wouldn't be America's birthday without it
Speaker 1: until Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine and some orchestras actually decided
Speaker 1: to drop it from the routine on this fourth of
Speaker 1: July Boston, as you saw last night in Bloomberg's coverage,
Speaker 1: was not one of them, but many ensembles, concerned about
Speaker 1: the overtures history as a celebration of the Russian military,
Speaker 1: reconsidered the work because of the war in Ukraine. Have
Speaker 1: we lost it here? Rick? Yeah, wokeness at a new level.
Speaker 1: I mean that we're blaming Tchaikovsky on put Putin on
Speaker 1: Tchaikovsky or whatever. I mean, I'm losing track. You know,
Speaker 1: when do we Bann Wagner because he was around the
Speaker 1: time of the Nazis. I mean, enough of this. I
Speaker 1: have to admit it made me think of the Smirnov story.
Speaker 1: A genie. Everybody started the boycott smearing off vodka after
Speaker 1: the invasion, not realizing that it's actually not made in Russia. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. And Joe, I hope you weren't amongst them.
Speaker 1: I hope you kept with your smearing off the bars
Speaker 1: fully stocked. And you know, I have to say, I
Speaker 1: am a trombone player. You don't know this about me, probably,
Speaker 1: but I am an old, very bad trombone player, and
Speaker 1: I have played the overture of eighteen twelve, So I
Speaker 1: just cannot go along with any boycott. I love eighteen twelve.
Speaker 1: It must be played. Fiedler was right, and I was
Speaker 1: so glad that the Boston Pops did it. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I guess I was too. And boy, it was just
Speaker 1: incredible to watch it on Bloomberg. Everybody had gosh, I
Speaker 1: there have been years I've been lucky enough to be there.
Speaker 1: It looked great, everyone was back for the first time
Speaker 1: since COVID. And then I read that the eighteen twelve
Speaker 1: is a problem, the latest, as the paper of Record
Speaker 1: in New York says, the latest example of the difficult
Speaker 1: questions facing cultural institutions since the war began. This one
Speaker 1: maybe a tune to fall Are. It's great to be
Speaker 1: back with everybody's Rick and Genie. Of course our signature
Speaker 1: panel here on Bloomberg Sound on, and we'll do it
Speaker 1: all over again tomorrow here on the fastest hour in politics.
Speaker 1: If you showed up late, subscribe to the podcast. Be
Speaker 1: part of this movement wherever you get your podcasts. Back
Speaker 1: here tomorrow on sound On. I'm Joe Matthew in the
Speaker 1: Nation's capital, and this is Bloomberg.