Speaker 1: Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Vanny Quinn. This week, the
Speaker 1: younger forces in Taiwan, the sub forty generation, they are very,
Speaker 1: very willing to take out bounds. They really want to.
Speaker 1: They gunn into Tim Culpan on whether Taiwan would be
Speaker 1: willing and able to defend itself should it be necessary. Later,
Speaker 1: we'll speak with Admiral James Defrida's former Suprema Line commander
Speaker 1: of NATO on NATO expansion. First, though, the strengthening dollar
Speaker 1: raises the specter of what I call little fires everywhere,
Speaker 1: because if you're in a developing country right now, the
Speaker 1: last thing you need is disorderly depreciation of your currencs
Speaker 1: against the dollar at the time when energy prices are higher,
Speaker 1: food prices are higher, and the global economy slowing down.
Speaker 1: That's muhammadl Arian on the dangerous ripple effects of a
Speaker 1: strengthening US dollar. I spoke with Marcus Ashworth. Marcus, we're
Speaker 1: seeing a little bit of a pause now, but since
Speaker 1: the start of the year, the broad dollar index has
Speaker 1: appreciated around seven year over year. We heard the mohammadel
Speaker 1: Arean bytes. Are we looking at bigger fragilities to come well?
Speaker 1: It's unusual to see emerging markets joined by a lot
Speaker 1: of the very large developed markets in all at the
Speaker 1: same time facing a very unpleasant circumstances with very weak currencies,
Speaker 1: accelerating the need to have to raise interest rates not
Speaker 1: only to combat inflation but support their currencies because unfortunately
Speaker 1: this time around, because it's all important energy inflation, they
Speaker 1: really don't want to weak currency, even if they're export
Speaker 1: lead like say Japan or the Union, are this compounds
Speaker 1: itself or weaker currency. So it's all about the strong
Speaker 1: dollar because the feathers raising rates so much more aggressively,
Speaker 1: um and that then there's the added value of that
Speaker 1: reserve haven currency or the dollar. So all the sort
Speaker 1: of everything that wants a perfect storm, except perhaps we
Speaker 1: see the dollar having a bit of a ead at last. Well,
Speaker 1: where should we look for for agilities, because right now
Speaker 1: it seems like there is social geopolitical instability in so
Speaker 1: many places. I'm thinking of places like Sri Lanka, Pakistan,
Speaker 1: but obviously other places around the world as well, even
Speaker 1: China thinking w about So yes, there is a lot
Speaker 1: of other problems around the world, and I certainly think
Speaker 1: that encourages people to rush into dollars, particularly now they
Speaker 1: can get to yield as the bond markets have verted
Speaker 1: clearly with their feet. We have yet to see a
Speaker 1: food crisis, but it's clearly coming, which will put a
Speaker 1: lot of pressures, particularly on place like Egypt and North Africa,
Speaker 1: but it will spill over into a lot of other
Speaker 1: emerging markets. We're seeing clearly Turkey under pressure again the
Speaker 1: last few days. They're all bubbling away, and the stresses
Speaker 1: and strength of the system are xacci betted by the
Speaker 1: strength of dollar, and buttons are starting to PLoP off
Speaker 1: the super aggressive bed also with drawing liquidity. And the
Speaker 1: one thing which has kept the world vibe through the
Speaker 1: pandemic and gross crisis is equality of super amounts of dollars, right,
Speaker 1: And how much of the responsibility is on the FED,
Speaker 1: because obviously it has to look after its own economy,
Speaker 1: and there's huge inflation relative to what we're used to
Speaker 1: here in the United States, so the FED has to
Speaker 1: worry about that. But at the same time, Jenny Yellen
Speaker 1: used to always talk about feedback loops, so if there
Speaker 1: are problems in other countries in the world, that's going
Speaker 1: to eventually feed back to the United States as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just going to be a second order effect, or
Speaker 1: possibly more than that, until the US economy starts to
Speaker 1: feel weakness because it's exports falling away or there is
Speaker 1: a complete drop off demand. Only then will we see
Speaker 1: perhaps be used as a bit of an excuse per Fed.
Speaker 1: At the moment, that seems to be very little pressure
Speaker 1: on them internally. To think of the rest of the world,
Speaker 1: I do think that having Yellen and the Treasury is important.
Speaker 1: Perhaps you could argue it's too close for comfort since
Speaker 1: she's just stepped away from the FED, but equally it
Speaker 1: can be very useful because she knows everyone. They all
Speaker 1: talked to each other. There's no doubt about it. In
Speaker 1: the Bank, I think that takes a very careful look
Speaker 1: at what the said, doesn't likewise your insential bank on
Speaker 1: the back of Japan. So I'm sure they'll they'll be
Speaker 1: getting the incoming please stop the hiking rates so quickly.
Speaker 1: But whether they listen or not, as you quite rightly summarized,
Speaker 1: I don't think they can't then, yeah, exactly, And then
Speaker 1: can we count on the rest of the world to
Speaker 1: progress with things like structural reforms that might actually help
Speaker 1: their economies. That's gonna be difficult for them too if
Speaker 1: they can't even service their external debt, right. I think
Speaker 1: that's which we're thinking on lots of different ways. I mean, yes,
Speaker 1: someone that will have to not necessarily the time frame
Speaker 1: they want to do it in, but some of them
Speaker 1: will absolutely have to do some more aggressive and they
Speaker 1: already are to be fair, but it's a dilever for
Speaker 1: everyone to be able to try and keep inflation down
Speaker 1: and avoid recession. Marcus, you sound a little less worried
Speaker 1: than somebody like muhammadel Arian. I don't want to over
Speaker 1: characterize what he's doing, but is he maybe exaggerating a
Speaker 1: little bit? Yes, I think there's a problem in the world,
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure they're going to get any any times.
Speaker 1: Seeing but there are certain things which you know, if
Speaker 1: you look at the underlying strength of the labor market
Speaker 1: and economies in Europe, US and the UK in particular,
Speaker 1: they're pretty strong. China is able to do an awful
Speaker 1: lot of things which other economies can't presount so much control.
Speaker 1: You know that the world is going to suffer a
Speaker 1: correction because it's over stimulated. Left that stimus in too long,
Speaker 1: and it's got a horrible hangover. Should we call a
Speaker 1: combinems and logistic situations chuck in a war? But we
Speaker 1: will get through this, and I do think the dollar
Speaker 1: strength is overdone and it will probably carry on a
Speaker 1: bit longer. But you know, the point is there for
Speaker 1: a reason, and until the world gets a better place,
Speaker 1: that is going to stay in the place. Today, the
Speaker 1: Treasury is now talking a lot about friends shorings or
Speaker 1: confining global supply chains to friendly networks. Don't quite know
Speaker 1: who these friends are yet, but it must be pretty
Speaker 1: difficult for partners or people who thought they were partners
Speaker 1: to hear this. Many of them are not democracies. Are
Speaker 1: we headed towards a system where many other countries are
Speaker 1: locked out of the US and dollar system and don't
Speaker 1: have enough reserves to pay for what they need to import. Well,
Speaker 1: we know whose friends are because they're the ones who've
Speaker 1: got currency swaps through the pandemic and before that, the
Speaker 1: global financial crisis. Yes, it is a weapon. Do they
Speaker 1: use it cleverly? Absolutely? Do I applaud what they're doing, Yes?
Speaker 1: I do. Actually, I think this is the leverage they have,
Speaker 1: and if you're without the dollar system, then that's a
Speaker 1: conscious decision, And as far as I can say that,
Speaker 1: the Treasury and the particularly oh fact of handling things
Speaker 1: in a very smart way, and they are understanding what
Speaker 1: they're doing with Russia. They're not being completely blanketly banning everything.
Speaker 1: They've done it in a very superstated and clever way.
Speaker 1: I think it's so wonderful forul Marcus Ashworth. Are you
Speaker 1: willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it
Speaker 1: comes to that, you are? That's the commendment we made
Speaker 1: President Biden this week. Well, gaff or no gaff. Taiwan's
Speaker 1: democracy is facing a hostile chai now and a policy
Speaker 1: of strategic ambiguity on whether US forces would defend Taiwan
Speaker 1: against China in the event of an invasion. Tim Coultan
Speaker 1: lives in Taipei. I asked him how Russia's invasion of
Speaker 1: Ukraine and the subsequent global response might have changed China's
Speaker 1: calculus on Taiwan, if at all. Yeah, this saber rattling
Speaker 1: has been going on for twenty years. I've lived in
Speaker 1: Taiwan half my life. It's something that's always been persistent.
Speaker 1: It's had peaks and troughs. Back in the early two thousands,
Speaker 1: when a more pro Taiwan independence president came in, and
Speaker 1: he was in eight years, there's definitely a lot more
Speaker 1: of it. Then we had a president for eight years
Speaker 1: who was a bit more sympathetic to Beijing, and so
Speaker 1: things died down. Now we have a president again who's
Speaker 1: much more kind of democratically focused, leans towards the taiwan
Speaker 1: centric view of Taiwan. So again it raises again. But
Speaker 1: we also have a much more confident China, especially under
Speaker 1: Shi Jimping, who's really pushing the genera a lot more.
Speaker 1: So we now see this push towards basically making the
Speaker 1: world understand Beijing's view of Taiwan and the China Taiwan relationship.
Speaker 1: And I think the thing that I believe a lot
Speaker 1: of people might be mistaking is that there is heightened
Speaker 1: tension versus a higher cadence of statements from Beijing. So
Speaker 1: Beijing will take pretty much any opportunity to press its
Speaker 1: point on Taiwan, that being that Taiwan is an inalienable
Speaker 1: part of China. Um you know, factually speaking, whether or
Speaker 1: not you believe that you know, the PRC under the
Speaker 1: c SP has never actually ruled Taiwan and the r
Speaker 1: o C, which was kind of defeated and kicked out
Speaker 1: of mainland China now sits in Taiwan. But there's definitely
Speaker 1: that viewpoint from Beijing that Taiwan should be part of
Speaker 1: the PRC, and of course in Taiwan the view is
Speaker 1: very much the opposite. But what we're really seeing in
Speaker 1: the last few years is weekly press conferences from the
Speaker 1: Foreign Ministry, and China also has a Taiwan Affairs Office
Speaker 1: which deals specifically with Taiwan issues. They will always keep
Speaker 1: pressing the point, and then of course whenever US officials
Speaker 1: talked to Chinese officials, they'll keep reminding them, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: don't make the mistake of supporting Taiwan independence. You know,
Speaker 1: you need to be reminded that Taiwan is ours. You'd
Speaker 1: be making a grave mistake helping Taiwan independence forces. So
Speaker 1: there's definitely an increase intention, But I think the thing
Speaker 1: that we're seeing a lot is also just an increase
Speaker 1: in the cadence at which Beijing will remind the world
Speaker 1: of its world view and its view on Taiwan. And
Speaker 1: it's important not to conflate the two, although both definitely exist.
Speaker 1: Will China actually do anything concrete about making what it
Speaker 1: perceives as its ownership of Taiwan anymore practical. Will the
Speaker 1: taiwan his army have to defend Taiwan's democracy? That is
Speaker 1: such a difficult question. You've got the CIA trying to
Speaker 1: work that at. You've got US, uh UK, Australian, Japanese
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies and defense horses trying to work that out.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. Um, you know, I might be wrong.
Speaker 1: I hope, I hope I'm not wrong. I don't think
Speaker 1: that we will see China try to invade Taiwan. I
Speaker 1: think the most likely scenario might be maybe more akin
Speaker 1: to what Russia did with parts of Ukraine, such as
Speaker 1: Crimera or even Dombus regions. They might try to take
Speaker 1: an outlying island. Taiwan is not just one island. There's
Speaker 1: multiple islands. There's the main island of Taiwan, but there's
Speaker 1: some outlying islands Pungu, which is kind of close to Taiwan.
Speaker 1: There's another island of Ginman, which is very very close
Speaker 1: to China's like one mile off the coast of China.
Speaker 1: There's a couple of smaller islands. There's also some basically
Speaker 1: deserted islands which a couple of countries are claimed Japan
Speaker 1: and Taiwan and China and a few others claim a
Speaker 1: set of islands kind of in the South China Sea.
Speaker 1: It wouldn't be surprising if China tries to take one
Speaker 1: of those islands just to kind of show that they can,
Speaker 1: and that might be an to kind of rattle the
Speaker 1: cage of the Americans and the Japanese and other allies
Speaker 1: and like minded nations of Taiwan. But a full on
Speaker 1: invasion of Taiwan, I think is unlikely. But we shouldn't
Speaker 1: necessarily think of Beijing's leadership is acting rationally anymore than
Speaker 1: we think of Vladimir Putin as acting rationally in trying
Speaker 1: to take Ukraine. Rationalism doesn't play into it. It's more nationalism.
Speaker 1: And there's the question of capabilities as well. I mean,
Speaker 1: it would have to be a sea war. Taiwan has
Speaker 1: an army, but how prepared is it. What kind of
Speaker 1: tactics have they been learning? Is there the willingness in
Speaker 1: Taiwan among the electorate to have Taiwan go to war
Speaker 1: with China if it came to that. Yeah, So I
Speaker 1: think one of the most important things that I think
Speaker 1: the world needs to understand is Taiwan doesn't want a war.
Speaker 1: Taiwan has not been bracing for war or preparing for war.
Speaker 1: It is the case that China has over a thousand
Speaker 1: missiles pointed at Taiwan. Taiwan does not have the reverse,
Speaker 1: So it would be Taiwan is the fender as Ukraine
Speaker 1: is the defender against Russia. There is a lot of debate,
Speaker 1: both within Taiwan and globally about whether or not Taiwan
Speaker 1: is doing enough, whether or not they take it seriously enough.
Speaker 1: I think Ukraine definitely solidifies in Taiwanese people's minds that
Speaker 1: it is a real possibility. There is much stronger moves
Speaker 1: towards civil defense now. Washington, including Pentagon, State and White
Speaker 1: House have criticized Taiwan for not taking it seriously enough,
Speaker 1: for not spending enough money, for not spending the right
Speaker 1: kind of money, and that is a valid criticism. I
Speaker 1: think it could definitely be said that Taiwan has probably
Speaker 1: not been doing enough. But there is a problem within Taiwan.
Speaker 1: It's a domestic political problem, and that is that the
Speaker 1: older generations in Taiwan, who think of themselves as more
Speaker 1: Chinese are really not as keen to defend a independent
Speaker 1: Taiwan as they might be seen as defending the Republic
Speaker 1: of China, which you know, technically is the name of Taiwan.
Speaker 1: The younger forces in Taiwan, the younger electorate at the
Speaker 1: sub forty generation, and even the sub thirty generation, including
Speaker 1: a group of people like call the Sunflower generation because
Speaker 1: they helped defend Taiwan's democracy by storming the legislature many
Speaker 1: years ago. They are very very willing to take up arms.
Speaker 1: They they really want to. They're gunning too. I have
Speaker 1: people come to me constantly messaging me and talking and saying, hey,
Speaker 1: we want to learn how to use weapons. We want
Speaker 1: to go into the jungle and learn how to fire
Speaker 1: rifles and learn combat training and stuff like that. They're
Speaker 1: really really looking at Ukraine and going we want to
Speaker 1: be like that. We really respect what Ukraine is doing
Speaker 1: and we want to learn that. But that is the
Speaker 1: under forty generation. The over forty generation is probably less
Speaker 1: keen to take up arms, and so Taiwan, I think,
Speaker 1: is a little bit of a divided country in that respect.
Speaker 1: And I think what we'll see going forward is that
Speaker 1: time is not on Beijing side in terms of the
Speaker 1: Taiwanese people seeing their self identity and willing to learn
Speaker 1: civil defense and taking up their own arms and defending
Speaker 1: a against any possible invasion. Tim Coulpan, There, don't forget
Speaker 1: to get in touch. All thoughts and opinions very welcome.
Speaker 1: I'm at Vanney Quinn on Twitter or email v Quinn
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot net and Bloomberg Opinion is also available
Speaker 1: as a podcast on Apple, Spotify and wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. Admiral James de Vitas is a former Supreme
Speaker 1: Ally Commander of NATO's Ally Command operations. His new book
Speaker 1: has just hit bookstores. It's called To Risk at All,
Speaker 1: Nine Conflicts and the Crucible of Decision. In it, he
Speaker 1: analyzes how to make good decisions in moments of intense crisis.
Speaker 1: Admiral Stavidas, I want to talk about NATO expansion and
Speaker 1: the war in Ukraine, obviously, but first the book I
Speaker 1: have to ask why nine Decisions? Is it a reference
Speaker 1: to Dante and his nine Circles of hell Um? You
Speaker 1: know that was very much in my mind and the
Speaker 1: idea that we have found ourselves, I think in this
Speaker 1: kind of dark forest as Dante did before he was escorted,
Speaker 1: if you will, into the inferno. But we have to
Speaker 1: remember the optivism of of Ganti's uh divine comedy, which
Speaker 1: is that eventually we escaped the inferno, we get to purgatory,
Speaker 1: and we get to Paradis. It's an extra ordinarily optimistic
Speaker 1: framework for somebody who's been through so much. Explained to
Speaker 1: us how you picked these nine particular bottle decisions. Well,
Speaker 1: first and foremost, of course, I'm a sailor, I'm a
Speaker 1: naval officer, and so you know right about what you
Speaker 1: actually know about. So I picked nine different sailors from history,
Speaker 1: and Bonnie, you'll know also that another subtle reference here
Speaker 1: is the Cato nine Gales, which is applied to sailors
Speaker 1: when they have misbehaved. And so um in the course
Speaker 1: of these nine decisions, to see some that come out
Speaker 1: very well and some that come out very badly. M
Speaker 1: it would have been easy to pick, you know, nine
Speaker 1: spectacular decisions. I think more realistically, you want a book
Speaker 1: that helps a reader understand what are the tools that
Speaker 1: you're she needs to make decisions under extreme pressure using
Speaker 1: the examples in the book. One of the conclusions that's
Speaker 1: applicable to everyday civilian life, and in fact is probably
Speaker 1: the conclusion. It's the only thing that matters is to
Speaker 1: slow time down when you're in a moment like that.
Speaker 1: How do you get to that spot where you can
Speaker 1: do that? You first and foremost, you you study others,
Speaker 1: You look at history, You try and understand how people
Speaker 1: can make those decisions. Number Two, you practice, and what
Speaker 1: I mean by that is deliberately place yourself mentally in
Speaker 1: a situation of extreme crisis and walk your way through it.
Speaker 1: And that is the kind of training that Navy seals
Speaker 1: do all the time before they go off. And the
Speaker 1: more you practice, the more you consciously think about what
Speaker 1: it would be like to be in that moment of crisis,
Speaker 1: the more prepared you'll be when that when that moment
Speaker 1: does come. Admiral watching Russia's war in Ukraine over the
Speaker 1: last three months now, and you know it's obviously going
Speaker 1: to go on for longer. What are the decisions that
Speaker 1: you have noticed that possibly the rest of us haven't seen.
Speaker 1: The small decisions, the medium decisions, the large decisions that
Speaker 1: have been made by everyday soldiers on the battlefield that
Speaker 1: you think are extraordinary. I'm going to start on the
Speaker 1: Russian side of the coin Banni and say that here
Speaker 1: we've seen terrible decisions, decisions that have led to war crimes.
Speaker 1: And I think that's really what's most striking to me
Speaker 1: is how the Russian mid grade officers, their generals all
Speaker 1: the way up to Vladimir Prutin, have allowed their troops
Speaker 1: to simply indiscriminately attack civilians, to break to loot. Um.
Speaker 1: These are armies you would expect, behaviors you would expect
Speaker 1: from an army in the ninth century. Um. This is
Speaker 1: a series of terrible decisions and there is no excuse
Speaker 1: for it. On the other hand, on the Ukrainian side,
Speaker 1: you see soldiers every game making very brave decisions in
Speaker 1: moments when they, as the title of the book is,
Speaker 1: to risk it all, when they are forced to risk
Speaker 1: it all, they're making the right decisions. Look at those
Speaker 1: Ukrainian marines who held out in the city of Marioko
Speaker 1: for months. Um, in their bravery, their courage, Um, you
Speaker 1: see a mirror image, one mirror dark and the other
Speaker 1: full of light. Admiral, what does it mean for someone
Speaker 1: like you who has been through so much training and
Speaker 1: so much effort, so much practice, so much studying of
Speaker 1: past battles and past wars. To see ports in Ukraine
Speaker 1: and even on the Russian side being completely blockaded and
Speaker 1: essentially becoming useless to the world, I mean that must
Speaker 1: be that must provoke a very emotional reaction, even in
Speaker 1: somebody as trained as you. It does indeed, and Um,
Speaker 1: you know we've faced this in history before. You may
Speaker 1: recall um in the nineteen eighties, Um, both the Iranians
Speaker 1: and at one point the Iraqis, particularly the Iranians, tried
Speaker 1: to close off the Straight of Hormuz from the shipment
Speaker 1: of oil tankers. And what did the West do? We
Speaker 1: started escorting those tankers in and out of the Arabian Gulf.
Speaker 1: I did that as a young officer on board a
Speaker 1: cruiser USS Valley Forge. And so I think it's time
Speaker 1: that the West looks at this again. This is war
Speaker 1: criminal behavior that you can't simply blockade ports. This is
Speaker 1: not appropriate under international law, and it's cutting off desperately
Speaker 1: needed grain supplies that's going to lead to further instability.
Speaker 1: I think it's time to consider humanitarian escorts in and
Speaker 1: out to keep the Ukrainian economy functioning. It Yet, he
Speaker 1: creates grain to the world's market. We're with Admiral and
Speaker 1: James Stavrida's former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO's Allied Command Operations.
Speaker 1: His new book has literally just hit the shelves. It's
Speaker 1: called to Risk at All Nine Conflicts and the Crucible
Speaker 1: of Decision. He analyzes what goes into making great decisions
Speaker 1: and maybe not so good decisions in moments of intense crisis.
Speaker 1: Want to turn our attention now to NATO and the
Speaker 1: question of expansion, Admiral, there is broad and bipartisans support
Speaker 1: in the US for Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Turkey
Speaker 1: obviously blocking it. Does Turkey have good arguments to make? No,
Speaker 1: they don't. And let's start with the qualities of these
Speaker 1: two nations as suite that Finland had commanded their troops
Speaker 1: in combat uh They they deployed alongside NATO troops in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: They operated in the war over Libya. They were part
Speaker 1: of our efforts, NATO efforts to the Balkans. I know
Speaker 1: the quality of these troops very very well. Um there
Speaker 1: a professional, highly trained and technologically advanced. The Swedish Grippin Fighter,
Speaker 1: for example, is among the very best in the world.
Speaker 1: I guess if you can build a good Valvo sports car,
Speaker 1: you can build a fighter pilot plane as well. So um,
Speaker 1: they bring real military quality. Second, they have a history
Speaker 1: of fierce independence. The Fins of course bought the Soviets
Speaker 1: to a standstill and the Winter War um and then
Speaker 1: that that ethos I think will be a benefit to NATO.
Speaker 1: And third fire Glint Bonnie. Geographically, this gives us a
Speaker 1: northern flank in the Alliance and and more um more
Speaker 1: landscape if you will, in the high north in the Arctic.
Speaker 1: Both Sweden and Finland are Arctic nations, so um there
Speaker 1: are there is every reason to bring them into the Alliance. Turkey,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, has a series of bilateral annoyances
Speaker 1: I would category as the man is between they feel
Speaker 1: themselves in those two nations. It's not appropriate to hold
Speaker 1: up the these applications. I don't think Turkey will continue
Speaker 1: to do so well. It's a pretty bold step on
Speaker 1: the part of both Finland and Sweden to want to
Speaker 1: join NATO in the first place, But it does seem
Speaker 1: like a pretty broad accusation to suggest that those countries
Speaker 1: are places where quote representatives of terrorist organizations are concentrated.
Speaker 1: How strong of an argument at all is this on
Speaker 1: the part of Turkey. I don't see it as a
Speaker 1: strong argument in the least, And and Turkey has deployed
Speaker 1: that argument towards other NATO countries. The Turks off and
Speaker 1: say that one of the leaders of the google and movement,
Speaker 1: he happens to live in Pennsylvania in the United States,
Speaker 1: and they want him extraditeed. But they have not given
Speaker 1: us any reason to extradite him, and neither have given
Speaker 1: the Swede to defend the appropriate documentation that that would
Speaker 1: lead to an extradition. Um, it's more a new ant
Speaker 1: spend anything else. And I think Turkey is is in
Speaker 1: the wrong place on this one. You know, Turkey Admiral
Speaker 1: has suggested that it might consider leaving the Alliance if
Speaker 1: it's forced to accept Sweden and Finland. Would it follow through?
Speaker 1: I highly doubt it. Um. I have spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time in Turkey. My grandparents, by the way, we're
Speaker 1: born in Turkey in uh what is today is Mayor.
Speaker 1: They were born in the city of Smyrna in his Greeks.
Speaker 1: They were invited to leave, shall we say, in the
Speaker 1: nineteen twenties Um, so I know Turkey quite well, UM,
Speaker 1: and I will very quickly say Turkey has been a
Speaker 1: very positive force in the Alliance. They've deployed on every
Speaker 1: mission we've asked them to come on, and they've done
Speaker 1: extremely well militarily. I think they take pride day the
Speaker 1: Turkish nation take pride being part of NATO, and I
Speaker 1: don't think they will simply walk away from the alliance.
Speaker 1: What would NATO b if Turkey one of the founding
Speaker 1: members we should say left, Um. Actually Turkey and Greece
Speaker 1: came in in the first contra traditional members, so they're
Speaker 1: not true founding members. But your points extremely well taken. Um.
Speaker 1: I think the NATO Alliance would continue on and would
Speaker 1: continue to be very strong, but of course it would
Speaker 1: be diminished by the departure of any of the nations.
Speaker 1: Today we'd have thirty nations in NATO, many have joined
Speaker 1: and none have left. Let's hope Turkey does not begin
Speaker 1: that pattern. I think it would be bad for Turkey
Speaker 1: and bad for the alliance. I mean, it's a real
Speaker 1: matrix of relationships. As you said on Turkey's party, it
Speaker 1: does have to navigate some kind of relationship with Russia.
Speaker 1: Still presumably could it safely leave Vladimir Putin's orbits, even
Speaker 1: though Russia is a trading partner in ally and it
Speaker 1: needs Russia for food and energy imports in particular. I
Speaker 1: think they can, and I think they should, and um
Speaker 1: the rest of the Alliance would be very happy to
Speaker 1: be helpful to Turkey in at nexus of relationships. And
Speaker 1: let's say that many nations are going to have to
Speaker 1: make some tough decisions in the days ahead about their
Speaker 1: relationship with Labra Putent's Russia, and I say that specifically
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin's Russia. The wheel of time will turn, and
Speaker 1: at some point in the future Russia may well be
Speaker 1: welcome back. But for the moment um, we all need
Speaker 1: to adjust our relationships. All close with this. People talk
Speaker 1: these days a lot about the great resignation or the
Speaker 1: next great procession. I think what we're going to see
Speaker 1: Vanni is a great rewiring. You're going to see energy, fuel, food,
Speaker 1: aquarian products. These are going to be rewired away from
Speaker 1: Russia in a way that will diminish them. Ultimately. We're
Speaker 1: getting insighted into details here, but there is a question
Speaker 1: of an arms deal and a refund that Turkey is
Speaker 1: looking for at one point four billion dollars. It was
Speaker 1: a deposit for an F thirty five order. What happens
Speaker 1: that is it fair for the US to hold onto that?
Speaker 1: Does Turkey have a point? I think on that one
Speaker 1: Turkey very much as a point. And again all of
Speaker 1: this fell out of the Turkish decision to purchase the
Speaker 1: S four hundred weapons system, since you said you wanted
Speaker 1: to go into detail a very high end air defense system,
Speaker 1: and that is what led to their expulsion. Not too
Speaker 1: strong a word from the Joint Strike Fighter program um,
Speaker 1: but we need to even as we follow all of
Speaker 1: those political paths, we need to be fair to a
Speaker 1: NATO partner and ally, and I think this is one
Speaker 1: where we can negotiate satisfactorily with Turkey, and I suspect
Speaker 1: the US and Turkey will do so. Real a quick word,
Speaker 1: if I may. On Taiwan, we obviously had the President
Speaker 1: answering a question about defending Taiwan this week that wasn't
Speaker 1: received well in Beijing. With our experience now regarding Ukraine,
Speaker 1: has the tactical thinking on Taiwan changed at all? Is
Speaker 1: offense something that could be done by proxy or its
Speaker 1: sanctions as it has been for the most part with Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I think that that is precisely what the administration is doing,
Speaker 1: and um I don't think it's a gap or a
Speaker 1: coincidence or miss speaking on the part of the President.
Speaker 1: I think that he is signaling that this administration is
Speaker 1: going to lean further forward. That means weapons systems that
Speaker 1: won't be more useful in defense of the island of Taiwan.
Speaker 1: It means more engagement diplomatically with the island of Taiwan.
Speaker 1: It enhancing economic relationships and doing so in a timely
Speaker 1: manner before we land in crisis. So it's not an
Speaker 1: all out, Hey, we're going to defend him as we
Speaker 1: wud a NATO. Ally, that's not what the President is
Speaker 1: trying to signal, But I believe he's signaling a forward
Speaker 1: leaning posture that would prepare and help the taiwan needs
Speaker 1: so that they can, like Ukrainians, be in a position
Speaker 1: to make the decision about their own future. If China
Speaker 1: were to do something soon. One of the possibilities that
Speaker 1: one of our other columnists, Tim Coulplan, has suggested is
Speaker 1: that it could take an outlying island. It could take
Speaker 1: one of the islands, just a mile or two off
Speaker 1: the China coast as a non civilian, what would your
Speaker 1: prognostication be. I think it's unlikely that President She would
Speaker 1: even take let's say King Boy or Matsu one of
Speaker 1: these islands that are very close to the Chinese coast.
Speaker 1: They don't really gain much by doing that, and they
Speaker 1: create a lot of instability, a lot of discussion. I
Speaker 1: think Presidents She would rather not have. As he heads
Speaker 1: into the the big Party Congress this fall, where he
Speaker 1: hopes to be and probably will be elected for a
Speaker 1: third five year term as a leader of China, I
Speaker 1: think we're in for a year of living quietly with
Speaker 1: China as this year unfold. Admiral James sta read us
Speaker 1: and once again the Admiral's book To Risk at All
Speaker 1: Nine Conflicts and The Clusible of Decision is just out
Speaker 1: in bookstores and online. We are now choosing to end
Speaker 1: all conversations not with you, though, please do get in touch.
Speaker 1: I'm at Vonnie Quinn on Twitter or email v Quinn
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot net. Bloomberg Opinion is also available as
Speaker 1: a podcast on Apple, Spotify and wherever you get your
Speaker 1: Podcasts were produced by Eric mollow Until Next Time on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Opinion