Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Todcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
Speaker 1: frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, arteisonal pastries, and
Speaker 1: fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
Speaker 1: five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild
Speaker 1: Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a
Speaker 1: slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on
Speaker 1: your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in
Speaker 1: nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The
Speaker 1: Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their
Speaker 1: variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box,
Speaker 1: and a new protein box. I will tell you I
Speaker 1: have done the gluten free box. I have done it
Speaker 1: a second time. I have also used the code the
Speaker 1: todcast code. You use the promo code toodcast at checkout
Speaker 1: you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as
Speaker 1: a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It
Speaker 1: is hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic.
Speaker 1: They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this.
Speaker 1: There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your
Speaker 1: freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the
Speaker 1: best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade
Speaker 1: meals with Wild Grain. I obviously highly recommend it. It
Speaker 1: is worth giving wild Grain to try. Right now, Wildgrain
Speaker 1: is offering my listeners thirty dollars off your first box
Speaker 1: plus free croissants for life. Come on when you go
Speaker 1: to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to start your subscription today.
Speaker 1: That's thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants
Speaker 1: for life when you visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast,
Speaker 1: or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. This
Speaker 1: is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code.
Speaker 1: So if you spend any time thinking about American form moment,
Speaker 1: you can feel the drift. Alliances are under strain. Trade
Speaker 1: is being redefined in some blunts transactional terms. The word
Speaker 1: multilateral has become suspect in certain corners of Washington, and
Speaker 1: hovering over all of it is the central strategic fact
Speaker 1: of our time. China is not just rising, it is competing.
Speaker 1: So here's the question, what is America's grand strategy? Now?
Speaker 1: It's not a slogan, not a reaction out a tweet,
Speaker 1: a strategy. My guess today has been decades inside the
Speaker 1: machinery of American foreign policy trying to answer that question.
Speaker 1: Ambassador Robert Blackwell is a former ambassador to India, former
Speaker 1: Deputy National Security Advisor under President George W. Bush, and
Speaker 1: really one of the most seasoned strategic thinkers in Washington.
Speaker 1: He's now the Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the Council
Speaker 1: on Foreign Relations, and he's out with a special Council
Speaker 1: special report. I had previewed it for the audience a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago, actually when it first came out. It's
Speaker 1: called America Revived, a Grand Strategy of Resolute Global Leadership. Basically,
Speaker 1: he's laying out an argument that is both a warning
Speaker 1: and a blueprint, and I sort of viewed it as
Speaker 1: must if you're running for president, whichever side of the
Speaker 1: eye you're on. I felt this was something that I
Speaker 1: think the Ambassador is hoping it will be something these
Speaker 1: candidates read and be thinking about, as in case one
Speaker 1: of them actually wins the next presidency and can implement
Speaker 1: what is a twenty first century national security strategy. So
Speaker 1: Ambassaard Blackwell joins me. Now, Bob, good to.
Speaker 2: See you, Good to see you. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: So look you have you know you're you're part of
Speaker 1: this world. That you know that some people will criticize
Speaker 1: as the uniparty, right, that there's always been a and
Speaker 1: in the Cold War there really was the quote bipartisan consensus.
Speaker 1: And you talk about this in your piece, and there
Speaker 1: is no consensus anymore on how what America's role in
Speaker 1: the world should be at the moment. And it struck
Speaker 1: me that what you were trying to do is make
Speaker 1: an argument for a new consensus. Is that fair?
Speaker 2: That is fair? The consensus of which you speak, Chuck,
Speaker 2: governed America's approach to the world from the end of
Speaker 2: World War Two to mister Trump, and it was pursued
Speaker 2: by presidents in both parties. They did it in certain
Speaker 2: different ways, but the essence was a foreign policy based
Speaker 2: on alliances which they every president thought contributed American strength,
Speaker 2: to American values, which every president thought was the foundation
Speaker 2: of America's power projection into the world, and finally avoiding
Speaker 2: the emergence of a peer competitor which would dominate a
Speaker 2: crucial region. And I believe President Trump has rejected all
Speaker 2: three of those, and so that has produced the debate
Speaker 2: that were now acutely in.
Speaker 1: So let's start with before we get into what you're
Speaker 1: what you're laying out, Let's start with what everybody got
Speaker 1: wrong on China. And it just feels like what you know,
Speaker 1: I think, you know, whether it was Nixon and Carter
Speaker 1: believing you could bring them along right frankly Dido with
Speaker 1: Clinton and Bush in many ways, I would argue those four,
Speaker 1: in different ways, had had big impacts. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think the assumption was that somehow, the more we
Speaker 1: brought China into the free market economy, the more the
Speaker 1: people of China would see how great a free market
Speaker 1: economy is and would reject communism, and it would over
Speaker 1: time essentially help help us win the argument, if you will,
Speaker 1: that didn't happen.
Speaker 2: Why, Well, first, I would distinguish Nixon, Kissinger from the rest. Okay,
Speaker 2: they opened up China for geopolitical reasons to balance the
Speaker 2: Soviet Union, and although out of office later Richard Nixon
Speaker 2: hoped that perhaps China would move in a more liberal direction.
Speaker 2: Henry Kissinger never made that argument, and I think never
Speaker 2: believed it. But you're right there, American leaders' presidents after
Speaker 2: them held the hope that over the decades, China would
Speaker 2: be integrated into this liberal international approach to world order,
Speaker 2: and they went on hoping for that up through the
Speaker 2: mid twenty tens and far past one. It should have
Speaker 2: been obvious that China had a different set of objectives
Speaker 2: in mind, which was essentially to replace the United States
Speaker 2: as the primary power in the Indo Pacific. And it
Speaker 2: wasn't until the late twenty tens, after the pivot Asia
Speaker 2: had failed that finally, finally a consensus emerged that China
Speaker 2: no longer could be considered a candidate for liberal evolution.
Speaker 2: And indeed, Bob Gates makes an argument former Distinguished Secretary
Speaker 2: of Defense and a wise man makes the argument that
Speaker 2: China is the most dangerous rival in American history and
Speaker 2: is likely to remain so for years ahead. So it
Speaker 2: was a combination of wishful thinking but also not wanting
Speaker 2: to spend the money on the defense side, which would
Speaker 2: be consistent with regarding them as this dangerous rival. And
Speaker 2: we still haven't spent that money up until this day.
Speaker 1: You know, there's sort of two things that I think
Speaker 1: we in hindsight, I'm curious where would we be if
Speaker 1: we had pushed for this. One, of course, is the
Speaker 1: Transpacific Partnership, which seemed to be a great potential economic
Speaker 1: sort of bulwark against of getting other Asian allies into
Speaker 1: a trade pack to be a check on China. Then,
Speaker 1: of course, you know, essentially Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump
Speaker 1: came roaring in and essentially cowed the establishment wings of
Speaker 1: both party to back off on that. And the second
Speaker 1: is if we should have aggressively developed basically Asian What
Speaker 1: I use in shorthand is Asia NATO, the quad is
Speaker 1: sort of we're at the very beginning here. But should
Speaker 1: we have created both an economic and security packed a
Speaker 1: lot sooner? It should have been something we thought about
Speaker 1: in the early odds, you know, either your time in
Speaker 1: Bush or the first term of Obama.
Speaker 2: I think that the situation in Asia was not right
Speaker 2: for any interest in a NATO like arrangement for two reasons.
Speaker 2: Money is, at that time they didn't regard the China
Speaker 2: threat as so serious that it was required. But the
Speaker 2: second was that from two thousand and one on, of course,
Speaker 2: the United States was preoccupied with the War on Terror
Speaker 2: and almost to the exclusion of other issues, including the
Speaker 2: rise of China. Our good friend Steve Hadley, who's one
Speaker 2: of the most ditinguished practitioners practitioners in decades, said in public,
Speaker 2: we just got China wrong, and we got Shei Jinping wrong.
Speaker 2: And I think the primary reason that we got him
Speaker 2: wrong is that to this day we have trouble understanding
Speaker 2: how Marxist Chi Jinping really is. It's so foreign to
Speaker 2: the way we think of the world. And there's hardly
Speaker 2: anybody still alive who remembers that very Marxist Soviet Union.
Speaker 2: Its last three and a half decades was a gradual
Speaker 2: slump from that acute Marxism. And what does Marxism tell
Speaker 2: Hi Jinping? That China is not safe in the world
Speaker 2: without leading it because the other forces will try to
Speaker 2: do China in And so that's I think his policy,
Speaker 2: and we still have not developed the will to combat
Speaker 2: it with increases in the defense budget and so forth.
Speaker 2: I'll just give you one example, but it is an
Speaker 2: example of the limp policies of liberal internationalism. The militarization
Speaker 2: of the artificial islands in the South China Sea. We
Speaker 2: could see that coming. We watched it, indeed, perhaps spectators, Yeah,
Speaker 2: we were spectators. Wow, And I think we backed away
Speaker 2: from the danger of a collision with China, and in
Speaker 2: that period we were much stronger in naval forces in
Speaker 2: the South China Sea so forth, but we just let
Speaker 2: it happen. We are our limp reaction to the twenty
Speaker 2: fourteen Russian acquisition of Ukraine. I have a great long list,
Speaker 2: but liberal internationalism became weaker and weaker in its expression,
Speaker 2: and China, I think, was in bold and buy that
Speaker 2: and has taken advantage of it. The last few liberal
Speaker 2: internationalist presidencies I think would be unrecognizable to Harry Truman,
Speaker 2: or to Jack Kennedy, or to Scoop Jackson, or to
Speaker 2: Dan moynihan and so forth. They have been weak in
Speaker 2: their reaction to the challenges that we face around the globe.
Speaker 1: So you have to live in the I always joke,
Speaker 1: he used to say this all the time. It meet
Speaker 1: the press for politics as it is not as I
Speaker 1: wish it were. So we can we know, we could
Speaker 1: talk about what we could have done, should have done,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Now the question is now what do we do?
Speaker 1: And I want to start with there hasn't There's been
Speaker 1: a lot of in the foreign policy news world a
Speaker 1: lot of intrigue, concern uh, and focus a little bit
Speaker 1: on on the purge she's been doing of his military.
Speaker 1: What do you make of that? And how should we
Speaker 1: what do you how do you view that? What's what
Speaker 1: do you think is going on internally in China's political
Speaker 1: leadership at the moment?
Speaker 2: First, the first thing that one should say, since there's
Speaker 2: so much commentary, is that not one of the people
Speaker 2: who are writing foreign affairs articles and op eds know
Speaker 2: what it means. So it's all speculation.
Speaker 1: Is our intelligence that week in China?
Speaker 2: Well, in order to know since they're such a small circle,
Speaker 2: and it's smaller now than it was a month ago,
Speaker 2: it's such a small circle, it would be wonderful if
Speaker 2: we had penetrated the very inner workings of the five
Speaker 2: men who made decisions led by Shi Jinping.
Speaker 1: Sounds like we might have gotten close which got him paranoid.
Speaker 2: Well, let me just say it is when a general
Speaker 2: is charged with leaking nuclear secrets to the Americans. Well,
Speaker 2: hooray if it's actually true. But there are a variety
Speaker 2: of other interpretations one could make in the Chinese government
Speaker 2: saying that, so we are hopefully the president is receiving
Speaker 2: from the intelligence community their best judgment of what's going on,
Speaker 2: and they're speculating less how much they know. I'mdoubtful they
Speaker 2: have penetrated the inner inner workings. So there are two
Speaker 2: biometrically opposed explanations. One is that he's getting the military
Speaker 2: ready for action, as he said as soon as two
Speaker 2: thousand and seven against Taiwan twenty twenty seven. That's theory one,
Speaker 2: and he's the older generations are corrupt and not warriors,
Speaker 2: to use a word that's now prevalent in Washington. The
Speaker 2: second is that this elderly leadership of the PLA began,
Speaker 2: perhaps in the faintest possible way, to dissent from the
Speaker 2: path that Chi Jinping is on, which is more and
Speaker 2: more dominated by this single personality. I don't nobody knows
Speaker 2: which of those it is, or a combination of the two,
Speaker 2: but I think we do have to take seriously the
Speaker 2: military threat that China represents with respect to Taiwan, which
Speaker 2: they're working very hard on every single day. And one
Speaker 2: of the things that's happened during this period that we've
Speaker 2: been discussing, let's say, the last fifteen to twenty years,
Speaker 2: is they've dramatically narrowed the gap between our two militaries,
Speaker 2: especially concerning Taiwan contingencies, and we have to do something
Speaker 2: about that. Deterrence today is the weakest it's ever been
Speaker 2: with respect to deterring China from acting on Taiwan.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm going to positive theory to you tell me
Speaker 1: if I'm either too cynical and fully fully respect that.
Speaker 1: But my concern is that she is on the clock
Speaker 1: because he knows that that Trump might let him have Taiwan.
Speaker 1: It seems to be it's on the negotiating table. Trump
Speaker 1: has seemed to have allowed that to be. That we
Speaker 1: could quote change our posture starting, you know, no longer
Speaker 1: support independence, things like that. What's what's a worse outcome
Speaker 1: that we just sort of let it happen and they
Speaker 1: and they get Taiwan without really firing a shot if
Speaker 1: there is a fight, but they get it without us,
Speaker 1: you know, and we sort of help but not enough
Speaker 1: and they get it anyway. Or is it something we
Speaker 1: should be fighting all the way to stop?
Speaker 2: Well, you you at the end highlighted the major issue
Speaker 2: which is not really discussed in public, even in the elite,
Speaker 2: which is the question that Britain asked itself in nineteen
Speaker 2: thirty nine, are we willing to go to war with
Speaker 2: Germany over Poland? And the question not asked around Washington
Speaker 2: in all of the palaver is are we willing to
Speaker 2: go to war with China over Taiwan? Yes? Or no?
Speaker 2: And an American president should know that he doesn't have
Speaker 2: to announce it, although Joe Biden did for sure.
Speaker 1: Did was that a work? That was the first time
Speaker 1: an American president ever done that right?
Speaker 2: And at each time, as we know, the State Department
Speaker 2: walked it back the next morning. But I think we
Speaker 2: do have some evidence that Biden would go to with
Speaker 2: China over Taiwan. I think you're right that there is
Speaker 2: no such evidence with respect to President Trump, and he
Speaker 2: has said things like Taiwan has a little dot on
Speaker 2: the coast of China which stole all of our chip
Speaker 2: technology and so forth. So would he go to war
Speaker 2: with China over Taiwan? I think that at least there's
Speaker 2: a doubt in his case, and President Shi Jinping may
Speaker 2: want to test the hypothesis, maybe.
Speaker 1: Not with a I mean if I were sitting in
Speaker 1: his shoes. And again, I don't want this to happen.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't wait for another American president to do this,
Speaker 1: I'd do it under this one.
Speaker 2: But it's still nobody knows what an American president is
Speaker 2: going to do before he does. And this is particularly
Speaker 2: i might say erratic American president. He can't, even with
Speaker 2: the perhaps footprints in the sand, heading toward a quiet
Speaker 2: reaction to such Chinese aggression. He can't be sure. And
Speaker 2: using his military force is a great gamble. It hasn't
Speaker 2: been in combat since the late nineteen seventies, it's corrupt
Speaker 2: and all the rest. So what if he tries and fails?
Speaker 2: So making that decision to say okay, there's not going
Speaker 2: to be a better moment than now go. I wouldn't
Speaker 2: want to predict what he'll say, but it's certainly true
Speaker 2: de terrence is weaker under President Trump. There's no doubt
Speaker 2: about that.
Speaker 1: Any If you were in Taiwan, would you be more
Speaker 1: concerned now under the current situation than you've ever been?
Speaker 2: Yes? Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1: I've always thought the biggest problem American political leaders have
Speaker 1: on the Taiwan issue is, particularly with the memory of
Speaker 1: Iraq and Afghanistan still still recent enough for enough people
Speaker 1: that you'd have a hard time convincing the country that
Speaker 1: it's worth going to war over over Taiwan. I mean,
Speaker 1: you see, we're look, Americans are always instinctively isolationists, and
Speaker 1: and then you know, we can be talked into it.
Speaker 1: But I think that's a tall political order, Bob, it is.
Speaker 2: I agreedy. But if the president is suddenly informed that
Speaker 2: China has started military action against Taiwan, then what does
Speaker 2: he do. Well, he can try to avoid responsibility, as
Speaker 2: presidents have done and said, well, the Congress has to
Speaker 2: decide this, not me, but there'll be pressure. There'll be
Speaker 2: pressure on him to make a decision, and the longer
Speaker 2: he waits, the more likely we won't intervene. So he
Speaker 2: has that time to try to persuade the American people.
Speaker 2: I believe, though, with you, that if it were to
Speaker 2: happen and he were to ask the American people, should
Speaker 2: I go to war with China, a majority is likely
Speaker 2: to say no, it's too far away, it's not important enough.
Speaker 2: We seem to have a recent inclination to lose wars. No.
Speaker 2: But that's where American leadership comes in and explains to
Speaker 2: the American people, here's why we're going to war. Uh.
Speaker 2: But it's a it will be a tough sell. Just again,
Speaker 2: to use a historical analogy, we will never know whether
Speaker 2: Fdr WU and the American Congress would have declared war
Speaker 2: on Germany. On Germany once Pearl Harbor had occurred, if
Speaker 2: Hitler hadn't declared war on US first, because the the
Speaker 2: the body of of of opinion was, let's concentrate on Japan.
Speaker 2: They're the ones who attacked US. Germany hasn't attacked US.
Speaker 2: And that decision by Hitler to declare war four days
Speaker 2: later after Pearl Harbor, that's what marri lea Guardia called
Speaker 2: a doozy. Uh. That's that's a historic doozy.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is being brought to
Speaker 1: you by Quins. As you you know, a well built
Speaker 1: wardrobe is about the pieces that work together, hold up
Speaker 1: over time, and frankly allow you to be flexible and
Speaker 1: sort of business casual, to say social casual. Quins does
Speaker 1: this really well. They have premium material, thoughtful design, and
Speaker 1: some everyday staples that feel easy to wear, easy to
Speaker 1: rely on even as the weather shifts. I've got some
Speaker 1: sweaters from Quints. I love them. I can use them
Speaker 1: for here on the podcast, I can do a business
Speaker 1: meeting with them. They have every day essentials. I love
Speaker 1: the quality so far. It's lasting really well. I've had
Speaker 1: it for a while. They have organic cotton sweaters, polos
Speaker 1: for every occasion. They have some nice jackets, including you know,
Speaker 1: lighter jackets as things I hope warm up at some
Speaker 1: point down here in the Mid Atlantic. The list goes on.
Speaker 1: All of it is built to hold up for you
Speaker 1: to wear this stuff all the time, right, Not just
Speaker 1: something you pull out once a quarter to look nice
Speaker 1: at work. No stuff that you might wear every week.
Speaker 1: They only partner with factories that meet some rigorous standards
Speaker 1: for crashmanship and ethical product. Bottom line, I wear it.
Speaker 1: I'm happy. It's been really good. It isn't going to
Speaker 1: break the bank. So refresh your wardrobe with Quints. Go
Speaker 1: to quins dot com slash chuck for free shipping on
Speaker 1: your order and a three hundred and sixty five day
Speaker 1: opportunity to return it. Now available in Canada too. That's
Speaker 1: qui NC dot com slash chuck, free shipping, three hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty five day returns. Quints dot com slash chuck.
Speaker 1: Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out
Speaker 1: of Office gives you the social buzz without the next
Speaker 1: day regret. They're best selling out of office gummies were
Speaker 1: designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood,
Speaker 1: and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you
Speaker 1: can tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a
Speaker 1: gentle one point five milligram microdose to their newest fifteen
Speaker 1: milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages
Speaker 1: and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a glass
Speaker 1: of wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this,
Speaker 1: I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I
Speaker 1: prefer the gummy. It's variance. Soul is a wellness brand
Speaker 1: that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul
Speaker 1: specializes in delicious hemp derived THHC and CBD products, all
Speaker 1: designed to boost your mood and simply help you unwind
Speaker 1: so if you struggle to switch off at night. Sol
Speaker 1: also as a variety of products specifically designed to just
Speaker 1: simply help you get a better night's sleep, including their
Speaker 1: top selling sleepy gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep
Speaker 1: restorative sleep. So bring on the good vibes and treat
Speaker 1: yourself to Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my
Speaker 1: audience thirty percent off your entire order. So go to
Speaker 1: get sold dot Com use the promo code toodcast. Don't
Speaker 1: forget that code. That's getsold dot Com promo code toodcast
Speaker 1: for thirty percent off.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, and obviously a giant misstep by the Germans in
Speaker 1: that time. So let's talk about let's assume we get
Speaker 1: through this term without without being fake, without anybody being
Speaker 1: faced with the Taiwan decision. What are you advising the
Speaker 1: next president to do in twenty twenty nine or what
Speaker 1: do you hope the next president is thinking about come
Speaker 1: twenty twenty nine.
Speaker 2: Well, I myself am an optimist in several respects with
Speaker 2: respect to your question. First of all, I think President
Speaker 2: Trump is a unique singular figure in American history, and
Speaker 2: that he will take much of trump Ism with him
Speaker 2: as he goes out the door, in particular, in particular
Speaker 2: the erratic behavior that he prefers, the contempt for America's alliances,
Speaker 2: the statement that American values have no place in American
Speaker 2: foreign policy, and so forth. Those are so un American
Speaker 2: those views that I think he takes them out the
Speaker 2: door with it.
Speaker 1: You're that confident a president JD. Vance would throw all
Speaker 1: that away?
Speaker 2: Yes, well, I'm speculating. But let me say what I
Speaker 2: think he won't throw away, which is American nationalism, which
Speaker 2: has dominated American grand strategy since the founding.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you point this out. I try to tell
Speaker 1: people the Cold War was an outlier in American history
Speaker 1: in a variety of ways, political parties, political extremism, isolationism,
Speaker 1: and nationalism versus multilateralism. I mean, and unfortunately or fortunately,
Speaker 1: we get to live in that era and we saw, hey,
Speaker 1: that's pretty good. Erica really benefited from this era of multilateralism,
Speaker 1: which makes it a head scratcher. Why would want to
Speaker 1: give it up?
Speaker 2: Became weaker? As I tried to say earlier. And I
Speaker 2: can't be sure obviously who the Republican nominee would be
Speaker 2: and what you would say, But I think the challenge
Speaker 2: the debate after Trump will be between American nationalism, which,
Speaker 2: as I say, for more than one hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: years was American grand strategy, and I hope a much
Speaker 2: stronger liberal internationalism with a much greater capacity in the military,
Speaker 2: most more defense of international institutions and so forth. And
Speaker 2: I think that'll be the debate. It'll be the Western
Speaker 2: hemisphere versus the globe. And I don't the American people, instinctively,
Speaker 2: as you say, Chuck, all the way back to the beginning,
Speaker 2: are anxious about alliances, about intent angling alliances, to use
Speaker 2: the founder's words, and so if it is, if it
Speaker 2: is vice president advanced, then he will call campaign as
Speaker 2: a Trumpist. But I don't think he will be a Trumpist.
Speaker 2: I think most likely he'll be an American nationalist. And
Speaker 2: then that is raising the question, well, who is the
Speaker 2: Democrat candidate and what is the Democrat approach to world
Speaker 2: order and US grand strategy today or more pertinently during
Speaker 2: the campaign. And I don't have a clue. Perhaps you do,
Speaker 2: but I know I couldn't. I could sit Yeah, I
Speaker 2: mean you might do.
Speaker 1: I think that your peak bootage is your Joshapiers or
Speaker 1: Wes Moores would be would look very familiar to you
Speaker 1: as far as PID policy over the last thirty or
Speaker 1: forty years, I think so. But who's to say they're
Speaker 1: going to be You know, I think this, You know
Speaker 1: you don't know for sure, let me look at it
Speaker 1: through Europe's perspective here, you know, Europe is you know,
Speaker 1: I've often joked that Trump's going to make Europe great
Speaker 1: again because They've got to sort of like, well, can't
Speaker 1: rely on America anymore. So let's start making our own
Speaker 1: economic deals, and let's start thinking about our own defense
Speaker 1: packs and things like that. It's going to take a
Speaker 1: while for our European allies to trust us again. So
Speaker 1: how do you build really, if we're going to if
Speaker 1: you get a president that wants to rebuild these alliances,
Speaker 1: how do you do it in such a way where
Speaker 1: it becomes more durable and essentially trump proofit for the
Speaker 1: next time.
Speaker 2: Well, that is related to what I said earlier At Davo's.
Speaker 2: Friend of mine asked a foreign minister, well, what about
Speaker 2: after Trump? And he said, well, if the next resident
Speaker 2: looks more like ones we've seen before, okay, but then
Speaker 2: we can get another Trump. And my argument, which my
Speaker 2: friend didn't use, but my argument is no, you're not
Speaker 2: going to get another Trump. He is such a singular
Speaker 2: figure in American history that, as I said, I think
Speaker 2: many of his policies will go with him, but it
Speaker 2: will let me pause.
Speaker 1: You there, I mostly agree with you, but we have
Speaker 1: I have a friend of mine he always says, you know,
Speaker 1: with Trump, we sometimes forget the phrase failure of imagination.
Speaker 1: And you know, there have been multiple times we thought
Speaker 1: this would do in Trump, We're not going to return
Speaker 1: to Trump, and yet we've done it. So I would
Speaker 1: you know, I've wondered if the second election of Trump
Speaker 1: really sort of cemented skepticism about America at least for
Speaker 1: another decade.
Speaker 2: I think you're the expert on domestic politics. It's not
Speaker 2: my line of work. But I think it mostly shows
Speaker 2: the weakness of the Democrat candidate, or at least.
Speaker 1: That I don't disagree. I mean the last part of it.
Speaker 2: But but back back to the fundamental point, which is
Speaker 2: the Trump approach, which is, as I say, I think,
Speaker 2: at at the base an American because it has no
Speaker 2: values in it, and every president back to Washington had
Speaker 2: values in in their approach to international affairs. I don't
Speaker 2: think jd. Vance will say the same thing, for example,
Speaker 2: that President Trump says and mister Miller says about that
Speaker 2: power and strength is everything in the world. I would
Speaker 2: be very surprised when I was in the Serengetti. Recently,
Speaker 2: I had a guide say in the Serengetti every night
Speaker 2: animals eat and animals are eaten. Well, I think that's
Speaker 2: mister Miller's view of current civilization, and it's not shared
Speaker 2: by the American people. And I think if mister Vance
Speaker 2: were to campaign on that gangsterism, which incidentally has some
Speaker 2: loyalties at least, that would be a mistake. So anyway,
Speaker 2: whoever's the next president will have the opportunity to build
Speaker 2: that trust. If it's mister Vance and he keeps denigrating
Speaker 2: our democratically elected allies, then trust will not be re established.
Speaker 2: And in life, we know it can be re established
Speaker 2: unless the perforation of the trust ust goes on. And
Speaker 2: so if the next president says, I know trust in
Speaker 2: America has weakened to the Europeans, but just watch me,
Speaker 2: and you're going to see a consistency of our policies.
Speaker 2: And I hope we'll build trust over time. It won't
Speaker 2: happen automatically. But the question which you imply, Chuck, is
Speaker 2: and I don't know the answer, is, well, what about
Speaker 2: if the next president treats the European allies the way
Speaker 2: this one has? Well when is it that they finally
Speaker 2: give up on America and they're not going to do
Speaker 2: it to amplify their risk. But a Europe, and this
Speaker 2: is something that the administration seems not to accept. A
Speaker 2: Europe which really is separated from the United States, is
Speaker 2: a euro which will go on its own, not just
Speaker 2: in dealing with European security issues, but with trade with
Speaker 2: China or treating Israel in the Middle East or whatever.
Speaker 2: It will have no incentives to care much about what
Speaker 2: the United States thinks or advises if we separate from
Speaker 2: them in the way that the President and the Vice
Speaker 2: President seem to want. This curiosity in which the President
Speaker 2: can say nothing positive about Europe while he emphasizes his
Speaker 2: close friendships with Shijinping, who's trying to displace the United
Speaker 2: States as the principal power in Asia and beyond, and
Speaker 2: Vladimir Putin, who is seeking to murder as many innocent
Speaker 2: Ukrainians as he can, are close friends. It is unfathomable.
Speaker 2: For it is me at least.
Speaker 1: One of the my reading of history is nationalism is
Speaker 1: usually comes before wars, and that nationalism is also contagious,
Speaker 1: and when we get more nationalistic, so does the world.
Speaker 1: When we get more protectionists, so do other countries become protectionists.
Speaker 1: And this is something that I think you write soberly,
Speaker 1: but to me this I read it with a bit
Speaker 1: of alarm. I think we've never it feels like we
Speaker 1: are at there are a lot of we are at
Speaker 1: a moment where there's quite a few places where a
Speaker 1: spark could cause something that we can't control.
Speaker 2: Well, in some places it's gotten better, but in some
Speaker 2: places it's gotten worse. I do want to point out,
Speaker 2: and it's not because of American olyes. It's because of
Speaker 2: the IDF and Israel. But that spark is much less
Speaker 2: likely in the Middle East now than it was before
Speaker 2: the Hamas attack on Israel.
Speaker 1: That is true. The stability in the Middle East there
Speaker 1: may be political. It may have caused more political instability
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party here, but there is security stability
Speaker 1: in the Middle East in a way that we've not
Speaker 1: seen in a long time.
Speaker 2: Right. But in Europe the danger is and it's an
Speaker 2: analog to what uh you raised with respect to Taiwan,
Speaker 2: who believes that Donald Trump will abide by Article five,
Speaker 2: that is to say, an attack on one as an
Speaker 2: attack on all. Essentially, if Little Green men go into
Speaker 2: a Baltic state.
Speaker 1: Oh, we've heard Tucker Carlson say this about Estonia. Our
Speaker 1: America is American America gonna spill blood for Estonian.
Speaker 2: Right and so uh can Putin, especially if he can't
Speaker 2: conquer Ukraine? Uh? Uh will he test the proposition too?
Speaker 2: About Trump? Souh a spark there could lead to the
Speaker 2: collapse of NATO, for example, Uh if the United States
Speaker 2: were not willing to uh to uh abide by Article
Speaker 2: five or even worse, somehow endorsed the uh little green
Speaker 2: men from Russia the paramilitaries into the Baltic States. And
Speaker 2: President Trump, after his interactions with President Putin, often seems
Speaker 2: to accept President Putin's explanation of what is happening in
Speaker 2: the world. So there there's a point. But the most
Speaker 2: dangerous I'll just say this to make it clear. The
Speaker 2: most dangerous place on earth, as that spark you mentioned
Speaker 2: for the rest of the Trump term, is Taiwan. That's
Speaker 2: because of the reasons we said, I think is the
Speaker 2: most dangerous, and that spark quote could happen anytime.
Speaker 1: This episode of The Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by American Financing. Let's be honest. The math just isn't
Speaker 1: adding up lately. Between the grocery store and those skyrocketing
Speaker 1: insurance premiums, even with a steady job, more families are
Speaker 1: being forced to rely on high interest credit cards to
Speaker 1: cover expenses. So if you're a homeowner caught in this cycle,
Speaker 1: carrying balances with interest rates in the twenties, frankly even
Speaker 1: the thirties, it's time to get some relief. Right now,
Speaker 1: mortgage rates are at a three year low, and my
Speaker 1: friends at American Financing are helping homeowners pay off that
Speaker 1: high interest debt at rates in the low fives. Their
Speaker 1: salary based mortgage consultants don't just push loans on you,
Speaker 1: they build exit strategies from debts. On average, they're saving
Speaker 1: their customers eight hundred dollars a month, so if you
Speaker 1: start today, you may even delay the next two mortgage payments.
Speaker 1: There are no upfront fees or obligations to find out
Speaker 1: how much you can save. American's Home for home loans
Speaker 1: is American Finance eight sixty six eight eight five ten
Speaker 1: eighty one. That's eight six six eight eight five ten
Speaker 1: eighty one or Americanfinancing dot net slash the Chuck Todcast
Speaker 1: important disclaimer nm LS one A two three three four
Speaker 1: NMLS Consumer access dot org APR for rates in the
Speaker 1: five start at six point one ninety six percent for
Speaker 1: well qualified buyers. Call eight six six eight eight five
Speaker 1: one zero eight one for details about credit costs and terms,
Speaker 1: or americanfinancing dot nex slash the Chuck Podcast. Having good
Speaker 1: life insurance is incredibly important. I know from personal experience.
Speaker 1: I was sixteen when my father passed away. We didn't
Speaker 1: have any money. He didn't leave us in the best shape.
Speaker 1: My mother, single mother, now widow. Myself sixteen trying to
Speaker 1: figure out how am I going to pay for college
Speaker 1: and lo and behold, my dad had one life insurance
Speaker 1: policy that we found wasn't a lot, but it was
Speaker 1: important at the time, and it's why I was able
Speaker 1: to go to college. Little did he know how important
Speaker 1: that would be in that moment. Well, guess what. That's
Speaker 1: why I am here to tell you about Etho's life.
Speaker 1: They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your
Speaker 1: family is protected even if the worst comes to pass.
Speaker 1: Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance
Speaker 1: fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future
Speaker 1: in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process and it's
Speaker 1: one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you
Speaker 1: just answer a few health questions online. You can get
Speaker 1: a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you
Speaker 1: can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home.
Speaker 1: You can get up to three million dollars in coverage,
Speaker 1: and some policies start as low as two dollars a
Speaker 1: day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no
Speaker 1: medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family
Speaker 1: with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quot at
Speaker 1: ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot
Speaker 1: com slash chuck. Application times may vary and the rates
Speaker 1: themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance
Speaker 1: is something you should really think about, especially if you've
Speaker 1: got a growing family. If the US helps create a
Speaker 1: peace steal between Russia and Ukraine that essentially rewards Russia,
Speaker 1: what's the fallout from that?
Speaker 2: Well, the peace steal, the one I would support, will
Speaker 2: reward Russia because there is no stomach in the West
Speaker 2: and no capability in Ukraine to drive Russia out of
Speaker 2: the Donboss and out of Crimea, so they are going
Speaker 2: to profit at the expense of more than a million
Speaker 2: deaths and so forth from their invasion. The question is
Speaker 2: rather is rather, can we stop them where they are
Speaker 2: and retain Ukrainian sovereignty And some of the things that
Speaker 2: mister Wikoff has proposed in the past would jeopardize or
Speaker 2: even end Ukrainian sovereignty. So that's the question. And I think,
Speaker 2: sadly the war is likely to go on because I
Speaker 2: think that there is a a determination in Ukraine not
Speaker 2: to lose their statehood, and that's what Putin, of course
Speaker 2: wants to accomplish. And I just hope the Americans, the
Speaker 2: American administration are not going to assist President Putin In
Speaker 2: that by putting pressure on Ukraine to give up its sovereignty.
Speaker 1: Look, I sort of positive this idea that I think
Speaker 1: she knows that if he wants to that it might
Speaker 1: benefit him to test the premise while Trump's still here,
Speaker 1: then waiting until after Trump leaves. I assume that times
Speaker 1: ten with Putin, that Putin knows he's got he'll never
Speaker 1: have a friendlier American president than the one he has now,
Speaker 1: So what does that mean when it comes to his
Speaker 1: actions in the next two and a half years.
Speaker 2: Well, what can he do? Uh, that's exactly the right question.
Speaker 2: His progress on the battlefield is painfully slow, uh and
Speaker 2: doesn't seem to uh to accelerate now. So I think
Speaker 2: there's no breakout for Putin in the military campaign. So
Speaker 2: the strategy would be to persuade President Trump UH to
Speaker 2: put so much pressure on Ukraine that it will abandon
Speaker 2: its determination to retain its sovereignty and succumb. Well, how
Speaker 2: could President Trump do that? He could say, Uh, we
Speaker 2: will no longer support you with intelligence information, which which
Speaker 2: would be a catastrophic It's.
Speaker 1: The single most valuable thing we still do for them
Speaker 1: wedily give them military, but it's now indirect the way
Speaker 1: it was more.
Speaker 2: Direct, exactly, and it helps them with their targeting, with
Speaker 2: moving their force of all the rest. Well, he can
Speaker 2: as a presidential act actor with unlimited power in that regard,
Speaker 2: he can end it tomorrow. And he could say, if
Speaker 2: you do not accept X y Z, I'm going to
Speaker 2: end it. Second, I'm going to stop selling weapons to
Speaker 2: Europe which they then pass on to you, and Europe
Speaker 2: cannot keep you sufficiently supplied with specially artillery shells, but
Speaker 2: other things as well, and so forth. So Putin could
Speaker 2: hope that with that ultimatum from the United States and
Speaker 2: from President Trump, perhaps the view in the Ukrainian leadership
Speaker 2: would succumb to this American pressure. And I think Putin
Speaker 2: will keep working on that and be patient we talk.
Speaker 2: And this is I'm guilty of this more than you.
Speaker 2: But when I when I'm hopeful, chuck about what America's
Speaker 2: future might be with respect to its its foreign policies.
Speaker 2: When I'm hopeful, I have to say that I have
Speaker 2: to compartmentalize that hope and ignore that the president is
Speaker 2: in office for.
Speaker 1: Three more years.
Speaker 2: So what will he do to further rupture to use
Speaker 2: the Canadian Prime Minister's words, to rupture alliances for now?
Speaker 2: For now? And Greenland is a good a good example.
Speaker 2: Europe is traumatized by what President Trump says, not what
Speaker 2: he does. So so Davos was was a flitter, not
Speaker 2: because President Trump did anything about Greenland. It was he
Speaker 2: said he would consider the use of force. What we need,
Speaker 2: I think to be acutely aware of as in the
Speaker 2: next three years is what does he start not just
Speaker 2: saying but doing. For example, does he make the decision
Speaker 2: to withdraw US forces from South Korea or substantial numbers
Speaker 2: from Japan, from the from Europe? Does he succumb to
Speaker 2: the one China interpretation of the Chinese interpretation of one China,
Speaker 2: which says Taiwan is part of China, and so forth.
Speaker 2: So I think we need to adopt what you and
Speaker 2: I will remember, and others ed Niss's line about watch
Speaker 2: what we do, not what we say. It's especially true
Speaker 2: that to become traumatized every night at two am when
Speaker 2: he tweets out is not a productive way to spend
Speaker 2: your time at two am.
Speaker 1: I still have some you know, what do you make
Speaker 1: of Marco Rubio's role here? I view him as a
Speaker 1: little bit of a firewall in that administration. He certainly
Speaker 1: has the ear of the president. He has his own
Speaker 1: agenda that he is trying to you know, as I joke,
Speaker 1: he's going to there'll be more streets named after him
Speaker 1: in my hometown of Miami than anybody else in the
Speaker 1: next twenty years if he gets what he wants in
Speaker 1: both Cuban Venezuela. But he is a I think he's
Speaker 1: an internationalist. I think he believes in multilateralism. He certainly
Speaker 1: has changed his rhetoric to appease Trump. But would you
Speaker 1: be a lot more concerned if he wasn't there?
Speaker 2: Yes, and yes, And although if I were more important,
Speaker 2: what I'm about to say would damage his standing.
Speaker 1: But I admire everybody's afraid of saying that. Don't praise
Speaker 1: him too much.
Speaker 2: Right, But I admire what he's trying to do. And
Speaker 2: I think he's essentially a classic as I am, a
Speaker 2: classic Republican in the view, in how he views the world,
Speaker 2: the strength of alliance.
Speaker 1: Of the Republican of the as I say, from Eisenhower
Speaker 1: to Romney, there was sort of a Republican foreign policy
Speaker 1: consensus generally, right, Well, I think.
Speaker 2: It went beyond that, but any but in any case,
Speaker 2: I think he has it. In just one topical example.
Speaker 2: I think that he and perhaps Secretary hexas Uh put
Speaker 2: the language in the National Security Strategy, tough language on
Speaker 2: the balance of power in the First Island chain and
Speaker 2: the threats to that. But and so I'm delighted they
Speaker 2: put it in. But because of the President, they couldn't
Speaker 2: mention the country that raises these anxieties, that is to say, China.
Speaker 2: So it's as if, well, let's see who might that be? Yeah, yeah, right.
Speaker 2: So I admire what Secretary Rubio is trying to do,
Speaker 2: and it's the most look at balancing act to go
Speaker 2: just far enough but not too far. I don't believe
Speaker 2: he himself, for example, ever said we must take sovereign
Speaker 2: possession of Greenland. I think he tries to make his point,
Speaker 2: perhaps often through silence, and so good good for him
Speaker 2: for trying and retaining. If he has an year of
Speaker 2: the president.
Speaker 1: Yeah he is. At some point, I expect the President
Speaker 1: to turn on him, but so far he is. That
Speaker 1: hasn't happened. Get your opinion on something. Jake Sullivan, when
Speaker 1: he was Biden's National security advisor, gave a speech it
Speaker 1: may have been in front of CFR counts on formulations
Speaker 1: where he viewed He said, look, we're in a competition
Speaker 1: with China, and there's some He said, if you if
Speaker 1: you want to look at it and use American language,
Speaker 1: you know of swing states. But he viewed him as
Speaker 1: swing nations, and it was sort of at the time
Speaker 1: he was basically trying to convince Biden that he had
Speaker 1: to work with Saudi Arabia. We know you don't. You're
Speaker 1: personally angry, and Biden was not wanting to. You know,
Speaker 1: you'd made this pledge about Saudi Arabia and then you know,
Speaker 1: you make all the pledges in the world and campaign
Speaker 1: and all that, right, and the reality hits. But he
Speaker 1: identified four countries and it was Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India,
Speaker 1: and I think it was Brazil as sort of these
Speaker 1: swing countries that we had to, you know, these that
Speaker 1: it was necessary to have close alliances with to prevent
Speaker 1: them from going into China's arms. Do you generally agree
Speaker 1: with that take and do you still see that as
Speaker 1: an issue? And I do feel like we've had in
Speaker 1: the twenty first century consecutive one consistency is you've had
Speaker 1: all the presidents trying to make nice with India.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yes, I do agree with that. And in that context,
Speaker 2: I think we are headed for not a multipolar world
Speaker 2: in which the superpowers are first among equals and so forth,
Speaker 2: although there's a lot of talk about the Middle powers
Speaker 2: now and so forth. I think we're headed for a
Speaker 2: bipolar world that will be very familiar to us, and
Speaker 2: it will be the.
Speaker 1: Old War too.
Speaker 2: Basically. Huh yeah, Well, in that sense, there will be
Speaker 2: many differences, but in that sense, and it will be
Speaker 2: the United States and China trying to attract these major
Speaker 2: other countries in the in the international system, beginning with
Speaker 2: and including the four you mentioned, and that it will
Speaker 2: take ignoring in some cases they are human rights, domestic practices,
Speaker 2: and others. India comes to mind a determined avoidance of
Speaker 2: anything that smells like an alliance while they get closer
Speaker 2: to the United States, which has been happening and so forth.
Speaker 2: And what they want, I think out of the United
Speaker 2: States is a consistency based on American strength, based on
Speaker 2: American strength, not a consistency based on ideology from their
Speaker 2: point of view, and I tried to make an argument.
Speaker 2: It's argued at length in the report that American strength
Speaker 2: has not been impressive the application of American strength you mentioned,
Speaker 2: and I neglected to follow up the the Obama administration's
Speaker 2: decision to abandon the Transpecific Partnership was catastrophic. It was
Speaker 2: the chance to have a framework for international trade in
Speaker 2: Asia led by the United States, and now we have
Speaker 2: no multilateral framework. Meanwhile, Asia itself is organizing and has
Speaker 2: organized itself with such a framework, and we have the irony.
Speaker 1: Now is in charge of it is.
Speaker 2: China has applied to be a member. What is the
Speaker 2: essence of the Transit Pacific Partnership. So what I'm advising
Speaker 2: is a much more robust engagement with the international system
Speaker 2: than recent administrations. That's liberal internationalism, strength and in every dimension.
Speaker 2: And an increased defense budget which stops China from narrowing
Speaker 2: the gap and therefore produces deterrence for the across the
Speaker 2: Taiwan Strait. And I know that'll be a hard sell
Speaker 2: and the American people, the American will have to be persuaded.
Speaker 2: But that's what we used to believe presidents do, which
Speaker 2: is persuade the American people that what they want to do,
Speaker 2: what America's role in the world should be, is part
Speaker 2: of their job. And I think President Trump has articulated
Speaker 2: a vision very powerfully. I think it's counter productive in
Speaker 2: almost every way, but he's worked hard at it. The
Speaker 2: next president, if it proceeds anywhere near along the lines,
Speaker 2: I would like he or she will in an equally
Speaker 2: resolute way give the American people, beginning in the campaign,
Speaker 2: a different view of America's role in the world and
Speaker 2: the role in which they and their children are going
Speaker 2: to live. And to go back to the most primary point,
Speaker 2: do the American people really want to live in mister
Speaker 2: Miller's world? Do they really want to live in a
Speaker 2: world without rules, in which the strong dictate to the week,
Speaker 2: without any without any framework of right and wrong? Do
Speaker 2: they want to live in the world in which the
Speaker 2: American president says, I operate in no moral context, what
Speaker 2: I decide is right or wrong. Is that the world
Speaker 2: they want their kids to live in. It's not the
Speaker 2: world I want my kids and grand kids to live in.
Speaker 1: Let me get you out of here on this, which
Speaker 1: is you talk about that we're headed to this bipolar world?
Speaker 1: And you know, I think in maps, and I think
Speaker 1: in numbers, and I think in states, and I look
Speaker 1: at the world and I look at continents, and China's
Speaker 1: ahead of America in Africa, China might be a head
Speaker 1: of America in South America. China might be ahead of
Speaker 1: America in Asia, not in Europe. And you know it's maybe,
Speaker 1: maybe we have a slight advantage in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: But are we behind when it comes to this great competition?
Speaker 1: If this is indeed where we're headed.
Speaker 2: Not yet, But the trends are bad the military trends
Speaker 2: are bad, and that's the reason I believe we need
Speaker 2: to increase our defense budget and reform our defense processes
Speaker 2: and acquisition and all the rest. So militarily, the app
Speaker 2: is dramatically closed. China's diplomacy is still outmatched by American diplomacy.
Speaker 2: Look who's negotiating, uh, the Gazza, the Gaza cease fire
Speaker 2: and Ukraine and support.
Speaker 1: But I got rid of a ID that wasn't a
Speaker 1: good idea.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but they they are gaining ground. And then of
Speaker 2: course economically, they are forging business deals and trade agreements
Speaker 2: with India, with Europe, with so forth. While we have
Speaker 2: a basically a we will course you into an agreement
Speaker 2: in principle which is condemned by your domestic audiences, and
Speaker 2: we'll see if they really come to pass. And just
Speaker 2: a word, the President said in the last week that
Speaker 2: we'd produced a miraculous new trade agreement with India, where
Speaker 2: I spent from your ambassador, and Mody now is in
Speaker 2: across the board attacks that that agreement in general does
Speaker 2: not protect Indian vital national interest. So we are losing
Speaker 2: ground and contempt for the Third World. Quite apart from
Speaker 2: the moral vacuum that is is over the long run,
Speaker 2: detrimental to American national interests if you look at the
Speaker 2: population trends, if you look at where the minerals are
Speaker 2: and so forth. And to just talk about the Third
Speaker 2: World as if it was only a swamp that can
Speaker 2: never be rescued the way the president does is just
Speaker 2: bad strategy.
Speaker 1: You are proving, you are proving your experience as a diplomat.
Speaker 1: I think what you're referring to is when he would
Speaker 1: call them s whole countries. But I can say it,
Speaker 1: and I know you will never say it that way,
Speaker 1: but that is what he did.
Speaker 2: Well, that is what he did, you know, and I
Speaker 2: want to say that. I don't want to end. We're
Speaker 2: getting her then on a negative note. But the one
Speaker 2: thing I would say two, I think America remains the
Speaker 2: most powerful country on Earth, militarily, economically, and diplomatically. So
Speaker 2: we have vast instruments to help shape world order to
Speaker 2: our benefit and to the benefit of our values. That's
Speaker 2: number one, and that will be true at the end
Speaker 2: of the Trump administration. But number two is that the
Speaker 2: trends are against us, and President Trump with three more
Speaker 2: years in office, I do not believe is going to
Speaker 2: change his view of the world or how he operates.
Speaker 2: I believe this is what you see is what you get.
Speaker 2: He's believed many of these things. He's detested the Europeans
Speaker 2: and their democrats and their democracies for half a century
Speaker 2: or more. He's not going to change. He's not going
Speaker 2: to change his attraction to autocratic government and so forth.
Speaker 2: So we're powerful, but we are in this very dangerous
Speaker 2: next three years of the combination of the growth of
Speaker 2: Chinese power and a president who does not defend either
Speaker 2: traditional American national security, vital national interests, or American values.
Speaker 1: Well, hopefully this is a document that many a presidential
Speaker 1: candidate reads and absorbs on both sides of the aisle.
Speaker 1: And here's hoping we can actually have a debate, though
Speaker 1: I fear our twenty twenty presidential primary debates will have
Speaker 1: a couple of questions on Taiwan and Ukraine and then
Speaker 1: everything else will be back to domestic. But you of
Speaker 1: outlined why we need a better debate about America's role
Speaker 1: in the world, and hopefully we'll get one. Bob'says terrific.
Speaker 1: Great to catch up with you. I always learn a
Speaker 1: ton from you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much for having me