YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → John Mearsheimer: Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, China, NATO, and WW3 | Lex Fridman Podcast #401

John Mearsheimer: Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, China, NATO, and WW3 | Lex Fridman Podcast #401 — Transcript

by Lex Fridman · 30,270 words · 4,473 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00the following is a conversation with
0:01John mimer a professor at University of
0:04Chicago and one of the most influential
0:07and controversial thinkers in the world
0:10he teaches speaks and writes about the
0:12nature of power and War on the global
0:15stage in history and
0:18today please allow me to say once again
0:22my hope for this little journey am
0:24on I will speak to everyone on all sides
0:29with compassion with empathy and with
0:33backbone I will speak with Vladimir
0:36Putin and with vadimus zy with Russians
0:39and with ukrainians with Israelis and
0:42with Palestinians with
0:45everyone my goal is to do whatever small
0:48part I can to decrease the amount of
0:50suffering in the world by trying to
0:53reveal our common
0:55Humanity I believe that in the end Truth
0:59and Love
1:02wins I will get attacked for being naive
1:05for being a shill for being
1:08weak I am none of those things but I do
1:12make mistakes and I will get
1:16better I love you
1:18all this is Alex Freedman podcast to
1:21support it please check out our sponsors
1:23in the description and now dear friends
1:26here's John
1:28mammer can you explain explain your view
1:30on power in international Politics as
1:33outlined in your book The Tragedy of
1:35great power politics and in your writing
1:38since then yeah I make two sets of
1:40points there first of all I believe that
1:43power is the currency of international
1:45relations and by that I mean that states
1:47are deeply interested in the balance of
1:50power and they're interested in
1:52maximizing how much power they control
1:55and the question is why States care so
1:58much about power I in the International
2:01System there's no higher authority so if
2:05you get into trouble and you dial 911
2:08there's nobody at the other end in a
2:11system like that you have no choice but
2:16to figure out for yourself how best to
2:19protect yourself and the best way to
2:21protect yourself is to be powerful to
2:24have as much power as you can possibly
2:26gain over all the other states in the
2:29system therefore States care about power
2:34because it enhances or maximizes their
2:37prospects for survival second point I
2:40would make is that in the real story or
2:42in my story power is largely a function
2:46of material factors uh the two ke key
2:51building blocks of Power are population
2:54size and wealth you want to have a lot
2:57of people and you want to be really
2:58wealthy of course course this is why the
3:00United States is so powerful it has lots
3:04of people and it has lots of wealth
3:07China was not considered a great power
3:10until
3:11recently uh because it didn't have a lot
3:13of wealth certainly had population size
3:16but it didn't have wealth and without
3:18both a large population and much wealth
3:21you're usually not considered a great
3:24power uh so I think power matters uh but
3:29uh when we talk about power it's
3:31important to understand that it's a
3:34population size and wealth that are
3:36underpinning it so there's a lot of
3:38interesting things there first you said
3:43nations in relation to each other are is
3:46essentially in a state of anarchism yeah
3:49well Anarchy basically means the
3:52opposite of hierarchy sometimes people
3:55think when you're talking about Anarchy
3:56you're talking about murder and mayham
3:58but that's not what Anarchy means in the
4:00realist context Anarchy simply means
4:04that you don't have hierarchy there's no
4:06higher authority that sits above States
4:09states are like pool balls on a table
4:12right and in an anarchic world uh
4:16there's no higher authority that you can
4:19turn to uh if you get into trouble and
4:22of course the political philosopher who
4:25laid this all out was Thomas Hobbs and
4:29Hobbs talked about life in the state of
4:31nature and in the state of nature you
4:34have
4:35individuals and those individuals
4:37compete with each other for power and
4:39the reason that they do is because in
4:41the state of nature by definition you
4:43have no higher authority and hobbs' view
4:47is that the way to get out of this
4:49terrible situation where individuals are
4:52competing with each other and even
4:54killing each other is to create a state
4:57it's what he calls the Leviathan and
4:59that of course is the title of his
5:01famous book so the idea is to escape
5:06Anarchy you create a state and that
5:09means you go from Anarchy to hierarchy
5:13the problem in international politics is
5:16that there is no world State there is no
5:18hierarchy and if you have no hierarchy
5:22and you're in an anarchic system you
5:25have no choice but to try to maximize
5:28your relative power power to make sure
5:31you are as we used to say when I was a
5:33kid on New York City playgrounds the
5:35biggest and baddest dude on the Block
5:38not because you necessarily want to beat
5:40up on other kids or on other states but
5:43because again that's the best way to
5:46survive and as I like to point out to
5:49people the best example of what happens
5:52when you're weak in in National politics
5:55is what the Chinese call the century of
5:57national
5:58humiliation from the late 1840s to the
6:01late 1940s the Chinese were remarkably
6:04weak and the great powers in the system
6:07prayed upon them and uh that sends a
6:10very important message to not only the
6:12Chinese but to other states in the
6:14system don't be weak be as powerful as
6:17you can and we'll talk about it but
6:19humiliation can lead to resentment and
6:20resentment leads to uh something you've
6:23also studied which is Nazi Germany in
6:25the
6:261930s we'll talk about it um
6:30but staying to the psychology and
6:33philosophy
6:35picture what's the connection between
6:37the will to power in the individual as
6:39you mentioned and the will to power in a
6:42nation the will to power in an
6:45individual has a lot to do with
6:46individual's psychology uh the story
6:49that I tell about the pursuit of power
6:51is a structural argument it's an
6:53argument that says when you are in a
6:56particular structure when you're in a
6:59system that has a specific
7:03architecture which is
7:05anarchy the states have no choice but to
7:11compete for power uh so structure is
7:14really driving the story here Will To
7:17Power has a lot more to do with an
7:19individual uh in in the nichan story
7:23where that concept comes from so it's
7:27very important to understand that I'm
7:28not argu arguing that states are
7:30inherently aggressive right my point is
7:34that as long as states are in Anarchy
7:39right they have no choice but to behave
7:42in an aggressive fashion but if you went
7:45to a hierarchic system uh there's no
7:48reason for those states to worry about
7:51the balance of power because if they get
7:53into trouble there is a higher authority
7:55that they can turn to there is in effect
7:58the Leviathan so what is the role of
8:00military might in this uh will to power
8:04on the national level well military
8:07might what ultimately matters as I said
8:09to you before the two building blocks of
8:11Power are population size and wealth you
8:16didn't mention military money I did not
8:17no that's right and it's good that you
8:19CAU that because if you have a large
8:22population and you're a wealthy country
8:25what you do is you build a large
8:28military and it's ultimately the size of
8:31your military that matters uh because
8:34militaries fight Wars and if states are
8:37concerned about survival which I argue
8:40is the principal goal of every state in
8:43the International System for what I
8:45think are obvious reasons then they're
8:47going to care about having a powerful
8:50military that can protect them if
8:53another state comes after them what's
8:56not obvious that a large Nation with a
8:58lot of people and a a lot of money
9:00should necessarily build a gigantic Army
9:03and seek to attain
9:06superpower like dominant sole superpower
9:09status to military might but you're
9:12saying as you see the world today it has
9:15to be that way yeah I'm arguing it is
9:18obvious if you're a state in the
9:20International System uh do you want to
9:23be weak uh if you live next door to Nazi
9:26Germany or imperial Germany or napole
9:29iic France or even the United States the
9:31United States is a ruthless great power
9:33you surely recognize that and if you're
9:36dealing with the United States of
9:37America and you're Vladimir Putin you
9:39want to make sure you're as powerful as
9:41possible so that the United States
9:43doesn't put its gun sits on you and come
9:45after you same thing is true with China
9:47you want to be powerful in the
9:49International System States understand
9:51that and they go to Great Lengths to
9:52become powerful just take the United
9:55States of America when it started in
9:581783 it was comprised of 13 measly
10:01colonies strung out along the Atlantic
10:03Seaboard over time you know the uh
10:08various leaders of the United States
10:10went to Great Lengths to turn that
10:12country into the dominant power in the
10:16Western Hemisphere and then once that
10:19was achieved in 1900 we've gone to Great
10:21Lengths to make sure that there's no
10:24peer uh competitor in the system uh we
10:29just want to make sure that we're number
10:32one uh and my argument is that this is
10:35not peculiar to the United
10:37States uh if I'm China for example
10:42today I would want to dominate Asia the
10:46way the United States dominates the
10:48Western Hemisphere they'd be fools not
10:50to if I were Imperial Germany I'd want
10:53to dominate all of Europe the way the
10:55United States dominates the Western
10:57Hemisphere why because if you dominate
10:59all of Europe assuming you're Imperial
11:02Germany or Napoleonic France then no
11:05other state in the area or in the region
11:07can threaten you because you're simply
11:09so
11:10powerful uh and again what I'm saying
11:13here is that the structure of the
11:14International System really matters it's
11:17the fact that you're in this anarchic
11:19system where survival is your principal
11:22goal and where I can't know your
11:24intentions right you're another state I
11:27can't know that at some point you might
11:29not come after me you might and if
11:33you're really powerful and I'm not I'm
11:36in deep trouble yeah so some of the
11:39ideas underlying what you've said uh
11:42offensive realism which I would love to
11:45talk to you about sort of the history of
11:47realism versus liberalism but some of
11:49the ideas you already mentioned uh
11:51Anarchy between
11:53states everybody's trying to develop a
11:56military capabilities uncertainty such
11:59an interesting concept uh States cannot
12:02be sure that other states will not use
12:04military capabilities against them which
12:06is that's of enormous importance story
12:09and so interesting because you also say
12:12that this makes realist more cautious
12:14and more
12:15peaceful the
12:18uncertainty because of all the
12:20uncertainty involved here it's better to
12:23approach International politics with
12:26caution which is really interesting to
12:28think about
12:29uh again survival most States interested
12:32in survival and the other interesting
12:33thing is you assume all the states are
12:38rational um which most of the time most
12:42of the time you call this framework
12:45offensive realism C can you just give a
12:48overview of the history of the realism
12:51versus liberalism debate as World Views
12:56well I think for many centuries now the
13:00big
13:01divide uh within the world of
13:04international relations
13:06theory is between realism and liberalism
13:11these are Tim honored bodies of theory
13:15and before I tell you what I think the
13:17differences are between those two bodies
13:19of theory it is important to emphasize
13:21that there are differences among
13:24realists and differences among
13:27liberals uh um and so when you talk
13:31about me as an offensive realist you
13:34should understand that there are also
13:35defensive realists out there and there
13:37are uh a panoply of liberal theories as
13:41well but uh basically realists believe
13:46that power matters that states compete
13:48for power and that war is an instrument
13:52of
13:53statecraft and uh uh liberals on the
13:57other hand have what I would say is a
14:00more idealistic view of the world uh
14:05this is not to say that they're naive or
14:07foolish but they believe there are
14:10aspects of international
14:13politics uh that lead to a less
14:17competitive and more peaceful world than
14:20most realists see uh and I'll lay out
14:25for you very quickly what are the three
14:28major liberal theories today that I
14:31think will give you a sense of the more
14:34optimistic perspective that is inherent
14:37in the liberal
14:39Enterprise uh the first and most
14:41important of the liberal theories is
14:43democratic peace Theory and this is a
14:47theory that says democracies do not
14:50fight against other
14:52democracies so the more the world is
14:55populated with democracies the less like
14:59ly it is that we will have
15:01wars uh and this basic argument is
15:04inherent in Francis fukiyama the end of
15:07History he argues that democracy Triumph
15:11first over fascism in the 20th century
15:15it then triumphed over communism and
15:19that means that in the future we're have
15:21more and more liberal democracies on the
15:25planet and if you have more and more
15:27liberal democracies in those democ acies
15:29don't fight each other then you have a
15:31more peaceful world that was his
15:33argument it's a very liberal argument a
15:36realist like me would say that it
15:39doesn't matter whether a state is a
15:43democracy or not all states behave the
15:47same way because the structure of the
15:49system getting back to our earlier
15:51discussion about International Anarchy
15:54the structure of the system leaves those
15:56States no choice whether they're democ
15:59acies or autocracies and again the
16:02liberal view this first liberal theory
16:05is that democracies don't fight other
16:07democracies and therefore the more
16:09democracies you have the more peaceful
16:11the world can I just uh sort of try to
16:14unpack that a little bit so on the
16:17Democratic peace Theory I guess would
16:19say that in democracies leaders are
16:22elected and the underlying assumption is
16:24most people want peace and so they will
16:28elect peace makers so the more you
16:30democracies you have the more likely you
16:32have peace and then the realist
16:35perspective what says that it doesn't
16:37matter if the majority of people want
16:39peace the
16:41structure of international politics is
16:44such that superpowers want to become
16:47more Super and powerful and they do that
16:50through War you can't make that argument
16:52that you're making about democracies
16:55because if you're saying that
16:57democracies are inclined toward peace
16:59and the the electorate picks leaders who
17:04are inclined towards peace then you have
17:08to show that democracies are in general
17:11more peaceful than non-democracies and
17:14you can't support that argument you can
17:18find lots of evidence to support the
17:20argument that democracies don't fight
17:23other
17:24democracies so the argument I believe
17:27that you have to make if you're going to
17:29support Democratic peace Theory the main
17:31argument you have to make
17:34is that liberal
17:37democracies have a healthy respect for
17:40each other and they can assess each
17:44other's intentions if you're a liberal
17:46democracy and I'm a liberal democracy we
17:49know we have value systems that argue
17:53against aggression and argue for
17:57peaceful resolution of Christ es and
17:59therefore given these Norms we can trust
18:03each other we can know each other's
18:05intentions remember for realists like me
18:08uncertainty about intentions really
18:10helps Drive the train but if you're
18:13talking about two
18:14democracies right the argument there is
18:17that they know each other's intentions
18:19and for you sure maybe democracies
18:22reduce uncertainty a little bit but not
18:24enough to stop the train I think that's
18:27right yeah that's that's right so that's
18:29Democratic peace theory yes the second
18:31theory is economic interdependence
18:33Theory and that's the argument that in a
18:36globalized world like the one that we
18:37live in and have lived in for a long
18:40time there's a great deal of economic
18:43interdependence and if you and I are two
18:45countries uh or if you inm two countries
18:48and uh we're economically interdependent
18:50and we're both getting prosperous as a
18:53result of this economic intercourse the
18:56last thing that we're going to do is
18:57start a war either one of us because who
19:00would kill the goose that lays the
19:01golden eggs it's that kind of argument
19:04so there you have an argument that
19:06economic interdependence leads to peace
19:09and then the third liberal argument has
19:11to do with
19:12institutions uh sometimes referred to is
19:15liberal institutionalism and this is the
19:17argument that if you can get States into
19:20institutions where they become rule
19:23abiding
19:25actors they will obey the rule
19:29that dictate that war is not
19:33acceptable uh so if you get them to
19:35accept uh uh the UN rules on when you
19:41can and cannot initiate a war uh then
19:45you'll have a more peaceful world so
19:47those are the liberal theories and as
19:50you can tell they're very different from
19:53realism as articulated by somebody like
19:56me can you uh maybe argue against the
20:00economic interdependence and in the
20:02institutions that institutions follow
20:04rules um a little bit so the the the
20:08Golden Goose with the golden egg you're
20:11saying that nations are happy to kill
20:14the goose because again they want Power
20:19if they think it's necessary to kill the
20:21Golden Goose yeah because of security
20:25concerns they will do it the point is
20:29that economic
20:32interdependence at its root has
20:35Prosperity as the core variable yeah in
20:39the realist story The Core variable is
20:43survival and survival always trumps
20:47Prosperity so if you go back to the
20:51period before World War I we're in
20:54Europe it's
20:561913 or early 1914
20:59what you see is that you have an intense
21:02security competition between all of the
21:05great powers on one side you have the
21:08Triple Alliance and on the other side
21:10you have the triple onon you have these
21:12two alliances and you have an intense
21:14security competition between them okay
21:18at the same time you have a great deal
21:20of economic interdependence it's amazing
21:22how much economic intercourse is taking
21:25place in Europe among all the actors
21:28right people are getting prosperous or
21:30countries are getting prosperous as a
21:32result but nevertheless in the famous
21:35July crisis of
21:371914 this economic Prosperity is unable
21:41to prevent World War I because security
21:44concerns or survival is more important
21:47uh so there are you know going to be
21:50lots of situations where prosperity and
21:53survival come into conflict and in those
21:56cases survival will win
21:59and uh maybe you can speak to the
22:01different camps of realists you said
22:05offensive and defensive can you draw a
22:07distinction between those two yeah let
22:09me just back up a bit on that one and
22:12you were talking about Will To Power
22:15before uh the first big
22:19divide between realists is structural
22:23realists and human nature realists nice
22:27and H
22:29morganth who was influenced by nature
22:32and
22:33therefore had that will to power logic
22:37embedded in his thinking about how the
22:39world works right he was a human nature
22:42realist okay I'm a structural
22:46realist and I believe it's not human
22:49nature it's it's not individuals and
22:52some Will To Power that drives
22:55competition and War what drives compet
22:58ition in war is the structure of the
23:01system it's Anarchy so you're not as
23:03romantic as the human nature realists
23:06yeah there's just a a world of
23:08difference between the two sure it's
23:10just important to understand that so
23:12within that this from the structural
23:15that there's a subdivision also of
23:16offensive and defensive yes inside the
23:18structural realist world right and you
23:23have a handful of realists who believe
23:29that the structure of the
23:31system Fosters competition for sure
23:34security competition but it really rules
23:39out great power War almost all the time
23:44so it makes sense to care about the
23:47balance of power but to focus on
23:51maintaining how much power you have
23:53that's the defense of realism
23:55maintaining how much power you have not
23:58trying to gain more power because the
24:01argument the defensive realists make is
24:03that if you try to gain more power the
24:06system will punish you the structure
24:08will punish
24:10you I'm not a defensive realist I'm an
24:14offensive realist and my argument is
24:16that states look for
24:19opportunities to gain more power and
24:22every time they see or almost every time
24:26they see an opportunity to gain more
24:28power um and they think the likelihood
24:31of success is high and the cost will not
24:34be great they'll jump at that
24:38opportunity just to linger on the human
24:41nature
24:43perspective how do you explain Hitler
24:46and Nazi
24:48Germany uh just one of the more
24:52recent
24:54aggressive expansions through military
24:57might how do you explain that in the
24:59framework of uh offensive
25:03realism well I think that Nazi Germany
25:07was driven in large part by structural
25:10considerations and I think if you look
25:12at Imperial Germany which was largely
25:15responsible for starting World War I and
25:18of course Nazi Germany's largely
25:19responsible for starting World War II
25:22what that tells you is you didn't need
25:24Adolf Hitler to start World War I right
25:27and I believe that there is a good
25:29chance you would have had World War II
25:32in the absence of Hitler right I believe
25:35that Germany was very powerful it was
25:38deeply worried about the balance of
25:39power in Europe and it had strong
25:43incentives to behave
25:45aggressively uh in in the late 1930s
25:49early
25:501940s so I I believe that structure
25:53mattered however I want to qualify that
25:55in the case of Adolf Hitler because I do
25:59think he had what you would call a Will
26:01To Power I've never used that word to
26:04describe him before but it's consistent
26:07with my point that I often make that
26:10there are two leaders or there have been
26:12two leaders in modern history who are
26:16congenital
26:18aggressors uh and one was Napoleon and
26:21the other was Hitler now if you want to
26:23call that a Will To Power you can do
26:25that I I'm more comfortable referring to
26:28H As A congenital aggressor and
26:30referring to Napoleon As A congenital
26:32aggressor although there were important
26:34differences between the two because
26:36Hitler was probably the most murderous
26:39leader uh in recorded history and
26:43Napoleon was not in that category at all
26:47uh but but both of them uh were uh
26:50driven by what you would call a Will To
26:52Power uh and that has to be uh married
26:57to the structural argument in Hitler's
27:00case and also in Napoleon's case is
27:02there some degree on the human
27:04psychology side that
27:06resentment because of how because of
27:09what happened after World War I led to
27:13Hitler wielding so much power and then
27:15Hitler starting World War II so this is
27:17the The Human Side perhaps the reason I
27:20asked that question is also because you
27:22mentioned the century of humiliation on
27:24the China side so to so to which degree
27:27did
27:29humiliation lead to Hitler and lead to
27:31World War I well the question of what
27:34led to Hitler is a very different
27:36question than the question of what led
27:38to World War II once Hitler was in power
27:41I mean after January 30th 1933 he's in
27:45power and then the question of what is
27:47driving him comes racing to the four uh
27:51is there resentment over the Versa
27:54treaty and what happened to Germany yes
27:57did that matter yes but my argument is
28:01that structure was the principal Factor
28:05uh driving the train in Hitler's case
28:08but what I'm saying here is that there
28:11were other factors well as well
28:13resentment being one of them will to
28:15power or the fact that he was A
28:17congenital aggressor in my lexicon uh
28:21certainly mattered as well so I I don't
28:24want to dismiss um your point uh about
28:28resentment so Hitler in particular the
28:31way he wielded the way he gained so much
28:34power might have
28:37been the general resentment of the
28:39populace of the German populace I think
28:42that uh as a result of um defea in World
28:46War I and all the trials and
28:48tribulations associated with viar
28:50Germany and then the coming of uh the
28:54Great Depression all of those factors
28:57definitely account for his coming to
28:59power I think that one of the
29:02reasons um that he was so successful at
29:08winning over the German people once he
29:11came to
29:12power uh was because there was a great
29:16deal of resentment uh in the German body
29:20politic and he played on that resentment
29:23that surely helped them get elected too
29:25but I think having studied the
29:28it was even more important once he took
29:31over I also believe that one of the
29:35principal reasons that he was so popular
29:38and he was wildly popular inside Nazi
29:41Germany is because he was the only
29:43leader of an industrialized country who
29:45pulled his country out of
29:47depression uh and that really
29:49mattered uh and uh it made him uh very
29:54effective it's also worth noting that he
29:56was a remarkably Charis Matic individual
29:59uh I find that hard to believe because
30:01every time I look at him or listen to
30:02his speeches uh he does not appear to be
30:05charismatic to me but uh I've talked to
30:09a number of people who are experts on
30:11this subject who assure me that he was
30:14very charismatic and I would note to you
30:17if you look at public opinion polls in
30:19Germany West Germany in the late 1940s
30:22this is the late 1940s after the Third
30:25Reich is destroyed in 1945
30:28he is still remarkably popular in the
30:30polls Stalin is still popular in many
30:34parts of Eastern Europe yeah yeah and
30:37Stalin's popular in many quarters inside
30:41Russia uh and Stalin murdered more of
30:44his own people than he murdered people
30:47outside of the Soviet Union and still to
30:51you the ties of History turn not on
30:54individuals but on structural
30:56considerations so so Hitler may be a uh
31:01surface
31:03layer characteristics of how Germany
31:06started a war but not the really the
31:08reason well history is a
31:13multi-dimensional phenomenon oh I hear
31:15and we're talking about Interstate
31:17relations here yes and realism is a
31:20theory about how States interact with
31:22each other and there are many other
31:24dimensions to International politics and
31:27if you're talking talking about someone
31:28like Adolf Hitler right uh why did he
31:31start World War II uh is a very
31:34different question then why did he uh
31:38start the Holocaust or why did he push
31:41forward a holocaust I mean that's you
31:43know a different question and realism
31:46doesn't answer that question so I want
31:49to be very clear that you know I'm not
31:52someone who argues that realism answers
31:54every question about International
31:56politics but it does answer what is you
32:00know one of the big if not the biggest
32:02questions that IR Scholars care about
32:05which is what causes security
32:07competition and what causes great power
32:09War does offensive realism answer the
32:12question why
32:14Hitler attacked the Soviet Union Yes
32:18because from a military strategy
32:20perspective you know there's pros and
32:23cons to that decision pros and cons to
32:26every decision the question is is did he
32:28think that he could win a quick and
32:29decisive Victory and uh he did I mean as
32:34did his generals it's very interesting I
32:36I've spent a lot of time studying German
32:38decision making uh in World War II if
32:42you look at the German decision um to
32:45invade Poland on September 1st 1939 and
32:48you look at the uh German decision to
32:51invade France on May 10th 1940 and then
32:54the Soviet Union on June 22nd 1941
32:58what you see is there was actually quite
33:00a bit of resistance to Hitler in
33:031938 at the time of jeos Slovakia Munich
33:08and there was also quite a bit of
33:09resistance in September
33:121939 internally or you mean internally
33:15internally for sure yeah people had
33:18doubts they didn't think the ver mock
33:20was ready and given the fact that world
33:23war one had just ended about 20 years
33:26before the thought of starting another
33:29European war was not especially
33:32attractive to lots of German policy
33:33makers including military
33:36leaders and then came France 1940 in the
33:40runup to May 10th 1940 uh there was huge
33:44resistance uh in the uh German Army to
33:48attacking France uh but that was
33:53eventually eliminated because they came
33:55up with a clever plan uh the man Stein
33:59plan if you look at the decision to
34:01invade the Soviet Union on June 22nd
34:041941 which is the only case where they
34:07fail they succeeded in France they
34:09succeeded in Poland they suceeded uh at
34:13Munich in
34:141938 Soviet Union is where they fail
34:17there's hardly any resistance at all
34:19right yeah well and to say that they
34:22failed the Soviet Union I mean my
34:24grandfather F I mean from from the
34:25Soviet Union you know there's a lot lot
34:27of successes early on so there's poor
34:31military I would say uh strategic
34:34decisions along the way but it was uh it
34:39caught Stalin offu
34:41guard maybe you can correct me but from
34:43my
34:46perspective terrifyingly so they could
34:48have been successful if certain
34:51different decisions were made from a
34:52military perspective yeah I I've always
34:56had the sense they came terrifyingly
34:58close to winning uh you can make the
35:01opposite argument that they were doomed
35:04uh but I I'm not terribly comfortable
35:07making that argument I think the ver
35:10mock by the summer of
35:131941 was a finally tuned instrument for
35:17War and the Red Army was in quite
35:21terrible shape uh Stalin had purged the
35:24officer Corp uh they had performed po
35:27poorly in Finland uh and uh there were
35:32all sorts of reasons to think that they
35:34were no match for the ver moed and if
35:37you look at what happened in the initial
35:39stages of the conflict that proved to be
35:41the case uh the Germans won a lot of
35:45significant tactical victories early on
35:49and if they focused and went to Moscow
35:51as quickly as possible it's again
35:55terrifyingly so could have been uh
35:58basically topple topple Stalin um and
36:02one thing that's that's possible that's
36:04possible fortunately we're not going to
36:06run the experiment again but one could
36:09argue that that had they concentrated as
36:12the generals wanted to do in going
36:15straight for Moscow that they would have
36:17won I mean what Hitler wanted to do is
36:19he he wanted to go into the Ukraine I
36:22mean Hitler thought that the main axis
36:25uh there were three axes the northern
36:27axis went towards Leningrad the central
36:29AIS of course went to Moscow and then
36:32the southern Access Army group South uh
36:35headed towards Ukraine and deep into the
36:38caucuses and Hitler believed that uh
36:42that that should have been the main axis
36:45and in fact in
36:461942 the Soviets excuse me the Germans
36:49go back on the offensive in 19 42 this
36:52is Operation Blue and the main axis in
36:5542 is deep into the Ukraine and into the
36:59caucuses and that fails but one could
37:02argue that had they done that in 41 had
37:05they not gone to Moscow had they gone
37:08you know had they concentrated on going
37:10deep into Ukraine and into the caucuses
37:12they could have knock the Soviets out
37:14that way uh I'm I'm not sure that in the
37:19end I believe that I I think in the end
37:21the Soviets would have won no matter
37:23what but I'm not 100% sure of that that
37:28so sometimes um maybe you can educate me
37:33but sometimes you know they say just
37:36like when Napoleon winter defeated
37:38Hitler in in Russia I think not often
37:41enough people tell the story of the the
37:43soldiers and the the motivation and how
37:47hard they
37:48fight so uh it turns out that ukrainians
37:52and Russians are not easy to conquer
37:55they're the kinds of people that don't
37:57roll over and fight bravely there seems
38:00to be a difference in certain people
38:03peoples in how they see War how they
38:06approach War how proud they are to fight
38:08for their country to die for their
38:10country these kinds of things so I think
38:12Battle of staling gr tells at least to
38:14me a story of extremely Brave fighting
38:18on the Soviet side and that it's a
38:21component of War I it's not just
38:24structural it's not just military
38:26strategy
38:28it's also the humans involved but maybe
38:31that's a romantic notion of war no I I
38:33think there's a great deal of Truth in
38:35that but let's just unpack it a bit in
38:38the case of uh the Soviet Union in World
38:41War II the counterargument to that um is
38:47that in World War I the uh Russian army
38:52disintegrated uh and uh if you look at
38:55what happened when Napoleon and invaded
38:58in
38:591812 and you look at what happened in
39:031917 and then you look at what happened
39:05between 41 and
39:0745 the Napoleon case looks a lot like
39:10the Hitler case and it fits neatly with
39:13your argument but World War I does not
39:15fit neatly with your argument because
39:18the Russians lost and surrendered yeah
39:21and you had the infamous Treaty of BR
39:24lovk where the Soviet Union then cuz
39:27went from Russia to the Soviet Union in
39:29October 1917 the Soviet Union
39:31surrendered large amounts of uh Soviet
39:35territory because it had suffered a
39:37humiliating defeat my argument for why
39:40the Russians let me take that back why
39:42the Soviets fought like wild dogs in
39:45World War II is that they were up
39:47against a genocidal
39:49adversary you want understand that the
39:52Germans murdered huge numbers of Soviet
39:56p
39:58uh the overall total was 3.7 million and
40:03by December December of 1941 remember
40:06the invasion is June 41 by December of
40:091941 uh the Germans have murdered 2
40:12million Soviet PS at that point in time
40:15they had murdered many more PWS than
40:18they had murdered Jews and this is not
40:20to deny for one second that they were on
40:23a murderous Rampage when it came to Jews
40:26but they were also on a murderous
40:27Rampage when it came to Soviet citizens
40:31and Soviet soldiers right so those
40:35Soviet soldiers quickly came to
40:38understand that they were fighting for
40:40their lives if they were taken prisoner
40:43they would die so they fought like wild
40:47dogs yeah you know the story of the
40:49Holocaust of the 6 million Jews is often
40:52told extensively if uh Hitler won
40:57conquer the Soviet Union it's terrifying
41:00to think on a much grander scam than the
41:02Holocaust what what would have happened
41:04to the Slavic people to the to the
41:07Soviet people absolutely all you have to
41:09do is read The Hunger plan right and
41:12they also had had a plan uh what is it
41:15called Grand planned East I forget the
41:18exact name of it uh which made it clear
41:21that they they were going to murder many
41:24tens of millions of people and by the
41:26way believe that they would have
41:29murdered all the Poes and all the Roma I
41:32mean my view is that the Jews were
41:34number one on the genocidal Hit List the
41:37Roma or the gypsies were number two and
41:40the Poes were number three uh and of
41:43course I just explained to you how many
41:45PS they had killed so they would have
41:47ended up murdering huge numbers of
41:50Soviet citizens as well but people
41:54quickly figured out that this was
41:56happening mhm that's my point to you and
41:58that gave them needless to say very
42:01powerful incentives to fight hard uh
42:04against uh the Germans and to make sure
42:07that they did not win to fast forward in
42:11time but not in
42:16space let me ask you about uh the war in
42:20Ukraine why did Russia invade Ukraine on
42:23February 24th 2022
42:27what are some of the explanations given
42:29and which do you find the most
42:32convincing well clearly the conventional
42:34wisdom is that Putin uh is principally
42:38responsible Putin is an imperialist uh
42:41he's an expansionist that's the
42:43conventional thinking yeah yeah and the
42:45idea is that uh he he uh is bent on
42:50creating a greater Russia uh and even
42:53more so he's interested in dominating
42:56Eastern Europe Europe if not all of
42:59Europe um and that Ukraine was the first
43:02stop on the train line uh and what he
43:05wanted to do was to conquer all of
43:08Ukraine uh incorporated into a greater
43:11Russia and then he would move on and
43:14Conquer other countries this is the
43:16conventional wisdom my view is there is
43:20no evidence uh let me emphasize zero
43:23evidence to support that argument which
43:26part does he would the imperialist part
43:29the sense that he would he sought to
43:32conquer all of Ukraine and move on and
43:36Conquer there's no evidence he was
43:37interested in conquering all of Ukraine
43:40there was no interested there's no
43:42evidence beforehand that he was
43:43interested in coning conquering any of
43:46Ukraine and there's no way that an army
43:49that had
43:52190,000 troops at the
43:54most right could have conquered curred
43:57all of Ukraine just impossible as I like
44:00to emphasize when the Germans went into
44:02Poland in
44:041939 uh and the Germans you want to
44:06remember were only intent on Conquering
44:09the Western half of Poland because the
44:11Soviets uh who came in later that month
44:15were going to conquer the eastern half
44:16of Poland so the Western half of Poland
44:20is much smaller than Ukraine and the
44:23Germans went in with 1.5 million troops
44:28uh if uh Vladimir Putin were bent on
44:32conquering all of Ukraine he would have
44:34needed at least two million troops I
44:37would argue he'd need three million
44:38troops because not only do he need to
44:40conquer the country you then have to
44:42occupy it uh but the idea that 190,000
44:46troops was sufficient for conquering uh
44:49all of Ukraine is not a serious argument
44:51furthermore he was not interested in
44:52conquering Ukraine and that's why in
44:55March 2020 2 this is immediately after
44:59the war starts he is negotiating with
45:03zalinsky to end the war there are
45:05serious negotiations taking place in
45:09Istanbul involving the Turks and Naf
45:12Tali Bennett who was the Israeli Prime
45:14Minister at the time was deeply involved
45:17in negotiating with both Putin and
45:19zalinski to end the war well if he was
45:23interested Putin in conquering all of
45:25Ukraine why in God's name would he be
45:29negotiating with zinski to end the war
45:32and of course what they were negotiating
45:34about was NATO expansion into Ukraine
45:37which was the principal cause of the war
45:41uh people in the west don't want to hear
45:43that argument because if it is true
45:46which it is then the West is principally
45:49responsible for this bloodbath that's
45:51now taking place and of course the West
45:53doesn't want to be principally
45:55responsible it wants to blame Vladimir
45:58Putin so we've invented this story out
46:01of whole cloth that he is an aggressor
46:04that he's the second coming of Adolf
46:06Hitler and that what he did in Ukraine
46:09was try to uh to conquer all of it and
46:12he failed but uh with a little bit of
46:15luck he probably would have conquered
46:17all of it and he'd now be in the Baltic
46:19states and eventually end up uh
46:23dominating all of Eastern Europe as I
46:25said I think there's no no evidence to
46:27support this so maybe there's a lot of
46:30things to ask there maybe just to linger
46:32on NATO
46:34expansion what is NATO
46:37expansion what is the threat of NATO
46:39expansion and why is it such a concern
46:40for
46:41Russia
46:43NATO was a mortal enemy of the Soviet
46:47Union during the Cold War it's a
46:49military Alliance which has at its heart
46:52the United States of America which is
46:54the most powerful State on the planet
46:57it is perfectly understandable that
47:01Russia is not going to want that
47:04military Alliance on its doorstep here
47:08in the United States we have as you well
47:10know what's called the Monroe Doctrine
47:12and that basically says no great powers
47:15from Europe or Asia are allowed to come
47:18into our neighborhood and form a
47:20military alliance with anybody in this
47:23neighborhood uh when I was young there
47:25was this thing called the Cuban Missile
47:27Crisis the Soviets had the audacity to
47:29put nuclear armed missiles in Cuba we
47:32told them in no uncertain terms that
47:34that was not acceptable and that those
47:37missiles had to be removed this is our
47:39backyard and we do not tolerate distant
47:42great Powers coming into our
47:44neighborhood well what's good for the
47:46goose is good for the gander and if we
47:49don't like great Powers coming into our
47:53neighborhood it's hardly surprising that
47:55the Russians did not want want NATO on
47:57their doorstep uh they made that
48:00manifestly clear um when the Cold War
48:05ended and they exacted a promise from us
48:09that we would not expand NATO and then
48:11when we started expanding NATO they made
48:14it clear after the first trunch in 1999
48:18that they were profoundly unhappy with
48:20that they made it clear in 2004 after
48:24the second trunch that they were
48:25profoundly happy with that
48:28expansion and then in April 2008 when
48:32NATO announced that uh Ukraine and
48:35Georgia would become part of NATO they
48:38made it unequivocally clear not just
48:41Putin that that was not going to happen
48:44they were drawing a Red Line in the Sand
48:46and it is no accident that in August
48:492008 remember the Bucharest Summit is
48:52April 2008 and August 2008 you had a war
48:56between Georgia and Russia and that
48:58involved at its core NATO expansion so
49:03uh the Americans and their allies should
49:06have understood by at least August 2008
49:10that continuing to push to bring Ukraine
49:13into NATO was going to lead to disaster
49:17and I would note that there were all
49:19sorts of people in the 1990s like George
49:22Kennan William Perry who was Bill
49:24Clinton's Secretary of Defense the
49:26chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
49:28Paul Nitza and so forth and so on who
49:31argued that NATO expansion would end up
49:34producing a disaster which it has I
49:38would note that uh at the famous April
49:422008 Bucharest Summit where NATO said
49:47that Ukraine would be brought into the
49:49alliance Angela Merkel and uh Nicholas
49:53sarosi the German and French leaders
49:55respectively opposed that decision
49:58Angela Merkel later said that the reason
50:02she opposed it was because she
50:04understood that Putin would interpret it
50:07as a declaration of war just think about
50:10that Merkel is telling you that she
50:13opposed NATO expansion into Ukraine
50:16because she understood correctly that
50:19Putin would see it as a declaration of
50:21war what did the United States and its
50:23friend in friends in Europe do they
50:26continue to push and push because we
50:28thought that we could push NATO
50:30expansion down their throat after 2008
50:34the same way we did in 1999 and 2004 but
50:38we were wrong and it all blew up in our
50:40face in
50:412014 and when it blew up in our face in
50:442014 what did we do did we back off and
50:48say well maybe the Russians have some
50:51legitimate security interest no that's
50:53not the way we operate we continue to
50:55Double Down
50:57and the end result is that in 2022 you
51:02got a war and as I've argued for a long
51:05time now we the West are principally
51:08responsible for that not Vladimir Putin
51:11so the expansion of NATO is primarily
51:14responsible yeah to put it in more
51:16general terms what we were trying to do
51:19was turn Ukraine into a western bulwark
51:23on Russia's border and it really wasn't
51:26NATO expansion alone NATO expansion was
51:28the most important element of our
51:30strategy but the strategy had two other
51:33dimensions one was EU expansion and the
51:38third was the color
51:40Revolution we were trying to for orange
51:42revolution in Ukraine and the basic goal
51:46there was to turn Ukraine into a
51:49pro-western liberal
51:51democracy and that meant that you'd have
51:54Ukraine if it worked a pro-western
51:57liberal democracy that was in the EU and
52:00that was in NATO this was our goal and
52:05the Russians made it unequivocally clear
52:07Ukraine was not going to become a
52:09Western bullwark on their border and
52:12most importantly they made it clear that
52:16Ukraine in NATO was
52:18unacceptable can we talk about the mind
52:20of Vladimir Putin you've mentioned that
52:23this idea that he has aspirations
52:28for uh imperialist
52:31Conquest that he dreams of Empire is not
52:34grounded in reality he wrote an essay in
52:382021 about one
52:41people do you think there is some degree
52:43to
52:44which he still dreams of the former
52:47Soviet Union
52:49reuniting no he's made it clear that uh
52:53anybody with a a triple digit IQ
52:57understands that it's nuts to think
52:59about recreating the Soviet
53:01Union he thinks it's a tragedy that the
53:04Soviet Union fell apart but as he made
53:07clear in that essay the July 12th 2021
53:10essay and as he made clear in speeches
53:13before immediately before he invaded
53:16Ukraine he
53:18accepted uh the breakup of the Soviet
53:22Union and he accepted uh the status quo
53:26in in Europe safe for the fact he did
53:28not accept the idea that Ukraine would
53:31become part of NATO he's been in power
53:34for over two decades is there a degree
53:37that power can
53:38affect a Leader's ability to see the
53:41world
53:42clearly as they say
53:45corrupt um do you think po has corrupted
53:50of Vladimir Putin to a degree it's very
53:53hard for me to answer that question
53:55because I I don't know him and I've not
53:58studied him carefully uh in terms of his
54:03overall performance over the course of
54:06you know the 23 years that he's been in
54:09power um I've studied him as a
54:12strategist and I've studied how he you
54:16know deals with the West uh and you know
54:20deals with the International System more
54:23generally uh since 2014
54:27and I think he is a first class
54:30strategist this is not to say he doesn't
54:33make
54:34mistakes uh and he admits he's made some
54:37mistakes uh U but uh I think that the
54:42West is dealing with a formidable
54:44adversary here uh and I don't see any
54:48evidence that he's either lost speed off
54:51his fast ball or that power has
54:54corrupted his thinking about strategic
54:58Affairs so he has consistently put as a
55:02primary concern
55:05security as does the United States he's
55:08put for Russia security making sure that
55:10NATO doesn't get close to its borders I
55:12think that's clear yeah I I think as I
55:16emphasized early on in our conversation
55:19that leaders privilege security or
55:23survival over everything else and by the
55:25way he he gave a number of talks uh and
55:30press
55:30conferences uh in addition to writing
55:33that famous article that you referred to
55:36on July 12th 2021 so we have you know a
55:41pretty clear record of what he was
55:44saying and I would argue what he was
55:45thinking in the runup to the war in
55:48February
55:492022 and if you read uh what he said uh
55:55it's quite clear that he privileged
55:57security or survival he was deeply
55:59concerned about the security of Russia
56:02and Russia is a quite vulnerable state
56:06in a lot of ways especially if you think
56:08back to what it looked like in the 1990s
56:10is you know better than I do uh it was
56:13in terrible shape uh the Chinese talk
56:16about the century of national
56:18humiliation one could argue that for the
56:20Russians that was the decade of national
56:23humiliation and um and it took Putin I
56:26think quite a bit of time to bring the
56:28Russians back from the dead I think he
56:31eventually succeeded but uh it took a
56:33considerable amount of time and I think
56:36he understood that he was not playing a
56:39particularly strong hand he was playing
56:40something of a weak hand and he had to
56:43be very careful very cautious and I
56:46think he was uh and I think that's very
56:49different than the United States the
56:51United States was the unipole it was the
56:54most powerful state in the history of
56:55the world most powerful State relative
56:57to all its possible competitors from you
57:01know roughly 1989 certainly after
57:04December 1991 when the Soviet Union fell
57:07apart up until I would argue about 2017
57:11we were incredibly powerful and even
57:13after
57:132017 up to today the United States
57:16Remains the most powerful state in the
57:18system and because of our geographical
57:21location uh we are in a uh terrific
57:26uh situation to survive in any great
57:29power competition so uh you have a
57:33situation involving the United States
57:36that's different than the situation
57:38involving Russia they're they're just
57:40much more vulnerable uh than we are and
57:44and therefore I think Putin tends to be
57:46more sensitive about security uh than
57:49any American president in recent Times
57:51Europe on one side China on the other
57:54side it's a complicated situation
57:56yeah and we talked before about 1812
57:59when Napoleon invaded and Moscow got
58:02burned to the ground we talked about
58:04World War I where the Russians were
58:06actually defeated uh and surrendered uh
58:10and then we talked about 1941 to 1945
58:14where although thankfully uh the Soviets
58:18prevailed uh it was uh it was a close
58:22call and I mean the casualties the
58:26destruction that the Soviet
58:28Union uh had inflicted on it by the
58:31Germans is just almost almost hard to
58:34believe
58:35just uh so they are sensitive you can
58:40understand full well or at least you
58:42should be able to understand full well
58:44why the idea of bringing Ukraine up to
58:46their border really spooked them uh I
58:49don't understand why more Americans
58:51don't understand that it just it it
58:53befuddles me I think it to do with the
58:56fact that Americans are not very good in
58:58putting themselves in the shoes of other
59:00countries uh and uh you really if if
59:04you're going to be a first class
59:05strategist in international politics you
59:07have to be able to do that you have to
59:08put yourself in the shoes of the other
59:10side and think about how they think so
59:13you don't make foolish mistakes and as a
59:16starting point Americans tend to see
59:19themselves as the good guys and a set of
59:22others as the bad guys and you have to
59:24be able to empathize that
59:26Russians think of themselves as the good
59:29guys the Chinese think of themselves as
59:32the good guys and just be able to
59:34empathize if they are the good guys it's
59:38like that uh funny skit are we the
59:41baddies consider the United States could
59:43be the bad guys like first of all EMP
59:45like see the world if the United States
59:48is the bad guys and China is the good
59:51guys what does that world look like be
59:53able to just exist with that thought
59:55because that is what the Chinese
59:57leadership and many Chinese citizens uh
1:00:00if not now maybe in the future will
1:00:02believe and you have to kind of do the
1:00:06calculation the simulation forward from
1:00:08that and same with Russia same with with
1:00:10other nations yeah I agree with you 100%
1:00:14and just you know I always think of
1:00:16Michael McFall at Stanford who was the
1:00:18American ambassador to uh Russia I think
1:00:21between 2012 and
1:00:232014 and uh he he told me that he told
1:00:28Putin uh that Putin didn't have to worry
1:00:31about NATO expansion because the United
1:00:34States was a benign
1:00:35hegemon and uh I asked Mike what Putin's
1:00:41response was to that and uh Mike said
1:00:45that Putin didn't believe it uh and uh
1:00:50but Mike believed it he should believe
1:00:52it and that we could move NATO Eastward
1:00:56to include Ukraine and in the end we'
1:00:59get away with it because we are a benign
1:01:01heiman but the fact is that's not what
1:01:05Putin saw Putin saw us as a malign
1:01:08hedgemon and what Mike thinks or any
1:01:11American thinks doesn't matter what
1:01:14matters is what Putin thinks but also
1:01:17the drums of War have been beating for
1:01:20some reason NATO expansion has been
1:01:22threatened for some reason so you've
1:01:24talked about NATO expansion being
1:01:27dead so like it doesn't make sense from
1:01:30a geop political perspective on the
1:01:32Europe side to expand NATO uh but
1:01:35nevertheless that threat has been uh
1:01:39echoed so um why has NATO expansion been
1:01:44pushed from your perspective there are
1:01:46two reasons one is first of all we
1:01:50thought it was a wonderful thing uh to
1:01:53bring more and more countries into NATO
1:01:55we thought that it facilitated peace and
1:01:57prosperity it was ultimately all for the
1:02:01goodh um and uh we also thought that uh
1:02:08uh countries like Ukraine had a right to
1:02:11join NATO these are sovereign countries
1:02:14that can decide for themselves and the
1:02:15Russians have no say in what Ukraine
1:02:20wants to do and then finally and uh this
1:02:23is a point I emphasized before we were
1:02:26very powerful and we thought we could
1:02:27shove it down their throat so so it's a
1:02:30combination of those factors that led us
1:02:33to pursue what I think was ultimately uh
1:02:37a foolish
1:02:38policy we've talked about how Wars get
1:02:42started how do you hope the war in
1:02:44Ukraine ends what are the ways to end
1:02:46this war what are the ways to achieve
1:02:48peace there to uh end the
1:02:53the I would say senseless
1:02:57death of young men as always happens in
1:03:03War I I'm sad to say I don't have a good
1:03:06answer to that um I I don't think
1:03:09there's any real Prospect of a
1:03:13meaningful peace agreement I think it's
1:03:15almost
1:03:16impossible uh I I think the best you can
1:03:19hope for uh at this point is it's some
1:03:23some point the shooting stops you have a
1:03:27ceasefire and then you have a frozen
1:03:30conflict uh and that Frozen conflict uh
1:03:34will not be highly stable uh and uh the
1:03:38U ukrainians and the West will do
1:03:40everything they can to weaken Russia's
1:03:43position uh and the Russians will go to
1:03:46Great Lengths to not only damage that
1:03:49dysfunctional rum state that Ukraine
1:03:52becomes but the Russians will go to
1:03:54Great Lengths to so dissension within
1:03:57the alliance and uh and that includes in
1:04:00terms of transatlantic relations so
1:04:03you'll have this
1:04:05continuing security competition between
1:04:08Russia on one side and Ukraine and the
1:04:09West on the other even when you get a
1:04:11frozen
1:04:13peace uh and um or you get a frozen
1:04:16conflict and uh and and and the
1:04:18potential for escalation there will be
1:04:21great uh so I think this is a disaster
1:04:25that's a a very realist perspective let
1:04:30me ask you sort of a the The Human Side
1:04:33of it do you think there's some power to
1:04:37leader sitting down having a
1:04:40conversation man to man leader to leader
1:04:42about this there's there there is just a
1:04:46lot of death
1:04:48happening it seems that from an economic
1:04:51perspective from a historic perspec from
1:04:53a human perspective both nations are
1:04:54losing is is it possible for Vladimir
1:04:57zalinski and and Vladimir Putin to sit
1:05:00down and talk and
1:05:03to uh figure out a way where uh the
1:05:08security concerns are addressed and both
1:05:11Nations can um minimize the amount of
1:05:14suffering that's happening and and and
1:05:16create a a path towards future
1:05:20flourishing I think the answer is no
1:05:23even with uh United States in d three
1:05:26people in the room well I think you if
1:05:29the United States is involved the answer
1:05:31is definitely no you have to get the
1:05:33Americans out uh and then I I think if
1:05:37you have zinski and Putin talking you
1:05:40know you have a sliver of a chance there
1:05:43the Americans
1:05:44are a real problem look let's go back to
1:05:47what happens right after the war starts
1:05:50okay as I said before this is we're
1:05:52talking March early April of 2022 the
1:05:55the war starts on February 24th
1:05:582022 and as I said to you uh the two
1:06:02sides were negotiating in Aon buul and
1:06:06they were also uh negotiating through
1:06:08Neftali Bennett and the Bennett track
1:06:11and the Turkish track were operating
1:06:14together I mean they were not at Cross
1:06:16purposes at
1:06:18all what
1:06:20happened Bennett tells the story very
1:06:23clearly that they had made significant
1:06:27progress in reaching an agreement this
1:06:31is zalinski on one side and Putin on the
1:06:33other Bennett is talking in person to
1:06:36both Putin and uh
1:06:40zalinski and what happens to produce
1:06:44failure the answer is the United States
1:06:47and Britain get involved and tells ziny
1:06:50to walk they tell zalinsky to walk if
1:06:53they had come in and encouraged zinski
1:06:56to try to figure out a way with Putin to
1:06:59shut this one down and worked with
1:07:01Bennett and worked with
1:07:03erdogan we might have been able to shut
1:07:05the war down then but it was the United
1:07:08States well let me sort of uh push back
1:07:11on that you're you're you're correct but
1:07:13so United States paints this like um
1:07:16picture that everybody's aligned so I
1:07:20maybe you can correct me but I believe
1:07:21in the power of individuals especially
1:07:23individual leaders again whether it's
1:07:25Biden or Trump or whoever goes into a
1:07:29room and says in a way that's convincing
1:07:33that no more NATO
1:07:36expansion and actually just on a basic
1:07:38human
1:07:40level ask the question of why are we
1:07:45doing all this senseless
1:07:48killing and look at the interest of one
1:07:51Russia look at the interest of the other
1:07:53Ukraine their interest are pretty simple
1:07:56and say the United States is going to
1:07:58stay out of this we're not going to
1:08:00expand NATO and say all that in a way
1:08:03that's convincing which is NATO
1:08:05expansion is silly at this point china
1:08:08is the big threat we're not going to do
1:08:11this kind of uh conflict escalation with
1:08:13Russia the Cold War is Over let's let's
1:08:17uh normalize relations well let me just
1:08:21embellish your argument okay thank
1:08:24you did I need it if we say there's a
1:08:27sliver of a chance that you can do this
1:08:30and I do think there is a sliver of a
1:08:32chance let me just embellish your point
1:08:34Thank you need all the help I can get
1:08:37two things have to be done here in my
1:08:39opinion one is uh Ukraine has to become
1:08:45neutral and it has to completely sever
1:08:50all security ties with the West
1:08:53right it's not like
1:08:56uh you can say we're not going to expand
1:08:58NATO to include Ukraine but we're going
1:09:01to continue to have some loose security
1:09:05arrangement with Ukraine none of that
1:09:08has to be completely severed Ukraine has
1:09:10to be on its own okay and number two
1:09:15Ukraine has to accept the fact that the
1:09:18Russians are going to keep the four
1:09:20oblas that they've now annexed and
1:09:23Crimea right the Russians are not going
1:09:26to give them back and what you really
1:09:29want to do if you're zalinski or who's
1:09:32ever running Ukraine in this scenario
1:09:35that we're positing is you want to make
1:09:37sure the Russians don't take another
1:09:38four oblas to include arke and Odessa
1:09:44right if I'm playing Putin's hand and
1:09:47this war goes on I'm thinking about
1:09:49taking four more oblas I I want to take
1:09:52about 43% of Ukraine and an exit to
1:09:57Russia right and I certainly want Odessa
1:10:00and I certainly want harke and I I want
1:10:03the two ooss in between as well right
1:10:05literally or as uh leverage in
1:10:10negotiation no Ukraine neutrality I want
1:10:12them literally uh I want to conquer them
1:10:15literally uh but my point to you is if
1:10:19we can begin to talk about cutting a
1:10:23deal now you may be able to head that
1:10:26kind of aggression off at the pass in
1:10:29other words you may be able to limit
1:10:32Putin and Russia to annexing the four
1:10:35oblas that they've now annexed plus
1:10:37Crimea that's the best I think you can
1:10:40hope for but the point is you have to
1:10:42get the ukrainians to accept that you
1:10:44have to get the ukrainians to accept
1:10:47becoming a truly neutral State and
1:10:49conceding that the Russians keep a big
1:10:52chunk of territory it's about 23% of
1:10:54ukra Ian territory that they've
1:10:57annexed and I find it hard to imagine
1:11:00any Ukrainian leader agreeing to that
1:11:03well there there there could be more
1:11:05Nuance things like no military
1:11:08involvement between the United States
1:11:09and Ukraine but economic involvement
1:11:12sort of uh financial
1:11:14support So normalizing economic
1:11:17relationships with Ukraine with Russia I
1:11:20I think you could probably get away with
1:11:22that I I think the the the tricky
1:11:24question there that you would have
1:11:25answer is what about EU expansion right
1:11:28and I think EU expansion is probably a
1:11:32no no for the Russians because most
1:11:34people don't recognize this but there is
1:11:36a military Dimension built into EU
1:11:40expansion it's not purely an
1:11:43economic uh Alliance uh or relationship
1:11:47or institution whatever word you want to
1:11:49use there's a military Dimension to that
1:11:52and in the runup to the war War uh
1:11:56actually in the runup to the 2014 crisis
1:11:59when it first broke out uh the Russians
1:12:03made it clear they saw EU expansion as a
1:12:06stalking horse for NATO expansion so EU
1:12:11expansion is tricky but I I think your
1:12:14point of close economic relations
1:12:19between uh or healthy economic relations
1:12:22to use a better term between Ukraine and
1:12:25the West is possible I I I think the
1:12:27Russians have a vested interest in if if
1:12:30it's a neutral Ukraine they have a
1:12:32vested interest in that Ukraine
1:12:34flourishing but that then brings us back
1:12:37to the territorial issue right well so
1:12:41do you believe it's possible for
1:12:43individual human relations to counteract
1:12:46the structural forces that you talk
1:12:48about so meaning the
1:12:50leaders being able to pick up the phone
1:12:53and make agreements that are good for
1:12:55Humanity as a whole and for their
1:12:57individual nations in the long term I
1:12:59think leadership matters here
1:13:01uh I mean one of the real problems here
1:13:05is that there's no trust and on the
1:13:08Russian side and that has to do with the
1:13:11Minsk agreements um the uh uh the Minsk
1:13:16agreements uh which were designed to
1:13:20shut down the Civil
1:13:22War uh in eastern Ukraine in the
1:13:26donbass um really mattered to the
1:13:29Russians and there were four players
1:13:31involved in the uh uh the mince process
1:13:35uh four main players Russia and Ukraine
1:13:38of course and then Germany and
1:13:40France and uh I believe the Russians
1:13:43took the Minsk Accords seriously uh I
1:13:46believe Putin took them very seriously
1:13:48he wanted to shut down that
1:13:51conflict um and uh Angela Merkel franois
1:13:56Holland he was the French leader and
1:13:59penko who was the Ukrainian leader those
1:14:02were the three key players besides Putin
1:14:05again Holan from France Merkel from
1:14:08Germany and penko from Ukraine have all
1:14:11explicitly said they were not seriously
1:14:16interested in reaching an agreement in
1:14:19all of the discussions with Putin they
1:14:23were bamboozling him they were trying to
1:14:25trick him so that they would buy time to
1:14:28build up Ukraine's military uh Putin is
1:14:34profoundly upset about these admissions
1:14:38by these three leaders he believes he
1:14:41was fooled into thinking that mince
1:14:44could work he believes that he
1:14:46negotiated in good faith and they did
1:14:49not and he believes that the level of
1:14:52trust now between Russia uh and the West
1:14:56is virtually zero as a result of this
1:14:59experience over Minsk I only bring this
1:15:02up because it cuts against your argument
1:15:06that leaders could pick up the phone and
1:15:09talk to each other and trust each other
1:15:13at least somewhat uh to work out a
1:15:16meaningful deal if you're Putin at this
1:15:19point in time trusting the West is not
1:15:24an idea it's going to be very attractive
1:15:26at all in fact you're going to distrust
1:15:28anything they say yeah distrust anything
1:15:31the West say but there is individual
1:15:33humans the way human nature works is
1:15:36when you sit in the cross from a person
1:15:38you can trust a human being while still
1:15:40distrusting the West I mean I I I
1:15:43believe in the power of that I I think
1:15:45with the right leaders you can sit down
1:15:48and talk like over override the general
1:15:52structural distrust of the West and say
1:15:55you know what I like this guy or gal
1:16:00whatever I do hope zilinski and Putin
1:16:03sit down together and talk have multiple
1:16:07talks just remember they were doing that
1:16:10in March and the Americans came in and
1:16:12the British came in yeah and they
1:16:14scotched a potential
1:16:16deal
1:16:18well uh the other beautiful thing about
1:16:21human nature there's forgiveness and
1:16:23there's uh trying again when you're the
1:16:26leader of a country in an anarchic
1:16:30system you have to be very careful not
1:16:33to let uh your trust in a foreign leader
1:16:38take you too far because if that foreign
1:16:41leader betrays you or betrays your trust
1:16:44and stabs you in the back you could die
1:16:47and again you want to remember that the
1:16:49principal responsibility of any leader I
1:16:53don't care what country it is is to to
1:16:55ensure the survival of their state and
1:16:58that means that you know trust is only
1:17:00going to buy you so much and when you've
1:17:03already
1:17:04betrayed the trust of a leader uh you
1:17:09really are not going to be able to rely
1:17:11on trust very much to help you moving
1:17:14forward now you disagree with that I
1:17:16hope you're right and if they can shut
1:17:18down the Ukraine Russia War uh it would
1:17:22be wonderful if if I'm proved dead wrong
1:17:26uh that would be wonderful news uh
1:17:30my my prediction that this war is going
1:17:32to go on for a long time and
1:17:37uh and end in an ugly way is a
1:17:40prediction that I don't like it all uh
1:17:43so I hope I'm wrong you wrote that many
1:17:46in the west believe that the best hope
1:17:47for ending the Ukraine Wars to remove
1:17:49Vladimir Putin from power but you argue
1:17:53that uh this is is in the
1:17:56case can you explain well a lot of
1:18:00people thought when uh they were having
1:18:05all that trouble the Russians were
1:18:06having all that trouble with progan and
1:18:09the Vagner group that Putin was
1:18:12vulnerable and was likely to be
1:18:15overthrown and what would happen is uh a
1:18:18peaceloving leader would replace Putin
1:18:23uh I made two points at the time and I
1:18:25would make those same two points now
1:18:28number one he's not
1:18:31likely to be
1:18:33overthrown he was not likely then to be
1:18:37overthrown uh and I think you know as
1:18:40long as his health holds up I think he
1:18:42will remain in power my second point is
1:18:46if he doesn't remain in power and he's
1:18:49replaced I would bet a lot of money that
1:18:52his replacement will be more hawkish and
1:18:55more Hardline than Putin is uh I
1:18:59actually think one could argue that
1:19:01Putin was too trusting of the West
1:19:04before the war
1:19:05started uh and number two I think one
1:19:08could argue that he has not waged the
1:19:11war against Ukraine as vigorously as one
1:19:16might have
1:19:17expected uh he was slow to mobilize the
1:19:21nation for War uh and he has pursued a
1:19:27limited war in all sorts of ways the
1:19:31Israelis for example have killed more
1:19:34civilians in Gaza in one month than the
1:19:37Russians have killed over 18 months in
1:19:41Ukraine the idea that Vladimir Putin is
1:19:45waging a punishment campaign and killing
1:19:48on purpose large numbers of civilians
1:19:50it's simply not true uh all of this is
1:19:53to say that uh I would imagine that if
1:19:57Putin leaves office and someone else
1:20:00comes in to replace him that someone
1:20:02else will be at least if not more
1:20:05Hardline than him in terms of waging the
1:20:08war and certainly will not trust the
1:20:10West any more than he
1:20:14has by way of advice let me ask you if I
1:20:17were to have a conversation interview
1:20:20Vladimir Putin and zalinski individually
1:20:25what should I ask them if you me and
1:20:29Vladimir Putin are having a chat what
1:20:33are
1:20:34good ideas to explore what are good
1:20:36questions to ask what are good things to
1:20:39say onor off the mic once again that
1:20:43could
1:20:44potentially even slightly lessen the
1:20:47Mount of suffering in the world caused
1:20:49by this war oh I think if you get an
1:20:52interview with Vladimir Putin there's
1:20:54just all sorts of questions you could
1:20:57ask him and my sense is that Putin is a
1:20:59straight shooter uh he's also very
1:21:02knowledgeable about history and he has
1:21:04simple theories in his head about how
1:21:06the world works and I think he would
1:21:08level with you and all you would have to
1:21:10do is just you know figure out what all
1:21:12the right questions are and that would
1:21:14not be hard to do right uh you know you
1:21:18could ask him why was he so foolish this
1:21:21is for for example why was he so foolish
1:21:24is to uh uh trust uh poreno Holland and
1:21:30Merkel uh in the Minsk
1:21:34Accords uh you know why after his famous
1:21:39talk at munic in 2007 where he made it
1:21:42clear that he was so unhappy with the
1:21:45West uh did he continue uh to you know
1:21:49in a very important way trust the West
1:21:52why didn't he mobilize uh the Russian
1:21:55military before late September
1:21:582022 uh you know once the negotiations
1:22:01that we were talking about before uh
1:22:03involving
1:22:04istanbull uh and uh Naf Tali Ben and
1:22:08once they broke down you know why didn't
1:22:10he immediately mobilize more of the
1:22:13Russian population to fight the war just
1:22:15all sorts of questions like that and
1:22:17then you could ask them questions about
1:22:19you know where uh he sees this one
1:22:22headed uh what's the best strategy for
1:22:27Russia uh if the ukrainians will not
1:22:31agree to neutrality right you know
1:22:35people like John mirer say you'll
1:22:38probably take uh close to half of
1:22:41Ukraine is that true does it make sense
1:22:44to take
1:22:46Odessa and John mimer also has questions
1:22:48about
1:22:50China your future relationships with
1:22:52China yeah I mean one really important
1:22:55question that I would ask him is if the
1:22:57United States had basically not driven
1:23:00you into the arms of the Chinese if
1:23:02there had been no war over Ukraine and
1:23:04the United States had and its European
1:23:07allies had gone to considerable length
1:23:09to create some sort of security
1:23:11architecture in Europe uh that resulted
1:23:15in you Vladimir Putin having good
1:23:18relations with Ukraine what would your
1:23:21relations with China be uh
1:23:24and uh you know how would you think
1:23:26about that uh so there there are just
1:23:29plenty of questions uh you could ask
1:23:32him well hope Burns Eternal in my heart
1:23:37I think probably in Putin's heart and
1:23:39zelinsky's heart I
1:23:41hope cuz hope is uh the leap of trust
1:23:46that we've talked about I think is
1:23:47necessary for deescalation and for peace
1:23:50well you realize I have from the
1:23:52beginning argued
1:23:54for different policies that were all
1:23:57designed to prevent this war from ever
1:23:59happening yes I don't know if you know
1:24:01this but in 1993 I argued that Ukraine
1:24:04should keep its nuclear weapons I was
1:24:06probably the only person in the west who
1:24:08made that argument and my argument in
1:24:121993 this is in foreign affairs was that
1:24:15there may come the day when Russia
1:24:18thinks about invading Ukraine and should
1:24:21that day come it would be very helpful
1:24:23for prev venting War if Ukraine had
1:24:26nuclear weapons so military might is
1:24:30essential for maintaining a balance of
1:24:32power and peace well if you're
1:24:34interested in deterring an adversary if
1:24:36I'm worried about you coming after me
1:24:38the best way to deter you is to have
1:24:40military might and if you're Russia and
1:24:43I'm Ukraine I'm far weaker than you yeah
1:24:46right and having a nuclear deterrent
1:24:49would be very effective at convincing
1:24:52you not to attack me because if you
1:24:55attack me you're threatening my survival
1:24:57and that's the one circumstance where it
1:24:59is
1:25:01likely that I would use nuclear weapons
1:25:03to defend myself and given the
1:25:05consequences of nuclear use you would be
1:25:08reluctant in the extreme to attack me so
1:25:12that's why I argued in 93 that if
1:25:15Ukraine kept its nuclear weapons that
1:25:17made War down the road much less likely
1:25:20and I believe I was correct and in fact
1:25:22Bill Clinton who played the key role in
1:25:25forcing Ukraine to give up its nuclear
1:25:27weapons now says he has said it publicly
1:25:31you can find it on YouTube that he made
1:25:33a mistake doing that furthermore I
1:25:37argued in
1:25:382014 that it made eminently good sense
1:25:41not to continue to push to bring Ukraine
1:25:44into NATO because the end result is that
1:25:47Ukraine would be destroyed and Ukraine
1:25:49is being destroyed so I was deeply
1:25:52interested at the time in making sure
1:25:54that that didn't happen for the good of
1:25:56the ukrainians not to mention because
1:25:59stability in Europe is a net positive
1:26:03for almost everybody involved but people
1:26:06did not listen to me then either how do
1:26:08nuclear weapons change the calculus of
1:26:11offensive realism because of mutually
1:26:14assured destruction I mean it's not just
1:26:16military might it's just so
1:26:18destructive that you basically can't use
1:26:22nuclear weapons
1:26:24unless you want complete destruction
1:26:28there's no question that the presence of
1:26:30nuclear weapons makes it much less
1:26:33likely I'm choosing my words carefully
1:26:35here much less likely that a great power
1:26:38would aggress against another great
1:26:40power it doesn't take that possibility
1:26:43off the table but it makes it much less
1:26:46likely because of the reasons that you
1:26:50articulated uh but with regard to
1:26:52nuclear use
1:26:55it's an interesting question how you
1:26:56think about nuclear use in a mad world I
1:26:58mean your point that we're in a mad
1:27:00world is that that's mad Capital mad as
1:27:04well as mad small letters but let's
1:27:07stick to the capital letters we're in a
1:27:09world of mutual assured destruction uh
1:27:12there's no question that in that
1:27:14World um uh it's uh unlikely that
1:27:20nuclear weapons would be used but the
1:27:22way you use nuclear weapons in that
1:27:24world is you use them uh for
1:27:27manipulation to risk purposes
1:27:30demonstration of fact you you put both
1:27:33sides out on the slippery slope now what
1:27:36exactly am I saying here let me talk
1:27:38about NATO Doctrine during the Cold War
1:27:41we lived in a Mad World United States
1:27:43and Soviet Union or The warsa Pact in
1:27:46NATO both had an assured destruction
1:27:49capability so you had mutual assured
1:27:52destruction if the warsa pact were to
1:27:56invade Western Europe and here we're
1:27:58talking about West
1:28:00Germany uh and NATO was losing the war
1:28:05we said that we would use nuclear
1:28:07weapons how would we use nuclear weapons
1:28:10given that we were in a Mad World the
1:28:12argument was that we would use a handful
1:28:16of nuclear weapons against the warsa PCT
1:28:21not through not necessarily against
1:28:23their military forces
1:28:25could be in a remote area we would use a
1:28:27small number of nuclear weapons mhm to
1:28:30signal to the Soviets that we were
1:28:34deadly serious about putting an end to
1:28:36their
1:28:38offensive uh and that we were throwing
1:28:43both sides out on the slippery slope to
1:28:46Oblivion in other words we were
1:28:48manipulating risk and the last clear
1:28:53chance to avoid Armageddon rested with
1:28:56them and then we would tell them that if
1:28:59you retaliated with a handful of nuclear
1:29:01weapons and you didn't cease your
1:29:03offensive against West Germany we would
1:29:07launch a small another nuclear attack we
1:29:11would uh explode a handful more of
1:29:15nuclear weapons all for the purposes of
1:29:18showing you our resolve right so this is
1:29:21the manipulation of risk strategy in lot
1:29:24of the language I just used in
1:29:26describing it to you is language that
1:29:28Thomas shelling invented right now fast
1:29:33forward to the present if Russia were
1:29:36you losing in Ukraine that's the one
1:29:39scenario I think where Russia would have
1:29:41used nuclear weapons and the question is
1:29:44how would Russia have used nuclear
1:29:46weapons again we're assuming that the
1:29:48Russians are losing to the ukrainians I
1:29:51believe they would have pursued a
1:29:54manipulation risk strategy they would
1:29:55have used four or five 30 or4 who knows
1:29:58nuclear weapons maybe just one in a
1:30:01rural area that kills very few people
1:30:03yes exactly and basically that would
1:30:06spook everybody the Americans just the
1:30:08mushroom cloud yeah the it's because of
1:30:11the threat of escalation right again you
1:30:14your point is we're in a mad world I
1:30:16accept that and if you have limited
1:30:18nuclear use right we understand hard ly
1:30:24anything about nuclear escalation
1:30:27because thank goodness we've never had a
1:30:28nuclear war so once you throw both sides
1:30:32out on the slippery slope even if you
1:30:34only use one nuclear weapon in your
1:30:36scenario you don't know what the
1:30:39escalation Dynamics look like so
1:30:42everybody has a powerful incentive to
1:30:45put an end to the conflict right away I
1:30:48might add to you that there were people
1:30:50who believed that we would not even
1:30:55initiate a manipulation of risk strategy
1:30:59in Europe if we were losing to the warsa
1:31:02pack during the Cold War both Henry
1:31:06Kissinger and Robert mcnamar said after
1:31:09leaving office that they would not have
1:31:12done it they would have not initiated
1:31:16nuclear use even limited nuclear that's
1:31:18what we're talking about here they would
1:31:20rather be red than dead right that was
1:31:23is the argument too risky too risky
1:31:26that's exactly right but if they had
1:31:29used one nuclear weapon in your story or
1:31:32three or four in my
1:31:34story everybody would have said oh my
1:31:37God we've got to shut this one down
1:31:41immediately I only tell you this story
1:31:43or lay out this scenario be as an answer
1:31:46to your question of how you use nuclear
1:31:48weapons in a mad world and this is the
1:31:52answer I this is all very terrifying uh
1:31:55perhaps in part it's terrifying to me
1:31:57because I can see in the 21st
1:32:00century China
1:32:02Russia Israel United States using a
1:32:07nuclear weapon in this
1:32:09way blowing it up somewhere in the
1:32:11middle of nowhere that kills maybe
1:32:14nobody but I'm terrified of seeing the
1:32:17mushro cloud and not
1:32:20knowing what you know given social media
1:32:23given how fast news travels what the
1:32:25escalation looks like there just you
1:32:29know in in in a in a matter of minutes
1:32:32how the news travels and how the leaders
1:32:35react it's terrifying that this this
1:32:39little
1:32:40demonstration of
1:32:42power um the Ripple effects of it in a
1:32:45matter of minutes seconds what that
1:32:47leads to because it's like it's human
1:32:50emotions it's like you you see the
1:32:53landscape of human emotions the leaders
1:32:56and the populace and the and the way
1:32:57news are reported and then the landscape
1:33:00of risk as you mentioned shifting like
1:33:04the world's most intense nonlinear
1:33:05dynamical
1:33:07system and it it is just terrifying
1:33:10because the the the entirety of human
1:33:12civilizations hangs in the balance there
1:33:15and it's like like
1:33:17this like hundreds of millions of people
1:33:20could be dead let's just talk about this
1:33:23in the context of the Ukraine war
1:33:27um if uh if the Russians were losing as
1:33:31I said before which is not the case
1:33:33anymore but in 2022 it it did look like
1:33:37that um if the Russians are losing and
1:33:41they turn to nuclear weapons the
1:33:44question is how do they use them and
1:33:47they would use them in
1:33:49Ukraine and because Ukraine has no
1:33:53nuclear weapons of its own Ukraine
1:33:56cannot retaliate it's not a mutual
1:33:59assured destruction world it's a case
1:34:02where one side has nuclear weapons and
1:34:04the other doesn't that means that the
1:34:07Russians are likely to think that they
1:34:10can get away with using nuclear weapons
1:34:13in ways that would not be the case if
1:34:15they were attacking NATO and therefore
1:34:17it makes nuclear use more likely okay
1:34:20that's point one point two is let's
1:34:23assume that the Russians use two or
1:34:25three nuclear weapons in a remote area
1:34:28sweating by the way just just as a
1:34:30commentary the question terrifying yeah
1:34:33the question then is what does the West
1:34:36do now macron has said and Biden has
1:34:39also I think implicitly made this clear
1:34:42we would not retaliate with nuclear
1:34:44weapons if the Russians were to attack
1:34:46with a handful of nuclear weapons in
1:34:48Western
1:34:49Ukraine but then the question is what
1:34:52would we do mhm
1:34:54and if you listen to David Petraeus what
1:34:56David Petraeus says is that we should
1:34:59attack the Russian naval Assets in the
1:35:04Black
1:35:05Sea and attack Russian forces in
1:35:10Ukraine well once you do that you have a
1:35:13great power War you have NATO versus
1:35:16Russia which is another way of saying
1:35:18you have the United States versus Russia
1:35:20we're now in a great power War they have
1:35:23no nuclear weapons we have nuclear
1:35:25weapons they've used nuclear weapons
1:35:28what is the happy ending here and just
1:35:31to take it a step further and go back to
1:35:33our earlier discussion about moving NATO
1:35:36up to Russia's borders the point I made
1:35:40which you surely agree with is that the
1:35:42Russians are very fearful when they see
1:35:45NATO coming up to their border well
1:35:48here's a case where not only is NATO
1:35:51come up to their border but they're in a
1:35:52war with NATO
1:35:54right on their
1:35:55border what do the escalation Dynamics
1:35:58look like there you know what the answer
1:36:01is who knows that should scare the
1:36:03living but Jesus out of you right and
1:36:06some of it could be like you mentioned
1:36:08unintended there could be unintended
1:36:10consequences there could be a Russian
1:36:12missile misses and hits
1:36:16Poland these kinds of things that just
1:36:18escalate
1:36:19misunderstandings
1:36:21miscommunications even uh I mean nuclear
1:36:23weapon could be boy it could have been
1:36:26planned to go location X and it went to
1:36:29a location y that ended up actually
1:36:31killing a very large number of people I
1:36:34mean uh
1:36:37just that the the escalation that
1:36:40happens there just happens in in a
1:36:41matter of minutes and the only way to
1:36:43stop that is communication between
1:36:46leaders and that to me is a big argument
1:36:49for ongoing communication you know this
1:36:52is a story that during the Cuban Missile
1:36:54Crisis um Kennedy put out the word uh no
1:36:58aircraft uh under any circumstances or
1:37:02to penetrate Soviet airspace yeah yeah
1:37:05and he then found out a few days later
1:37:09that uh some guy hadn't gotten the
1:37:12message and had penetrated in an
1:37:15aircraft deep in to Soviet airspace yeah
1:37:19and uh this supports your basic point
1:37:22that you know you know uh bad things
1:37:25happen and uh and again the overarching
1:37:28point here is we've never done this
1:37:30before thankfully therefore we don't
1:37:33have a lot of experience as to how it
1:37:35plays itself out uh it it's really a
1:37:38theoretical Enterprise because there's
1:37:40no empirical basis for talking about
1:37:44escalation uh you know in a nuclear
1:37:46crisis and that of course is a wonderful
1:37:49thing well in general the uh the human
1:37:53spe species as a whole is a is a oneoff
1:37:56is a theoretical Enterprise the survival
1:37:59of the human species you know we've seen
1:38:01Empires rise and fall but we haven't
1:38:03seen the human species rise and fall so
1:38:06far it's been rising but uh it's not
1:38:08obvious that it doesn't end in fact I
1:38:11think about aliens a lot and the fact
1:38:14that we don't see aliens makes me
1:38:16suspect it's not so easy to survive in
1:38:19this complicated world of ours Switching
1:38:22gears a little bit and going to a
1:38:24different part of the
1:38:25world also engulfed in
1:38:28war let me ask you about the uh
1:38:32situation in Israel uh why did Hamas
1:38:35attack Israel on October 7th 2023 as you
1:38:40understand the
1:38:43situation what was the reason that
1:38:46attack
1:38:47happened well I think the main reason
1:38:50was that you had this suffocating
1:38:55occupation I think as long as the
1:38:58occupation persists the Palestinians are
1:39:02going to
1:39:03resist uh as you well know this is not
1:39:06the first time there has been a
1:39:08Palestinian Uprising there was the first
1:39:11inata there was the second inata now
1:39:14there's October 7th and they're
1:39:17uprisings besides those three uh so this
1:39:21is not terribly
1:39:23surprising uh a lot of people
1:39:26hypothesized that uh this attack was due
1:39:29to the fact that uh the Israelis the
1:39:33Saudis and the Americans were working
1:39:36together to Foster another Abraham
1:39:39Accord uh and that the Palestinians
1:39:42would in effect be sold down the river
1:39:45uh I think given the fact that this was
1:39:48in the planning stages for probably
1:39:51about two years uh and the Abraham
1:39:54Accords with regard to Saudi Arabia are
1:39:57relatively new phenomenon I don't think
1:40:00that's uh the main driving force here I
1:40:04think the main driving force is that the
1:40:07Palestinians uh feel oppressed as they
1:40:10should and that this was a a resistance
1:40:14move they were resisting the Israeli
1:40:17occupation so that
1:40:20resistance the attack involved killing a
1:40:24large number of Israeli
1:40:27civilians there's many questions ask
1:40:29there but one is do you think Hamas
1:40:32fully understood what the retaliation
1:40:35will involve from Israel into
1:40:38Gaza they had to understand I
1:40:42mean you had you know operation castled
1:40:46in
1:40:48200 uh 8 2009 it started I think right
1:40:51after Christmas 20 8 and it ended right
1:40:55before President Obama took office uh in
1:40:58January 2009 and
1:41:01uh the Israelis periodically do what
1:41:05they call mowing the lawn where they go
1:41:08into Gaza and they pound the
1:41:11Palestinians uh to remind them that
1:41:14they're not supposed to rise up and
1:41:16cause any problem uh
1:41:19so there's no question in my mind that
1:41:23the uh the Hamas forces understood full
1:41:28well that the Israelis would retaliate
1:41:31and they would retaliate in force as
1:41:33they have done yeah even the metaphor of
1:41:37Mo the lawn is disturbing to me in many
1:41:41ways I actually
1:41:44saw uh Norman filastine I think say that
1:41:49well then if you use that metaphor then
1:41:51you could say that Hamas was also the
1:41:53lawn and it's such a
1:41:56horrific image because the result on
1:41:59either side is just the death of
1:42:02civilians I mean let me ask you about
1:42:04the death of civilians so during the
1:42:06attack 1400 Israelis were
1:42:09killed over 240 were taken hostage and
1:42:12then in response as we sit
1:42:15today uh Israel's military response has
1:42:18killed over 10,000 people in Gaza and
1:42:23given the nature of the demographics
1:42:25it's it's a very heavily young
1:42:26population over 40% of them are under
1:42:29the age of 18 of those killed that's uh
1:42:32of course according to Ministry of
1:42:35Health of Palestinian
1:42:37Authority so what do you think is a
1:42:40long-term effect on the prospect of
1:42:43Peace when so many civilians
1:42:45die I mean I think it's disastrous
1:42:49U uh I mean
1:42:54the only way you're going to get peace
1:42:56here uh is if you have a two-state
1:43:00solution um where the Palestinians have
1:43:03a sovereign state of their own and there
1:43:06is a sovereign Jewish State uh and these
1:43:09two states live side by side American
1:43:12Presidents since Jimmy Carter have
1:43:14understood this full well and this is
1:43:16why we have pushed very hard for
1:43:18two-state solution indeed many American
1:43:20Jews and many Israelis have pushed for a
1:43:23two-state solution because they think
1:43:26that that is the only way you're going
1:43:28to get uh peace uh between the two sides
1:43:34uh but what's happened here is that in
1:43:37recent years the Israelis have lost all
1:43:39interest in a two-state solution uh and
1:43:43it's in large part because the political
1:43:44center of gravity in Israel has steadily
1:43:47moved to the right uh when I was a young
1:43:50boy uh the political Center of GRA
1:43:53in Israel was much further to the left
1:43:56than it is today and uh it is in uh it
1:44:02is in a position now the political
1:44:04center of gravity where there's hardly
1:44:06any support for two-state solution and
1:44:09Netanyahu and the rest of the people in
1:44:12his government were in favor or are in
1:44:15favor of a greater Israel this just no
1:44:17question about
1:44:18that
1:44:20well on top of that you now have had a
1:44:25war where as you
1:44:27described huge numbers of civilians have
1:44:30been killed and you already had bad
1:44:34blood between the Palestinians and the
1:44:36Israelis before this
1:44:39conflict uh and you can imagine how
1:44:43people on each side now feel about
1:44:45people on the other side so even if you
1:44:48didn't have this opposition inside
1:44:50Israel to a two-state solution
1:44:54how could you possibly get the Israelis
1:44:57now to agree to a two-state solution I
1:45:01think for the foreseeable future the
1:45:03animosity inside Israel towards the
1:45:05Palestinians is so great that it is
1:45:08impossible to move the Israelis in that
1:45:11direction and the Israelis here are the
1:45:13key players more so than the
1:45:15Palestinians because it's the Israelis
1:45:18who control greater Israel it's the
1:45:20Israelis who you have to convince now I
1:45:23want to be clear here you also
1:45:24ultimately have to get around the fact
1:45:27that Hamas right is not committed to a
1:45:30two State solution but I think that
1:45:33problem could be dealt with it's
1:45:36important to understand that Arafat and
1:45:38the PLO was once adamantly opposed to a
1:45:40two-state solution but Arafat came
1:45:43around to understand that that was
1:45:45really the only hope for settling this
1:45:49and he became a proponent of a two-state
1:45:52solution and that's true of makhmud
1:45:54Abbas who runs the PA in the West
1:45:56Bank it's not true of Hamas at this
1:45:59point in time they want a one- state
1:46:00solution they want a Palestinian State
1:46:03and of course the Israelis want a
1:46:05one-state solution too which is a Jewish
1:46:08state that controls all of um all of
1:46:12Greater
1:46:13Israel so the question is can you get
1:46:16some sort of agreement and I think to
1:46:18get to your the nub of your question
1:46:20given what's just happened uh it's it's
1:46:23almost impossible to imagine that
1:46:25happening anytime soon the cynical
1:46:28perspective here is that uh those in
1:46:31power benefit from conflict while the
1:46:34people on both sides suffer is there a
1:46:37degree of Truth to that or for the
1:46:39people in power to maintain power
1:46:42conflict needs to continue no I I don't
1:46:45believe that I mean just to take the
1:46:46Netanyahu government or any Israeli
1:46:48government that maintains uh the
1:46:51occupation what you want is you want a
1:46:56Palestinian population that submits to
1:46:59Israeli domination of Greater Israel you
1:47:02don't want resistance you don't want an
1:47:04inada you don't want what happened on
1:47:07October 7th in fact I think one of the
1:47:09principal reasons that the Israelis are
1:47:13pounding Gaza and killing huge numbers
1:47:16of civilians punishing the civilian
1:47:19population in ways that clearly violate
1:47:21the laws of war is because they want the
1:47:25Palestinians to understand that they are
1:47:27not allowed to rise up and resist the
1:47:31occupation that's their goal so I think
1:47:33the Israelis would prefer that the
1:47:36Palestinians roll over and accept
1:47:39submission in terms of the people who
1:47:42live in Gaza to include the elites and
1:47:45the people who live in the West Bank to
1:47:47include the elites they would much
1:47:50prefer to move to some sort of situation
1:47:53where uh the Palestinians have a state
1:47:56of their own I think in the case of the
1:47:59pa uh under abas they would accept a
1:48:02two-state solution I think what at this
1:48:05point in time Hamas wants is a one-state
1:48:07solution but they want peace all of them
1:48:10want peace um you know the two different
1:48:13sets of leadership in Palestine and the
1:48:16Israelis so you think Hamas wants peace
1:48:19sure but on its own terms that's the
1:48:21point what does peace look like like for
1:48:23Hamas at this point in time I think
1:48:25peace basically means a greater Israel
1:48:28controlled by Palestine or
1:48:30Palestinians okay so essentially I mean
1:48:34it's the whole land is called Palestine
1:48:36and there's no Israel I think at this
1:48:39point in time that's their principal
1:48:40goal I do believe and there have been
1:48:43hints over time Jimmy Carter has said
1:48:45this that Hamas can be convinced that a
1:48:48two-state solution assuming that the
1:48:51Palestinians get a viable
1:48:53uh state of their own that Hamas would
1:48:55buy into that can we say that with a
1:48:58high degree of certainty no but I think
1:49:01I think the Israelis should have pursued
1:49:04that possibility they should have worked
1:49:05with abas they should have worked with
1:49:07Hamas to do everything they can to
1:49:10facilitate a two-state solution because
1:49:12I think ultimately that's in Israel's
1:49:14interest now the Israeli government and
1:49:17most Israelis at this point in time I
1:49:19believe don't agree with that what do
1:49:22you think of Israel starting the ground
1:49:25invasion of Gaza recently on October
1:49:3027th the question
1:49:32is uh should they
1:49:36continue uh until they have finally
1:49:40defeated
1:49:41Hamas uh there are all sorts of reports
1:49:44in the media including in the Israeli
1:49:46media that they're not going to be
1:49:48allowed by the United States to continue
1:49:52this
1:49:53offensive uh for much more than a few
1:49:57weeks um the Israelis have been saying
1:50:00it would it's going to take in in the
1:50:03best of all possible worlds a number of
1:50:06months if not a year to finish off Hamas
1:50:11well it doesn't look like they're going
1:50:12to have enough time to do that I doubt
1:50:16whether they can finish off Hamas even
1:50:18if they're given the time uh I think
1:50:20they're going to run into Fierce
1:50:22resistance
1:50:24uh and when they run into Fierce
1:50:25resistance and large numbers of Israelis
1:50:27going to die start to die uh they'll
1:50:31lose their appetite for this and they
1:50:34the Israelis surely know at this point
1:50:37in time that even if they finish off
1:50:39Hamas even if I'm wrong and they're able
1:50:41to finish off Hamas another group is
1:50:43going to rise up to uh resist the
1:50:48occupation the idea that you can use
1:50:50what Z Yaba insky called the Iron Wall
1:50:54to beat the Palestinians into submission
1:50:58is delusional it's just not going to
1:51:00happen the Palestinians want a state of
1:51:03their own they don't want to live under
1:51:06occupation and uh there's no military
1:51:10solution for Israel here there has to be
1:51:12a political solution and the only viable
1:51:15political solution is a two-state
1:51:18solution I mean you can't go to
1:51:20democracy you can't go to a situation
1:51:22where you give the Palestinians equal
1:51:24rights inside a greater Israel in large
1:51:27part because there are
1:51:29now as many Palestinians as there are
1:51:33Israeli Jews and over time the balance
1:51:35the demographic balance shifts against
1:51:38the Israeli Jews and in favor the
1:51:40Palestinians in which case you'll end up
1:51:43with a Palestinian state in Greater
1:51:45Israel so you know democracy for all
1:51:50doesn't work uh the Israelis I believe
1:51:53are quite interested in ethnic cleansing
1:51:56I think they saw this um uh this recent
1:52:00set of events as an opportunity to
1:52:02cleanse Gaza but that's not going to
1:52:04happen uh the jordanians and the
1:52:07Egyptians have made it clear that that's
1:52:09not happening the United States has now
1:52:12made it clear that that's not happening
1:52:14and and the Palestinians will not leave
1:52:18uh they'll die in place uh so uh ethnic
1:52:22cleansing doesn't work so you're really
1:52:24left with two Alternatives a two-state
1:52:26solution or a greater Israel that is
1:52:29effectively an apartheid state I mean
1:52:31that's what the occupation has led to
1:52:34and all sorts of people have been
1:52:35predicting this for a long long time and
1:52:39you've now reached the point you know
1:52:41here in the United States if you say
1:52:43that Israel is an apartheid state that's
1:52:45going to get you into all sorts of
1:52:47trouble but the fact is that Human
1:52:50Rights Watch Amnesty International and
1:52:53betum which is the leading Israeli Human
1:52:56Rights group all three of those
1:52:58institutions or organizations have
1:53:01issued detailed reports making the case
1:53:04that Israel is an apartheid state
1:53:07furthermore if you read the Israeli
1:53:09media right all sorts of Israelis
1:53:12including Israeli
1:53:14leaders refer to Israel as an apartheid
1:53:17state it's it's not that unusual to hear
1:53:19that term used in Israel this is
1:53:21disaster for Israel in my opinion and
1:53:24Steve Walt and I said this by the way
1:53:26when we wrote the Israel Lobby that
1:53:28Israel is an aparte state which is
1:53:31equivalent to Israel as an occupier uh
1:53:35is not good for Israel uh and that
1:53:38brings us back to the two-state solution
1:53:40but as you and I were talking about a
1:53:42few minutes ago it's hard to see how you
1:53:45get a two-state
1:53:47solution and the end result of this
1:53:50conversation is utter despair
1:53:53because the path to a two-state solution
1:53:56is blocked by the amount of um hate
1:53:59that's created by civilian deaths so
1:54:01that plus the fact that the Israeli
1:54:03government uh is filled with people uh
1:54:07who have no interest in a two-state
1:54:08solution they're
1:54:11ideologically deeply committed to a
1:54:13greater Israel they want all the land
1:54:17between the Jordan River and the
1:54:19Mediterranean Sea to
1:54:21be part of a Jewish state they're just
1:54:25ideologically committed to that and uh
1:54:29and of course as we were talking about
1:54:30before with regard to Hamas Hamas wants
1:54:34everything between the river and the sea
1:54:36to be a Palestinian State and you know
1:54:39when you have two sides with those kinds
1:54:41of views right um um you're in deep
1:54:46trouble because there's little room for
1:54:50compromise so what you have to do to get
1:54:52this to work is you have to convince the
1:54:54Israelis that it's in their interest to
1:54:57have a two-state solution and you have
1:54:59you've already taken care of the PA on
1:55:02this front the Palestinian Authority but
1:55:04you've got to convince Hamas that it's
1:55:07uh its maximalist goals are are not
1:55:10going to work and it's in its interest
1:55:12uh to follow in the footsteps of Arafat
1:55:14and accept a two-state solution but uh
1:55:17even if you do that at this point let's
1:55:20say that you know there's a lot of
1:55:22willing inness uh intellectually on both
1:55:25sides to do that the problem is that the
1:55:29hatred that has been fueled by this
1:55:32recent con uh this ongoing conflict is
1:55:36so great that it's just hard to imagine
1:55:38how you can make a two-state solution
1:55:40work at this juncture uh that's why I've
1:55:43sort of taken to saying and I hope I'm
1:55:45wrong here that you know on the
1:55:47two-state solution uh that that boat has
1:55:50sailed it's just you know it's no longer
1:55:52possible well again I believe in
1:55:54leadership and there's other parties at
1:55:56play here Other Nations Jordan Saudi
1:55:59Arabia other other players in the m in
1:56:02the Middle East that could help that
1:56:03could help through a normalization of
1:56:05relationships and these kinds of things
1:56:07there's there's always hope like you
1:56:09said Slither of Hope Slither of hope I
1:56:12think human civilization progresses
1:56:13forward by taking advantage of the all
1:56:16the slyther it can get uh let me ask you
1:56:19about you mentioned the Israel Lobby you
1:56:21wrote a book probably your most
1:56:23controversial book on the topic not
1:56:26probably clearly the most controversial
1:56:29book I ever wrote so you've uh
1:56:31criticized the Israel Lobby in the
1:56:32United States for influencing US
1:56:35policy um in the Middle East can you
1:56:38explain what the Israel Lobby is their
1:56:41influence and your
1:56:43criticism over the past let's say a
1:56:46couple
1:56:47decades well the argument that Steve
1:56:49Walt and I made actually we wrote an
1:56:51article first and uh which appeared in
1:56:54the London Review of Books uh and then
1:56:58we wrote the book
1:56:59itself uh our argument is that the lobby
1:57:03is a loose Coalition of individuals and
1:57:09organizations uh that push American
1:57:13policy in a pro-israel
1:57:16direction uh and uh basically the lobby
1:57:19is interested in getting Israel excuse
1:57:22me getting the United States and here
1:57:24we're talking mainly about the American
1:57:26government to support Israel no matter
1:57:29what Israel does and our argument is
1:57:32that if you look at the relationship
1:57:34between the United States and Israel
1:57:37it's unprecedented in modern history uh
1:57:41this is the closest relationship that
1:57:44you can find between any two countries
1:57:48in recorded history it's truly amazing
1:57:53the extent to which Israel and the
1:57:55United States are joined at the Hep and
1:57:57we support Israel no matter what almost
1:58:02all the time uh and uh our argument is
1:58:06that that is largely due to the
1:58:08influence of the lobby the lobby is uh
1:58:12an extremely powerful interest group now
1:58:15it's very important to understand that
1:58:18the American political system is set up
1:58:21in ways that allow interest groups of
1:58:25All Sorts to wield great influence so in
1:58:29the United States you have an interest
1:58:31group or a Lobby like the National Rifle
1:58:35Association that makes it well n
1:58:37impossible to get gun control right uh
1:58:41and so with the Israel Lobby you have
1:58:45this group of individuals and
1:58:49organizations that wield enormous
1:58:52influence on US policy toward the Middle
1:58:54East and this
1:58:57is not surprising given the nature of
1:59:01the American political system uh so our
1:59:04argument is that the lobby is not doing
1:59:07anything that's illegal or illicit or
1:59:11immoral or unethical it's just a good
1:59:15old-fashioned American interest group
1:59:18and it just happens to be extremely
1:59:21powerful
1:59:23and our argument is that this is not
1:59:26good for the United States because no
1:59:29two countries have the same interests
1:59:32all the time and when our interests
1:59:35conflict with Israel's interests we
1:59:37should be able to do what we think is in
1:59:39our national interest in America's
1:59:41national interest but the lobby tends to
1:59:44conflate America's national interests
1:59:46with Israel's National interest and
1:59:48wants the United States to support
1:59:51Israel no matter what we also argue and
1:59:54I cannot emphasize this enough given
1:59:56what's going on in the world today that
1:59:59the
2:00:00lobbies effects the lobby has not
2:00:04been pushing policies that are in
2:00:07Israel's interests so our argument is
2:00:09that the lobby right the lobby pushes
2:00:13policies that are not in America's
2:00:15interest or not in Israel's interest now
2:00:18you're saying to yourself what exactly
2:00:20does he mean by that
2:00:22what every president since Jimmy Carter
2:00:25has tried to do as I said before is to
2:00:28foster a two-state solution to push
2:00:31Israel which is the dominant
2:00:34player in Greater Israel push Israel to
2:00:38accept the two-state solution and we
2:00:41have run into huge resistance from the
2:00:45lobby whenever we tried to let's be
2:00:48blunt about it co Israel right in a
2:00:51perfect world where there was no Lobby
2:00:53and an American president was free to
2:00:56put pressure on Israel to coers Israel I
2:00:59believe we would have gone a long way
2:01:01towards getting two-state solution and I
2:01:05believe this would have been in Israel's
2:01:07interest uh but we couldn't get a
2:01:09two-state solution because it was almost
2:01:12impossible to put meaningful pressure on
2:01:14Israel because of the lobby so this was
2:01:18not in Israel's interest and it was not
2:01:20in America's interest and that was the
2:01:22argument that we made and uh we of
2:01:25course got huge push back for making
2:01:28that argument what's the underlying
2:01:29motivation of the lobby is it religious
2:01:31in nature is it um similar to the way
2:01:35warhawks are sort of militaristic in
2:01:38nature is it nationalistic in nature
2:01:40what what's uh if you were to describe
2:01:43this loose Coalition of people what what
2:01:45would you say is their motivation well
2:01:47first of all I think you have to
2:01:48distinguish between Jews and Christians
2:01:51you want to remember that there are a
2:01:53huge number of Christian zionists who
2:01:56are deeply committed to Israel no matter
2:01:58what right and then there are a large
2:02:01number of Jews the Jews are obviously
2:02:03the most important of those two groups
2:02:06in the Israel lobby but you know one of
2:02:08the arguments that we made in the book
2:02:11is that you should not call it the
2:02:13Jewish Lobby because it's not populated
2:02:16just by Jews and Christian zionists are
2:02:19an important part of that life lobby but
2:02:22furthermore there are a good number of
2:02:25Jews who are opposed to the lobby uh and
2:02:29the policies that the lobby perve and
2:02:32there are uh a number of Jews who are
2:02:36prominent
2:02:38anti-zionists right so and they're
2:02:40obviously not in the lobby or or if you
2:02:42take a group like Jewish voice for peace
2:02:45right Jewish voice for peace is not in
2:02:47the lobby so it's wrong to call it a
2:02:50Jewish Lobby but with regard to the
2:02:55American Jews who were in that Lobby uh
2:02:58I I think that really this is all about
2:03:01nationalism it's not so much religion
2:03:04many of those Jews who are influential
2:03:07in the lobby are not religious in any
2:03:09meaningful sense of that term but they
2:03:11self-identify as Jewish in in in the
2:03:14sense that they feel they're part of a
2:03:16Jewish nation and that in addition to
2:03:19being an American right are part of this
2:03:23tribe this nation called Jews and that
2:03:26they have a
2:03:27responsibility um to push the United
2:03:30States in ways that
2:03:33support uh the Jewish state so I I think
2:03:36that's what drives most if not almost
2:03:40all the Jews this is not to say there's
2:03:42not a religious dimension for some of
2:03:43them but I think that the the main
2:03:46connection is much more tribal in nature
2:03:49so I had a conversation with Benjamin
2:03:51Yahoo and he said fundamentally if
2:03:53you're anti-zionist you're
2:03:57anti-semitic so the the the Zionist
2:04:01project is tied at the hip to the Jewish
2:04:05project what do you have to say to that
2:04:08look you can Define
2:04:12anti-Semitism any way you want right and
2:04:16you can Define anti-Semitism to
2:04:20incorporate anti-an
2:04:22ISM uh and uh I think we have reached
2:04:27the point where
2:04:29anti-Semitism is identified today not
2:04:33just with anti-zionism but with
2:04:35criticism of Israel if you criticize
2:04:38Israel people will say some people will
2:04:40say you're an
2:04:42anti-semite and if that's your
2:04:44definition of
2:04:46anti-semitism it's taken an important
2:04:50term and stretched it to the point where
2:04:54it's
2:04:55meaningless right so when Steve and I
2:04:58wrote the book uh wrote the article and
2:05:01then wrote the book all sorts of people
2:05:03said that we were anti-semites this is a
2:05:06ludicrous charge but what they meant was
2:05:10you're criticizing the lobby you're
2:05:12criticizing Israel and therefore you're
2:05:14an
2:05:16anti-semite okay if that's what an
2:05:18anti-semite is somebody who criticizes
2:05:21Israel you know probably half the Jewish
2:05:23Community if not more in the United
2:05:25States is anti-Semitic and of course you
2:05:27get into all these crazy games where
2:05:29people are calling Jews self-hating Jews
2:05:31and anti-semites because they're
2:05:33critical of Israel but even people who
2:05:36are anti-zionists I don't think they're
2:05:38anti-semitic at all uh you can argue
2:05:41they're misguided that's fine but uh
2:05:44many of these people are Jewish and
2:05:46proud of the fact that they're Jewish
2:05:48they just don't believe that nationalism
2:05:52and Jewish nationalism is a force that
2:05:55should be applauded and you want to
2:05:58understand that in the American context
2:06:00there is a rich tradition of anti-
2:06:03Zionism right and these were not people
2:06:06who were anti-semites if you go back to
2:06:08the 30s 40s 50s and the same thing was
2:06:11even true in Europe there were all sorts
2:06:13of European Jews who were opposed to
2:06:16Zionism were they anti-semites I don't
2:06:19think so but we've gotten to the point
2:06:21now where people are so interested in
2:06:24stopping any criticism of Israel that
2:06:28they wield this weapon of uh calling
2:06:32people anti-semites uh so uh Loosely
2:06:37that uh the term has kind of lost
2:06:40meaning so I I think Netanyahu is is
2:06:44wrongheaded to equate uh anti-zionism
2:06:47with anti-Semitism Alan dtz was one of
2:06:51the people that call you specifically
2:06:53anti-semitic um so
2:06:57just looking at the space of
2:06:59discourse how do
2:07:02you where's this Slither of Hope for
2:07:05healthy discourse about us relationships
2:07:08with
2:07:09Israel
2:07:11um between you and Alan dtz and others
2:07:14like him well I think until there is a
2:07:18settlement of the Israeli Palestinian
2:07:21conf conflict there's no hope of putting
2:07:24an end to this nonsense right so these
2:07:28are just uses of terms to kind of cheat
2:07:32your way through the through the
2:07:34discourse it's shortcut no it's the
2:07:36silence people right it's very very
2:07:38important to understand that one of the
2:07:40lobb's principal goals is to make sure
2:07:42we don't have an open discourse a free
2:07:45willing discourse about Israel because
2:07:48they understand people in the lobby
2:07:50understand that if you have an open
2:07:51discourse Israel will end up looking
2:07:53very bad right you don't want to talk
2:07:56about the occupation you don't want to
2:07:58talk about how Israel was created right
2:08:00all all these subjects are ones that uh
2:08:06will cause problems for Israel see just
2:08:10to go to the present crisis okay when
2:08:14you have a
2:08:16disaster and what happened on October
2:08:187th is a disaster one of the first
2:08:21things that happens is that people begin
2:08:25to ask the question how did this happen
2:08:29right what's the root cause of this
2:08:32problem this is a disaster we have to
2:08:35understand what caused it so that we can
2:08:38work to uh to make sure it doesn't
2:08:42happen again so we can work to shut it
2:08:43down and then make sure it doesn't
2:08:45happen again but once you start talking
2:08:48about the root causes right you end up
2:08:50talking about how Israel was created
2:08:53right and that means telling a story
2:08:57that is not pretty about how the
2:08:59zionists conquered
2:09:02Palestine uh and number two it means
2:09:05talking about the occupation right it's
2:09:08not like uh Hamas attacked on October
2:09:127th because there were just a bunch of
2:09:14anti-semites who hated Jews and wanted
2:09:17to kill Jews this is not you know Nazi
2:09:19Germany right this is directly related
2:09:23to the occupation and to what was going
2:09:25on inside of Gaza and it's not in
2:09:28Israel's interest or the Lobby's
2:09:30interest to have an open discourse about
2:09:32what the Israelis have been doing to the
2:09:35Palestinians since I would say roughly
2:09:371903 when the second alah came to Israel
2:09:42or came to what was then Palestine right
2:09:45want to talk about that and we don't
2:09:47want to talk about from the Lobby's
2:09:49point of view the influence that the
2:09:51lobby has right uh it's better from the
2:09:55Lobby's point of view if most Americans
2:09:57think that uh American support of Israel
2:10:00is just done for all the right moral and
2:10:03strategic reasons not because of the
2:10:05lobby and when John mirer and Steve Walt
2:10:07come along and say you have to
2:10:09understand that this special
2:10:10relationship is due in large part to the
2:10:13Lobby's influence that is not an
2:10:16argument that uh people in the lobby
2:10:18want to hear so the point is you have to
2:10:20go to Great Lengths for all these
2:10:23reasons you have to go to Great Lengths
2:10:25to silence people like me and Steve Walt
2:10:29and one of the ways to do that is to
2:10:31call us anti-semites I think the chapter
2:10:33or the section of the book where we talk
2:10:36about this charge of anti-Semitism is
2:10:39called the Great silencer that's what we
2:10:41call the charge of anti-Semitism the
2:10:44great silencer who wants to be called an
2:10:47anti-semite especially in the wake of
2:10:49the Holocaust do I want to be called
2:10:51called an anti-semite oh my God no uh
2:10:55and uh so it's very effective but you
2:10:59know it is important to talk about these
2:11:03issues in my humble opinion and I think
2:11:06if we had talked about these issues uh
2:11:09way back
2:11:10when it would have gone a long way
2:11:13towards uh you know maybe getting a
2:11:17two-state solution which I think was the
2:11:19best alternative here it it's
2:11:21complicated and I I wonder if you can
2:11:23comment on the complexity of this
2:11:26because criticizing Israel and you know
2:11:29criticizing the
2:11:31lobby can
2:11:34um for a lot of people be a dog whistle
2:11:38for sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy
2:11:42theories that you know this idea that
2:11:45Jews run everything run the world
2:11:47they're this kind of
2:11:49cabal and you know
2:11:53it's it's also very true that people who
2:11:55are legitimately
2:11:57anti-semitic are also critics of Israel
2:11:59in the same kind of way and so it's such
2:12:02a complicated landscape in which to have
2:12:05discussions because
2:12:09um uh you know even people like David
2:12:12Duke uh who are you know racist don't
2:12:15sound racist on the
2:12:18surface I haven't listened to him enough
2:12:20but like you know there's dog whistles
2:12:23it's it's a complicated space in which
2:12:24to have
2:12:25discussions because it um I mean I
2:12:28wonder if you can sort of speak to
2:12:31that um because there's this silencing
2:12:35effect of calling everybody into Semitic
2:12:38but it's also true that there is
2:12:40anti-Semitism in the world like there is
2:12:44a sizable population of people that hate
2:12:46Jews there's probably a sizable
2:12:48population of people who hate Muslims
2:12:49too
2:12:51but you know I lot of hate out there a
2:12:53lot of hate out there uh but the hatred
2:12:56of Jews has like a long history and so
2:12:59you have like you know Rolling Stones
2:13:01have a a set of great hits and there's
2:13:03just a set of great hits of the ways
2:13:05conspiracy theories you can make up
2:13:07about the Jews that are used as part of
2:13:10the hatred uh so there's like nice
2:13:12templates for that and I I just wonder
2:13:15if you can comment
2:13:17on operating as a historian as an
2:13:20analyst as a strategic thinker in this
2:13:22kind of space yeah we obviously when we
2:13:26wrote the article which we did before
2:13:29the book gave the subject a great deal
2:13:31of thought I mean uh what you say just
2:13:34now is music to our ears I'm talking for
2:13:36me and about me and Steve uh I mean I
2:13:39think that you know your point about dog
2:13:41whistles is
2:13:45correct look we went to Great Lengths to
2:13:49make it clear that
2:13:51this is not a cabal it's not a
2:13:54conspiracy and in fact in a very
2:13:56important way the lobby operates out in
2:13:59the open right
2:14:02uh they brag about their power right and
2:14:06this was true before we wrote the
2:14:09article right and um and we
2:14:14said in the article and the book and you
2:14:17heard me say it here first of all it's
2:14:19not a Jewish law
2:14:22right um secondly it's not a cabal right
2:14:27it's an American interest group and and
2:14:31the American system is designed such
2:14:32that interest groups are perfectly legal
2:14:34and some of them are super effective EXA
2:14:37I mean you hit the nail right on the
2:14:39head that's exactly right
2:14:43and you know and there was nothing that
2:14:46we said that was
2:14:48anti-semitic by any reasonable
2:14:50definition of that term and you know
2:14:54huge numbers of Jews have known me and
2:14:56Steve over the years and nobody ever
2:15:00ever said that we were anti-semitic
2:15:03before March 2006 when the article
2:15:05appeared because we're not
2:15:07anti-semitic but look you've got this
2:15:11interest group right that has a
2:15:14significant influence on American
2:15:17policy and on Israeli policy
2:15:22and you want to talk about it it's just
2:15:25important to talk about it it's
2:15:27important for Jews right in the United
2:15:30States for Jews and Israel to talk about
2:15:33this the idea that you want to silence
2:15:36critics is not a smart way to go about
2:15:39doing business in my
2:15:41opinion if we were wrong if Steve and I
2:15:44were so wrong and their arguments were
2:15:46so foul they could have easily exposed
2:15:51those arguments they could have gone uh
2:15:54into combat with this in terms of the
2:15:57marketplace of ideas and easily knocked
2:15:59us down the problem was that our
2:16:02arguments were quite powerful and
2:16:05instead of engaging us and defeating our
2:16:08arguments they wanted to silence us and
2:16:12this is not good right it's not good for
2:16:15Israel it's not good for the United
2:16:17States and I would argue in the end if
2:16:20anything it's going to fall Foster
2:16:21anti-Semitism I think you don't want to
2:16:23run around telling people that they
2:16:26can't talk about Israel without being
2:16:29called an anti-semite it's just not it's
2:16:32not healthy uh in terms of the issue
2:16:34that you're raising right but I still
2:16:38agree with you that it is a tricky issue
2:16:41it's I I don't want to make light of
2:16:43that you know I know that there's this
2:16:47piece of literature out there called the
2:16:48protocols of the Elders of Zion and I
2:16:52fully understand that if you're not
2:16:54careful you can come close to writing
2:16:57volume two of the protocol but I don't
2:17:00believe that we wrote anything that was
2:17:03even close to that and again I think
2:17:06that a healthy debate on the issues that
2:17:09we were raising would have been in not
2:17:11only in America's interest but it would
2:17:13have been in Israel's
2:17:15interest yeah I mean um Underneath It
2:17:17All is just I wonder why there's so much
2:17:21hate against groups why it's such a
2:17:25sticky way of
2:17:27thinking not just tribalism like proud
2:17:30of your country and kind of hating
2:17:32another country but really deeply hating
2:17:35like hating in a way where it's part of
2:17:37your identity kind of
2:17:39hate well just to make a general point
2:17:43on this issue in our conversation here
2:17:45today you often talk about individual
2:17:49leaders and the word individual often
2:17:52pops up in your vocabulary yes I believe
2:17:55that we are ultimately social animals
2:17:58before we are individuals I believe
2:18:00we're born into tribes we're heavily
2:18:03socialized and that we carve out space
2:18:06for our
2:18:07individualism but we are part of tribes
2:18:11and or social groups or nations call
2:18:14them what you want ethnic groups
2:18:16religious groups but the fact is that
2:18:19these tribes often crash into each other
2:18:22and when they crash into each other uh
2:18:25they end up hating each other uh if you
2:18:27go to a place like Bosnia right the
2:18:30croats and the serbs oh my God and then
2:18:34throw in the
2:18:35bosniacs which is the term for Bosnian
2:18:38Muslims and you know Muslims croats
2:18:41serbs uh oh and uh the tribes you know
2:18:47hate each other uh and uh in a funny way
2:18:52that hatred almost never goes away uh
2:18:56and uh I guess there are some exceptions
2:18:58to that uh if you look at the Germans
2:19:00after World War II they've gone a long
2:19:02way towards reducing I wouldn't want to
2:19:05say completely eliminating but reducing
2:19:08a lot of the hatred uh that existed
2:19:11between Germans and their
2:19:14neighbors uh but that's really kind of
2:19:16an anomalous case uh I mean you go
2:19:20around East Asia today and the hatred of
2:19:23Japan in a place like China the hatred
2:19:26of Japan in a place like Korea just not
2:19:28to be
2:19:30underestimated and uh so but I think a
2:19:33lot of it just has to do with the fact
2:19:35that you're dealing with social groups
2:19:36that have crashed into each other uh at
2:19:39one point or another and there are those
2:19:41lingering effects and by the way this
2:19:43gets back to our discussion a few
2:19:45minutes ago about trying to get a
2:19:47two-state solution between the
2:19:49Palestinians and the isra Jews now that
2:19:52you have had uh this horrible War which
2:19:57is
2:19:58ongoing it's
2:20:00interesting to ask to go back to World
2:20:02War II now you said uh you studied Nazi
2:20:05Germany in in the 30s from a perspective
2:20:08of
2:20:09maybe offensive
2:20:11realism uh but just to look at the
2:20:15Holocaust it's sometimes popular in
2:20:19public discourse today to compare
2:20:20certain things to the Holocaust people
2:20:22have compared the Hamas attack on Israel
2:20:25to the
2:20:26Holocaust saying things like it's the
2:20:29the
2:20:30biggest attack on Jews since the
2:20:34Holocaust which kind
2:20:36of
2:20:38implies that there's a comparison U
2:20:41people have made that same comparison in
2:20:43the other
2:20:44direction what do you make of this
2:20:46comparison is it comparable is it is the
2:20:50use of the
2:20:52Holocaust uh have any accuracy in
2:20:55comparisons of modern day international
2:21:00politics is it possible that you could
2:21:03have another
2:21:05genocide yes and I would argue that what
2:21:08you had in Rwanda was a
2:21:10genocide right the Holocaust is not the
2:21:13only
2:21:14genocide I believe the word genocide is
2:21:18used too Loosely today
2:21:21uh and as you know lots of people and I
2:21:24mean lots of people who are pro
2:21:26Palestinian accuse the Israelis of
2:21:29engaging in genocide in Gaza I think
2:21:32what the Israelis are doing in Gaza uh
2:21:37represents a massacre I I would use that
2:21:40term given the number of civilians that
2:21:42they've killed and the fact that they've
2:21:44been indiscriminate in terms of how
2:21:46they've been bombing Gaza but I would
2:21:50not not use the word
2:21:52genocide uh for me a genocide is where
2:21:55one side attempts to eliminate another
2:21:59group from the planet uh I think that
2:22:02what happened with the Holocaust was
2:22:04clearly a genocide and that the Germans
2:22:08were bent uh on destroying all of
2:22:11European jewry and if they could have
2:22:13gotten their hands on uh Jews outside of
2:22:17Europe they would have murdered them as
2:22:19well that's a gen side and I think with
2:22:22the hutus and the tootsies you had a
2:22:24similar situation uh I think with the
2:22:27Turks and the Armenians during World War
2:22:30I that was a genocide but I have a
2:22:32rather narrow definition of what a
2:22:34genocide is and I don't think they're
2:22:36many cases that qualify as a genocide
2:22:39the Holocaust certainly does okay
2:22:43now what Hamas did doesn't even come
2:22:47close to what happened to European jeury
2:22:52between let's say
2:22:551939 uh and 1945 although I date the
2:22:58start of the Holocaust to
2:23:001941 if we were you know looking at it
2:23:03closely but let's just say 1939 when
2:23:06they invade Poland 1939 to
2:23:091945
2:23:11whated Pals in comparison it's hard to
2:23:14believe anybody would make that argument
2:23:16right yes a lot of Jews died uh but uh
2:23:20uh
2:23:22hardly
2:23:23uh hardly any compared to the number
2:23:27that died uh you know at the hands of
2:23:29the Germans I mean it just no parallel
2:23:33at all uh and furthermore Hamas was in
2:23:35no position to kill all the Jews in the
2:23:40Middle East just not not going to happen
2:23:42yeah but there's also levels of things
2:23:44you know using uh Germans using uh human
2:23:49skin for lamps there's just levels of
2:23:52evil in this world yes but you don't see
2:23:55that with I mean that's not what Hamas
2:23:57is doing I mean I I I want to be very
2:23:59clear here I am not justifying the kill
2:24:01hamas's killing of civilians okay not
2:24:04for one second but I'm just saying and
2:24:08and and by the way just to go to the
2:24:09Israelis and what they're doing in Gaza
2:24:13right as I said to you before I do
2:24:14believe that is a massacre and I believe
2:24:17that's to be condemned the killing of
2:24:19civilians
2:24:21uh this is not legitimate collateral
2:24:23damage they're directly punishing the
2:24:26population but I would not call that a
2:24:28genocide right and I would not compare
2:24:31that to the Holocaust for for one second
2:24:35I just want to be very clear on that do
2:24:37you think uh if Israel could they would
2:24:41avoid the death of any
2:24:43civilians so you're saying there's some
2:24:46degree of punishment of collective
2:24:48they're purposely killing civilians it's
2:24:50this the Iron Wall they're trying to
2:24:51beat the Palestinians in the
2:24:54submission
2:24:55right there's no way you kill this many
2:24:59civilians
2:25:02um if you're trying to precisely take
2:25:06out Hamas Fighters and by the way the
2:25:09Israeli spokesman the IDF spokesman has
2:25:12explicitly said that we are not pursuing
2:25:15Precision bombing and that what we are
2:25:17doing is trying to you know maximize the
2:25:20amount of Destruction and damage uh that
2:25:23we can inflict on the
2:25:25Palestinians and uh I I I think this is
2:25:28a major mistake on the part of Israel
2:25:32first of all it ends up being a moral
2:25:34stain on your reputation number one and
2:25:37number two it doesn't work it doesn't
2:25:40work the the Palestinians are not going
2:25:43to roll over and submit to uh Israeli
2:25:47domination of their life uh um so you
2:25:52know the whole concept of the Iron Wall
2:25:55gabatin Sky's term was
2:25:57misguided um and and and by the way the
2:26:00iron if you look at what the Israelis
2:26:02are doing they're trying to do two
2:26:03things one is the iron wall and that's
2:26:05where you punish the civilian population
2:26:07in Gaza and get them to submit the other
2:26:09thing that they're trying to do is get
2:26:11Hamas they want to destroy Hamas and the
2:26:13belief there is that if they destroy
2:26:15Hamas they've solved the problem but as
2:26:19many Israelis no including people on the
2:26:21hard right even if you destroy Hamas
2:26:25they are going to be replaced by another
2:26:29group another resistance group uh and
2:26:33that resistance group will employ Terror
2:26:36yeah I think you I think you've said
2:26:37that uh other terrorist organizations
2:26:39have used the situation in Palestine as
2:26:41a as a kind of a recruit recruitment
2:26:44mechanism for for a long time Osama bin
2:26:48lad made it clear that this was one of
2:26:50those principal reasons for attacking
2:26:54the United States right and the United
2:26:58States attacked back and uh got us into
2:27:02a 20-year war that
2:27:04cost the lives of millions of people not
2:27:08not American but uh human
2:27:10beings and uh engaged in torture and
2:27:15torture yeah no I think if you look at
2:27:19how we reacted to
2:27:219/11 and how the Israelis are reacting
2:27:25to what happened on October 7th uh
2:27:28there's uh quite a bit of similarity in
2:27:32that both sides the Israeli side and the
2:27:34American side uh are enraged right and
2:27:38they lash out and they go on a
2:27:41rampage and the end result is not good
2:27:45is there capacity within Israel or with
2:27:48within United States after
2:27:50911 to do something approximating turn
2:27:54the other
2:27:55cheek
2:27:57of understanding the root of Terror is
2:28:01hate and fighting that hate
2:28:04with uh not the S naive but
2:28:09compassion well I I don't think in
2:28:12either case you're going to turn the
2:28:13other cheek uh I think well some I what
2:28:18I mean by that is some some limited
2:28:22powerful military response but very
2:28:24limited yeah coupled with a smart
2:28:26political strategy political strategy
2:28:28diplomacy yeah that's what they should
2:28:30have done yeah right but is there
2:28:32capacity for that or from your offensive
2:28:35realism perspective it's just the odds
2:28:38are really
2:28:39low no from my offensive realist
2:28:42perspective or my realist perspective
2:28:44that's what you should do right my my
2:28:47view is states are rational actors they
2:28:49should be cunning right they should
2:28:51think about uh the Strategic situation
2:28:54they're in and choose the appropriate
2:28:57response and uh what happens and this is
2:29:00why my theory is not always correct is
2:29:03that sometimes states are not rational
2:29:05and they
2:29:08misbehave I would argue in the Israeli
2:29:11case uh that it would have been good
2:29:14after October 7th or starting on October
2:29:177th if the United States
2:29:20had uh tried to hold the Israelis back
2:29:24and
2:29:25countenanced uh a more uh moderate
2:29:30response more with uh to to SP take some
2:29:34time just to think about how to deal
2:29:36with this problem instead of lashing out
2:29:38I I think given what happened to the
2:29:41Israelis given how shocked they were
2:29:43given the level of fear given the level
2:29:46of Rage they were going to lash out and
2:29:48I don't believe that was in their
2:29:50interest I think it would have been made
2:29:53would have made sense to to think about
2:29:55it and to think about a smarter strategy
2:29:59than they're now employing and I think
2:30:02you know the Americans blew it the
2:30:03Americans gave them a bare hug and a
2:30:05green light and said we'll give you all
2:30:07the Weaponry you need and go out and do
2:30:10it and uh I don't think that was the
2:30:13smart thing to do look in the wake of
2:30:16October 7th the Israelis had no good
2:30:20strategy right it's it's not like
2:30:22there's a magic formula that they just
2:30:24didn't see and we should have told them
2:30:25what the magic formula was right that's
2:30:28not true they were in a sense caught
2:30:31between IR rock and a hard place in
2:30:32terms of what to do but there's smarter
2:30:35things and Dumber things and I think the
2:30:39Israelis lashed out in ways that are
2:30:44counterproductive I think you know going
2:30:47on a rampage and you know killing huge
2:30:49number the civilians is not it's
2:30:52obviously morally wrong but it's also
2:30:55just not in their strategic interest
2:30:58right I mean uh because it's it's not
2:31:01going to buy them anything right and in
2:31:04fact it's going to cost them right
2:31:06because people all over the planet are
2:31:08turning against Israel uh I saw you know
2:31:12an Israeli think tank today uh that has
2:31:16been tracking uh protest around the
2:31:21world um gave some figures for what it
2:31:25looked like uh between October 7th and
2:31:28October 13th in terms of the number of
2:31:32uh protests around the world that were
2:31:34pro-israel versus Pro Palestine and then
2:31:37it looked at the numbers from U October
2:31:4013th up to the present and I think the
2:31:44numbers were 69% were Pro Palestinian in
2:31:48the first six days after October 7th
2:31:5269% and I think 31% take these numbers
2:31:55with a grain of salt 31% were pro-israel
2:31:59so I think it was 69 and
2:32:0231 um and uh since then since October
2:32:0813th if you look at the number of
2:32:09protests around the world 95% have been
2:32:12Pro Palestinian and 5% have been
2:32:16pro-israel uh and what this tells you is
2:32:19that public opinion around the world has
2:32:21shifted against Israel and if you look
2:32:24at some of the demonstrations in places
2:32:26like London and Washington DC it's truly
2:32:29amazing the number of people who are
2:32:31coming out in support of the
2:32:34Palestinians and uh all this again is
2:32:37just to support my point that it was
2:32:39just not smart for Israel to uh launch
2:32:43this bombing campaign right you can make
2:32:46an argument for going after Hamas and
2:32:48doing it in a c surgical way or as
2:32:51surgical a way as possible uh but uh
2:32:55that's not what they did and again my
2:32:57point to you is I think that this
2:32:59punishment campaign is not going to work
2:33:02strategically in other words they're not
2:33:04going to beat the Palestinians into
2:33:06submission they're not going to finish
2:33:07off Hamas and at the same time by
2:33:09pursuing this strategy they're doing
2:33:12huge damage to their reputation around
2:33:15the world well I just uh yeah in the
2:33:19wake of October
2:33:227th given the geopolitical
2:33:26context I think there's a lot of
2:33:29Leverage to be the great ethical
2:33:32superpower that that demonstrate power
2:33:35without killing any
2:33:36civilians and use that leverage
2:33:39diplomatic leverage to push forward
2:33:41something like abrahamic Accords with
2:33:44more nations with with Saudi Arabia push
2:33:47for peace aggressively peace agreements
2:33:50this kind of stuff economic
2:33:51relationships all this kind of
2:33:53stuff and thereby pressure the
2:33:56Palestinian Authority you know towards
2:34:00um perhaps a two-state
2:34:03solution but I think what you're missing
2:34:05here just in the Israeli case is that
2:34:07the Israeli government is not interested
2:34:09in the two-state solution and you want
2:34:11to remember that Benjamin Netanyahu who
2:34:15looks very hawkish when you look at him
2:34:18in isolation
2:34:20doesn't look so hawkish when you look at
2:34:23him compared to the rest of the people
2:34:25in his cabinet right he he he almost
2:34:28looks like a moderate he's got a lot of
2:34:31people who are way out to the right of
2:34:34him
2:34:36and these people and this of course
2:34:38includes Netanyahu are not interested in
2:34:40the two-state solution so the question
2:34:43you have to ask yourself is you if
2:34:44you're if you're Benjamin Netanyahu and
2:34:47it's July 7th late the excuse me October
2:34:507th late in the day what do you do
2:34:54you're not thinking about a two-state
2:34:55solution you're thinking about an
2:34:58occupation that's not going to end and
2:35:00the question is how do you deal with the
2:35:02Palestinians given what's just happened
2:35:05well there's people in the cabinet and
2:35:07then there's history and history
2:35:09remembers great leaders and
2:35:11so uh Benjamin nyaho can look in the
2:35:14streets of Israel and see the protests
2:35:17and think of how history will remember
2:35:19him and I think a two-state solution is
2:35:21on the table for a great leader well it
2:35:24was there was he the person who was
2:35:26going to take advantage of it I don't
2:35:30think so but well he's a student of
2:35:32History well at this point the will see
2:35:35does I mean it's very at this point it's
2:35:36very difficult um like you said 95% now
2:35:41or whatever the number is of protests I
2:35:44think the the window in which Israel has
2:35:49the the ears of the world they can do
2:35:51the the big ethical peace act action
2:35:54towards peace is uh I think as closed or
2:35:58maybe there's still a Slither but it's
2:36:01just
2:36:03um uh the slippery slope of of hate is
2:36:07has taken off it's quite depressing to
2:36:09watch what's going I I agree 100%
2:36:12unequivocally depressing but you know of
2:36:14course as you talk about the the role of
2:36:16you us involvement is of critical
2:36:20importance here for the United
2:36:21States and the argument you make is that
2:36:25we should not be involved in
2:36:27Ukraine at least to the degree we are we
2:36:31being the United States uh and we should
2:36:33not be involved in Israel to the degree
2:36:35we are because it's stretching us too
2:36:37thin when uh the
2:36:40big geopolitical contender in the 21st
2:36:44century with the United States is
2:36:46China that is that a correct summary
2:36:49yeah I I I think just on Ukraine we
2:36:52should not have pushed Ukraine to join
2:36:55NATO sure uh and once the war started we
2:36:59should have worked overtime to shut it
2:37:02down immediately March Yeah March right
2:37:05and and you remember by the way not to
2:37:07go back to Ukraine in great
2:37:09detail in the fall early fall of 2022
2:37:14the war starts February 2022 there's
2:37:17March 2022 which we've talked about
2:37:19which is in negotiations in the fall of
2:37:212022 I think it was in
2:37:24September uh the uh ukrainians had won
2:37:27two major tactical victories one in
2:37:30hiran and the other in harke and at that
2:37:33point in time General Millie who was the
2:37:35chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
2:37:37said now is the time to negotiate
2:37:39because this is the high watermark for
2:37:42the ukrainians yeah Millie understood
2:37:45that things were only going to get worse
2:37:47and the White House shut Millie down and
2:37:50said we're not negotiating so we have
2:37:53blown a number of opportunities here to
2:37:56head this problem off at the pass uh and
2:38:00uh but that's my view there and uh with
2:38:03regard to the Israelis my only point
2:38:05about Israel is that it would be better
2:38:08for Israel and better for the United
2:38:10States if we the United States were in
2:38:13was in a position the United States was
2:38:15in a position to put pressure on Israel
2:38:18from time to time
2:38:20as Steve and I say in the book we should
2:38:22be able to treat Israel like a normal
2:38:24country right the fact is that countries
2:38:27sometimes do stupid things this includes
2:38:30the United States and Israel and if
2:38:33Israel is pursuing a policy that we
2:38:34think is unwise we should be in a
2:38:37position where we could put pressure on
2:38:38Israel yeah that's our argument right
2:38:42but
2:38:42anyway we goofed both with regard to
2:38:46Ukraine and with regard to the Middle
2:38:49East East and we're now up to our
2:38:50eyeballs in alligators in both of those
2:38:54regions and as you describe my view this
2:38:59is not good because the area of the most
2:39:02strategic importance for the United
2:39:04States Today Is East Asia and that's
2:39:07because China is there and China is the
2:39:11most serious threat the United States
2:39:13faces do you think there will be a
2:39:15war with China in the 21st century I
2:39:19don't know uh my argument is there will
2:39:22be there is right now a serious security
2:39:26competition and uh at the same time
2:39:29there is a real possibility of War
2:39:31whether or not we avoid it is very hard
2:39:34to say uh I mean we did during the Cold
2:39:37War we had a serious security
2:39:39competition from roughly
2:39:411947 to
2:39:431989 and uh and we thankfully avoided
2:39:46war probably came the closest in 19 1962
2:39:50with the Cuban Missile
2:39:51Crisis but uh we avoided it and I think
2:39:56we can avoid it here is it for sure no
2:39:59you've said that China won't move on
2:40:02Taiwan militarily in part because it's
2:40:05uh as you said amphibious operations are
2:40:08difficult why will China not move on
2:40:11Taiwan is in your
2:40:13sense uh in the near future well it's
2:40:17because there's this body of water
2:40:18called the the Taiwan straigh MH which
2:40:21is a big body of water and getting
2:40:23across water uh is very difficult unless
2:40:28you can walk on water so geography still
2:40:30has a role to play in the 21st century
2:40:32oh yeah I think geography is very
2:40:34important big bodies of water really
2:40:36matter yeah in an Ideal World you'd like
2:40:39to have the Pacific Ocean between you
2:40:41and any potential adversary you know
2:40:436,000 miles yes 6,000 miles of water
2:40:46hard to get across I if you're a country
2:40:49and I'm a country and there's land
2:40:52between us I can take my Panzer
2:40:54divisions and I can go right across the
2:40:56land and get into your country or attack
2:40:59your country and you of course can take
2:41:01your Panzer divisions and come across
2:41:03that same piece of land but if there's a
2:41:05big body of water between us your Panzer
2:41:08divisions can't go across the water and
2:41:11then the question is how do you get them
2:41:12across the water and that's very tricky
2:41:16and in a world we have lots of
2:41:17submarines and you have lots of aircraft
2:41:20and you have missiles that are landbased
2:41:23that can hit those surface ships it is
2:41:27very very hard to you know to attack
2:41:30across a body of water and all you have
2:41:32to do is think about uh Normandy you
2:41:36know the American invasion of Normandy
2:41:38June 6th 1944 coming in on Omaha Beach
2:41:42right uh oh boy that was really
2:41:45difficult but there is a growing
2:41:47asymmetry of military power
2:41:50there that even though it's difficult
2:41:53that is correct so I I guess that is
2:41:56correct so I recently had a conversation
2:41:59with Elon Musk and and he
2:42:01says
2:42:03that uh you know China is quite serious
2:42:08about the one China policy and it seems
2:42:11inevitable that Taiwan will have to be
2:42:14if you look at this pragmatically in the
2:42:1721st century it seems inevitable that
2:42:19Taiwan will have to be a part of China
2:42:21and so we can get there either
2:42:22diplomatically or militarily like
2:42:26um what do you think about the
2:42:29inevitability of that kind of idea when
2:42:31a nation says this is a top
2:42:34priority for us
2:42:38um what do you think about them meaning
2:42:42it and what do we do about that there's
2:42:46no question it's a top priority for them
2:42:48and there's no question they mean it but
2:42:51it's also a top priority for us not to
2:42:53let them take Taiwan why exactly because
2:42:56it's an important strategic asset uh
2:42:58many people will say it's because
2:43:00taiwan's a democracy but that doesn't
2:43:02matter that
2:43:04much uh it's
2:43:06because uh of two strategic reasons the
2:43:09first is that uh if we were to let
2:43:13Taiwan
2:43:14go it would have hugely negative
2:43:18consequences for our alliance structure
2:43:20in East Asia to contain China we need
2:43:23allies we have an alliance structure and
2:43:26our allies Japanese South
2:43:29Koreans Filipinos
2:43:31Australians they're all counting on us
2:43:33to be there for them and if we say we're
2:43:38not going to defend Taiwan the Chinese
2:43:40attack they're going to say I bet if the
2:43:43Chinese attack us the Americans won't be
2:43:45there for us uh so the it have
2:43:50uh a damaging effect on our alliance
2:43:53structure which we cannot afford cuz
2:43:57because containing China is a wicked
2:43:58problem it's a powerful State you were
2:44:01getting to this before when you talked
2:44:02about China versus Taiwan so that's the
2:44:06first reason second reason is you want
2:44:08to bottle up the Chinese Navy and the
2:44:11Chinese Air Force inside the first
2:44:14island chain you don't want to let them
2:44:16get
2:44:17out uh into the Pacific you don't want
2:44:20them dominating the Waters of East Asia
2:44:23you want to bottle them up again inside
2:44:25the first island chain and you can only
2:44:27do that if you control Taiwan if you
2:44:29don't control Taiwan they get out into
2:44:32the Philippine Sea into the Pacific and
2:44:34the Western Pacific and cause all sorts
2:44:36of problems well you saying all that
2:44:40you've also said the century of
2:44:42humiliation Japan and the United States
2:44:44are a source of that humiliation for
2:44:46China
2:44:49don't you think they see the other side
2:44:51of that absolutely and in the interest
2:44:55of avoiding a World
2:44:58War I guess the question is uh how do we
2:45:02avoid a World War it
2:45:05doesn't um seem like the military invol
2:45:09involvement in the conflict between
2:45:11China and Taiwan is the
2:45:13way well I I don't want there's no good
2:45:15answers here I'm just saying there are
2:45:17no good which is the the less bad option
2:45:20well what you want to do is you want to
2:45:23make sure that you
2:45:24deter uh China from invading Taiwan you
2:45:28want to avoid a war you and I are in
2:45:29complete agreement on that we don't want
2:45:31a war but we want to contain China we do
2:45:33not want to let China dominate Asia that
2:45:37that's what the Americans are
2:45:38principally concerned with here and it's
2:45:40what China's neighbors are principally
2:45:42concerned with this includes the
2:45:44Japanese the South Koreans Filipinos
2:45:47Australians and the Taiwan East we they
2:45:49don't want and we don't want China to
2:45:53dominate the region so we have to
2:45:55contain it but at the same time and this
2:45:58should be music to your ears we not only
2:46:00want to contain it we want to make sure
2:46:02we don't end up in a shooting match with
2:46:04the Chinese because this could be
2:46:06disastrous so you have to have a very
2:46:08smart policy you have to build powerful
2:46:10military forces and you have to make
2:46:12sure you don't do anything that's
2:46:14provocative on Taiwan for example the
2:46:18last thing you want want is for the
2:46:19Taiwanese government to declare its
2:46:21independence because the Chinese have
2:46:23said if Taiwan does that we'll go to war
2:46:26and of course we don't want that so my
2:46:29view is you want to smartly build up
2:46:32your military forces and you want to do
2:46:34everything you can to contain China uh
2:46:37and at the same time not be
2:46:40provocative so a big component of that
2:46:43is making uh sure your military the US
2:46:47military is bigger than the Chinese
2:46:50military not necessarily uh it's an
2:46:54interesting question uh a lot of people
2:46:58think that to make deterrence work right
2:47:02you have to be able to beat the chines
2:47:05and therefore you need a much bigger
2:47:08military uh and I don't think over time
2:47:11that's possible right I think it's
2:47:13probably not even possible now to beat
2:47:15the Chinese in a war over Taiwan or a in
2:47:19a war in the South China Sea I think
2:47:22what you want to do is make it clear to
2:47:24the Chinese either that they will be no
2:47:27winner in other words you don't have to
2:47:29win but you want to make sure they don't
2:47:31win okay it's it's it's a lose
2:47:34lose uh proposition if they go to war
2:47:37over Taiwan or what have you uh and if
2:47:40you can't do that right you think that
2:47:43they're so powerful that they're
2:47:44ultimately going to win you want to
2:47:47convince them that Victory would would
2:47:48be a pic victory in other words they
2:47:51would pay a god awul price to win the
2:47:54war you follow what I'm saying so excuse
2:47:59me the best strategy for deterrence is
2:48:01you win China loses second best strategy
2:48:06is a stalemate nobody wins third best
2:48:09strategy is they win but they pay a God
2:48:13awful price and the fourth possibility
2:48:16which you don't want is they went
2:48:19quickly and decisively right uh if
2:48:22that's the case then you don't have much
2:48:27deterrence what is a world with China as
2:48:31the sole dominant superpower look like I
2:48:34mean a little bit underlying our
2:48:36discussion is this kind of idea that us
2:48:38is the good guys and China is the bad
2:48:41guys first of all you know the you know
2:48:43dividing the world into good guys and
2:48:45bad guys seems to
2:48:47somehow miss the Nuance of this
2:48:50whole human civilization project we're
2:48:53undertaking but what does the world look
2:48:55like where China is the dominant sole
2:48:57superpower in a unipolar
2:49:00world well I I don't tend to think of
2:49:03the world in terms of good guys and bad
2:49:05guys as a good realist I I think that
2:49:09you know states are States they're all
2:49:11black boxes you know I don't
2:49:13discriminate between democracies and
2:49:15autocracies but having said that I am an
2:49:18American americ and as an American I'm
2:49:21interested in the security of my country
2:49:24the survival of my country so I want the
2:49:28United States to be the most powerful
2:49:30state in the world which means I want
2:49:33the do United States to dominate the
2:49:35Western Hemisphere I want us to be a
2:49:37regional hedgemon and I want to make
2:49:39sure that China does not dominate Asia
2:49:42the way we dominate the Western
2:49:44Hemisphere it's not because I think
2:49:46we're the good guys and they're the bad
2:49:48guys guys uh if I were Chinese and I
2:49:52were in Beijing and I were XI jinping's
2:49:55National Security adviser i' tell him
2:49:58what we got to do is make sure we
2:50:00dominate the world or dominate our
2:50:02region and then do everything we can to
2:50:04undermine America's position in the
2:50:07Western Hemisphere right that that be my
2:50:09view uh so I guess you could say I do
2:50:13view the world in terms of good guys and
2:50:14bad guys cuz I'm an American and I more
2:50:17like us and Them versus Us and Them
2:50:19that's that's a nice way to put it yeah
2:50:21it's US versus them not so much good
2:50:23guys versus bad guys is it possible to
2:50:25have a stable peaceful world with a good
2:50:28balance of power with where it's China
2:50:32and us as superpowers you it's a bipolar
2:50:36world no longer unipolar yeah okay so
2:50:38you're hypothesizing a world where they
2:50:40dominate Asia yeah and we dominate the
2:50:42Western Hemisphere I I believe there
2:50:45would be uh a great deal of security
2:50:48compet comptition intense security
2:50:50competition between those two
2:50:52superpowers the definition of intense
2:50:54matters here so it could be
2:50:57small small military conflicts or it
2:51:01could be extremely large unstable
2:51:03military conflicts well conflict let's
2:51:06use the word War okay so I I distinguish
2:51:09between security competition and War and
2:51:12what I'm telling you is you'll have an
2:51:13intense security
2:51:15competition where there's no shooting or
2:51:17if there's shooting it's mainly proxies
2:51:19that are doing the fighting much like
2:51:22the Vietnam War right uh or you could
2:51:25have a case where one of those
2:51:27superpowers was involved in a war
2:51:30against a proxy of the other superpower
2:51:33Korean War think the Korean War the
2:51:35United States fought the Chinese who
2:51:37were allied with the Soviets at the time
2:51:40but uh a war between the United States
2:51:42and China just like a war between the
2:51:45United States and the Soviet Union
2:51:47during the Cold War that's what you
2:51:49really want to invoid avoid so I think
2:51:51you'd have an intense security
2:51:53competition right you'd have wars
2:51:56involving proxies of each of those two
2:52:00superpowers and you would probably have
2:52:02some Wars where one of the superpowers
2:52:04was involved in a proxy right with the
2:52:08other super one of the super other
2:52:10superpowers proxies so it seems likely
2:52:13then if that's the case then it would be
2:52:15Taiwan is the proxy and us fighting
2:52:19China through the proxy of Taiwan what
2:52:21yeah well that would assume the United
2:52:23States but you want to remember you're
2:52:25hypothesizing a situation where China
2:52:28dominates Asia oh already has dominated
2:52:31yeah it's already dominated Taiwan uh I
2:52:34see we we well where do you find the
2:52:37proxies Australia the Middle East could
2:52:39be a good case oh wow right Persian Gulf
2:52:43right oh boy and then our discussion of
2:52:45Israel becomes even more dramatically
2:52:47yeah well Israel Israel gets involved I
2:52:50think I think in this scenario if you're
2:52:52talking about a us China
2:52:54competition right and you're talking
2:52:56about the Middle East I think it's the
2:52:58gulf it's it's the Saudis the Iranians
2:53:01the Iraqis it's the oil don't you think
2:53:03it could be Israel versus Iran with
2:53:07some very 1984 kind of dramatic
2:53:11Partnership of Iran Russia and China
2:53:14versus United States Europe and um
2:53:17Israel I think that's possible yeah I
2:53:20think that's possible yeah now that I I
2:53:23mean I hadn't thought about it uh until
2:53:25you said it but yeah I think that that
2:53:27that is possible isn't isn't that
2:53:30terrifying yeah well that you know in
2:53:33your scenario where China already
2:53:35dominates Asia and we dominate the
2:53:37Western Hemisphere uh I think you start
2:53:40talking about we the most likely
2:53:43places uh that the United States and
2:53:45China go
2:53:46head-to-head or or fight through proxies
2:53:50uh I I think it is the goal for the
2:53:51Middle East and the scenario that you
2:53:55posit I mean one one question I
2:53:59have I don't know about you but for me
2:54:02unlike with the Soviet
2:54:04Union and I know I was born there but
2:54:06even outside of that the cultural
2:54:10Gap the the the loss in Translation the
2:54:13communication gap between China and the
2:54:16United States seems to be much greater
2:54:19than that of what was the former Soviet
2:54:22Union and the United
2:54:24States I see two cultures intermingling
2:54:28and communicating is one of the ways to
2:54:30deescalate future
2:54:34conflict it's an interesting question I
2:54:36mean at a sort of an abstract
2:54:39theoretical level my argument is that
2:54:42great Powers Act according to realist
2:54:46dictates and they understand the those
2:54:48realist dictates and uh that could lead
2:54:52to cooperation or it can lead to uh War
2:54:56uh it depends U I would say just in the
2:55:01case of the Soviets a lot of people
2:55:03describe the Cold War as an ideological
2:55:08competition above all else it's was
2:55:11communism
2:55:12versus liberal democracy or communism
2:55:15versus liberal capitalism whatever
2:55:19uh I actually don't believe that I I
2:55:21believe the Soviets were uh realists to
2:55:24the core uh I believe Stalin was a
2:55:27realist par
2:55:28exellence uh and that ideology did not
2:55:31matter much in Stalin's foreign policy
2:55:34and I believe if you look at Soviet
2:55:36foreign policy uh after World War II you
2:55:38know throughout the Cold War they were
2:55:40realists to the core uh and uh and I
2:55:44think in those days the Americans were
2:55:46realists right uh lot of liberal
2:55:49ideology floating around out there but
2:55:51the Americans were realists and I think
2:55:53one of the reasons you avoided uh a
2:55:56shooting match between the United States
2:55:58and the Soviet Union from 47 to uh
2:56:0289 uh was because both sides I think uh
2:56:06understood basic balance of power
2:56:09logic us China competition is somewhat
2:56:13different first of all the Chinese are
2:56:15realists to the core uh I I've spent a
2:56:18lot of time in China I basically have
2:56:20rock and roll I'm basically a rock and
2:56:22roll star in China uh the Chinese you're
2:56:27kind of a big deal in China I love it
2:56:29the Chinese are my kind of people
2:56:31they're realists right they speak my
2:56:33language yeah it's the United States
2:56:36that is not very realist American
2:56:39leaders uh have a very powerful liberal
2:56:42bent and tend not to see the world in
2:56:44realist terms I Believe by the way just
2:56:46going back to our discussion of NATO
2:56:48expansion I think our inability to
2:56:52understand that NATO expansion was
2:56:55anathema to the Soviet to the Russians
2:56:57was do in large part to the fact that we
2:56:59just during the unipolar moment didn't
2:57:02think of international politics from a
2:57:04realist perspective and didn't respect
2:57:07anyone who thought about International
2:57:08politics from a realist
2:57:10perspective if those various American
2:57:14administrations starting with the
2:57:15Clinton administration had put their
2:57:17realest hat on they would have
2:57:18understood that NATO expansion into
2:57:20Ukraine was not a good idea but we had
2:57:23this thoroughly liberal view of the
2:57:25world that dominated our thinking and
2:57:28it's gone away somewhat since we've
2:57:30moved into multipolarity but not
2:57:33completely and uh this makes me a little
2:57:36nervous right to pick up on your point I
2:57:39mean the United States is thinking about
2:57:41the world in ways that are somewhat
2:57:43different than the Chinese who are real
2:57:45is par Excellence so
2:57:48that's fascinating so the Chinese are
2:57:51pragmatic uh about thinking of the world
2:57:54and
2:57:55um as a competition of military Powers
2:57:58all the ways in which he described the
2:58:00realist perspective so that I mean
2:58:01that's a that's a that's a hopeful thing
2:58:04right
2:58:05if uh we can achieve stability and a
2:58:08balance of powers through that military
2:58:10competition yeah I I actually think
2:58:12that's right I think if the United
2:58:14States just let me talk a little bit
2:58:16about the United States to get at the
2:58:18issue you're raising if the United
2:58:20States pursues a smart containment
2:58:23strategy MH given what you just said and
2:58:25I said about the Chinese I think we will
2:58:29avoid war the problem with the Americans
2:58:32is it's not just the
2:58:34liberalism it's the possibility that we
2:58:37will pursue a roll back policy in other
2:58:41words during the Cold War uh we pursued
2:58:45containment it was whenever anybody
2:58:48talked about American Grand strategy
2:58:49towards the Soviet Union was Containment
2:58:51containment containment we now know from
2:58:53the historical record that the United
2:58:55States was not only pursuing containment
2:58:58it was pursuing roll back we were trying
2:59:00to roll back Soviet power to put it
2:59:03bluntly we were trying to wreck the
2:59:04Soviet Union
2:59:06okay and I would not be surprised moving
2:59:09forward with regard to China if the
2:59:12United States pursues a serious roll
2:59:14back policy and uh so you're saying
2:59:17throughout history United States was
2:59:19always doing that always where's that
2:59:21from why why can't we respect the power
2:59:24of other nations because they may be a
2:59:27threat to us we well I mean you don't
2:59:31look you don't respect the power of
2:59:34other nations you fear the power of
2:59:36other nations well fear and respect to
2:59:38Nextdoor neighbors depending on the
2:59:40neighborhood you're living in but I I
2:59:42just mean it's it could be very
2:59:44counterproductive to try because if you
2:59:47can empathize with they if if you assume
2:59:49they rational actors you trying to roll
2:59:51back will
2:59:53create um would lean into the
2:59:56uncertainty of potential conflict so you
2:59:59want to avoid the uncertainty of
3:00:00potential conflict caution right well
3:00:04yes and no look your point is you want
3:00:06to empathize you want to be able to put
3:00:07yourself in the shoes of the other side
3:00:10yes I agree 100% but with that right
3:00:13it's very important if you're a first
3:00:15class strategist to be able to do that
3:00:17but it's the same time there is this
3:00:19competition for power taking place and
3:00:22what you want to do is maximize how much
3:00:24power you have relative to the other
3:00:27side and the other side wants to
3:00:28maximize how much power it has relative
3:00:31to you so you have this competition for
3:00:34power right uh that's taking place all
3:00:38the time and that's taking place at the
3:00:41same time you want to have empathy or
3:00:43you want to be able to put yourself in
3:00:44the shoes of the other side so those two
3:00:47things kind of go together right it just
3:00:49feels less threatening to build up your
3:00:53thing versus try to hurt the other
3:00:57person's thing the other group's thing
3:00:59right but if you build up your own power
3:01:02you were building up your capability to
3:01:05hurt the other side right but like you I
3:01:08guess you don't rattle the saber just
3:01:10just work on manufacturing
3:01:12Sabers well that I agree with I I think
3:01:15that you know the United States you know
3:01:19uh wants to make sure it has a big stick
3:01:22in East Asia for purposes of containing
3:01:25China and avoiding a war right again I
3:01:28want to be clear I'm not advocating uh
3:01:30that we start World War III but the
3:01:33point is you want to have a big stick
3:01:35and you want to make sure that you don't
3:01:38overstep your bounds in terms of using
3:01:40that big stick this is the danger with
3:01:42rollback right that you get too
3:01:45aggressive and you precipitate a war
3:01:48right and you also just have to be very
3:01:50careful what you say and to go back to
3:01:52your favorite argument you want to be
3:01:55able to have empathy or put yourself in
3:01:58uh the shoes of the other side because
3:02:00if you do something you want to think
3:02:02smartly about what that other side how
3:02:04that other side is going to see your
3:02:06action and how they're going to react
3:02:09right and and mostly focus on the
3:02:11carrots have a giant stick laying around
3:02:13but never mention it just focus on the
3:02:16carrots well occasionally you have to
3:02:18mention the stick right no everyone
3:02:19knows the stick is there there is some
3:02:22truth in that right I mean yeah uh but
3:02:25you know and words matter a lot it feels
3:02:28you know this uh current President
3:02:31Biden's meeting with xiin ping and I
3:02:33think the wars exchanged there are
3:02:35really important I have a notion the
3:02:37leaders can stop Wars just as much as
3:02:40they can start
3:02:41wars well leaders matter there's no
3:02:43question about that no question but just
3:02:46on on red Eric you want to remember that
3:02:50Putin has on more than one occasion very
3:02:54subtly rattled the nuclear sword oh yeah
3:02:57and it has been very effective yeah
3:02:59because Joe Biden has paid attention and
3:03:03Joe Biden wants to make sure we don't
3:03:04end up in a thermonuclear war and thank
3:03:07goodness uh he's thinking that way so
3:03:10all Putin has to do is mention the
3:03:12possibility of nuclear war just to go
3:03:14back to Taiwan you know a switch areas
3:03:17of the world
3:03:18if you're interested in containing China
3:03:22and you're interested in
3:03:23deterrence and let's go back to those
3:03:26various scenarios where the Chinese win
3:03:29we win Chinese win but they do it at a
3:03:32costly at Great cost one could
3:03:36argue that that discussion that I laid
3:03:39out before didn't take into account
3:03:41nuclear weapons and all President Biden
3:03:45or any of his successors has to do is
3:03:48just very subtly uh rattle uh or or or
3:03:53or or employ the nuclear threat you know
3:03:59uh and just sort of remind the Chinese
3:04:02that you know you start a war over
3:04:04Taiwan it could easily escalate into a
3:04:06nuclear war you want to understand we
3:04:08both have nuclear weapons and if either
3:04:11one of us is put into a desperate
3:04:13situation we may turn to those nuclear
3:04:15weapons and oh by the way jingping you
3:04:19want to understand that we're out here
3:04:20in the water and using nuclear weapons
3:04:22in the water it's not
3:04:24that it's not the same as using War uh
3:04:27nuclear weapons on land so we may very
3:04:30well use them I'm not saying we will but
3:04:33anyway a little saber rattling yeah
3:04:36right let me just zoom out on human
3:04:38history what makes Empires collapse and
3:04:41what makes them last when they
3:04:44do when you look at human history in
3:04:47your sense
3:04:49thinking about the United States perhaps
3:04:50as an
3:04:51Empire I don't view the United States as
3:04:54an Empire uh what's the what's the def
3:04:57so to you Empire is a thing that seeks
3:05:00expansion
3:05:02constantly yeah I I think it's a country
3:05:06uh that incorporates
3:05:09different uh regions or areas around the
3:05:13world uh into sort of a giant sphere of
3:05:17influence without
3:05:20incorporating those
3:05:23territories actually into the state
3:05:25itself so you had this thing called the
3:05:28British Empire and it controlled areas
3:05:31like
3:05:32India uh uh North
3:05:36America uh and Kenya just to pick a
3:05:40couple instances at different points
3:05:43Singapore would be another example
3:05:45Australia would be another example Le so
3:05:48these were all entities that were part
3:05:52of the British Empire right and the
3:05:55United States has taken a stabit Empire
3:05:59after the Spanish American war for
3:06:02example uh with regard to the
3:06:04Philippines and Cuba and Puerto Rico but
3:06:09we never got serious about it there's
3:06:11never been an American Empire this is
3:06:13not to say the United States is not an
3:06:15incredibly powerful country that go all
3:06:17around the world building military bases
3:06:20and stationing troops Here There and
3:06:22Everywhere but we're not running an
3:06:25Empire the way the British Empire was
3:06:28run or the French
3:06:30Empire uh so the question for me is why
3:06:34did those Empires go away the why did
3:06:37the British Empire go away if you ever
3:06:39look at a map of the world in 1922 after
3:06:43World War I it's truly amazing how much
3:06:46of that map is controlled by Britain
3:06:49right they had a huge Empire and it
3:06:52disappeared probably by far the biggest
3:06:55in terms of area Empire and human
3:06:57history I think so I think that's right
3:07:00it almost has to be yeah right right uh
3:07:03it's crazy crazy yeah it's and then no
3:07:05longer no longer is the case yeah now I
3:07:08I going be clear the the Americans have
3:07:11wielded maybe even greater influence
3:07:14than Britain did when it had its Empire
3:07:16but I don't believe we have an EMP
3:07:17Empire that bears any resemblance to the
3:07:19British
3:07:21Empire so the question is what happened
3:07:23to that British Empire what happened to
3:07:25the French Empire what happened to the
3:07:27Belgian Empire what happened to the
3:07:29Dutch Empire these were countries that
3:07:32had colonies all over the planet the
3:07:34Dutch East Indies right Vietnam was you
3:07:38know French Indochina where where did
3:07:41those Empires go two factors finish them
3:07:44off number one nationalism nationalism
3:07:48became a very powerful force in the 19th
3:07:50century it began to rear its head in the
3:07:52late 18th century it became a very
3:07:55powerful force in the 19th and certainly
3:07:57in the 20th can you explain nationalism
3:07:58here nationalism is the idea that these
3:08:01different nations that were part of the
3:08:04Empire like the Kenyans wanted their own
3:08:07State nation state this is my point
3:08:09about the Palestinians right this is
3:08:11Palestinian nationalism what is Zionism
3:08:14Zionism is Jewish nationalism Jewish
3:08:18nationalism think of Theodore herzl's
3:08:21famous book it's called the Jewish State
3:08:24nation state think of the word nation
3:08:26state that embodies nationalism nation
3:08:28state Jewish State Palestinians want
3:08:31their own State two- State solution
3:08:34right can't beat the Palestinians into
3:08:36submission right the Indians wanted
3:08:39their own State The pakistanis Wanted
3:08:41their own State the Kenyans wanted their
3:08:43own State Singapore wanted its own State
3:08:46oh the Americans wanted their own State
3:08:47this is called the American Revolution y
3:08:50right so that's the first reason
3:08:53nationalism that these Empires
3:08:55disappeared the second reason is that
3:08:58from a cost benefit analysis uh they no
3:09:01longer made any sense uh and it was the
3:09:04coming of the Industrial Revolution once
3:09:06the Industrial Revolution comes an
3:09:08Empire is basically an albatross around
3:09:11your neck I would argue that the British
3:09:12Empire was an albatross around Britain's
3:09:15neck in most of the 20th century some my
3:09:17friends disagree with that and think
3:09:19there were all sorts of benefits uh from
3:09:21the British Empire but you want to
3:09:24remember that in the 20th century the
3:09:26three countries that really were
3:09:29powerful were the United States Germany
3:09:32and the Soviet Union those were the big
3:09:34three did any of them have an Empire
3:09:38no that's a good car in the industrial
3:09:41world yes you don't need you know uh an
3:09:46Empire right what you need is a powerful
3:09:48manufacturing base well the the cost
3:09:51benefit analysis is different before the
3:09:53Industrial Revolution there's been many
3:09:55empires there's no question that Empires
3:09:58uh came and went right I mean yes right
3:10:01and or if do just look at the British
3:10:04and the French uh in the Seven Years War
3:10:071756 to
3:10:091763 the British win they get Canada
3:10:13right and that's why you know Quebec
3:10:16Montreal all these big French speaking
3:10:18areas are now part of uh Canada right uh
3:10:24so borders change and you know C
3:10:27countries got established the United
3:10:29States being one and remember South
3:10:32American Central America were once
3:10:34completely dominated by the Spanish and
3:10:37in the case of Brazil the
3:10:39Portuguese but uh they all in the 19th
3:10:42century got their
3:10:44independence right and what I'm saying
3:10:47to you is in the 19th and in the 20th
3:10:49century there were two forces that were
3:10:52really driving the train one is
3:10:54nationalism and then the other is the
3:10:56Industrial Revolution which changes the
3:10:58cost benefit
3:11:00analysis almost too crazy of a question
3:11:02but if you
3:11:04look let me calculate let's say 500
3:11:06years from now and you you you you John
3:11:11M sh Som travel through time and are at
3:11:13a bookstore looking at the uh entire
3:11:16history of human civilization in a
3:11:18single book what role does US play like
3:11:21what's the story of us over the next 100
3:11:24200 300
3:11:26years is it a big role small
3:11:31role well that's a long time if you you
3:11:36ask me let's just say the next hundred
3:11:38years yeah that's okay I think that's
3:11:40still tough that's still tough but
3:11:43actually you know I think we're in
3:11:45excellent shape M and here's the reason
3:11:50going back to the beginning of our
3:11:52conversation you asked me you know about
3:11:56power and I told you the two principal
3:11:58building blocks of Power are population
3:12:01size and wealth okay and therefore you
3:12:06want to look around the world and you
3:12:08want to look at what you think the
3:12:10demographics are of countries like
3:12:14Britain uh the United States
3:12:18uh
3:12:19Iran uh China Russia pick your country
3:12:23moving forward right what the
3:12:25demographics look like and how wealthy
3:12:28of those are those countries likely to
3:12:30be what you discover very quickly and is
3:12:33that almost every country around the
3:12:35world is
3:12:37depopulating over
3:12:39time right Russia's going to be much
3:12:41smaller China's going to be much smaller
3:12:44uh 100 years from now than both of those
3:12:46countries or it's best we could tell
3:12:49United
3:12:51States American women are not having
3:12:53lots of babies these days no question
3:12:56about that but we have immigration we're
3:12:59an immigrant culture you're a perfect
3:13:01manifestation of that you're perfect
3:13:04you're now an American that's wonderful
3:13:06we need more people like you right so
3:13:09when I hear Donald Trump and other
3:13:12arguing that immigration's a terrible
3:13:14thing this is
3:13:15ridiculous immig ation is what made us
3:13:18great right it's when my relatives came
3:13:21over in the middle of the 19th century
3:13:23from Germany and Ireland right that's
3:13:26fascinating like you know because you
3:13:28know there's been a huge
3:13:30concern America and other developed
3:13:33nations are not having enough children
3:13:35but you you just made me
3:13:37realize in the long Arc of History the
3:13:40United States has gotten really damn
3:13:42good at integrating immigrants and you
3:13:45and like helping them flourish the whole
3:13:48diversity of uh that that makes up
3:13:51America there's a Machinery of
3:13:53integrating other
3:13:55cultures yeah yeah just very quickly on
3:13:57this Sam Huntington's book who are we
3:14:01yeah uh which in many ways I I love that
3:14:05book but it has one fundamental flaw and
3:14:08a number of people told him beforehand
3:14:10that that flaw existed and he didn't fix
3:14:13it but Sam argues in the book that we
3:14:16have large numbers of Hispanics in this
3:14:19country and we're doing a very poor job
3:14:23of integrating them into the mainstream
3:14:26and they're not becoming Americans and
3:14:28because many of them are concentrated in
3:14:30the southwest of the United States
3:14:32unlike other ethnic groups that were
3:14:34spread out all over God's Little Green
3:14:35Acre right we're going to have uh this
3:14:39cohesive group of
3:14:41Spanish-speaking Americans right who we
3:14:44going to want to break away and the
3:14:47United States is no longer going to be
3:14:50you know a reasonably coherent nation
3:14:53state he's wrong the all the evidence is
3:14:57that Hispanics are integrating into the
3:15:01American
3:15:02mainstream uh more quickly and more
3:15:05effectively than the European econom uh
3:15:08the European immigrant groups that came
3:15:10starting around 1835 if you look at
3:15:13immigration from Europe into the United
3:15:15States leaving aside the original wasps
3:15:17who came over and founded the place the
3:15:20immigrants start coming in large numbers
3:15:22in 1835 and we really don't shut the
3:15:25door until
3:15:261924 right starting this is a crude
3:15:29overview starting in 1835 and running up
3:15:32till about
3:15:331885 it's mainly Germans and Irish
3:15:36that's why Germans are the largest
3:15:38ethnic group to ever come to the United
3:15:40States and the Irish are right behind
3:15:42them these are the European ethnic
3:15:43groups we're talking about then starting
3:15:45in 1885
3:15:47uh polls Jews and Italians start coming
3:15:51right uh and the Germans and Irish keep
3:15:54coming and this is why Ellis Island is
3:15:56opened I think it's 1893 Ellis Island is
3:15:59open because Castle Garden in New York
3:16:02which had handled all the previous
3:16:05immigrants coming across the pond Castle
3:16:08Garden couldn't handle them all so they
3:16:09opened up Ellis Island that's why
3:16:12somebody like me I can't find my distant
3:16:15relatives records in Ellis Island
3:16:18because they came through Castle Garden
3:16:20right whereas lots of Jews I know lots
3:16:23of Italians I know they can find their
3:16:25relatives records in Ellis Island
3:16:27because they came through Ellis Island
3:16:28the point is you had all these
3:16:30immigrants who came in roughly between
3:16:331835 and 1924 when we shut the gates
3:16:36this the only time we've ever really
3:16:38shut the gates in a meaningful way right
3:16:41and this is what made America great
3:16:43right all these people and they made
3:16:45lots of babies right so in some sense
3:16:48make America great again means getting
3:16:49in getting more immigrants in well we
3:16:52open the gates again in' 65 MH closed
3:16:55them in 24 open them in 65 I'm
3:16:57oversimplifying the story here because
3:16:59we didn't completely shut them we almost
3:17:01completely shut them in 24 opened in 65
3:17:05and we've had huge numbers of immigrants
3:17:07flowing in these immigrants who have
3:17:10been flowing in since 65 are not
3:17:12Europeans they're not mainly Europeans
3:17:15they're mainly Hispanic anics and
3:17:18Asians if you look at those Hispanics
3:17:20and Asians they're integrating into the
3:17:24American mainstream at a much faster and
3:17:28more effective clip than was the case
3:17:31with those immigrants who come came in
3:17:33in the 19th century and early 20th
3:17:35century the Irish oh my God you know
3:17:39they were treated horribly there's a
3:17:40book a very famous book that's been
3:17:43written called when the Irish became
3:17:45White just think about the title of that
3:17:48book there was discrimination against
3:17:50all these groups right and the worst
3:17:53discrimination of course was against
3:17:54Chinese Americans right uh but we've
3:17:58gotten much better and what we should do
3:18:02moving forward is redouble our efforts
3:18:05to integrate immigrants into the
3:18:08American mainstream you know Hispanics
3:18:11you know Asians of All Sorts because the
3:18:15fact is that America is rapidly reaching
3:18:19the point where it's not going to be an
3:18:21allwhite country right uh I have five
3:18:25children and two of my children are was
3:18:28it Generation Z gen
3:18:31Z gen Z is the last majority
3:18:35white uh generation right subsequent
3:18:40Generations are not majority white uh So
3:18:44for anybody who's bothered by this I'm
3:18:45not bothered by that but for anybody who
3:18:48is bothered by this they better get used
3:18:50to it because Americans aren't making
3:18:54enough babies that we can continue to
3:18:59grow uh population wise in a robust way
3:19:02so we need immigration and we're an
3:19:04immigrant culture and this is a great
3:19:06virtue it has been a great virtue over
3:19:09time it should be a source of hope not
3:19:12worry that's my view that's my view and
3:19:16America when it works is a place that is
3:19:20very attractive to immigrants and
3:19:22immigrants can do very well here and and
3:19:25then the real key moving forward is
3:19:28inter marriage right and you have a huge
3:19:30amount of in marriage right somebody was
3:19:33telling me not too long ago that the
3:19:35highest intermarriage rates in the
3:19:37United States are among Asian women
3:19:39Asian-American women Asian women and
3:19:42anglos right and uh I say wonderful uh
3:19:46and uh great yeah no the more love love
3:19:50uh is the fastest way to integrate yeah
3:19:53well you don't what you want to do is
3:19:55you want to eliminate difference yes
3:19:57right you want to eliminate difference
3:20:00right it's like you know people who say
3:20:02I'm an anti semi right I have two
3:20:06grandsons who Adolf Hitler would have
3:20:08thrown into a guest chamber one of whose
3:20:11first name is John and middle name is
3:20:13Mir shimer right yeah this is what you
3:20:17want yeah right Steve Walt's wife and
3:20:21his two children would have been thrown
3:20:23into a gas chamber by Adolf Hitler right
3:20:26this is what you want you want
3:20:27intermarriage now there are a good
3:20:29number of people in some of those groups
3:20:31especially among Jews who don't like
3:20:33inter marriage right but they've lost
3:20:36because I haven't looked recently at the
3:20:39data uh the data among um for inter
3:20:42marriage rates among uh basically
3:20:44secular Jews but it used to be around
3:20:4762% large numbers of Jews marry goam and
3:20:51they've lost because of inter marriage
3:20:53inter marriage helps fight tribalism
3:20:57destructive kind of tribalism exactly
3:20:59calling me an
3:21:00anti-semite they haven't met my
3:21:02grandsons my son-in-law nieces that I a
3:21:06niece that I have nephews that I
3:21:09have brother-in-laws that I have Jewish
3:21:12right come on and this this gives a
3:21:15really nice hopeful view of America is
3:21:18is the integration of different
3:21:20different cultures different kinds of
3:21:22peoples that is a unique property of
3:21:24America yes but just to go back to where
3:21:26we started it was not smooth in the
3:21:28beginning all things are rough in the
3:21:30beginning all things are rough in the
3:21:33beginning what advice would you give to
3:21:36a young person today about how to have a
3:21:38career they can be proud of or life they
3:21:40can be proud of well I think it's very
3:21:44important to make sure that you do
3:21:47something in life that really interests
3:21:51you my mother used to use this phrase
3:21:53floats your boat you want to do
3:21:55something that floats your boat or to
3:21:57use another one of my mother's phrase
3:21:59phrases you want to get up you want to
3:22:01do something where you get up out of bed
3:22:03in the morning with a bounce in your
3:22:04step right so I I think that you know if
3:22:08your mother and father want you to be a
3:22:09lawyer and they're pushing you to be a
3:22:11lawyer and you don't want to be a lawyer
3:22:13you want to be a policeman be a
3:22:15policeman right don't do what other
3:22:18people want you to do because it's very
3:22:20important to find a job and occupation
3:22:23that you really
3:22:25love uh the second thing I would say and
3:22:28this has to do with your point about um
3:22:31humility
3:22:33uh uh you want to think about the
3:22:35humility uis index my friend Steve
3:22:38vanever who teaches at MIT he and I
3:22:41invented this concept we call it the uis
3:22:43humility index and you want to have a
3:22:47healthy dose of humility but you also
3:22:49want to have a healthy dose of
3:22:52uis you want to think you can change the
3:22:54world you want to think you can make
3:22:57things better for yourself you want to
3:23:00take chances you want to think sometimes
3:23:02that you know better than other people
3:23:03do huis is not a bad thing but at the
3:23:06same time you have to have humility yeah
3:23:09you have to understand that a man or a
3:23:12woman has his or her limits and you want
3:23:15to listen to other people people you
3:23:16want to be a good listener right uh so
3:23:20always remember the importance of the
3:23:22uis humility index and the importance of
3:23:25having healthy doses of both uus and
3:23:30humility speaking of humility you're
3:23:33mortal like all humans are do you Ponder
3:23:36your mortality are you afraid of it are
3:23:39you afraid of
3:23:41death I'm not sure I'm afraid of death
3:23:44uh I I don't want to die because I enjoy
3:23:48life so much too much fun yeah I you
3:23:53know given how horrible the world is
3:23:55today I hate to I hate to say that I'm
3:23:58having too much fun but do I find what I
3:24:02do interesting and gratifying I I I do
3:24:08uh I just love what I do uh and I love
3:24:12studying you know International politics
3:24:14and I love being intellectually curious
3:24:17about all sorts of subjects I love
3:24:19talking to you about this and that uh I
3:24:22mean this is really wonderful and I
3:24:24often tell people you know thank
3:24:26goodness I'm only 28 years old because I
3:24:28do try to behave like I'm only 28 years
3:24:31old but I am well aware of the fact that
3:24:35uh as my mother used to say nothing is
3:24:37forever and that includes me and when
3:24:40you're 75 going on 76 you understand
3:24:43that you have a limited number of years
3:24:45left uh and I find that depressing um
3:24:49because I've been I've been very lucky
3:24:51and uh and I feel like I've won the
3:24:54lottery and uh I'm very thankful for
3:24:57that and I I'd like to you know make it
3:24:59last for as long as possible but uh I do
3:25:03understand that you know nothing is
3:25:05forever yeah the finiteness of things
3:25:09yeah you never think that when you're
3:25:11young I mean you know you think uh
3:25:14you're going to live forever and you're
3:25:16just not going to get old I never
3:25:18thought this would happen that I would
3:25:21become 75 years old well you you got you
3:25:24got so much energy and boldness and
3:25:26fearlessness and and and excitement to
3:25:28you that I'm I'm really grateful to see
3:25:31that especially given how much I'm sure
3:25:33you've been attacked for
3:25:36having uh bold ideas and presenting them
3:25:39and not
3:25:41losing yeah not losing that youthful
3:25:43energy is beautiful to see thank you not
3:25:47becoming cynical John it's a huge honor
3:25:49to speak with you that you give me so
3:25:51much time and so much respect and so
3:25:53much love I this was a really incredible
3:25:56conversation thank you so much for
3:25:58everything you do in the world for
3:26:00looking out into the world and trying to
3:26:02understand it and teach us and thank you
3:26:05so much for talking with a silly kid
3:26:07like me is my pleasure thank you very
3:26:09much I thoroughly enjoyed it awesome
3:26:13thanks for listening to this
3:26:14conversation with John mimer to support
3:26:16this podcast please check out our
3:26:18sponsors in the description and now let
3:26:20me leave you with some words from
3:26:23Plato Only The Dead have seen the end of
3:26:28War thank you for listening and hope to
3:26:30see you next time

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of John Mearsheimer: Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, China, NATO, and WW3 | Lex Fridman Podcast #401 by Lex Fridman, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 30,270 words across 4,473 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.