Download "Джон Миршаймер: Россия-Украина, Израиль-Палестина, Китай, НАТО, и Война | Лекс Фридман Подкаст #401"
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252Fr4wLXNydzeY%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
Table of contents
Similar videos from our catalog
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252F0opte1FQjxE%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252F3vKUOWEj630%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252F4Tt-o56oGKo%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FM-ZH3psUbfU%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FMSsYlPDmxfE%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FVed2e2IP3LA%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FZSddchIGNG0%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FhppbxV9C63g%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FjW2ihBRzLxc%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FDxREm3s1scA%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
Video tags
Subtitles
Russian
00:00:00
the following is a conversation with00:00:01
John mimer a professor at University of00:00:04
Chicago and one of the most influential00:00:07
and controversial thinkers in the world00:00:10
he teaches speaks and writes about the00:00:12
nature of power and War on the global00:00:15
stage in history and00:00:18
today please allow me to say once again00:00:22
my hope for this little journey I'm00:00:24
on I will speak to everyone on all sides00:00:29
with compassion with empathy and with00:00:33
backbone I will speak with Vladimir00:00:36
Putin and with vadimus zsky with00:00:39
Russians and with ukrainians with00:00:41
Israelis and with Palestinians with00:00:45
everyone my goal is to do whatever small00:00:48
part I can to decrease the amount of00:00:50
suffering in the world by trying to00:00:53
reveal our common00:00:55
Humanity I believe that in the end Truth00:00:59
and Love00:01:02
wins I will get attacked for being naive00:01:05
for being a shill for being00:01:08
weak I am none of those things but I do00:01:12
make mistakes and I will get00:01:15
better I love you00:01:18
all this is Alex Freedman podcast to00:01:21
support it please check out our sponsors00:01:23
in the description and now dear friends00:01:26
here's John00:01:28
mammer can you explain your view on00:01:31
power in international Politics as00:01:33
outlined in your book The Tragedy of00:01:35
great power politics and in your writing00:01:38
since then yeah I make two sets of00:01:40
points there first of all I believe that00:01:43
power is the currency of international00:01:45
relations and by that I mean that states00:01:47
are deeply interested in the balance of00:01:50
power and they're interested in00:01:51
maximizing how much power they control00:01:55
and the question is why States care so00:01:58
much about power I in the International00:02:01
System there's no higher authority so if00:02:05
you get into trouble and you dial 91100:02:08
there's nobody at the other end in a00:02:11
system like that you have no choice but00:02:16
to figure out for yourself how best to00:02:19
protect yourself and the best way to00:02:21
protect yourself is to be powerful to00:02:24
have as much power as you can possibly00:02:26
gain over all the other states in the00:02:29
system therefore States care about power00:02:34
because it enhances or maximizes their00:02:37
prospects for survival second point I00:02:39
would make is that in the real story or00:02:42
in my story power is largely a function00:02:46
of material factors uh the two ke key00:02:50
building blocks of Power are population00:02:54
size and wealth you want to have a lot00:02:56
of people and you want to be really00:02:58
wealthy of course of course this is why00:03:00
the United States is so powerful it has00:03:04
lots of people and it has lots of wealth00:03:07
China was not considered a great power00:03:10
until00:03:11
recently uh because it didn't have a lot00:03:13
of wealth certainly had population size00:03:16
but it didn't have wealth and without00:03:18
both a large population and much wealth00:03:21
you're usually not considered a great00:03:24
power uh so I think power matters uh but00:03:29
uh when we talk about power it's00:03:31
important to understand that it's a00:03:34
population size and wealth that are00:03:36
underpinning it so there's a lot of00:03:38
interesting things there first you said00:03:43
nations in relation to each other are is00:03:46
essentially in a state of anarchism yeah00:03:49
well Anarchy basically means the00:03:52
opposite of hierarchy sometimes people00:03:55
think when you're talking about Anarchy00:03:56
you're talking about murder and mayham00:03:58
but that's not what Anarchy means in the00:04:00
realist context Anarchy simply means00:04:04
that you don't have hierarchy there's no00:04:06
higher authority that sits above States00:04:09
states are like pool balls on a table00:04:12
right and in an anarchic world uh00:04:16
there's no higher authority that you can00:04:19
turn to uh if you get into trouble and00:04:22
of course the political philosopher who00:04:25
laid this all out was Thomas Hobbs and00:04:29
Hobbs talked about life in the state of00:04:31
nature and in the state of nature you00:04:34
have00:04:35
individuals and those individuals00:04:37
compete with each other for power and00:04:39
the reason that they do is because in00:04:41
the state of nature by definition you00:04:43
have no higher authority and hobbs' view00:04:47
is that the way to get out of this00:04:49
terrible situation where individuals are00:04:52
competing with each other and even00:04:54
killing each other is to create a state00:04:57
it's what he calls the Leviathan and00:04:59
that of course is the title of his00:05:01
famous book so the idea is to escape00:05:06
Anarchy you create a state and that00:05:09
means you go from Anarchy to hierarchy00:05:13
the problem in international politics is00:05:16
that there is no world State there is no00:05:18
hierarchy and if you have no hierarchy00:05:22
and you're in an anarchic system you00:05:25
have no choice but to try to maximize00:05:28
your relative power to make sure you are00:05:32
as we used to say when I was a kid on00:05:33
New York City playgrounds the biggest00:05:35
and baddest dude on the Block not00:05:38
because you necessarily want to beat up00:05:40
on other kids or on other states but00:05:43
because again that's the best way to00:05:46
survive and as I like to point out to00:05:49
people the best example of what happens00:05:51
when you're weak in international00:05:54
politics is what the Chinese call the00:05:56
century of national humiliation uh from00:05:59
from the late 1840s to the late 1940s00:06:02
the Chinese were remarkably weak and the00:06:05
great powers in the system prayed upon00:06:07
them and uh that sends a very important00:06:11
message to not only the Chinese but to00:06:13
other states in the system don't be weak00:06:16
be as powerful as you can and we'll talk00:06:18
about it but humiliation can lead to00:06:20
resentment and resentment leads to uh00:06:22
something you've also studied which is00:06:24
Nazi Germany in the00:06:26
1930s we'll talk about it um00:06:30
but staying to the psychology and00:06:33
philosophy00:06:35
picture what's the connection between00:06:37
the will to power in the individual as00:06:39
you mentioned and the will to power in a00:06:42
nation the will to power in an00:06:45
individual has a lot to do with00:06:46
individual's psychology uh the story00:06:49
that I tell about the pursuit of power00:06:51
is a structural argument it it's an00:06:53
argument that says when you are in a00:06:56
particular structure when you're in a00:06:59
system that has a specific00:07:03
architecture which is00:07:05
anarchy the states have no choice but to00:07:11
compete for power uh so structure is00:07:14
really driving the story here Will To00:07:17
Power has a lot more to do with an00:07:19
individual uh in in the nichan story00:07:23
where that concept comes from so it's00:07:27
very important to understand that I'm00:07:28
not arguing that states are inherently00:07:32
aggressive right my point is that as00:07:35
long as states are in Anarchy right they00:07:39
have no choice but to behave in an00:07:42
aggressive fashion but if you went to a00:07:45
hierarchic system uh there's no reason00:07:49
for those states to worry about the00:07:51
balance of power because if they get00:07:53
into trouble there is a higher authority00:07:55
that they can turn to there is in effect00:07:58
the Leviathan so what is the role of00:08:00
military might in this uh will to power00:08:04
on the national level well military00:08:07
might's what ultimately matters as I00:08:09
said to you before the two building00:08:10
blocks of Power are population size and00:08:14
wealth you didn't mention military I did00:08:17
not no that's right and it's good that00:08:19
you caught that because if you have a00:08:21
large population and you're a wealthy00:08:24
country what you do is you build a large00:08:28
military and it's ultimately the size of00:08:31
your military that matters uh because00:08:34
militaries fight Wars and if states are00:08:37
concerned about survival which I argue00:08:40
is the principal goal of every state in00:08:43
the International System for what I00:08:45
think are obvious reasons then they're00:08:47
going to care about having a powerful00:08:50
military that can protect them if00:08:53
another state comes after them what's00:08:56
not obvious that a large Nation with a00:08:58
lot of people a lot of money should00:09:00
necessarily build a gigantic Army and00:09:03
seek to attain00:09:06
superpower like dominant sole superpower00:09:09
status to military might but you're00:09:12
saying as you see the world today it has00:09:15
to be that way yeah I'm arguing it is00:09:18
obvious if you're a state in the00:09:20
International System uh do you want to00:09:22
be weak uh if you live next door to Nazi00:09:26
Germany or imperial Germany or aonic00:09:29
France or even the United States the00:09:31
United States is a ruthless great power00:09:33
you surely recognize that and if you're00:09:36
dealing with the United States of00:09:37
America and you're Vladimir Putin you00:09:39
want to make sure you're as powerful as00:09:41
possible so that the United States00:09:43
doesn't put its gun sits on you and come00:09:45
after you same thing is true with China00:09:47
you want to be powerful in the00:09:48
International System States understand00:09:51
that and they go to Great Lengths to00:09:52
become powerful just take the United00:09:55
States of America when it started in00:09:58
1783 it was comprised of 13 measley00:10:01
colonies strung out along the Atlantic00:10:03
Seaboard over time you know the uh00:10:08
various leaders of the United States00:10:10
went to Great Lengths to turn that00:10:12
country into the dominant power in the00:10:16
Western Hemisphere and then once that00:10:19
was achieved in 1900 we've gone to Great00:10:21
Lengths to make sure that there's no00:10:24
peer uh competitor in the system uh we00:10:29
just want to make sure that we're number00:10:32
one uh and my argument is that this is00:10:35
not peculiar to the United00:10:37
States uh if I'm China for example00:10:42
today I would want to dominate Asia the00:10:46
way the United States dominates the00:10:48
Western Hemisphere they'd be fools not00:10:50
to if I were Imperial Germany I'd want00:10:53
to dominate all of Europe the way the00:10:55
United States dominates the Western00:10:57
Hemisphere why because if if you00:10:59
dominate all of Europe assum your00:11:01
Imperial Germany or Napoleonic France00:11:04
then no other state in the area or in00:11:07
the region can threaten you because00:11:09
you're simply so powerful uh and again00:11:12
what I'm saying here is that the00:11:14
structure of the International System00:11:16
really matters it's the fact that you're00:11:18
in this anarchic system where survival00:11:21
is your principal goal and where I can't00:11:23
know your intentions right you're00:11:25
another state I can't know that it's00:11:28
some point you might not come after me00:11:31
you might and if you're really powerful00:11:34
and I'm not I'm in deep trouble yeah so00:11:39
some of the ideas underlying what you've00:11:41
said uh offensive realism which I would00:11:44
love to talk to you about sort of the00:11:46
history of realism versus liberalism but00:11:49
some of the ideas you already mentioned00:11:51
uh Anarchy between00:11:53
states everybody's trying to develop a00:11:56
military capabilities uncertainty such00:11:59
an interesting concept States cannot be00:12:02
sure that other states will not use00:12:04
military capabilities against them which00:12:06
is it's of enormous importance story and00:12:09
so interesting because you also say that00:12:12
this makes realist more cautious and00:12:14
more00:12:15
peaceful the00:12:18
uncertainty because of all the00:12:20
uncertainty involved here it's better to00:12:23
approach International politics with00:12:26
caution is really interesting to think00:12:28
about00:12:29
uh again survival most States interested00:12:32
in survival and the other interesting00:12:33
thing is you assume all the states are00:12:38
rational um which most of the time most00:12:42
of the time you call this framework00:12:45
offensive realism C can you just give a00:12:48
overview of the history of the realism00:12:51
versus liberalism debate as World Views00:12:56
well I think for many cent CES now the00:13:00
big00:13:01
divide uh within the world of00:13:04
international relations00:13:06
theory is between realism and liberalism00:13:11
these are Tim honored bodies of theory00:13:15
and before I tell you what I think the00:13:17
differences are between those two bodies00:13:18
of theory it is important to emphasize00:13:21
that there are differences among00:13:24
realists and differences among liberals00:13:29
um and uh so when you talk about me as00:13:32
an offensive realist you should00:13:34
understand that there are also defensive00:13:36
realists out there and there are uh a00:13:39
panoply of liberal theories as well but00:13:43
uh basically realists believe that power00:13:46
matters that states compete for power00:13:50
and that war is an instrument of00:13:53
statecraft and uh uh liberals on the00:13:57
other hand have what I would say is a00:14:00
more idealistic view of the world uh00:14:05
this is not to say that they're naive or00:14:07
foolish but they believe there are00:14:10
aspects of international00:14:13
politics uh that lead to a less00:14:17
competitive and more peaceful world than00:14:20
most realists see uh and I'll lay out00:14:25
for you very quickly what are the three00:14:28
major major liberal theories today that00:14:31
I think will give you a sense of the00:14:34
more optimistic perspective that is00:14:37
inherent in the liberal00:14:39
Enterprise uh the first and most00:14:41
important of the liberal theories is00:14:43
democratic peace Theory and this is a00:14:47
theory that says democracies do not00:14:50
fight against other00:14:52
democracies so the more the world is00:14:55
populated with democracies the less00:14:58
likely it is that we will have00:15:01
wars uh and this basic argument is00:15:04
inherent in Francis fukiyama is the end00:15:07
of History he argues that democracy00:15:11
Triumph first over fascism in the 20th00:15:14
century it then triumphed over communism00:15:18
and that means that in the future we're00:15:21
have more and more liberal democracies00:15:24
on the planet and if you have more and00:15:27
more liberal democracies in those00:15:28
democracies don't fight each other then00:15:31
you have a more peaceful world that was00:15:33
his argument it's a very liberal00:15:35
argument a realist like me would say00:15:39
that it doesn't matter whether a state00:15:42
is a democracy or not all states behave00:15:47
the same way because the structure of00:15:49
the system getting back to our earlier00:15:51
discussion about International Anarchy00:15:54
the structure of the system leaves those00:15:56
States no choice whether they're00:15:59
democracies or autocracies and again the00:16:02
liberal view this first liberal theory00:16:05
is that democracies don't fight other00:16:07
democracies and therefore the more00:16:09
democracies you have the more peaceful00:16:11
the world can I just uh sort of try to00:16:14
unpack that a little bit so on the00:16:17
Democratic peace Theory I guess would00:16:19
say that in democracies leaders are00:16:22
elected and the underlying assumption is00:16:24
most people want peace and so they will00:16:28
elect peacemakers so the more you00:16:30
democracies you have the more likely you00:16:32
have peace and then the realist00:16:35
perspective what says that it doesn't00:16:37
matter if the majority of people want00:16:39
peace the00:16:41
structure of international politics is00:16:44
such that superpowers want to become00:16:47
more Super and powerful and they do that00:16:50
through War you can't make that argument00:16:52
that you're making about democracies00:16:55
because if you're saying that00:16:56
democracies are inclined toward toward00:16:58
peace and the the electorate picks00:17:03
leaders who are inclined towards peace00:17:07
then you have to show that democracies00:17:09
are in general more peaceful than00:17:13
non-democracies and you can't support00:17:16
that argument you can find lots of00:17:19
evidence to support the argument that00:17:21
democracies don't fight other00:17:24
democracies so the argument I believe00:17:27
that you have to make if you're going to00:17:29
support Democratic peace Theory the main00:17:31
argument you have to make00:17:34
is that liberal00:17:37
democracies have a healthy respect for00:17:40
each other and they can assess each00:17:44
others intentions if you're a liberal00:17:46
democracy and I'm a liberal democracy we00:17:49
know we have value systems that argue00:17:53
against aggression and argue for00:17:57
peaceful resolution of of Crisis and00:17:59
therefore given these Norms we can trust00:18:03
each other we can know each other's00:18:05
intentions remember for realists like me00:18:08
uncertainty about intentions really00:18:10
helps Drive the train but if you're00:18:13
talking about two00:18:14
democracies right the argument there is00:18:17
that they know each other's intentions00:18:19
and for you sure maybe democracies00:18:22
reduce uncertainty a little bit but not00:18:24
enough to stop the train I think that's00:18:27
right yeah that's that that's right so00:18:29
that's Democratic peace theory yes the00:18:31
second theory is economic00:18:32
interdependence Theory and that's the00:18:34
argument that in a globalized world like00:18:37
the one that we live in and have lived00:18:40
in for a long time there's a great deal00:18:42
of economic interdependence and if you00:18:44
and I are two00:18:45
countries uh or if you and me are two00:18:47
countries and uh we're economically00:18:50
interdependent and we're both getting00:18:52
prosperous as a result of this economic00:18:55
intercourse the last thing that we're00:18:56
going to do is start a war either one of00:18:59
us because who would kill the goose that00:19:01
lays the golden eggs it's that kind of00:19:03
argument so there you have an argument00:19:05
that economic interdependence leads to00:19:08
peace and then the third liberal00:19:10
argument has to do with00:19:12
institutions uh sometimes referred to as00:19:15
liberal institutionalism and this is the00:19:17
argument that if you can get States into00:19:20
institutions where they become rule00:19:23
abiding00:19:25
actors they will obey the rules that00:19:29
dictate that war is not00:19:33
acceptable uh so if you get them to00:19:35
accept uh uh the UN rules on when you00:19:41
can and cannot initiate a war uh then00:19:45
you'll have a more peaceful world so00:19:47
those are the liberal theories and as00:19:50
you can tell they're very different from00:19:53
realism as articulated by somebody like00:19:56
me can you uh maybe argue against the00:20:00
economic interdependence and in the00:20:02
institutions that institutions follow00:20:04
rules um a little bit so the the the00:20:08
Golden Goose with a golden egg you're00:20:11
saying that nations are happy to kill00:20:14
the goose because again they want Power00:20:19
if they think it's necessary to kill the00:20:21
Golden Goose yeah because of security00:20:25
concerns they will do it the point is00:20:29
that economic00:20:32
interdependence at its root has00:20:35
Prosperity as the core variable yeah in00:20:39
the realest story The Core variable is00:20:43
survival and survival always trumps00:20:47
Prosperity so if you go back to the00:20:51
period before World War I we're in00:20:54
Europe it's00:20:56
1913 or early 1900:20:58
14 what you see is that you have an00:21:02
intense security competition between all00:21:05
of the great powers on one side you have00:21:07
the Triple Alliance and on the other00:21:10
side you have the triple onon you have00:21:12
these two alliances and you have an00:21:14
intense security competition between00:21:16
them okay at the same time you have a00:21:19
great deal of economic interdependence00:21:21
it's amazing how much economic00:21:23
intercourse is taking place in Europe00:21:26
among all the actors right and people00:21:29
are getting prosperous or countries are00:21:30
getting prosperous as a result but00:21:33
nevertheless in the famous July crisis00:21:36
of00:21:37
1914 this economic Prosperity is unable00:21:41
to prevent World War I because security00:21:44
concerns or survival is more important00:21:47
uh so there are you know going to be00:21:50
lots of situations where prosperity and00:21:53
survival come into conflict and in those00:21:56
cases survival will win and uh maybe you00:22:00
can speak to the different camps of00:22:03
realists you said offensive and00:22:06
defensive can you draw a distinction00:22:07
between those two yeah let me just back00:22:10
up a bit on that one and you were00:22:13
talking about Will To Power before uh00:22:17
the first big00:22:19
divide between realists is structural00:22:23
realists and human nature realists nice00:22:27
mhm and Hans00:22:29
morganth who was influenced by nature00:22:32
and00:22:33
therefore had that will to power logic00:22:37
embedded in his thinking about how the00:22:39
world works right he was a human nature00:22:42
realist okay I'm a structural00:22:46
realist and I believe it's not human00:22:49
nature it's it's not individuals and00:22:52
some Will To Power that drives00:22:55
competition and War what dri drives00:22:58
competition in war is the structure of00:23:01
the system it's Anarchy so you're not as00:23:03
romantic as the human nature realists00:23:06
yeah there's just a a world of00:23:08
difference between the two sure it's00:23:10
just important to understand that so00:23:12
within that this from the structural00:23:15
that there's a subdivision also of00:23:16
offensive and defensive yes inside the00:23:18
structural realist world right and you00:23:23
have a handful of realists who believe00:23:29
that the structure of the00:23:31
system Fosters competition for sure00:23:34
security competition but it really rules00:23:38
out great power War almost all the time00:23:44
so it makes sense to care about the00:23:47
balance of power but to focus on00:23:51
maintaining how much power you have00:23:53
that's the defense of realism00:23:55
maintaining how much power you have not00:23:58
trying to gain more power because the00:24:01
argument the defensive realists make is00:24:03
that if you try to gain more power the00:24:06
system will punish you the structure00:24:08
will punish00:24:10
you I'm not a defensive realist I'm an00:24:14
offensive realist and my argument is00:24:16
that states look for00:24:19
opportunities to gain more power and00:24:22
every time they see or almost every time00:24:26
they see an opportunity to gain more00:24:28
power um and they think the likelihood00:24:31
of success is high and the cost will not00:24:34
be great they'll jump at that00:24:38
opportunity just to linger on the human00:24:41
nature00:24:43
perspective how do you explain Hitler00:24:46
and Nazi00:24:48
Germany uh just one of the more00:24:52
recent00:24:54
aggressive expansions through military00:24:57
might00:24:58
how do you explain that in the framework00:25:00
of uh offensive00:25:03
realism well I think that Nazi Germany00:25:07
was driven in large part by structural00:25:10
considerations and I think if you look00:25:12
at Imperial Germany which was largely00:25:15
responsible for starting World War I and00:25:18
of course Nazi Germany is largely00:25:19
responsible for starting World War II00:25:22
what that tells you is you didn't need00:25:24
Adolf Hitler to start World War I right00:25:27
and I believe that there is a good00:25:29
chance you would have had World War II00:25:32
in the absence of Hitler right I believe00:25:35
that Germany was very powerful it was00:25:38
deeply worried about the balance of00:25:39
power in Europe and it had strong00:25:43
incentives to behave00:25:45
aggressively uh in in the late 1930s00:25:49
early00:25:50
1940s so I I believe that structure00:25:53
mattered however I want to qualify that00:25:55
in the case of Adolf hler because I do00:25:59
think he had what you would call a Will00:26:01
To Power I've never used that word to00:26:04
describe him before but it's consistent00:26:07
with my point that I often make that00:26:10
there are two leaders or there have been00:26:12
two leaders in modern history who are00:26:16
congenital00:26:17
aggressors uh and one was Napoleon and00:26:21
the other was Hitler now if you want to00:26:23
call that a Will To Power you can do00:26:25
that I I'm more comfortable referring to00:26:28
Hitler As A congenital aggressor and00:26:30
referring to Napoleon As A congenital00:26:32
aggressor although there were important00:26:34
differences between the two because00:26:36
Hitler was probably the most murderous00:26:39
leader uh in recorded history and00:26:43
Napoleon was not in that category at all00:26:47
uh but but both of them uh were uh00:26:50
driven by what you would call a Will To00:26:52
Power uh and that has to be uh Mar to00:26:58
the structural argument in Hitler's case00:27:00
and also in Napoleon's case is there00:27:03
some degree on the human psychology side00:27:05
that00:27:06
resentment because of how because of00:27:09
what happened after World War I led to00:27:13
Hitler wielding so much power and then00:27:15
Hitler starting World War II so this is00:27:17
the The Human Side perhaps the reason I00:27:20
asked that question is also because you00:27:22
mentioned the century of humiliation on00:27:24
the China side so to so to which degree00:27:27
the00:27:29
humiliation lead to Hitler and lead to00:27:31
World War I well the question of what00:27:34
led to Hitler is a very different00:27:36
question than the question of what led00:27:38
to World War II once Hitler was in power00:27:41
I mean after January 30th 1933 he's in00:27:45
power and then the question of what is00:27:47
driving him comes racing to the four uh00:27:51
is their resentment over the Versa00:27:54
treaty and what happened to Germany yes00:27:57
did that matter yes but my argument is00:28:01
that structure was the principal Factor00:28:05
uh driving the train in Hitler's case00:28:08
but what I'm saying here is that there00:28:11
were other factors at well as well00:28:13
resentment being one of them will to00:28:15
power or the fact that he was A00:28:17
congenital aggressor in my lexicon uh00:28:21
certainly mattered as well so I I don't00:28:24
want to dismiss um your point00:28:28
uh about resentment so Hitler in00:28:30
particular the way he wielded the way he00:28:33
gained so much power might have00:28:37
been the general resentment of the00:28:39
populace of the German populace I think00:28:42
that uh as a result of um defeating00:28:46
World War I and all the trials and00:28:48
tribulations associated with viar00:28:50
Germany and then the coming of uh the00:28:54
Great Depression all of those factors00:28:57
death definitely account for his coming00:28:59
to power I think that one of the00:29:02
reasons um that he was so successful at00:29:07
winning over the German people once he00:29:11
came to00:29:12
power uh was because there was a great00:29:16
deal of resentment uh in the German body00:29:20
politic and he played on that resentment00:29:23
that surely helped him get elected too00:29:25
but I think uh having studied the case00:29:28
it was even more important once he took00:29:31
over I also believe that one of the00:29:35
principle reasons that he was so popular00:29:38
and he was wildly popular inside Nazi00:29:41
Germany is because he was the only00:29:43
leader of an industrialized country who00:29:45
pulled this country out of the00:29:47
depression uh and that really00:29:49
mattered uh and uh it made him uh very00:29:53
effective it's also worth noting that he00:29:56
was a remarkably charismatic individual00:29:59
uh I find that hard to believe because00:30:01
every time I look at him or listen to00:30:02
his speeches uh he does not appear to be00:30:05
charismatic to me but uh I've talked to00:30:09
a number of people who are experts on00:30:11
this subject who assure me that he was00:30:14
very charismatic and I would note to you00:30:17
if you look at public opinion polls in00:30:19
Germany West Germany in the late 1940s00:30:22
this is the late 1940s after the Third00:30:25
Reich is destroyed in 19 45 he is still00:30:29
remarkably popular in the polls Stalin00:30:32
is still popular in many parts of00:30:34
Eastern Europe yeah yeah and Stalin's00:30:38
popular in many quarters inside00:30:41
Russia uh and Stalin murdered more of00:30:44
his own people than he murdered people00:30:47
outside of the Soviet Union and still to00:30:51
you the ties of History turn not on00:30:54
individuals but on structural00:30:56
considerations so so Hitler may be a uh00:31:01
surface00:31:03
layer characteristics of how Germany00:31:06
started a war but not the really the00:31:08
reason well history is a00:31:13
multidimensional phenomena so I hear and00:31:15
we're talking about Interstate relations00:31:18
here yes and realism is a theory about00:31:20
how States interact with each other and00:31:23
there are many other dimensions to00:31:26
International politic and if you're00:31:27
talking about someone like Adolf Hitler00:31:30
right uh why did he start World War II00:31:34
uh is a very different question then why00:31:36
did he uh start the Holocaust or why did00:31:40
he push forward a holocaust I mean00:31:42
that's you know a different question and00:31:45
realism doesn't answer that question so00:31:48
I want to be very clear that you know00:31:51
I'm not someone who argues that realism00:31:53
answers every question about00:31:55
International politics but it does00:31:57
answer what is you know one of the big00:32:01
if not the biggest questions that IR00:32:04
Scholars care about which is what causes00:32:06
security competition and what causes00:32:09
great power War does offensive realism00:32:12
answer the question why00:32:14
Hitler attacked the Soviet Union Yes00:32:18
because from a military strategy00:32:20
perspective you know there's pros and00:32:23
cons to that decision pros and cons to00:32:26
every decision the question is did he00:32:28
think that he could win a quick and00:32:29
decisive Victory and uh he did I mean as00:32:34
did his generals it's very interesting I00:32:36
I've spent a lot of time studying German00:32:38
decision making uh in World War II if00:32:42
you look at the German decision um to00:32:45
invade Poland on September 1st 1939 and00:32:48
you look at the uh German decision made00:32:52
France on May 10th 1940 and then the00:32:54
Soviet Union on June 22nd 194 41 what00:32:58
you see is there was actually quite a00:33:00
bit of resistance to Hitler in00:33:02
1938 at the time of Czechoslovakia00:33:07
Munich and there was also quite a bit of00:33:09
resistance in September00:33:12
1939 internally or you mean internally00:33:15
internally for sure yeah people had00:33:18
doubts they didn't think the ver mock00:33:20
was ready and given the fact that world00:33:23
war one had just ended about 20 years00:33:26
before for the thought of starting00:33:28
another European War uh was not00:33:31
especially attractive to lots of German00:33:33
policy makers including military00:33:36
leaders and then came France 1940 in the00:33:39
runup to May 10th 1940 uh there was huge00:33:44
resistance uh in the uh German Army to00:33:48
attacking France uh but that was00:33:53
eventually eliminated because they came00:33:55
up with a clever plan uh the manstein00:33:59
plan if you look at the decision to00:34:01
invade the Soviet Union on June 22nd00:34:04
1941 which is the only case where they00:34:07
fail they succeeded in France they00:34:09
succeeded in Poland they succeeded uh at00:34:13
Munich in00:34:14
1938 Soviet Union is where they fail00:34:17
there's hardly any resistance at all00:34:19
right yeah well and to say that they00:34:22
failed the Soviet Union I mean my00:34:24
grandfather F I mean from from the00:34:25
Soviet Union you know there's a lot of00:34:27
successes early on so there's poor00:34:31
military I would say uh strategic00:34:34
decisions along the way but it was uh it00:34:39
caught Stalin off00:34:41
guard maybe you can correct me but from00:34:43
my00:34:46
perspective terrifyingly so they could00:34:48
have been successful if certain00:34:51
different decisions were made from a00:34:52
military00:34:53
perspective yeah I I I've always had the00:34:56
since they came terrifyingly close to00:34:59
winning uh you could make the opposite00:35:01
argument that they were doomed uh but uh00:35:05
I I'm not terribly comfortable making00:35:07
that argument I think the ver mocked by00:35:11
the summer of00:35:13
1941 was a finally tuned instrument for00:35:17
War and the Red Army was in quite00:35:21
terrible shape uh Stalin had purged the00:35:24
officer Corp uh they had perform po00:35:27
poorly in Finland uh and uh there were00:35:32
all sorts of reasons to think that they00:35:34
were no match for the verock and if you00:35:37
look at what happened in the initial00:35:39
stages of the conflict that proved to be00:35:41
the case uh the Germans won a lot of00:35:45
significant tactical victories early on00:35:49
and if they focused and went to Moscow00:35:51
as quickly as possible it's again00:35:55
terrifyingly so could have been a00:35:58
basically topple topple00:36:01
Stalin um and one thing that's that's00:36:04
possible that's possible fortunately00:36:05
we're not going to run the experiment00:36:07
again but one could argue that that had00:36:11
they concentrated as the generals wanted00:36:13
to do in going straight for Moscow that00:36:17
they would have won I mean what Hitler00:36:18
wanted to do is he he wanted to go into00:36:21
the Ukraine I mean Hitler thought that00:36:23
the main axis uh there were three axes00:36:26
the Northern axis went towards Leningrad00:36:29
the central axis of course went to00:36:30
Moscow and then the southern axis Army00:36:33
group South uh headed towards Ukraine00:36:36
and deep into the caucuses and Hitler00:36:40
believed that uh that that should have00:36:43
been the main axis and in fact in00:36:46
1942 the Soviets excuse me the Germans00:36:49
go back on the offensive in00:36:51
1942 this is Operation Blue and the main00:36:55
axis in 42 is deep into the Ukraine and00:36:58
into the caucuses and that fails but one00:37:02
could argue that had they done that in00:37:04
41 had they not gone to Moscow had they00:37:07
gone you know had they concentrated on00:37:09
going deep into Ukraine and into the00:37:11
caucuses they could have knocked the00:37:14
Soviets out that way uh I'm I'm not sure00:37:18
that in the end I believe that I I think00:37:21
in the end the Soviets would have won no00:37:23
matter what but I'm not 100% sure of00:37:27
that so sometimes um maybe you can00:37:31
educate me but sometimes you know they00:37:35
say just like with Napoleon winter00:37:37
defeated Hitler in in Russia I think not00:37:41
often enough people tell the story of00:37:43
the of the soldiers and the the00:37:46
motivation and how hard they00:37:48
fight so uh it turns out that ukrainians00:37:52
and Russians are not easy to conquer00:37:55
they're the kinds of people that00:37:57
don't roll over and fight bravely there00:38:00
seems to be a difference in certain00:38:02
people peoples in how they see War how00:38:06
they approach War how proud they are to00:38:08
fight for their country to die for their00:38:10
country these kinds of things so I think00:38:12
Battle of stying gr tells at least to me00:38:15
a story of extremely Brave fighting on00:38:18
the Soviet side and that it's a00:38:21
component of War too it's not just00:38:24
structural it's not just mil strategy00:38:28
it's also the humans involved but maybe00:38:31
that's a romantic notion of war no I I00:38:33
think there's a great deal of Truth in00:38:35
that but let's just unpack it a bit in00:38:38
the case of uh the Soviet Union in World00:38:41
War II the counterargument to that um is00:38:47
that in World War I the uh Russian army00:38:52
disintegrated uh and uh if you look at00:38:55
what happened when Napoleon invaded in00:38:58
18112 and you look at what happened in00:39:03
1917 and then you look at what happened00:39:05
between 41 and00:39:07
45 the Napoleon case looks a lot like00:39:10
the Hitler case and it fits neatly with00:39:13
your argument but World War I does not00:39:15
fit neatly with your argument because00:39:18
the Russians lost and surrendered yeah00:39:21
and you had the infamous Treaty of BR00:39:24
lovk where the Soviet Union then because00:39:27
it went from Russia to the Soviet Union00:39:29
in October 1917 the Soviet Union00:39:31
surrendered large amounts of uh Soviet00:39:35
territory because it had suffered a00:39:37
humiliating defeat my argument for why00:39:40
the Russians let me take that back why00:39:42
the Soviets fought like wild dogs in00:39:45
World War II is that they were up00:39:47
against a genocidal00:39:49
adversary you want to understand that00:39:52
the Germans murdered huge numbers of00:39:56
Soviet00:39:57
PS uh the overall total was 3.7 million00:40:02
and by December December of 194100:40:06
remember the invasion is June 41 by00:40:08
December of00:40:09
1941 uh the Germans have murdered two00:40:12
million Soviet PS at that point in time00:40:15
they had murdered many more PWS than00:40:18
they had murdered Jews and this is not00:40:20
to deny for one second that they were on00:40:23
a murderous Rampage when it came to Jews00:40:26
but were also on a murderous Rampage00:40:28
when it came to Soviet citizens and00:40:32
Soviet soldiers right so those Soviet00:40:35
soldiers quickly came to understand that00:40:39
they were fighting for their lives if00:40:41
they were taken prisoner they would die00:40:45
so they fought like wild dogs yeah you00:40:48
know the story of the Holocaust of the 600:40:50
million Jews is often told extensively00:40:54
if Hitler want one conquer the Soviet00:40:58
Union it's terrifying to think on a much00:41:01
grander scam than the Holocaust what00:41:03
what would have happened to the Slavic00:41:06
people to the to the Soviet people00:41:08
absolutely all you have to do is read00:41:10
The Hunger plan right and they also had00:41:13
had a plan uh what is it called Grand00:41:16
planned East I forget the exact name of00:41:19
it uh which made it clear that they they00:41:22
were going to murder many tens of00:41:25
millions of people and by the way I00:41:27
believe that they would have murdered00:41:29
all the poles and all the Roma I mean my00:41:32
view is that the Jews were number one on00:41:35
the genocidal Hit List the Roma or the00:41:38
gypsies were number two and the Poes00:41:40
were number three uh and of course I00:41:43
just explained to you how many PS they00:41:46
had killed so they would have ended up00:41:47
murdering huge numbers of Soviet00:41:51
citizens as well but people quickly00:41:54
figured out that this was happen00:41:56
happening M that's my point to you and00:41:58
that gave them needless to say very00:42:01
powerful incentives to fight hard uh00:42:04
against uh the Germans and to make sure00:42:07
that they did not win to fast forward in00:42:11
time but not in00:42:16
space let me ask you about uh the war in00:42:20
Ukraine why did Russia invade Ukraine on00:42:23
February 24th 202200:42:27
what are some of the explanations given00:42:29
and which do you find the most00:42:32
convincing well clearly the conventional00:42:34
wisdom is that Putin uh is principally00:42:38
responsible Putin is an imperialist uh00:42:41
he's an expansionist that's the00:42:43
conventional thinking yeah yeah and the00:42:45
idea is that uh he he uh is bent on00:42:50
creating a greater Russia uh and even00:42:53
more so he's interested in dominating in00:42:56
Eastern Europe if not all of00:42:59
Europe um and that Ukraine was the first00:43:02
stop on the train line uh and what he00:43:05
wanted to do was to conquer all of00:43:08
Ukraine uh incorporate it into a greater00:43:11
Russia and then he would move on and00:43:14
Conquer other countries this is the00:43:16
conventional wisdom my view is there is00:43:20
no evidence uh let me emphasize zero00:43:23
evidence to support that argument which00:43:26
part that he would the imperialist part00:43:29
the sense that he would he sought to00:43:32
conquer all of Ukraine and move on and00:43:36
Conquer there's no evidence he was00:43:37
interested in conquering all of Ukraine00:43:40
there was no interested there's no00:43:42
evidence beforehand that he was00:43:43
interested in coning conquering any of00:43:46
Ukraine and there's no way that an army00:43:49
that had00:43:52
190,000 troops at the00:43:54
most right could have conquered all of00:43:57
Ukraine just impossible as I like to00:44:00
emphasize when the Germans went into00:44:02
Poland in00:44:04
1939 uh and the Germans you want to00:44:06
remember were only intent on Conquering00:44:09
the Western half of Poland because the00:44:12
Soviets uh who came in later that month00:44:15
were going to conquer the eastern half00:44:16
of Poland so the Western half of Poland00:44:20
is much smaller than Ukraine and the00:44:23
Germans went in with 1 5 million troops00:44:28
uh If U Vladimir Putin were bent on00:44:31
conquering all of Ukraine he would have00:44:34
needed at least two million troops I00:44:37
would argue he'd need three million00:44:38
troops because not only he need to00:44:40
conquer the country he then have to00:44:42
occupy it uh but the idea that 190,00000:44:46
troops was sufficient for conquering uh00:44:49
all of Ukraine is not a serious argument00:44:51
furthermore he was not interested in00:44:52
conquering Ukraine and that's why in00:44:55
March00:44:56
2022 this is immediately after the war00:45:00
starts he is negotiating with zinsky to00:45:04
end the war there are serious00:45:06
negotiations taking place in Istanbul00:45:10
involving the Turks and na T Bennett who00:45:13
was the Israeli Prime Minister at the00:45:15
time was deeply involved in negotiating00:45:18
with both Putin and zeny to end the war00:45:22
well if he was interested Putin in00:45:24
conquering all of Ukraine why in God's00:45:27
name would he be negotiating with zinski00:45:30
to end the war and of course what they00:45:33
were negotiating about was NATO00:45:36
expansion into Ukraine which was the00:45:38
principal cause of the war uh people in00:45:42
the west don't want to hear that00:45:43
argument because if it is true which it00:45:46
is then the West is principally00:45:49
responsible for this bloodbath that's00:45:51
now taking place and of course the West00:45:53
doesn't want to be principally resp00:45:55
responsible it wants to blame Vladimir00:45:58
Putin so we've invented this story out00:46:01
of whole cloth that he is an aggressor00:46:04
that he's the second coming of Adolf00:46:06
Hitler and that what he did in Ukraine00:46:09
was try to to conquer all of it and he00:46:12
failed but uh with a little bit of luck00:46:16
he probably would have conquered all of00:46:17
it and he'd now be in the Baltic states00:46:20
and eventually end up uh dominating all00:46:24
of Eastern Europe is I I think there's00:46:26
no evidence to support this so maybe00:46:29
there's a lot of things to ask there00:46:31
maybe just to linger on NATO00:46:34
expansion what is NATO00:46:37
expansion what is the threat of NATO00:46:39
expansion and why is it such a concern00:46:40
for00:46:41
Russia00:46:43
NATO was a mortal enemy of the Soviet00:46:47
Union during the Cold War it's a00:46:49
military Alliance which has at its heart00:46:52
the United States of America which is00:46:54
the most powerful State on the planet it00:46:58
is perfectly understandable that Russia00:47:02
is not going to want that military00:47:05
Alliance on its doorstep here in the00:47:08
United States we have as you well know00:47:10
what's called the Monroe Doctrine and00:47:12
that basically says no great powers from00:47:15
Europe or Asia are allowed to come into00:47:18
our neighborhood and form a military00:47:20
alliance with anybody in this00:47:23
neighborhood uh when I was young there00:47:25
was this thing called the Cuban Missile00:47:27
Crisis the Soviets had the audacity to00:47:29
put nuclear armed missiles in Cuba we00:47:32
told them in no uncertain terms that00:47:34
that was not acceptable and that those00:47:37
missiles had to be removed this is our00:47:39
backyard and we do not tolerate distant00:47:42
great Powers coming into our00:47:44
neighborhood well what's good for the00:47:46
goose is good for the gander and if we00:47:49
don't like great Powers coming into our00:47:53
neighborhood it's hardly surprising that00:47:55
the r Russians did not want NATO on00:47:57
their doorstep uh they made that00:48:00
manifestly clear um when the Cold War00:48:05
ended and they exacted a promise from us00:48:09
that we would not expand NATO and then00:48:11
when we started expanding NATO they made00:48:14
it clear after the first trunch in 199900:48:18
that they were profoundly unhappy with00:48:20
that they made it clear in 2004 after00:48:24
the second trunch that they were00:48:25
profoundly unhappy with that00:48:28
expansion and then in April 2008 when00:48:32
NATO announced that uh Ukraine and00:48:35
Georgia would become part of NATO they00:48:38
made it unequivocally clear not just00:48:40
Putin that that was not going to happen00:48:44
they were drawing a Red Line in the Sand00:48:46
and it is no accident that in August00:48:49
2008 remember the Bucharest Summit is00:48:52
April 2008 and August 2008 you had a war00:48:56
between Georgia and Russia and that00:48:58
involved at its core NATO expansion so00:49:03
uh the Americans and their allies should00:49:06
have understood by at least August 200800:49:10
that continuing to push to bring Ukraine00:49:13
into NATO was going to lead to disaster00:49:17
and I would note that there were all00:49:19
sorts of people in the 1990s like George00:49:22
Kennan William Perry who was Bill00:49:24
Clinton's secretary defense the chairman00:49:27
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Paul Nitza00:49:29
and so forth and so on who argued that00:49:32
NATO expansion would end up producing a00:49:35
disaster which it has I would note that00:49:39
uh at the famous April 2008 Bucharest00:49:44
Summit where NATO said that Ukraine00:49:48
would be brought into the alliance00:49:50
Angela Merkel and uh Nicholas sarosi the00:49:54
German and French leaders respectively00:49:56
opposed that decision Angela Merkel00:50:00
later said that the reason she opposed00:50:03
it was because she understood that Putin00:50:06
would interpret it as a declaration of00:50:08
war just think about that Merkel is00:50:11
telling you that she opposed NATO00:50:14
expansion into Ukraine because she00:50:17
understood correctly that Putin would00:50:19
see it as a declaration of war what did00:50:22
the United States and its friend in00:50:24
friends in Europe do they continued to00:50:27
push and push because we thought that we00:50:29
could push NATO expansion down their00:50:31
throat after 2008 the same way we did in00:50:35
1999 and 2004 but we were wrong and it00:50:39
all blew up in our face in00:50:41
2014 and when it blew up in our face in00:50:44
2014 what did we do did we back off and00:50:47
say well maybe the Russians have some00:50:51
legitimate security interest no that's00:50:53
not the way we operate we continue00:50:55
contined to double down and the end00:50:58
result is that in 2022 you got a war and00:51:03
as I've argued for a long time now we00:51:07
the West are principally responsible for00:51:09
that not Vladimir Putin so the expansion00:51:12
of NATO is primarily responsible yeah to00:51:15
put it in more general terms what we00:51:18
were trying to do was turn Ukraine into00:51:21
a western bulwark on Russia's border and00:51:24
it really was it NATO expansion alone00:51:27
NATO expansion was the most important00:51:30
element of our strategy but the strategy00:51:32
had two other dimensions one was EU00:51:36
expansion and the third was the color00:51:40
Revolution we were trying to force00:51:42
orange revolution in Ukraine and the00:51:45
basic goal there was to turn Ukraine00:51:48
into a pro Western liberal00:51:51
democracy and that meant that you'd have00:51:54
Ukraine if it worked as a pro-western00:51:57
liberal democracy that was in the EU and00:52:00
that was in NATO this was our goal and00:52:05
the Russians made it unequivocally clear00:52:07
Ukraine was not going to become a00:52:09
Western bullwark on their border and00:52:12
most importantly they made it clear that00:52:16
Ukraine in NATO was00:52:18
unacceptable can we talk about the mind00:52:20
of Vladimir Putin you've mentioned that00:52:23
this idea that he has aspirations00:52:28
for uh imperialist00:52:31
Conquest that he dreams of Empire is not00:52:34
grounded in reality he wrote an essay in00:52:38
2021 about one00:52:40
people do you think there is some degree00:52:43
to00:52:44
which he still dreams of the former00:52:47
Soviet Union00:52:49
reuniting no he's made it clear that00:52:53
anybody with a a triple digit IQ00:52:57
understands that it's nuts to think00:52:59
about recreating the Soviet00:53:01
Union he thinks it's a tragedy that the00:53:04
Soviet Union fell apart but as he made00:53:07
clear in that essay the July 12th 202100:53:10
essay and as he made clear in speeches00:53:13
before immediately before he invaded00:53:16
Ukraine he00:53:18
accepted uh the breakup of the Soviet00:53:22
Union and he accepted the status quo in00:53:26
in Europe safe for the fact he did not00:53:29
accept the idea that Ukraine would00:53:31
become part of NATO he's been in power00:53:34
for over two decades is there a degree00:53:37
that power can00:53:38
affect a Leader's ability to see the00:53:41
world00:53:42
clearly as they say00:53:45
corrupt um do you think power has00:53:49
corrupted Vladimir Putin to a degree00:53:52
it's very hard for me to answer that00:53:54
question because I don't know him and00:53:58
I've not studied him carefully uh in00:54:02
terms of his overall performance over00:54:05
the course of you know the 23 years that00:54:08
he's been in00:54:09
power uh I've studied him as a00:54:12
strategist and I've studied how he you00:54:16
know deals with the West uh and you know00:54:20
deals with the International System more00:54:23
generally uh since 2000:54:26
4 and I think he is a first class00:54:30
strategist this is not to say he doesn't00:54:33
make00:54:34
mistakes uh and he admits he's made some00:54:37
mistakes uh U but uh I think that the00:54:42
West is dealing with a formidable00:54:44
adversary here uh and I don't see any00:54:48
evidence that he's either lost speed off00:54:51
his fast ball or that power has00:54:54
corrupted Ed his thinking about00:54:57
strategic Affairs so he has consistently00:55:01
put as a primary concern00:55:05
security as does the United States he's00:55:08
put for Russia security making sure that00:55:10
NATO doesn't get close to its borders I00:55:12
think that's clear yeah I I I think as I00:55:16
emphasized early on in our conversation00:55:19
that leaders privilege security or00:55:23
survival over everything else and by the00:55:25
way he gave a number of talks uh and00:55:30
press conferences uh in addition to writing00:55:33
that famous article that you referred to00:55:36
on July 12th 2021 so we have you know a00:55:41
pretty clear record of what he was00:55:44
saying and I would argue what he was00:55:45
thinking in the runup to the war in00:55:48
February00:55:49
2022 and if you read uh what he said uh00:55:55
it's quite clear that he privileged00:55:57
security or survival he was deeply00:55:59
concerned about the security of Russia00:56:02
and Russia is a quite vulnerable state00:56:06
in a lot of ways especially if you think00:56:08
back to what it looked like in the 1990s00:56:10
you know better than I do uh it was in00:56:13
terrible shape uh the Chinese talk about00:56:16
the century of national humiliation one00:56:19
could argue that for the Russians that00:56:20
was the decade of national00:56:23
humiliation and uh and it took Putin I00:56:26
think quite a bit of time to bring the00:56:28
Russians back from the dead I think he00:56:31
eventually succeeded but uh it took a00:56:33
considerable amount of time and I think00:56:36
he understood that he was not playing a00:56:39
particularly strong hand he was playing00:56:40
something of a weak hand and he had to00:56:43
be very careful very cautious and I00:56:45
think he was uh and I think that's very00:56:49
different than the United States the00:56:51
United States was the unipole it was the00:56:54
most powerful state in the history of00:56:55
the world most powerful State relative00:56:57
to all its possible competitors from you00:57:01
know roughly 1989 certainly after00:57:04
December 1991 when the Soviet Union fell00:57:07
apart up until I would argue about 201700:57:11
we were incredibly powerful and even00:57:12
after00:57:13
2017 up to today the United States00:57:16
Remains the most powerful state in the00:57:18
system and because of our geographical00:57:21
location uh we are in a uh00:57:25
terrific uh situation to survive in any00:57:29
great power competition so uh you have a00:57:33
situation involving the United States00:57:36
that's different than the situation00:57:38
involving Russia they're they're just00:57:40
much more vulnerable uh than we are and00:57:44
and therefore I think Putin tends to be00:57:46
more sensitive about security uh than00:57:49
any American president in recent Times00:57:51
Europe on one side China on the other00:57:54
side it's a complicated situation yeah00:57:56
and we talked before about 1812 when00:57:59
Napoleon invaded and Moscow got burned00:58:02
to the ground we talked about World War00:58:05
I where the Russians were actually00:58:07
defeated uh and surrendered uh and then00:58:10
we talked about 1941 to 1945 where00:58:14
although thankfully uh the Soviets00:58:18
prevailed uh it was uh it was a close00:58:22
call and I mean the casualties the00:58:26
destruction that the Soviet00:58:28
Union uh had inflicted on it by the00:58:31
Germans is just almost almost hard to00:58:34
believe00:58:35
just uh so they are sensitive you can00:58:40
understand full well or at least you00:58:42
should be able to understand full well00:58:44
why the idea of bringing Ukraine up to00:58:46
their border really spooked them uh I00:58:49
don't understand why more Americans00:58:51
don't understand that it just it it00:58:53
befuddles me00:58:55
I think it has to do with the fact that00:58:56
Americans are not very good in putting00:58:58
themselves in the shoes of other00:59:00
countries uh and uh you really if if00:59:04
you're going to be a first class00:59:05
strategist in international politics you00:59:07
have to be able to do that you have to00:59:08
put yourself in the shoes of the other00:59:10
side and think about how they think so00:59:13
you don't make foolish mistakes and as a00:59:16
starting point Americans tend to see00:59:19
themselves as the good guys and a set of00:59:22
others as the bad guys and you have to00:59:24
be able to empathize that Russians think00:59:28
of themselves as the good guys the00:59:30
Chinese think of themselves as the good00:59:32
guys and just be able to empathize if00:59:35
they are the good guys it's like that uh00:59:39
funny skit are we the baddies consider00:59:42
the United States could be the bad guys00:59:44
like first of all like see the world if00:59:47
the United States is the bad guys and00:59:50
China is the good guys what does that00:59:52
world look like be able to just exist00:59:55
with that thought because that is what00:59:57
the Chinese leadership and many Chinese00:59:59
citizens uh if not now maybe in the01:00:02
future will believe and you have to kind01:00:04
of do the calculation the simulation01:00:07
forward from that and same with Russia01:00:10
same with with other nations yeah I01:00:12
agree with you 100% and just you know I01:00:15
always think of Michael McFall at01:00:17
Stanford who was the American ambassador01:00:19
to uh Russia I think between 2012 and01:00:23
2014 and uh he told me that he told01:00:28
Putin uh that Putin didn't have to worry01:00:31
about NATO expansion because the United01:00:34
States was a benign01:00:35
hegemon and uh I asked Mike what Putin's01:00:41
response was to that and uh Mike said01:00:45
that Putin didn't believe it uh and uh01:00:50
but Mike believed it he should believe01:00:52
it and that we could move NATO Eastward01:00:56
to include Ukraine and in the end we get01:00:59
away with it because we are a benign01:01:01
hegemon but the fact is that's not what01:01:05
Putin saw Putin saw us as a mign01:01:08
hedgemon and what Mike thinks or any01:01:11
American thinks doesn't matter what01:01:14
matters is what Putin thinks but also01:01:17
the drums of War have been beating for01:01:20
some reason NATO expansion has been01:01:22
threatened for some reason so you've01:01:24
talked about NATO expansion being01:01:27
dead so like it doesn't make sense from01:01:29
a geop political perspective on the01:01:32
Europe side to expand NATO uh but01:01:35
nevertheless that threat has been uh01:01:39
echoed so um why has NATO expansion been01:01:44
pushed from your perspective there are01:01:46
two reasons one is first of all we01:01:50
thought it was a wonderful thing uh to01:01:53
bring more and more countri Ries into01:01:55
NATO we thought that it facilitated01:01:57
peace and prosperity it was ultimately01:02:00
all for the good um and uh we also01:02:06
thought that uh uh countries like01:02:09
Ukraine had a right to join NATO these01:02:13
are sovereign countries that can decide01:02:14
for themselves and the Russians have no01:02:17
say in what Ukraine wants to do and then01:02:22
finally and uh this is a point I01:02:24
emphasized before we were very powerful01:02:26
and we thought we could shove it down01:02:27
their throat so so it's a combination of01:02:31
those factors that led us to pursue what01:02:34
I think was ultimately uh a foolish01:02:38
policy we've talked about how Wars get01:02:42
started how do you hope the war in01:02:44
Ukraine ends what are the ways to end01:02:46
this war what are the ways to achieve01:02:48
peace there to uh and the01:02:53
the I would say01:02:56
senseless death of young men as always01:03:01
happens in01:03:03
War I I'm sad to say I don't have a good01:03:05
answer to that um I I don't think01:03:09
there's any real Prospect of a01:03:13
meaningful peace agreement I think it's01:03:15
almost01:03:16
impossible uh I I think the best you can01:03:19
hope for uh at this point is it's some01:03:23
some point the shooting stops you have a01:03:27
ceasefire and then you have a frozen01:03:30
conflict uh and that Frozen conflict uh01:03:34
will not be highly stable uh and uh the01:03:38
U ukrainians in the west will do01:03:40
everything they can to weaken Russia's01:03:43
position uh and the Russians will go to01:03:46
Great Lengths to not only damage that01:03:49
dysfunctional rum state that Ukraine01:03:52
becomes but the Russians will go go to01:03:54
Great Lengths to seow dissension within01:03:57
the alliance and uh and that includes in01:04:00
terms of transatlantic relations so01:04:03
you'll have this01:04:05
continuing security competition between01:04:08
Russia on one side and Ukraine and the01:04:09
West on the other even when you get a01:04:11
frozen01:04:13
peace uh and um or you get a frozen01:04:16
conflict and uh and and and the01:04:18
potential for escalation there will be01:04:21
great uh so I think this is a disaster01:04:25
that's a very realist perspective let me01:04:30
ask you sort of a the The Human Side of01:04:34
it do you think there's some power to01:04:37
leader sitting down having a01:04:39
conversation man to man leader to leader01:04:42
about this there's there there is just a01:04:46
lot of death01:04:48
happening it seems that from an economic01:04:51
perspective from a historic perspec from01:04:52
a human perspective both nations are01:04:54
losing is it possible for Vladimir01:04:57
zalinski and and Vladimir Putin to sit01:05:00
down and talk and01:05:03
to uh figure out a way where uh the01:05:08
security concerns are addressed and both01:05:11
Nations can um minimize the amount of01:05:14
suffering that's happening and and and01:05:16
create a a path towards future01:05:20
flourishing I think the answer is no01:05:23
even with uh United States involved01:05:26
three people in the room well I think01:05:28
you if the United States is involved the01:05:31
answer is definitely no you have to get01:05:33
the Americans out uh and then I I think01:05:37
if you have zinski and Putin talking you01:05:40
know you have a sliver of a chance there01:05:42
the Americans01:05:44
are a real problem look let's go back to01:05:47
what happens right after the war starts01:05:50
okay as I said before this is we're01:05:52
talking March early April of 2022 the01:05:55
war starts on February 24th01:05:58
2022 and as I said to you uh the two01:06:02
sides were negotiating in aan buul and01:06:05
they were also uh negotiating through01:06:08
Neftali Bennett and the Bennett track01:06:11
and the Turkish track were operating01:06:14
together I mean they were not at Cross01:06:16
purposes at01:06:18
all what01:06:20
happened Bennett tells the story very01:06:23
clearly that they had made significant01:06:27
progress in reaching an agreement this01:06:31
is zalinski on one side and Putin on the01:06:33
other Bennett is talking in person to01:06:36
both Putin and uh01:06:40
zalinski and what happens to produce01:06:44
failure the answer is the United States01:06:47
and Britain get involved and tell01:06:49
zalinsky to walk they tell zalinsky to01:06:52
walk if they had come in and encourage01:06:55
zinski to try to figure out a way with01:06:58
Putin to shut this one down and worked01:07:01
with Bennett and worked with01:07:03
erdogan we might have been able to shut01:07:05
the war down then but it was the United01:07:08
States well let me sort of uh push back01:07:11
on that you're you're you're correct but01:07:13
so United States paints this like um01:07:16
picture that everybody's align so I01:07:20
maybe you can correct me but I believe01:07:21
in the power of individuals especially01:07:23
individual leaders01:07:24
again whether it's Biden or Trump or01:07:26
whoever goes into a01:07:29
room and says in a way that's convincing01:07:33
that no more NATO01:07:36
expansion and actually just on a basic01:07:38
human01:07:40
level ask the question of why are we01:07:45
doing all this senseless01:07:48
killing and look at the interest of one01:07:51
Russia look at the interest of the other01:07:53
Ukraine01:07:54
their interests are pretty simple and01:07:56
say United States is going to stay out01:07:58
of this we're not going to expand NATO01:08:02
and say all that in a way that's01:08:04
convincing which is NATO expansion is01:08:06
silly at this point china is the big01:08:08
threat we're not going to do this kind01:08:11
of uh conflict escalation with Russia01:08:14
the Cold War is Over let's let's uh01:08:18
normalize relations well let me just01:08:21
embellish your argument okay thank you01:08:25
I need it if we say there's a sliver of01:08:28
a chance that you can do this and I do01:08:31
think there is a sliver of a chance let01:08:32
me just embellish your point Thank you01:08:35
need all the help I can get two things01:08:37
have to be done here in my opinion one01:08:40
is uh Ukraine has to become01:08:45
neutral and it has to completely sever01:08:49
all security ties with the West right01:08:54
it's not like uh you can say we're not01:08:57
going to expand NATO to include Ukraine01:09:01
but we're going to continue to have some01:09:04
loose security arrangement with Ukraine01:09:07
none of that has to be completely01:09:09
severed Ukraine has to be on its own01:09:13
okay and number two Ukraine has to01:09:16
accept the fact that the Russians are01:09:19
going to keep the four oblas that01:09:21
they've now annexed and Crimea01:09:24
right the Russians are not going to give01:09:26
them back and what you really want to do01:09:30
if you're zalinsky or who's ever running01:09:33
Ukraine in this scenario that we're01:09:35
positing is you want to make sure the01:09:37
Russians don't take another four oblas01:09:40
to include arke and Odessa01:09:44
right if I'm playing Putin's hand and01:09:47
this war goes on I'm thinking about01:09:49
taking four more oblas I I want to take01:09:52
about 40 3% of Ukraine and an exit to01:09:56
Russia right and I certainly want Odessa01:10:00
uh and I certainly want AR and I I want01:10:03
the two o Bloss in between as well right01:10:05
literally or as uh leverage in01:10:10
negotiation no Ukraine neutrality I want01:10:12
them literally uh I want to conquer them01:10:15
literally uh but my point to you is if01:10:19
we can begin to talk about cutting a01:10:23
deal now you may be able to head that01:10:26
kind of aggression off at the past in01:10:29
other words you may be able to limit01:10:32
Putin and Russia to annexing the four01:10:35
oblas that they've now annexed plus01:10:37
Crimea that's the best I think you can01:10:40
hope for but the point is you have to01:10:42
get the ukrainians to accept that you01:10:44
have to get the ukrainians to accept01:10:47
becoming a truly neutral State and01:10:49
conceding that the Russians keep a big01:10:52
chunk of territory it's about 23% of01:10:55
Ukrainian territory that they've01:10:57
annexed and I find it hard to imagine01:11:00
any Ukrainian leader agree to that well01:11:03
there there there could be more Nuance01:11:05
things like no military involvement01:11:09
between the United States in Ukraine but01:11:11
economic involvement sort of uh01:11:13
financial support So normalizing01:11:16
economic relationships with Ukraine with01:11:19
Russia I I think you could probably get01:11:21
away with that I I think that the the01:11:23
tricky question there that you would01:11:25
have to answer is what about EU01:11:27
expansion right and I think EU expansion01:11:31
is probably a no no for the Russians01:11:33
because most people don't recognize this01:11:35
but there is a military Dimension built01:11:39
into EU expansion it's not purely an01:11:43
economic uh Alliance uh or relationship01:11:47
or institution whatever word you want to01:11:49
use there's a military Dimension to that01:11:52
and in the runup to the War uh actually01:11:57
in the runup to the 2014 crisis when it01:11:59
first broke out uh the Russians made it01:12:03
clear they saw EU expansion as a01:12:06
stalking horse for NATO expansion so EU01:12:11
expansion is tricky but I I think your01:12:14
point of close economic relations01:12:19
between uh or healthy economic relations01:12:22
to use a better term between Ukraine and01:12:25
the West is possible I I I think the01:12:27
Russians have a vested interest in if if01:12:30
it's a neutral Ukraine they have a01:12:32
vested interest in that Ukraine01:12:34
flourishing but that then brings us back01:12:37
to the territorial issue all right well01:12:40
so do you believe it's possible for01:12:43
individual human relations to counteract01:12:45
the structural forces that you talk01:12:48
about so meaning the01:12:50
leaders being able to pick up the phone01:12:53
and make agreements that are good for01:12:55
Humanity as a whole and for their01:12:57
individual nations in the long term I01:12:59
think leadership matters here01:13:01
uh I mean one of the real problems here01:13:05
is that there's no trust and uh on the01:13:08
Russian side and that has to do with the01:13:11
Minsk agreements um the uh uh the Minsk01:13:16
agreements uh which were designed to01:13:20
shut down the Civil01:13:22
War uh in eastern Ukraine in the donbass01:13:27
um really mattered to the Russians and01:13:29
there were four players involved in the01:13:32
uh uh the mince process uh four main01:13:36
players Russia and Ukraine of course and01:13:38
then Germany and01:13:40
France and uh I believe the Russians01:13:43
took the Minsk Accord seriously uh I01:13:46
believe Putin took them very seriously01:13:48
he wanted to shut down that01:13:51
conflict um and uh01:13:54
Angela Merkel Francois Holland he was01:13:57
the French leader and penko who was the01:14:01
Ukrainian leader those were the three01:14:03
key players besides Putin again Holan01:14:06
from France Merkel from Germany and01:14:09
penko from Ukraine have all explicitly01:14:13
said they were not seriously interested01:14:17
in reaching an agreement in all of the01:14:20
discussions with Putin they were01:14:23
bamboozling him they were trying to01:14:25
trick him so that they would buy time to01:14:28
build up Ukraine's military uh Putin is01:14:34
profoundly upset about these admissions01:14:38
by these three leaders he believes he01:14:41
was fooled into thinking that mince01:14:44
could work he believes that he01:14:46
negotiated in good faith and they did01:14:49
not and he believes that the level of01:14:52
trust now now between Russia uh and the01:14:55
West is virtually zero as a result of01:14:59
this experience over Minsk I only bring01:15:02
this up because it cuts against your01:15:05
argument that leaders could pick up the01:15:08
phone and talk to each other and trust01:15:12
each other at least somewhat uh to work01:15:15
out a meaningful deal if you're Putin at01:15:19
this point in time trusting the West is01:15:23
not an idea that's going to be very01:15:26
attractive at all in fact you're going01:15:27
to distrust anything they say yeah01:15:31
distrust anything the West say but there01:15:32
is individual humans the way human01:15:35
nature works is when you sit in the01:15:37
cross from a person you can trust a01:15:39
human being while still distrusting the01:15:41
West I mean I I I believe in the power01:15:44
of that I I think with the right leaders01:15:46
you can sit down and talk like over01:15:50
override the general structural distrust01:15:53
of the West and say you know what I like01:15:57
this guy or gal whatever I do hope01:16:02
zilinsky and Putin sit down together and01:16:05
talk have multiple01:16:07
talks just remember they were doing that01:16:10
in March and the Americans came in and01:16:12
the British came in yeah and they01:16:14
scotched a potential01:16:16
deal01:16:18
well uh the other beautiful thing about01:16:21
human nature there's forgiveness and01:16:22
there's01:16:24
uh trying again when you're the leader01:16:27
of a country in an anarchic01:16:30
system you have to be very careful not01:16:33
to let uh your trust in a foreign leader01:16:38
take you too far because if that foreign01:16:41
leader betrays you or betrays your trust01:16:44
and stabs you in the back you could die01:16:47
and again you want to remember that the01:16:49
principal responsibility of any leader I01:16:52
don't I don't care what country it is is01:16:54
to ensure the survival of their state01:16:58
and that means that you know trust is01:17:00
only going to buy you so much and when01:17:03
you've already01:17:04
betrayed the trust of a leader uh you01:17:09
really are not going to be able to rely01:17:11
on trust very much to help you moving01:17:14
forward now you disagree with that I01:17:16
hope you're right and if they can shut01:17:18
down the Ukraine Russia War uh it would01:17:22
be wonderful if if I'm proved dead wrong01:17:26
uh that would be wonderful news uh01:17:30
my my prediction that this war is going01:17:32
to go on for a long time and01:17:37
uh and end in an ugly way is a01:17:40
prediction that I don't like at all uh01:17:43
so I hope I'm wrong you wrote that many01:17:46
in the west believe that the best hope01:17:47
for ending the Ukraine war is to remove01:17:49
Vladimir Putin from power but you argue01:17:53
that uh this isn't the01:17:56
case can you explain well a lot of01:18:00
people thought01:18:02
when they were having all that trouble01:18:06
the Russians were having all that01:18:07
trouble with progan and the Vagner group01:18:10
that Putin was vulnerable and was likely01:18:14
to be01:18:15
overthrown and what would happen is uh a01:18:18
peaceloving leader would replace Putin01:18:23
uh I made two points at the time and I01:18:25
would make those same two points now01:18:28
number one he's not01:18:31
likely to be overthrown he was not01:18:34
likely then to be01:18:37
overthrown uh and I think you know as01:18:40
long as his health holds up I think he01:18:42
will remain in power my second point is01:18:46
if he doesn't remain in power and he's01:18:49
replaced I would bet a lot of money that01:18:52
his replacement will be more hawkish and01:18:55
more Hardline than Putin is uh I01:18:58
actually think one could argue that01:19:01
Putin was too trusting of the West01:19:04
before the war01:19:05
started uh and number two I think one01:19:08
could argue that he has not waged the01:19:11
war against Ukraine as vigorously as one01:19:16
might have expected uh he was slow to01:19:20
mobilize the nation for war01:19:23
uh and he has pursued a limited war in01:19:29
all sorts of ways uh the Israelis for01:19:32
example have killed more civilians in01:19:35
Gaza in one month than the Russians have01:19:38
killed over 18 months in Ukraine the01:19:42
idea that Vladimir Putin is waging a01:19:46
punishment campaign and killing on01:19:48
purpose large numbers of civilians is01:19:50
simply not true uh all this is to say01:19:54
that I would imagine that if Putin01:19:58
leaves office and someone else comes in01:20:00
to replace him that someone else will be01:20:03
at least if not more Hardline than him01:20:06
in terms of waging the war and certainly01:20:09
will not trust the West any more than he01:20:14
has by way of advice let me ask you if I01:20:17
were to have a conversation interview01:20:20
Vladimir Putin and zalinski01:20:24
individually what should I ask them if01:20:28
you me and Vladimir Putin are having a01:20:31
chat what are01:20:33
good ideas to explore what are good01:20:36
questions to ask what are good things to01:20:39
say on or off the mic once again that01:20:43
could01:20:44
potentially even slightly less than the01:20:47
amount of suffering in the world caused01:20:49
by this war oh I think if you get an01:20:52
interview with Vladimir Putin there just01:20:55
all sorts of questions you could ask him01:20:57
and my sense is that Putin is a straight01:21:00
shooter uh he's also very knowledgeable01:21:03
about history and he has simple theories01:21:05
in his head about how the world works01:21:07
and I think he would level with you and01:21:10
all you would have to do is just you01:21:11
know figure out what all the right01:21:13
questions are and that would not be hard01:21:15
to do right uh you know you could ask01:21:19
him why was he so foolish this is for a01:21:22
for example why was he so foolish is to01:21:25
uh uh trust uh poreno Holland and Merkel01:21:31
uh in the Minsk01:21:34
Accords uh you know why after his famous01:21:39
talk at Munich in 2007 where he made it01:21:42
clear that he was so unhappy with the01:21:45
West uh did he continue uh to you know01:21:49
in a very important way trust the West01:21:52
Why didn't01:21:53
mobilize uh the Russian military before01:21:56
late September01:21:58
2022 uh you know once the negotiations01:22:01
that we were talking about before uh01:22:03
involving01:22:04
Istanbul uh and uh navali Ben and once01:22:08
they broke down you know why didn't he01:22:10
immediately mobilize more of the Russian01:22:13
population to fight the war just all01:22:15
sorts of questions like that and then01:22:17
you could ask him questions about you01:22:19
know where uh he sees this one headed uh01:22:24
what's the best strategy for Russia uh01:22:28
if the ukrainians will not agree to01:22:32
neutrality right you know people like01:22:36
John mearm say you'll probably take uh01:22:40
close to half of Ukraine is that true uh01:22:43
does it make sense to take01:22:46
Odessa and John mimer also has questions01:22:48
about01:22:50
China your future relationships with01:22:52
China01:22:53
yeah I mean one really important01:22:55
question that I would ask him is if the01:22:57
United States had basically not driven01:23:00
you into the arms of the Chinese if01:23:02
there had been no war over Ukraine and01:23:04
the United States had and its European01:23:07
allies had gone to considerable length01:23:09
to create some sort of security01:23:11
architecture in Europe uh that resulted01:23:15
in you Vladimir Putin having good01:23:18
relations with Ukraine what would your01:23:21
relations with China be01:23:23
uh and uh you know how would you think01:23:26
about that uh so there there are just01:23:29
plenty of questions you could ask01:23:32
him well hope Burns Eternal in my heart01:23:37
I think probably in Putin's heart and01:23:39
zelinsky's heart I01:23:41
hope cuz hope is uh the leap of trust01:23:46
that we've talked about I think is01:23:47
necessary for deescalation and for peace01:23:50
well you realize I have from the01:23:52
beginning argued for different policies01:23:56
that were all designed to prevent this01:23:58
war from ever happening yes I don't know01:24:00
if you know this but in 1993 I argued01:24:03
that Ukraine should keep its nuclear01:24:05
weapons I was probably the only person01:24:07
in the west who made that argument and01:24:10
my argument in 1993 this is in foreign01:24:14
affairs was that there may come the day01:24:17
when Russia thinks about invading01:24:20
Ukraine and should that day come it01:24:22
would be very helpful for preventing War01:24:25
if Ukraine had nuclear weapons so01:24:27
military might is essential for01:24:31
maintaining a balance of power and peace01:24:33
well if you're interested in deterring01:24:35
an adversary if I'm worried about you01:24:37
coming after me the best way to deter01:24:39
you is to have military might and if01:24:42
you're Russia and I'm Ukraine I'm far01:24:45
weaker than you yeah right and having a01:24:48
nuclear deterrent would be very01:24:50
effective at convincing you not to01:24:53
attack me because if you attack me01:24:55
you're threatening my survival and01:24:57
that's the one circumstance where it is01:25:01
likely that I would use nuclear weapons01:25:03
to defend myself and given the01:25:05
consequences of nuclear use you would be01:25:08
reluctant in the extreme to attack me so01:25:12
that's why I argued in 93 that if01:25:15
Ukraine kept its nuclear weapons that01:25:17
made War down the road much less likely01:25:20
and I believe I was correct and in fact01:25:22
bill Clinton who played the key role in01:25:25
forcing Ukraine to give up its nuclear01:25:28
weapons now says he has said it publicly01:25:31
you can find it on YouTube that he made01:25:33
a mistake doing that furthermore I01:25:37
argued in01:25:38
2014 that it made eminently good sense01:25:41
not to continue to push to bring Ukraine01:25:44
into NATO because the end result is that01:25:47
Ukraine would be destroyed and Ukraine01:25:49
is being destroyed so I was deep deeply01:25:52
interested at time in making sure that01:25:55
that didn't happen for the good of the01:25:57
ukrainians not to mention because01:25:59
stability in Europe is a net positive01:26:02
for almost everybody involved but people01:26:06
did not listen to me then either how do01:26:08
nuclear weapons change the calculus of01:26:11
offensive realism because of mutually01:26:14
assured destruction I mean it's not just01:26:15
military might it's just so01:26:18
destructive that you basically can't use01:26:22
nuclear01:26:23
weapons unless you want complete01:26:27
destruction there's no question that the01:26:29
presence of nuclear weapons makes it01:26:32
much less likely I'm choosing my words01:26:35
carefully here much less likely that a01:26:37
great power would aggress against01:26:40
another great power it doesn't take that01:26:42
possibility off the table but it makes01:26:45
it much less likely because of the01:26:48
reasons that you01:26:50
articulated uh but with regard tole01:26:52
nuclear01:26:54
use it's an interesting question how you01:26:56
think about nuclear use in a mad world I01:26:58
mean your point that we're in a mad01:27:00
world01:27:01
is that's mad Capital mad as well as mad01:27:05
small letters but let's stick to the01:27:08
capital letters we're in a world of01:27:09
mutual assured destruction U there's no01:27:13
question that in that01:27:14
World um um it's uh unlikely that01:27:20
nuclear weapons would be used but the01:27:22
way you use nuclear weapons in that01:27:24
world is you use them uh for01:27:27
manipulation to risk purposes01:27:30
demonstration01:27:31
effect you you put both sides out on the01:27:34
slippery slope now what exactly am I01:27:37
saying here let me talk about NATO01:27:39
Doctrine during the Cold War we lived in01:27:41
a Mad World United States and Soviet01:27:44
Union or the wara pack and NATO both had01:27:48
an assured destruction capability so you01:27:50
had mutual assured destruction01:27:53
if the Warsaw Pact were to invade01:27:57
Western Europe and here we're talking01:27:58
about West01:28:00
Germany uh and NATO was losing the war01:28:05
we said that we would use nuclear01:28:07
weapons how would we use nuclear weapons01:28:10
given that we were in a Mad World the01:28:12
argument was that we would use a handful01:28:16
of nuclear weapons Against The warsa01:28:20
Pact not to not necessarily against01:28:23
their military forces could be in a01:28:25
remote area we would use a small number01:28:28
of nuclear01:28:29
weapons to signal to the Soviets that we01:28:33
were deadly serious about putting an end01:28:36
to their01:28:38
offensive uh and that we were throwing01:28:43
both sides out on the slippery slope to01:28:46
Oblivion in other words we were01:28:48
manipulating risk and the last clear01:28:53
chance to avoid Armageddon rested with01:28:56
them and then we would tell them that if01:28:59
you retaliated with a handful of nuclear01:29:01
weapons and you didn't cease your01:29:03
offensive against West Germany we would01:29:07
launch a small another nuclear attack we01:29:11
would uh explode a handful more of01:29:15
nuclear weapons all for the purposes of01:29:18
showing you our resolve right so this is01:29:21
the manipulation of risk strategy and a01:29:24
lot of the language I just used in01:29:26
describing it to you is language that01:29:28
Thomas Shelly invented right now fast01:29:33
forward to the present if Russia were01:29:36
you losing in Ukraine that's the one01:29:39
scenario I think where Russia would have01:29:41
used nuclear weapons and the question is01:29:44
how would Russia have used nuclear01:29:46
weapons again we're assuming that the01:29:48
Russians are losing to the ukrainians I01:29:51
believe01:29:52
they would have pursued a manipulation01:29:54
of risk strategy they would have used01:29:56
405 30 or4 who knows nuclear weapons01:29:59
maybe just one in a rural area that01:30:02
kills very few people yes exactly and01:30:04
basically that would spook everybody the01:30:08
American just the mushroom cloud yeah01:30:10
the it it's because of the threat of01:30:12
escalation right again you your point is01:30:15
we're in a mad world I accept that and01:30:17
if you have limited nuclear use right we01:30:22
understand hardly anything about nuclear01:30:26
escalation because thank goodness we've01:30:28
never had a nuclear war so once you01:30:31
throw both sides out on the slippery01:30:33
slope even if you only use one nuclear01:30:35
weapon in your scenario you don't know01:30:38
what the escalation Dynamics look like01:30:41
so everybody has a powerful incentive to01:30:45
put an end to the conflict right away I01:30:48
might add to you that there were people01:30:50
who believe that we would not even01:30:55
initiate a manipulation of risk strategy01:30:59
in Europe if we were losing to the warsa01:31:02
pack during the Cold War both Henry01:31:06
Kissinger and Robert mamar said after01:31:09
leaving office that they would not have01:31:12
done it they would have not initiated01:31:16
nuclear use even limited nuclear use01:31:18
that's what we're talking about here01:31:20
they would rather be dead than dead01:31:23
right that was the argument too risky01:31:25
too risky that's exactly right but if01:31:28
they had used one nuclear weapon in your01:31:31
story or three or four in my01:31:34
story everybody would have said oh my01:31:37
God we've got to shut this one down01:31:41
immediately I only tell you this story01:31:43
or lay out this scenario be as an answer01:31:46
to your question of how you use nuclear01:31:48
weapons in a mad world and this is the01:31:52
answer I this is all very terrifying uh01:31:55
perhaps in part it's terrifying to me01:31:57
because I can see in the 21st01:32:00
century China01:32:02
Russia Israel United States using a01:32:07
nuclear weapon in this01:32:09
way blowing it up somewhere in the01:32:11
middle of nowhere that kills maybe01:32:14
nobody but I'm terrified of seeing the01:32:17
mushroom cloud and not01:32:20
knowing what you know given social media01:32:23
given how fast news01:32:24
travels what the escalation looks like01:32:27
there just you know in in in a in a01:32:30
matter of minutes how the news travels01:32:34
and how the leaders react it's01:32:37
terrifying that this this little01:32:40
demonstration of power um the Ripple01:32:43
effects of it in a matter of minutes01:32:46
seconds what that leads to because it's01:32:49
like it's human emotions it's like you01:32:51
you see the landscape of human01:32:54
emotions the leaders and the populace01:32:57
and and the way news are reported and01:32:59
then the landscape of risk as you01:33:00
mentioned shifting like the world's most01:33:04
intense nonlinear dynamical01:33:07
system and it it it's just terrifying01:33:10
because the the the entirety of human01:33:12
civilizations hangs in the balance there01:33:15
and it's like like01:33:17
this like hundreds of millions of people01:33:20
could be dead let's just talk about this01:33:22
in the context of the Ukraine war01:33:27
um if uh if the Russians were losing as01:33:31
I said before which is not the case01:33:33
anymore but in 2022 it it did look like01:33:37
that um if the Russians are losing and01:33:41
they turn to nuclear weapons the01:33:44
question is how do they use them and01:33:47
they would use them in01:33:49
Ukraine and because Ukraine has no01:33:53
nuclear weapons of its own Ukraine01:33:56
cannot retaliate it's not a mutual01:33:59
assured destruction world it's a case01:34:02
where one side has nuclear weapons and01:34:03
the other doesn't that means that the01:34:07
Russians are likely to think that they01:34:10
can get away with using nuclear weapons01:34:13
in ways that would not be the case if01:34:15
they were attacking NATO and therefore01:34:17
it makes nuclear use more likely okay01:34:20
that's point one point two is let's01:34:23
assume that the Russians use two or01:34:25
three nuclear weapons in a remote area01:34:28
sweating by the way just just as a01:34:30
commentary the terrifying yeah the01:34:33
question then is what does the West do01:34:37
now mccrone has said and Biden has also01:34:39
I think implicitly made this clear we01:34:42
would not retaliate with nuclear weapons01:34:45
if the Russians were to attack with a01:34:47
handful of nuclear weapons in Western01:34:49
Ukraine but then the question question01:34:51
is what would we do MH and if you listen01:34:55
to David Petraeus what David Petraeus01:34:58
says is that we should attack the01:35:00
Russian naval Assets in the Black01:35:05
Sea and attack Russian forces in01:35:10
Ukraine well once you do that you have a01:35:13
great power of War you have NATO versus01:35:16
Russia which is another way of saying01:35:18
you have the United States versus Russia01:35:20
we're now a great power War they have01:35:23
nuclear weapons we have nuclear weapons01:35:25
they've used nuclear weapons what is the01:35:28
happy ending here and just to take it a01:35:31
step further and go back to our earlier01:35:34
discussion about moving NATO up to01:35:37
Russia's borders the point I made which01:35:40
you surely agree with is that the01:35:42
Russians are very fearful when they see01:35:45
NATO coming up to their border well01:35:48
here's a case where not only is NATO01:35:51
come up to their border but they're in a01:35:52
war with NATO right on their01:35:55
border what do the escalation Dynamics01:35:58
look like there you know what the answer01:36:01
is who knows that's should scare the01:36:03
living but Jesus out of you right and01:36:06
some of it could be like you mentioned01:36:08
unintended there could be unintended01:36:10
consequences there could be a Russian01:36:12
missile misses and hits01:36:15
Poland the these kinds of things that01:36:18
just escalate01:36:19
misunderstandings miscommunications01:36:22
even a I mean nuclear weapon could be01:36:25
boy it could have been planned to go01:36:28
location X and it went to a location y01:36:30
that ended up actually killing a very01:36:32
large number of people I01:36:34
mean uh01:36:37
just that the the escalation that01:36:40
happens there just happens in in a01:36:41
matter of minutes and the only way to01:36:43
stop that is communication between01:36:46
leaders and that to me is a big argument01:36:49
for ongoing communication01:36:51
you know this's a story that during the01:36:53
Cuban Missile Crisis um Kennedy put out01:36:56
the word uh no01:36:58
aircraft uh under any circumstances or01:37:01
to penetrate Soviet airspace yeah yeah01:37:05
and he then found out a few days later01:37:09
that uh some guy hadn't gotten the01:37:12
message and had penetrated in an01:37:15
aircraft deep into Soviet airspace yeah01:37:19
and uh this supports your basic point01:37:22
that you know uh bad things happen and01:37:26
uh and again the overarching point here01:37:29
is we've never done this before01:37:31
thankfully therefore we don't have a lot01:37:33
of experience as to how it plays itself01:37:36
out it it's really a theoretical01:37:39
Enterprise because there's no empirical01:37:41
basis for talking about01:37:44
escalation uh you know in a nuclear01:37:46
crisis and that of course is a wonderful01:37:49
thing well in general the uh the human01:37:53
species as a whole is a is a oneoff is a01:37:56
theoretical Enterprise the survival of01:37:59
the human species you know we've seen01:38:01
Empires rise and fall but we haven't01:38:03
seen the human species rise and fall so01:38:06
far it's been rising but uh it's not01:38:08
obvious that it doesn't end in fact I01:38:11
think about aliens a lot and the fact01:38:14
that we don't see aliens makes me01:38:16
suspect it's not so easy to survive in01:38:19
this complicated world of s Switching01:38:22
gears a little bit and going to a01:38:24
different part of the01:38:25
world also engulfed in01:38:28
war let me ask you about the uh01:38:32
situation in Israel uh why did Hamas01:38:35
attack Israel on October 7th 2023 as you01:38:40
understand the01:38:43
situation what was the reason that01:38:45
attack01:38:47
happened well I think the main reason01:38:50
was that you had this suffocating01:38:55
occupation I think as long as the01:38:58
occupation persists the Palestinians are01:39:02
going to01:39:03
resist uh as you well know this is not01:39:06
the first time there has been a01:39:08
Palestinian Uprising there was the first01:39:11
inata there was the second inata now01:39:14
there's October 7th and their uprisings01:39:18
besides those three uh so01:39:21
this is not terribly01:39:23
surprising uh a lot of people01:39:26
hypothesize that uh this attack was due01:39:29
to the fact that uh the Israelis the01:39:33
Saudis and the Americans were working01:39:36
together to Foster another Abraham01:39:39
Accord uh and that the Palestinians01:39:42
would in effect be sold down the river01:39:45
uh I think given the fact that this was01:39:48
in the planning stages for for probably01:39:51
about 2 years uh and the Abraham Accords01:39:55
with regard to Saudi Arabia are01:39:57
relatively new phenomenon I don't think01:40:00
that's uh the main driving force here I01:40:04
think the main driving force is that the01:40:07
Palestinians uh feel oppressed as they01:40:10
should and that this was uh a resistance01:40:14
move they were resisting the Israeli01:40:17
occupation so that resistance01:40:21
the attack involved killing a large01:40:24
number of Israeli01:40:27
civilians there's many questions ask01:40:29
there but one is do you think Hamas01:40:32
fully understood what the retaliation01:40:35
will involve from Israel into01:40:38
Gaza they had to understand I01:40:42
mean you had you know operation castled01:40:46
in01:40:47
200 uh 8 2009 started I think right01:40:51
after Christmas 2008 and it ended right01:40:55
before President Obama took office uh in01:40:58
January 2009 and01:41:01
uh the Israelis periodically do what01:41:05
they call mowing the lawn where they go01:41:08
into Gaza and they pound the01:41:11
Palestinians uh to remind them that01:41:14
they're not supposed to rise up and01:41:16
cause any problem uh01:41:19
so there's no question in my mind that01:41:23
the uh the Hamas forces understood full01:41:28
well that the Israelis would retaliate01:41:31
and they would retaliate in force as01:41:33
they have done yeah even the metaphor of01:41:37
mowing the lawn is disturbing to me in01:41:39
many01:41:41
ways um I actually01:41:44
saw uh Norman filastine I think say that01:41:49
well then if you use that metaphor then01:41:51
you could say that Hamas was also mowing01:41:53
the lawn that's such a01:41:56
horrific image because the result on01:41:59
either side is just the death of01:42:02
civilians I mean let me ask you about01:42:04
the death of civilians so during the01:42:06
attack 1400 Israelis were01:42:08
killed over 240 were taken hostage and01:42:12
then in response as we sit01:42:15
today uh Israel's military response has01:42:18
killed over 10,000 people people in Gaza01:42:22
and given the nature of the demographics01:42:24
it's it's a very heavily young01:42:26
population over 40% of them are under01:42:29
the age of 18 of those killed that's uh01:42:32
of course according to Ministry of01:42:35
Health of Palestinian01:42:37
Authority so what do you think is the01:42:40
long-term effect on the prospect of01:42:43
Peace when so many civilians01:42:45
die I mean I think it's disastrous01:42:49
U uh I01:42:53
mean the only way you're going to get01:42:56
peace here uh is if you have a two-state01:43:00
solution um where the Palestinians have01:43:03
a sovereign state of their own and there01:43:06
is a sovereign Jewish State uh and these01:43:09
two states live side by side American01:43:12
Presidents since Jimmy Carter have01:43:14
understood this full well and this is01:43:16
why we have pushed very hard for01:43:18
two-state solution indeed many americ01:43:20
American Jews and many Israelis have01:43:23
pushed for a two-state solution because01:43:26
they think that that is the only way01:43:28
you're going to get uh peace uh between01:43:32
the two sides uh but what's happened01:43:35
here is that in recent years the01:43:38
Israelis have lost all interest in a01:43:41
two-state solution uh and it's in large01:43:43
part because the political center of01:43:45
gravity in Israel has steadily moved to01:43:47
the right uh when I was a young boy bo01:43:51
uh the political center of gravity in01:43:54
Israel was much further to the left than01:43:56
it is today and uh it is in uh it is in01:44:03
a position now the political center of01:44:04
gravity where there's hardly any support01:44:06
for two-state solution and Netanyahu and01:44:10
the rest of the people in his government01:44:13
were in favor or are in favor of a01:44:15
greater Israel there's just no question01:44:17
about01:44:18
that well01:44:21
on top of that you now have had a war01:44:25
where as you01:44:27
described huge numbers of civilians have01:44:30
been killed and you already had bad01:44:34
blood between the Palestinians and the01:44:36
Israelis before this01:44:39
conflict uh and you can imagine how01:44:43
people on each side now feel about01:44:45
people on the other side so even if you01:44:48
didn't have this opposition in inside01:44:50
Israel to a two-state01:44:53
solution how could you possibly get the01:44:56
Israelis now to agree to a two-state01:44:59
solution I think for the foreseeable01:45:02
future the animosity inside Israel01:45:05
towards the Palestinians is so great01:45:08
that it is impossible to move the01:45:10
Israelis in that direction and the01:45:12
Israelis here are the key players more01:45:14
so than the Palestinians because it's01:45:17
the Israelis who control greater Israel01:45:20
it's the Israelis who you have to01:45:22
convince now I want to be clear here you01:45:24
also ultimately have to get around the01:45:26
fact that Hamas right is not committed01:45:30
to a two-state solution but I think that01:45:33
problem could be dealt with it's01:45:36
important to understand that Arafat and01:45:38
the PLO was once adamantly opposed to a01:45:40
two-state solution but Arafat came01:45:43
around to understand that that was01:45:45
really the only hope for settling this01:45:49
and he became became a proponent of a01:45:51
two-state solution and that's true of01:45:53
makhmud abas who runs the PA in the West01:45:56
Bank it's not true of Hamas at this01:45:59
point in time they want a one-state01:46:00
solution they want a Palestinian State01:46:03
and of course the Israelis want a01:46:05
one-state solution too which is a Jewish01:46:08
state that controls all of U all of01:46:11
Greater01:46:12
Israel so the question is can you get01:46:16
some sort of agreement and I think to01:46:18
get to your the Nu of your question01:46:20
given what's just happened uh it's01:46:23
almost impossible to imagine that01:46:25
happening anytime soon the cynical01:46:28
perspective here is that uh those in01:46:31
power benefit from conflict while the01:46:34
people on both sides suffer is there01:46:37
degree of Truth to that or for the01:46:39
people in power to maintain power01:46:42
conflict needs to continue no I I don't01:46:45
believe that I mean just to take the01:46:46
Netanyahu government or any Israeli01:46:48
government that maintains01:46:51
uh the occupation what you want is you01:46:54
want a Palestinian population that01:46:58
submits to Israeli domination of Greater01:47:01
Israel you don't want resistance you01:47:03
don't want an inada you don't want what01:47:06
happened on October 7th in fact I think01:47:09
one of the principal reasons that the01:47:10
Israelis are pounding Gaza and killing01:47:15
huge numbers of civilians punishing the01:47:18
civilian population and way that clearly01:47:21
violate the laws of war is because they01:47:24
want the Palestinians to understand that01:47:27
they are not allowed to rise up and01:47:30
resist the occupation that's their goal01:47:33
so I think the Israelis would prefer01:47:35
that the Palestinians roll over and01:47:38
accept submission in terms of the people01:47:42
who live in Gaza to include the elites01:47:45
and the people who live in the West Bank01:47:47
to include the elites they would much01:47:50
prefer prer to move to some sort of01:47:52
situation where uh the Palestinians have01:47:56
a state of their own I think in the case01:47:58
of the pa uh under abas they would01:48:02
accept a two-state solution I think what01:48:04
at this point in time Hamas wants is a01:48:06
one-state solution but they want peace01:48:09
all of them want peace um you know the01:48:12
two different sets of leadership in01:48:15
Palestine and the Israelis so you think01:48:17
Hamas wants peace sure but on its own01:48:20
terms that's the point what does peace01:48:22
look like for Hamas at this point in01:48:24
time I think peace basically means a01:48:27
greater Israel controlled by Palestine01:48:29
or01:48:30
Palestinians okay so essentially I mean01:48:34
it's the whole land is called Palestine01:48:36
and there's no Israel I think at this01:48:39
point in time that's their principal01:48:40
goal I do believe and there have been01:48:43
hints over time Jimmy Carter has said01:48:45
this that Hamas can be convinced that a01:48:48
two-state solution assuming that the01:48:51
Palestinians get a viable uh state of01:48:54
their own that Hamas would buy into that01:48:57
can we say that with a high degree of01:48:59
certainty no but I think I think the01:49:01
Israelis should have pursued that01:49:04
possibility they should have worked with01:49:06
abas they should have worked with Hamas01:49:08
to do everything they can to facilitate01:49:10
a two-state solution because I think01:49:12
ultimately that's an Israel's interest01:49:15
now the Israeli government and most01:49:17
Israelis at this point in time I believe01:49:20
don't agree with that what do you think01:49:22
of Israel starting the ground invasion01:49:26
of Gaza recently on October 27th the01:49:31
question01:49:32
is uh should they01:49:36
continue uh until they have finally01:49:40
defeated01:49:41
Hamas uh there are all sorts of reports01:49:44
in the media including in the Israeli01:49:46
media that they're not going to be01:49:48
allowed by the the United States to01:49:51
continue this01:49:53
offensive uh for much more than a few01:49:56
weeks um the Israelis have been saying01:50:00
it would it's going to take in in the01:50:03
best of all possible worlds a number of01:50:06
months if not a year to finish off Hamas01:50:11
well it doesn't look like they're going01:50:12
to have enough time to do that I doubt01:50:16
whether they can finish off Hamas even01:50:18
if they're given the time uh I think01:50:20
they're going to run into Fierce01:50:23
resistance uh and when they run into01:50:25
Fierce resistance and large numbers of01:50:27
Israelis going to die start to die uh01:50:30
they'll lose their appetite for this and01:50:34
they the Israelis surely know at this01:50:37
point in time that even if they finish01:50:38
off Hamas even if I'm wrong and they're01:50:41
able to finish off Hamas another group01:50:43
is going to rise up to uh resist the01:50:48
occupation the idea that you can use01:50:50
what Z Yaba insky called The Iron Wall01:50:54
to beat the Palestinians into submission01:50:58
is delusional it's just not going to01:51:00
happen the Palestinians want a state of01:51:03
their own they don't want to live under01:51:06
occupation and uh there's no military01:51:10
solution for Israel here there has to be01:51:12
a political solution and the only viable01:51:15
political solution is a two-state01:51:18
solution I mean you can't go to01:51:20
democracy you can't go to a situation01:51:22
where you give the Palestinians equal01:51:24
rights inside a greater Israel in large01:51:27
part because there are01:51:29
now as many Palestinians as there are01:51:33
Israeli Jews and over time the balance01:51:35
the demographic balance shifts against01:51:38
the Israeli Jews and in favor of the01:51:40
Palestinians in which case you'll end up01:51:43
with a Palestinian state in Greater01:51:45
Israel so you know democracy for all01:51:50
doesn't work uh the Israelis I believe01:51:53
are quite interested in ethnic cleansing01:51:56
I think they saw this um uh this recent01:52:00
set of events as an opportunity to01:52:02
cleanse Gaza but that's not going to01:52:04
happen uh the jordanians and the01:52:07
Egyptians have made it clear that that's01:52:09
not happening the United States has now01:52:12
made it clear that that's not happening01:52:14
and and the Palestinians will not leave01:52:18
uh they'll die in place01:52:20
uh so uh ethnic cleansing doesn't work01:52:23
so you're really left with two01:52:24
Alternatives a two-state solution or a01:52:27
greater Israel that is effectively an01:52:30
apartheid state I mean that's what the01:52:32
occupation has led to and all sorts of01:52:35
people have been predicting this for a01:52:37
long long time and you've now reached01:52:40
the point you know here in the United01:52:42
States if you say that Israel's an01:52:44
apartheid state that's going to get you01:52:46
into all sorts of trouble but the fact01:52:49
is that human Rights Watch Amnesty01:52:52
International and Bellum which is the01:52:54
leading Israeli Human Rights group all01:52:57
three of those institutions or01:52:59
organizations have issued detailed01:53:02
reports making the case that Israel is01:53:05
an apartheid state furthermore if you01:53:07
read the Israeli media right all sorts01:53:11
of Israelis including Israeli leaders01:53:15
refer to Israel as an apartheid state01:53:17
it's it's not that unusual to hear that01:53:20
term used in Israel this is disastrous01:53:22
for Israel in my opinion and Steve Walt01:53:25
and I said this by the way when we wrote01:53:26
the Israel Lobby that Israel is an01:53:29
aparte state which is equivalent to01:53:32
Israel as an occupier uh is not good for01:53:36
Israel uh and that brings us back to the01:53:39
two-state solution but as you and I were01:53:41
talking about a few minutes ago it's01:53:43
hard to see how you get a two-state01:53:47
solution and the end result of this01:53:50
conversation is utter01:53:52
despair because the path to a two-state01:53:55
solution is blocked by the amount of um01:53:59
hate that's created by civilian deaths01:54:01
well that plus the fact that the Israeli01:54:03
government uh is filled with people uh01:54:07
who have no interest in a two-state01:54:08
solution they're01:54:11
ideologically deeply committed to a01:54:13
greater Israel they want all the land01:54:17
between the Jordan River and the01:54:19
Mediterranean and see to01:54:21
be part of a Jewish state they're just01:54:25
ideologically committed to that and uh01:54:29
and of course as we were talking about01:54:30
before with regard to Hamas Hamas wants01:54:34
everything between the river and the sea01:54:36
to be a Palestinian State and you know01:54:39
when you have two sides with those kinds01:54:41
of views right um um you're in deep01:54:46
trouble because there's little room for01:54:50
compromise so what you have to do to get01:54:52
this to work is you have to convince the01:54:54
Israelis that it's in their interest to01:54:57
have a two State solution and you have01:54:59
you've already taken care of the PA on01:55:02
this front the Palestinian Authority but01:55:04
you've got to convince Hamas that it's01:55:07
uh its maximalist goals are are not01:55:10
going to work and it's in its interest01:55:12
uh to follow in the footsteps of Arafat01:55:14
and accept a two-state solution but uh01:55:17
even if you do that at this Point let's01:55:20
say that you know there's a lot of01:55:22
willingness uh intellectually on both01:55:25
sides to do that the problem is that the01:55:29
hatred that has been fueled by this01:55:32
recent con uh this ongoing conflict is01:55:36
so great that it's just hard to imagine01:55:38
how you can make a two-state solution01:55:40
work at this juncture uh that's why I've01:55:43
sort of taken to saying and I hope I'm01:55:45
wrong here that you know on the01:55:47
two-state solution uh that that boat has01:55:50
sailed it's just you know it's no longer01:55:52
possible well again I believe in01:55:54
leadership and there's other parties01:55:56
that play here Other Nations Jordan01:55:58
Saudi Arabia other other players in the01:56:01
m in the Middle East that could help01:56:03
that could help through a normalization01:56:05
of relationships and these kinds of01:56:07
things there's there's always hope like01:56:09
you said Slither of Hope Slither of hope01:56:12
I think human civilization progresses01:56:13
forward by taking advantage of the all01:56:16
the slithers it can get uh let me ask01:56:19
you about you mentioned the Israel Lobby01:56:21
you wrote a book probably your most01:56:23
controversial book on the topic not01:56:26
probably clearly the most controversial01:56:29
book I ever wrote so you've uh01:56:31
criticized the Israel Lobby in the01:56:32
United States for influencing US01:56:35
policy um in the Middle East can you01:56:38
explain what the Israel Lobby is their01:56:41
influence and your01:56:43
criticism over the past let's say a01:56:46
couple01:56:47
decades well the argument that Steve01:56:49
Wall and I made actually we wrote an01:56:51
article first and uh which appeared in01:56:54
the London Review of Books uh and then01:56:57
we wrote the book01:56:59
itself uh our argument is that the lobby01:57:03
is a loose Coalition of uh individuals01:57:07
and01:57:09
organizations uh that push American01:57:13
policy in a pro-israel01:57:15
direction uh and uh basically the law is01:57:19
interested in getting Israel excuse me01:57:22
getting the United States and here we're01:57:24
talking mainly about the American01:57:26
government to support Israel no matter01:57:29
what Israel does and our argument is01:57:32
that if you look at the relationship01:57:34
between the United States and Israel01:57:37
it's unprecedented in modern history uh01:57:40
this is the closest relationship that01:57:44
you can find between any two countries01:57:48
in recorded history it's truly amazing01:57:53
the extent to which Israel and the01:57:55
United States are joined at the hip and01:57:57
we support Israel no matter what almost01:58:02
all the time uh and uh our argument is01:58:06
that that is largely due to the01:58:08
influence of the lobby the lobby is uh01:58:12
an extremely powerful interest group now01:58:15
it's very important to understand that01:58:18
the American political system is set up01:58:21
in ways that allow interest groups of01:58:25
All Sorts to wield great influence so in01:58:29
the United States you have an interest01:58:31
group or a Lobby like the National Rifle01:58:35
Association that makes it well nigh01:58:37
impossible to get gun control right uh01:58:41
and so with the Israel Lobby you have01:58:45
this group of individuals and organ01:58:49
organizations that wield enormous01:58:52
influence on US policy toward the Middle01:58:54
East and this01:58:57
is not surprising given the nature of01:59:01
the American political system uh so our01:59:04
argument is that the lobby is not doing01:59:07
anything that's illegal or illicit or01:59:11
immoral or unethical it's just a good01:59:15
old-fashioned American interest group01:59:18
and it just happens to be extremely01:59:22
powerful and our argument is that this01:59:25
is not good for the United States01:59:28
because no two countries have the same01:59:31
interests all the time and when our01:59:34
interests conflict with Israel's01:59:36
interest we should be able to do what we01:59:38
think is in our national interest in01:59:40
America's national interest but the01:59:43
lobby tends to conflate America's01:59:45
national interests with Israel's01:59:47
national interests and wants the United01:59:49
States to support Israel no matter what01:59:53
we also argue and I cannot emphasize01:59:55
this enough given what's going on in the01:59:57
world today that the02:00:00
Lobby's effects the lobby has not02:00:04
been pushing policies that are in02:00:07
Israel's interest so our argument is02:00:09
that the lobby right the lobby pushes02:00:13
policies that are not in America's02:00:15
interest or not in Israel's interest now02:00:18
you're saying yourself what exactly does02:00:20
he mean by02:00:21
that what every president since Jimmy02:00:24
Carter has tried to do as I said before02:00:27
is to foster a two-state solution to02:00:30
push Israel which is the dominant02:00:34
player in Greater Israel push Israel to02:00:38
accept the two-state solution and we02:00:41
have run into huge resistance from the02:00:45
lobby whenever we tried to let's be02:00:48
blunt about it course Israel right in a02:00:51
perfect world where there was no Lobby02:00:53
and an American president was free to02:00:56
put pressure on Israel to coers Israel I02:00:59
believe we would have gone a long way02:01:01
towards getting two-state solution and I02:01:04
believe this would have been in Israel's02:01:07
interest uh but we couldn't get a02:01:09
two-state solution because it was almost02:01:12
impossible to put meaningful pressure on02:01:14
Israel because of the lobby so this was02:01:18
not an Israel's interest and it was not02:01:20
in America's interest and that was the02:01:22
argument that we made and uh we of02:01:25
course got huge pushback for making that02:01:28
argument what's the underlying02:01:29
motivation of the lobby is it religious02:01:31
in nature is it um similar to the way02:01:35
warhawks are sort of militaristic in02:01:38
nature is it nationalistic in nature02:01:40
what what's uh if you were describe this02:01:43
loose Coalition of people what what02:01:45
would you say is their motivation well02:01:47
first of all I think you have to02:01:48
distinguish between Jews and Christians02:01:51
you want to remember that there are a02:01:53
huge number of Christian zionists who02:01:56
are deeply committed to Israel no matter02:01:58
what right and then there are a large02:02:01
number of Jews the Jews are obviously02:02:03
the most important of those two groups02:02:06
in the Israel lobby but you know one of02:02:08
the arguments that we made in the book02:02:11
is that you should not call it the02:02:13
Jewish Lobby because it's not populated02:02:16
just by Jews and Christians ey in this02:02:19
are an important part of that lobby but02:02:22
furthermore there are a good number of02:02:25
Jews who are opposed to the lobby uh and02:02:29
the policies that the lobby purveys and02:02:31
there are uh a number of Jews who are02:02:36
prominent02:02:38
anti-zionists right so and they're02:02:40
obviously not in the lobby or or if you02:02:42
take a group like Jewish voice for peace02:02:45
right Jewish voice for peace is not in02:02:47
the lobby so02:02:49
it's wrong to call it a Jewish lobby but02:02:52
with regard to the American Jews who02:02:56
were in that Lobby uh I I think that02:02:59
really this is all about nationalism02:03:02
it's not so much religion many of those02:03:04
Jews who are influential in the lobby02:03:07
are not religious in any meaningful02:03:09
sense of that term but they02:03:11
self-identify as Jewish in in in the02:03:14
sense that they feel they're part of a02:03:16
Jewish nation and that that in addition02:03:19
to being an American right they are part02:03:22
of this tribe this nation called Jews02:03:25
and that they have a02:03:27
responsibility um to push the United02:03:30
States in ways that support uh the02:03:34
Jewish state so I I think that's what02:03:37
drives most if not almost all the Jews02:03:41
this is not to say there's not a02:03:42
religious dimension for some of them but02:03:44
I think that the the main connection is02:03:47
much more tribal in nature02:03:49
so I had a conversation with Benjamin02:03:51
Netanyahu and he said fundamentally if02:03:53
you're anti-zionist you're02:03:57
anti-semitic so the the the Zionist02:04:01
project is tied at the hip to the Jewish02:04:05
project what do you have to say to that02:04:08
look you can Define02:04:12
anti-Semitism any way you want right and02:04:16
you can Define anti an semitism to02:04:20
incorporate anti-zionism02:04:23
uh and uh I think we have reached the02:04:27
point where02:04:29
anti-Semitism is identified today not02:04:33
just with anti-zionism but with02:04:35
criticism of Israel if you criticize02:04:38
Israel people will say some people will02:04:40
say you're an02:04:42
anti-semite and if that's your02:04:44
definition of02:04:46
anti-semitism it's taken an important02:04:50
term and stretched it to the point where02:04:54
it's02:04:55
meaningless right so when Steve and I02:04:58
wrote the book uh wrote the article and02:05:01
then wrote the book all sorts of people02:05:03
said that we were anti-semites this is a02:05:06
ludicrous charge but what they meant was02:05:10
you're criticizing the lobby you're02:05:12
criticizing Israel and therefore you're02:05:14
an02:05:16
anti-semite okay if that's what an02:05:19
anti-semite is somebody who criticizes02:05:21
Israel you know probably half the Jewish02:05:23
Community if not more in the United02:05:25
States is anti-Semitic and of course you02:05:27
get into all these crazy games where02:05:29
people are calling Jews self-hating Jews02:05:31
and anti-semites because they're02:05:33
critical of Israel but even people who02:05:36
are anti-zionists I don't think they're02:05:38
anti-semitic at all uh you can argue02:05:41
they're misguided that's fine but uh02:05:44
many of these people are Jewish and02:05:46
proud of the fact that they're Jewish02:05:48
they just don't believe that nationalism02:05:52
and Jewish nationalism is a force that02:05:55
should be applauded and you want to02:05:58
understand that in the American context02:06:00
there is a rich tradition of02:06:02
anti-zionism02:06:04
right and these were not people who were02:06:06
anti-semites if you go back to the 30s02:06:09
40s 50s and the same thing was even true02:06:12
in Europe there were all sorts of02:06:13
European Jews who were opposed to02:06:16
Zionism were they anti-semites I don't02:06:19
think so but we've gotten to the point02:06:21
now where people are so interested in02:06:24
stopping any criticism of Israel that02:06:28
they wield this weapon of uh calling02:06:32
people anti-semites uh so uh Loosely02:06:37
that uh the term has kind of lost02:06:40
meaning so I I think n who is is02:06:44
wrongheaded to equate uh anti-zionism02:06:47
with anti an semitism Alan dtz was one02:06:51
of the people that called you02:06:52
specifically02:06:54
anti-semitic so02:06:57
just looking at the space of02:06:59
discourse how do02:07:02
you where's this Slither of Hope for02:07:05
healthy discourse about us relationships02:07:08
with02:07:09
Israel02:07:11
uh between you and alen dtz and others02:07:14
like him well I think until there is a02:07:19
settlement of the Israeli Palestinian02:07:21
conflict there's no hope of putting an02:07:25
end to this nonsense right so these are02:07:28
just uses of terms to kind02:07:30
of cheat your way through the through02:07:33
the discourse it's shortcut no it's the02:07:36
silence people right it's very very02:07:38
important to understand that one of the02:07:40
lobb's principal goals is to make sure02:07:42
we don't have an open discourse a free02:07:45
willing discourse about Israel because02:07:48
they understand people in the lobby02:07:50
understand that if you have an open02:07:51
discourse Israel will end up looking02:07:53
very bad right you don't want to talk02:07:56
about the occupation you don't want to02:07:58
talk about how Israel was created right02:08:00
all all these subjects are ones that uh02:08:06
will cause problems for Israel see just02:08:10
to go to the present crisis okay when02:08:14
you have a02:08:16
disaster and what happened on October02:08:18
7th is a disaster one of the first02:08:21
things that happens is that people begin02:08:25
to ask the question how did this happen02:08:29
right what's the root cause of this02:08:32
problem this is a disaster we have to02:08:35
understand what caused it so that we can02:08:38
work to uh to make sure it doesn't02:08:41
happen again so we can work to shut it02:08:43
down and then make sure it doesn't02:08:45
happen again but once you start talking02:08:48
about the root causes right you end up02:08:50
talking about how Israel was created02:08:53
right and that means telling a story02:08:57
that is not pretty about how the02:08:59
zionists conquered02:09:01
Palestine uh and number two it means02:09:05
talking about the occupation right it's02:09:08
not like uh Hamas attacked on October02:09:12
7th because there were just a bunch of02:09:14
anti-semites who hated Jews and wanted02:09:17
to kill Jews this is not you know Nazi02:09:19
Germany right this is directly related02:09:23
to the occupation and to what was going02:09:25
on inside of Gaza and it's not in02:09:28
Israel's interest or the Lobby's02:09:30
interest to have an open discourse about02:09:32
what the Israelis have been doing to the02:09:35
Palestinians since I would say roughly02:09:37
1903 when the second Aliah came to02:09:41
Israel or came to what was then02:09:43
Palestine right we want to talk about02:09:46
that and we don't want to talk about02:09:48
from the Lobby's point of view the02:09:50
influence that the lobby has right uh02:09:54
it's better from the Lobby's point of02:09:56
view if most Americans think that uh02:09:59
American support of Israel is just done02:10:01
for all the right moral and strategic02:10:03
reasons not because of the lobby and02:10:05
when John mirer and Steve Walt come02:10:07
along and say you have to understand02:10:09
that this special relationship is due in02:10:12
large part to the Lobby's influence that02:10:15
is not an argument that uh people in the02:10:18
lobby want to hear so the point is you02:10:20
have to go to Great Lengths for all02:10:23
these reasons you have to go to Great02:10:24
Lengths to silence people like me and02:10:27
Steve Walt and one of the ways to do02:10:31
that is to call us anti-semites I think02:10:33
the chapter or the section of the book02:10:35
where we talk about this charge of02:10:37
anti-Semitism is called the Great02:10:40
silencer that's what we call the charge02:10:43
of anti-Semitism the great silencer who02:10:46
wants to be called an anti-semite02:10:48
especially in the wake of the Holocaust02:10:50
do I want to be called an anti-semite oh02:10:52
my God no uh and uh so it's very02:10:57
effective but you know it is important02:11:02
to talk about these issues in my humble02:11:05
opinion and I think if we had talked02:11:07
about these issues uh way back02:11:10
when it would have gone a long way02:11:13
towards uh you know maybe getting a02:11:17
two-state solution02:11:18
which I think was the best alternative02:11:20
here it it's complicated and I I wonder02:11:23
if you can comment on the complexity of02:11:26
this because criticizing Israel and you02:11:29
know criticizing the02:11:31
lobby can02:11:34
um for a lot of people be a dog whistle02:11:38
for sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy02:11:42
theories that you know this idea that02:11:45
Jews run everything run the world or02:11:47
this kind of02:11:49
cabal and you know02:11:53
it's it's also very true that people who02:11:55
are legitimately02:11:57
anti-semitic are also critics of Israel02:11:59
in the same kind of way and so it's such02:12:02
a complicated landscape in which to have02:12:05
discussions because02:12:09
um uh you know even people like David02:12:12
Duke uh who are you know racists don't02:12:15
sound racist on the surface02:12:19
well I haven't listened to him enough02:12:20
but like you know there's dog whistles02:12:23
it's it's a complicated space in which02:12:24
to have02:12:25
discussions because it um I mean I02:12:28
wonder if you can sort of speak to02:12:31
that um because there's this silencing02:12:34
effect of calling everybody anti-semitic02:12:38
but it's also true that there is02:12:40
anti-Semitism in the world like there is02:12:44
a sizeable population of people that02:12:46
hate Jews there's probably a size of02:12:48
population of people who hate Muslims02:12:50
too but you know I lot of hate out there02:12:53
a lot of hate out there uh but the02:12:56
hatred of Jews has like a long history02:12:59
and so you have like you know Rolling02:13:00
Stones have a a set of great hits and02:13:03
there's just a set of great hits of the02:13:05
wayte conspiracy theories that you can02:13:06
make up about the Jews that are used as02:13:09
part of the hatred uh so there's like02:13:12
nice templates for that and I I just02:13:15
wonder if you can comment on02:13:18
operating as a historian as an analyst02:13:20
as a strategic thinker in this kind of02:13:23
space yeah we obviously when we wrote02:13:27
the article which we did before the book02:13:29
gave the subject a great deal of thought02:13:31
I mean uh what you say just now is music02:13:35
to our ears I'm talking for me and about02:13:37
me and Steve uh I mean I think that you02:13:40
know your point about dog whistles is02:13:45
correct look we went to Great Lengths to02:13:49
make it clear that this is not a cabal02:13:53
it's not a conspiracy and in fact in a02:13:56
very important way the lobby operates02:13:58
out in the open right02:14:02
uh they brag about their power right and02:14:06
this was true before we wrote the02:14:09
article right and um and we said in the02:14:15
article and the book and you heard me02:14:18
say it here first of all it's not a02:14:20
Jewish Lobby02:14:22
right um secondly it's not a cabal right02:14:27
it's an American interest group and and02:14:31
the American system is designed such02:14:32
that interest groups are perfectly legal02:14:34
and some of them are super effective02:14:37
exact I mean you hit the nail right on02:14:39
the head that's exactly right02:14:43
and you know and there was nothing that02:14:46
we said that was anti iiic by any02:14:49
reasonable definition of that term and02:14:53
you know huge numbers of Jews have known02:14:55
me and Steve over the years and nobody02:14:59
ever ever said that we were anti-semitic02:15:02
before March 2006 when the article02:15:05
appeared because we're not02:15:07
anti-semitic but look you've got this02:15:11
interest group right that has a02:15:14
significant influence on American policy02:15:18
and un Israeli02:15:20
policy02:15:22
and you want to talk about it it's just02:15:25
important to talk about it it's02:15:27
important for Jews right in the United02:15:30
States for Jews in Israel to talk about02:15:33
this the idea that you want to silence02:15:36
critics is not a smart way to go about02:15:39
doing business in my02:15:41
opinion if we were wrong if Steve and I02:15:44
were so wrong and our arguments were so02:15:47
foul02:15:48
they could have easily exposed those02:15:51
arguments they could have gone uh into02:15:54
combat with this in terms of the02:15:57
marketplace of ideas and easily knocked02:15:59
us down the problem was that our02:16:02
arguments were quite powerful and02:16:05
instead of engaging us and defeating our02:16:08
arguments they wanted to silence us and02:16:12
this is not good right it's not good for02:16:15
Israel it's not good for the United02:16:17
States and I would argue in the end if02:16:19
anything it's going to Foster02:16:21
anti-Semitism I think you don't want to02:16:23
run around telling people that they02:16:26
can't talk about Israel without being02:16:29
called an anti-semite it's just not it's02:16:32
not healthy uh in terms of the issue02:16:34
that you're raising right but I still02:16:38
agree with you that it is a tricky issue02:16:41
it's I I don't want to make light of02:16:43
that you know I know that there's this02:16:47
piece of liter out there called the02:16:48
protocols of the Elders of Zion and I02:16:52
fully understand that if you're not02:16:54
careful you can come close to writing02:16:57
volume two of the protocol but I don't02:17:00
believe that we wrote anything that was02:17:03
even close to that and again I think02:17:06
that a healthy debate on the issues that02:17:09
we were raising would have been not only02:17:12
in America's interest but it would have02:17:13
been in Israel's02:17:14
interest yeah I mean know underneath at02:17:17
all is just I wonder why there is so02:17:21
much hate against groups why it's such a02:17:25
sticky way of02:17:27
thinking not just tribalism like proud02:17:30
of your country and kind of hating02:17:32
another country but really deeply hating02:17:35
like hating in a way where it's part of02:17:37
your identity kind of02:17:39
hate well just to make a general point02:17:43
on this issue in our conversation here02:17:45
today you often talk about individual02:17:48
leaders and the word individual often02:17:52
pops up in your vocabulary yes I believe02:17:55
that we are ultimately social animals02:17:58
before we are individuals I believe02:18:00
we're born into tribes we're heavily02:18:03
socialized and that we carve out space02:18:06
for our02:18:07
individualism but we are part of tribes02:18:11
and or social groups or nations call02:18:14
them what you want ethnic groups02:18:16
religious groups but the fact is that02:18:19
these tribes often crash into each other02:18:22
and when they crash into each other they02:18:25
end up hating each other uh if you go to02:18:28
a place like Bosnia right the croats and02:18:31
the serbs oh my God and then throw in02:18:34
the02:18:35
bosniacs which is the term for Bosnian02:18:38
Muslims and you know Muslims cowat serbs02:18:42
uh oh and uh the tribes you know hate02:18:47
each other uh and uh in a funny way that02:18:52
hatred almost never goes away uh and uh02:18:56
I guess there are some exceptions to02:18:58
that uh if you look at the Germans after02:19:00
World War II they've gone a long way02:19:03
towards reducing I wouldn't want to say02:19:06
completely eliminating but reducing a02:19:08
lot of the hatred uh that existed02:19:11
between Germans and their02:19:14
neighbors uh but that's really kind of02:19:16
an anomalous02:19:18
case uh I mean you go around East Asia02:19:21
today and the hatred of Japan in a place02:19:24
like China the hatred of Japan in a02:19:27
place like Korea just not to be02:19:30
underestimated and uh so but I think a02:19:33
lot of it just has to do with the fact02:19:35
that you're dealing with social groups02:19:36
that have crashed into each other uh at02:19:39
one point or another and there are those02:19:41
lingering effects and by the way this02:19:43
gets back to our discussion a few02:19:45
minutes ago about trying to get it to02:19:47
State solution between the Palestinians02:19:50
and the Israeli Jews now that you have02:19:53
had uh this horrible War uh which is02:19:58
ongoing it's02:20:00
interesting to ask to go back to World02:20:02
War II now you said uh you studied Nazi02:20:05
Germany in in the 30s from a perspective02:20:08
of02:20:09
maybe offensive02:20:11
realism uh but just to look at the02:20:15
Holocaust it's sometimes popular in02:20:19
public discourse today to compare02:20:20
certain things to the Holocaust people02:20:22
have compared the Hamas attack on Israel02:20:25
to the Holocaust saying things like it's the02:20:29
the02:20:30
biggest attack on Jews since the02:20:34
Holocaust which kind02:20:36
of02:20:38
implies that there's a comparison U02:20:41
people have made that same comparison in02:20:43
the other02:20:44
direction what do you make of this02:20:46
comparison02:20:47
is it comparable is it is the use of the02:20:52
Holocaust uh have any accuracy in02:20:55
comparisons of modern-day International02:21:00
politics is it possible that you could02:21:03
have another02:21:05
genocide yes and I would argue that what02:21:08
you had in Rwanda was a02:21:10
genocide right the Holocaust is not the02:21:13
only02:21:14
genocide I believe the word genocide02:21:17
is used too Loosely02:21:20
today uh and as you know lots of people02:21:24
and I mean lots of people who are pro02:21:26
Palestinian accuse the Israelis of02:21:29
engaging in genocide in Gaza I think02:21:32
what the Israelis are doing in Gaza uh02:21:37
represents a massacre I I would use that02:21:40
term given the number of civilians that02:21:42
they've killed and the fact that they've02:21:44
been indiscriminate in terms of how02:21:46
they've been bombing Gaza but I would02:21:50
not use the word02:21:52
genocide uh for me a genocide is where02:21:54
one side attempts to eliminate another02:21:59
group from the planet uh I think that02:22:02
what happened with the Holocaust was02:22:04
clearly a genocide and that the Germans02:22:08
were bent uh on destroying all of02:22:11
European jewry and if they could have02:22:13
gotten their hands on uh Jews outside of02:22:17
Europe they would have murdered them as02:22:19
well that's a genocide and I think with02:22:22
the hutus and the tootsies you had a02:22:24
similar02:22:25
situation uh I think with the Turks and02:22:28
the Armenians during World War I that02:22:30
was a genocide but I have a rather02:22:32
narrow definition of what a genocide is02:22:35
and I don't think there are many cases02:22:37
that qualify as a genocide the Holocaust02:22:40
certainly does okay02:22:43
now what Hamas did doesn't even come02:22:47
close to what happened to European jury02:22:52
between let's say02:22:55
1939 uh and 1945 although I date the02:22:58
start of the Holocaust to02:23:00
1941 if we were you know looking at it02:23:03
closely but let's just say 1939 when02:23:06
they invade Poland 1939 to02:23:09
194502:23:11
whated pales in comparison it's hard to02:23:14
believe anybody would make that argument02:23:16
right yeah yes a lot of Jews died uh but02:23:20
uh uh02:23:22
hardly02:23:23
uh hardly any compared to the number02:23:27
that died uh you know at the hands of02:23:29
the Germans I mean it just no parallel02:23:32
at all uh and furthermore Hamas was in02:23:35
no position to kill all of the Jews in02:23:40
the Middle East just not not going to02:23:42
happen yeah but there's also levels of02:23:44
things you know using uh Germans using02:23:48
uh human skin for lamps there's just02:23:51
levels of evil in this world yes but you02:23:54
don't see that with I mean that's not02:23:56
what Hamas is doing I mean I I want to02:23:59
be very clear here I am not justifying02:24:01
the kill hamas's killing of civilians02:24:04
okay not for one second but I'm just02:24:06
saying and and and by the way just to go02:24:09
to the Israelis and what they're doing in Gaza02:24:13
right as I said to you before I do02:24:14
believe that is a massacre and I believe02:24:17
believe that's to be condemned the02:24:18
killing of02:24:20
civilians uh this is not legitimate02:24:22
collateral damage they're directly02:24:25
punishing the population but I would not02:24:28
call that a genocide right and I would02:24:30
not compare that to the Holocaust for02:24:34
for one second I just want to be very02:24:36
clear on that do you think uh if Israel02:24:40
could they would avoid the death of any02:24:43
civilians so you're saying there's some02:24:46
degree of punishment of colletive02:24:48
they're purposely killing civilians it's02:24:50
this is the Iron Wall they're trying to02:24:51
beat the Palestinians in the02:24:54
submission02:24:55
right there's no way you kill this many02:24:59
civilians02:25:02
um if you're trying to precisely take02:25:06
out Hamas Fighters and by the way the02:25:09
Israeli spokesman the IDF spokesman has02:25:12
explicitly said that we are not pursuing02:25:15
Precision bombing and what we are doing02:25:18
is trying to you know maximize the02:25:20
amount of Destruction and damage uh that02:25:23
we can inflict on the02:25:25
Palestinians and uh I I I think this is02:25:28
a major mistake on the part of Israel02:25:32
first of all it ends up being a moral02:25:34
stain on your reputation number one and02:25:37
number two it doesn't work it doesn't02:25:40
work the the Palestinians are not going02:25:43
to roll over and submit to uh isra02:25:46
Israeli domination of their02:25:49
life um so you know the whole concept of02:25:53
the Iron Wall uh Yaba tinsky term was02:25:57
misguided um and and and by the way the02:26:00
iron if you look at what the Israelis02:26:02
are doing they're trying to do two02:26:03
things one is the iron wall and that's02:26:05
where you punish the civilian population02:26:07
in Gaza and get them to submit the other02:26:09
thing that they're trying to do is get02:26:11
Hamas they want to destroy Hamas and the02:26:13
belief there is that if they destroy02:26:15
Hamas they've solved the problem but as02:26:19
many Israelis know including people on02:26:21
the hard right even if you destroy Hamas02:26:24
they are going to be replaced by another02:26:29
group another resistance group uh and02:26:33
that resistance group will employ Terror02:26:36
yeah I think you I think you've said02:26:37
that uh other terrorist organizations02:26:39
have used the situation in Palestine as02:26:41
a as a kind of a recruit recruitment02:26:44
mechanism for for a long time02:26:47
Osama bin lad made it clear that this02:26:50
was one of his principal reasons for02:26:53
attacking the United States right and02:26:56
the United02:26:57
States attacked back and uh got us into02:27:01
a 20-year war that02:27:04
cost the lives of millions of people not02:27:08
not American but uh human beings yeah02:27:11
and uh engaged in torture in02:27:15
torture yeah no I think if you look at02:27:19
how we reacted to02:27:21
9/11 and how the Israelis are reacting02:27:25
to what happened on October 7th uh02:27:28
there's uh quite a bit of similarity in02:27:32
that both sides the Israeli side and the02:27:34
American side uh are enraged right and02:27:38
they lash out and they go on a02:27:41
rampage and the end result is not good02:27:45
is there a capacity within Israel or02:27:47
with within United States after02:27:50
9/11 to do something approximating turn02:27:54
the other02:27:55
cheek02:27:57
of understanding the root of Terror is02:28:01
hate and fighting that hate02:28:04
with uh not the naive but02:28:09
compassion well I I don't think in02:28:12
either case you're going to turn the02:28:13
other cheek uh I think well some mil I02:28:18
what I mean by that is some limited02:28:22
powerful military response but very02:28:24
limited yeah coupled with a smart02:28:26
political strategy political strategy02:28:28
diplomacy yeah that's what they should02:28:30
have done yeah right but is their02:28:32
capacity for that or from your offensive02:28:35
realism perspective it's just the odds02:28:38
are really02:28:39
low no from my offensive realist02:28:42
perspective or my realist perspective02:28:44
that's what you should do right you okay02:28:47
my my view is states are rational actors02:28:49
they should be cunning right they should02:28:51
think about uh the Strategic situation02:28:54
are in and choose the appropriate02:28:56
response and uh what happens and this is02:29:00
why my theory is not always correct is02:29:03
that sometimes states are not rational02:29:05
and they02:29:08
misbehave I would argue in the Israeli02:29:11
case uh that it would have been good02:29:14
after October 7th or start starting on02:29:17
October 7th if the United States had uh02:29:22
tried to hold the Israelis back and02:29:25
countenance uh a more uh moderate02:29:30
response a more uh to SP take some time02:29:34
just to think about how to deal with02:29:36
this problem instead of lashing out I I02:29:39
think given what happened to the02:29:41
Israelis given how shocked they were02:29:43
given the level of fear given the level02:29:46
of AG they were going to lash out and I02:29:49
don't believe that was in their interest02:29:51
I think it would have been made would02:29:53
have made sense to to think about it and02:29:56
uh to think about a smarter strategy02:29:59
than they're now employing and I think02:30:02
you know the Americans blew it the02:30:03
Americans gave them a be hug and a green02:30:06
light and said we'll give you all the02:30:07
Weaponry you need and go out and do it02:30:11
and uh I don't think that was the smart02:30:13
thing to do look in the wake of October02:30:17
7th the Israelis had no good strategy02:30:21
right it's it's not like there's a magic02:30:23
formula that they just didn't see and we02:30:25
should have told them what the magic02:30:26
formula was right that's not true they02:30:29
were in a sense caught between IR Roa02:30:31
and a hard place in terms of what to do02:30:34
but they're smarter things and Dumber02:30:36
things and I think the02:30:39
Israelis lashed out in ways that are02:30:44
counterproductive I think you know going02:30:47
on a rampage and you know killing huge02:30:49
numbers of civilians is not it's02:30:52
obviously morally wrong but it's also02:30:55
just not in their strategic interest02:30:58
right I mean uh because it's it's not02:31:01
going to buy them anything right and in02:31:04
fact it's going to cost them right02:31:06
because people all over the planet are02:31:08
turning against Israel uh I saw you know02:31:12
an Israeli think tank today uh that has02:31:16
been tracking U protests around the02:31:21
world um gave some figures for what it02:31:25
looked like uh between October 7th and02:31:28
October 13th in terms of the number of02:31:32
uh protests around the world that were02:31:34
pro-israel versus Pro Palestine and then02:31:37
it looked at the numbers from U October02:31:40
13th up to the present and I think the02:31:44
numbers were 69 9% were Pro Palestinian02:31:48
in the first six days after October 7th02:31:52
69% and I think 31% take these numbers02:31:55
with a grain of salt 31% were pro-israel02:31:59
so I think it was 69 and02:32:02
31 um and uh since then since October02:32:08
13th if you look at the number of02:32:09
protests around the world 95% have been02:32:12
Pro Palestinian and 5% have been02:32:15
pro-israel02:32:17
uh and what this tells you is that02:32:19
public opinion around the world has02:32:21
shifted against Israel and if you look02:32:24
at some of the demonstrations in places02:32:26
like London and Washington DC it's truly02:32:29
amazing the number of people who are02:32:31
coming out in support of the02:32:34
Palestinians and uh all this again is02:32:37
just to support my point that it was02:32:39
just not smart for Israel to uh launch02:32:43
this bombing campaign right you can make02:32:46
it an argument for going after Hamas and02:32:48
doing it in a surgical way or as02:32:50
surgical a way as possible uh but uh02:32:55
that's not what they did and again my02:32:57
point to you is I think that this02:32:59
punishment campaign is not going to work02:33:02
strategically in other words they're not02:33:04
going to beat the Palestinians into02:33:05
submission they're not going to finish02:33:07
off Hamas and at the same time by02:33:09
pursuing this strategy they're doing02:33:12
huge damage to their reputation around02:33:15
the world02:33:16
well I just uh yeah in the wake of02:33:19
October02:33:22
7th given the geopolitical02:33:26
context I think there's a lot of02:33:29
Leverage to be the great ethical02:33:32
superpower that demonstrate power02:33:35
without killing any02:33:36
civilians and use that leverage02:33:39
diplomatic leverage to push forward02:33:41
something like abrahamic Accords with02:33:44
more nations with with Saudi Arabia02:33:46
push for peace02:33:48
aggressively peace agreements this kind02:33:50
of stuff economic relationships all this02:33:52
kind of stuff and thereby pressure the02:33:56
Palestinian Authority you know towards02:34:00
um perhaps a two State02:34:03
solution but I think what you're missing02:34:05
here just in the Israeli case is that02:34:07
the Israeli government is not interested02:34:09
in two-state solution and you want to02:34:11
remember that Benjamin Netanyahu who02:34:15
looks very hawkish when you look at him02:34:18
in isolation doesn't look so hawkish02:34:22
when you look at him compared to the02:34:24
rest of the people in his cabinet right02:34:27
he he he almost looks like a moderate02:34:30
he's got a lot of people who are way out02:34:33
to the right of him02:34:36
and these people and this of course02:34:38
includes Netanyahu are not interested in02:34:40
the two-state solution so the question02:34:43
you have to ask yourself is you if02:34:44
you're if you're Benjamin Netanyahu and02:34:47
it's July 7th late in the excuse me02:34:50
October 7th late in the day what do you02:34:53
do you're not thinking about a two-state02:34:55
solution you're thinking about an02:34:58
occupation that's not going to end and02:35:00
the question is how do you deal with the02:35:02
Palestinians given what's just happened02:35:05
well there's people in the cabinet and02:35:07
then there's history and history02:35:09
remembers great leaders and so uh02:35:12
Benjamin nyaho can look in the streets02:35:14
of Israel and the see the protests and02:35:17
think of how history will remember him02:35:19
and I think a two-state solution is on02:35:21
the table for a great leader well it was02:35:25
there was he the person who was gonna02:35:27
take advantage of it I don't think so02:35:30
but well he's student history well at02:35:33
this point what the will see does I mean02:35:35
it's very at this point it's very02:35:37
difficult um like you said 95% now or02:35:41
whatever the number is of protests I02:35:44
think the the window in which02:35:48
Israel has the ears of the world it can02:35:51
do the the big ethical peace act action02:35:54
towards peace is uh I think has closed02:35:58
or maybe there's still a Slither but02:36:01
it's just02:36:03
the uh the slippery slope of of hate is02:36:07
has taken off it's quite depressing to02:36:09
watch I agree 100% unequivocally02:36:13
depressing but you know of course as you02:36:15
talk about the the role of you the US02:36:18
involvement is of critical importance02:36:20
here for the United02:36:21
States and the argument you make is that02:36:25
we should not be involved in02:36:27
Ukraine at least to the degree we are we02:36:31
being the United States uh and we should02:36:33
not be involved in Israel to the degree02:36:35
we are because it's stretching us too02:36:37
thin when uh the02:36:40
big geopolitical contender in the 21st02:36:44
century with United States is02:36:46
China that is that a correct02:36:48
summary yeah I I I think just on Ukraine02:36:51
we should not have pushed Ukraine to02:36:54
join NATO sure uh and once the war02:36:58
started we should have worked overtime02:37:01
to shut it down immediately March Yeah02:37:04
March right and and you remember by the02:37:07
way not to go back to Ukraine in great02:37:09
detail in the fall early fall of 202202:37:14
the war starts February 2022 there March02:37:17
2022 which we've talked about which is02:37:19
the negotiations in the fall of 2022 I02:37:22
think it was in02:37:24
September uh the ukrainians had won two02:37:28
major tactical victories one in hiran02:37:30
and the other in harke and at that point02:37:33
in time General Millie who was the02:37:35
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff02:37:37
said now is the time to negotiate02:37:39
because this is the high watermark for02:37:42
the ukrainians yeah Billy understood02:37:45
that they things were only going to get02:37:46
worse and the White House shut Millie02:37:49
down and said we're not negotiating so02:37:52
we have blown a number of opportunities02:37:55
here to head this problem off at the02:37:58
pass uh and uh but that's my view there02:38:02
and uh with regard to the Israelis my02:38:04
only point about Israel is that it would02:38:07
be better for Israel and better for the02:38:10
United States if we the United States02:38:13
were in was in a position the United02:38:15
States was in a position to put pressure02:38:17
on Israel from time to time as Steve and02:38:20
I say in the book we should be able to02:38:22
treat Israel like a normal country right02:38:26
the fact is that countries sometimes do02:38:28
stupid things this includes the United02:38:30
States and Israel and if Israel is02:38:33
pursuing a policy that we think is02:38:35
unwise we should be in a position where02:38:37
we could put pressure on Israel yeah02:38:39
that's our argument right but02:38:42
anyway we goofed both with regard to02:38:46
Ukraine and with regard to the Middle02:38:49
East and we're now up to our eyeballs in02:38:51
alligators in both of those regions and02:38:56
as you describe my view this is not good02:39:00
because the area of the most strategic02:39:03
importance for the United States Today02:39:05
Is East Asia and that's because China is02:39:08
there and China is the most serious02:39:11
threat the United States faces do you02:39:14
think there will be a war02:39:16
with China in the 21st century I don't02:39:19
know uh my argument is there will be02:39:22
there is right now a serious security02:39:26
competition and uh at the same time02:39:29
there is a real possibility of War02:39:31
whether or not we avoid it is very hard02:39:34
to say uh I mean we did during the Cold02:39:37
War we had a serious security02:39:39
competition from roughly02:39:41
1947 to02:39:43
1989 and uh and we thankfully avoided02:39:46
war probably came the closest in 196202:39:50
with the Cuban Missile02:39:51
Crisis but uh we avoided it and I think02:39:56
we can avoid it here is it for sure no02:39:59
you've said that China won't move on02:40:02
Taiwan militarily in part because it's02:40:05
uh as you said amphibious operations are02:40:08
difficult why will China not move on02:40:11
Taiwan is in your02:40:13
sense uh in the near future well it's02:40:17
because there's this body of water02:40:18
called the Taiwan straigh which is a big02:40:22
body of water and getting across water02:40:25
uh is very difficult unless you can walk02:40:28
on water so geography still has a role02:40:31
to play in the 21st century oh yeah I02:40:33
think geography is very important big02:40:35
bodies of water really matter yeah in an02:40:38
Ideal World you'd like to have the02:40:39
Pacific Ocean between you and any02:40:41
potential adversary you know 6,000 miles02:40:44
yes 6 ,000 miles of water hard to get02:40:47
across yes I if you're a country and I'm02:40:50
a country and there's land between us I02:40:53
can take my Panzer divisions and I can02:40:55
go right across the land and get into02:40:57
your country or attack your country and02:41:00
you of course can take your Panzer02:41:01
divisions and come across that same02:41:03
piece of land but if there's a big body02:41:06
of water between us your Panzer02:41:08
divisions can't go across the water and02:41:11
then the question is how do you get them02:41:12
across the water and that's very tricky02:41:16
and in a world we have lots of02:41:17
submarines and you have lots of aircraft02:41:20
and you have missiles that are landbased02:41:23
that can hit those surface ships it is02:41:27
very very hard to you know to attack02:41:30
across a body of water and all you have02:41:32
to do is think about uh Normandy you02:41:36
know the American invasion of Normandy02:41:38
June 6th 1944 coming in on Omaha Beach02:41:42
right uh oh boy that was really02:41:45
difficult but there is a growing02:41:47
asymmetry of military power there that02:41:51
even though it's difficult that is02:41:54
correct so I I guess that is correct so02:41:58
I recently had a conversation with Elon02:41:59
Musk and and he02:42:01
says02:42:03
that uh you know China is quite serious02:42:08
about the one China policy and it seems02:42:11
inevitable that Taiwan will have to be02:42:14
if you look at this02:42:15
pragmatically in the 21st century it02:42:18
seems inevitable that Taiwan will have02:42:19
to be a part of China and so we can get02:42:21
there either diplomatically or02:42:23
militarily like02:42:26
um what do you think about the02:42:29
inevitability of that kind of idea when02:42:31
a nation says this is a top02:42:34
priority for us02:42:38
um what do you think about them meaning02:42:42
it and what do we do about that02:42:46
there's no question it's a top priority02:42:48
for them and there's no question they02:42:49
mean it but it's also a top priority for02:42:53
us not to let them take Taiwan why02:42:55
exactly because it's an important02:42:57
strategic asset uh many people will say02:42:59
it's because taiwan's a democracy but02:43:02
that doesn't matter that02:43:04
much uh it's02:43:06
because uh of two strategic reasons the02:43:09
first is that uh if we were to let02:43:13
Taiwan go it would have hugely negative02:43:18
consequences for our alliance structure02:43:20
in East Asia to contain China we need02:43:23
allies we have an alliance structure and02:43:26
our allies Japanese South02:43:29
Koreans Filipinos02:43:31
Australians they're all counting on us02:43:33
to be there for them and if we say we're02:43:38
not going to defend Taiwan the Chinese02:43:40
attack they're going to say I bet if the02:43:43
Chinese attack us the American Amer an02:43:45
won't be there for us uh so the it would02:43:49
have02:43:50
uh a damaging effect on our allian02:43:53
structure which we cannot afford because02:43:57
because containing China is a wicked02:43:58
problem it's a powerful State you were02:44:01
getting to this before when you talked02:44:02
about China versus Taiwan so that's the02:44:06
first reason second reason is you want02:44:08
to bottle up the Chinese Navy and the02:44:11
Chinese Air Force inside the first02:44:14
island chain you don't want to let them02:44:16
get02:44:17
out uh into the Pacific you don't want02:44:20
them dominating the Waters of East Asia02:44:23
you want to bottle them up again inside02:44:25
the first island chain and you can only02:44:27
do that if you control Taiwan you don't02:44:29
control Taiwan they get out into the02:44:32
Philippine Sea into the Pacific and the02:44:34
Western Pacific and cause all sorts of02:44:37
problems well you saying all that you've02:44:40
also said the century of humiliation02:44:43
Japan and the United States are source02:44:45
of that humiliation for02:44:48
China don't you think they see the other02:44:50
side of that absolutely and in the02:44:55
interest of avoiding a World02:44:58
War I guess the question is uh how do we02:45:02
avoid a World War it02:45:05
doesn't um seem like the military02:45:08
involve involvement in the conflict02:45:10
between China and Taiwan is the02:45:12
way well I I don't want there's no good02:45:15
answers here I'm just saying there are02:45:17
no good which is the the less bad option02:45:20
well what you want to do is you want to02:45:22
make sure that you02:45:24
deter uh China from invading Taiwan you02:45:28
want to avoid a war you and I are in02:45:29
complete agreement on that we don't want02:45:31
a war but we want to contain China we do02:45:33
not want to let China dominate Asia that02:45:37
that's what the Americans are02:45:38
principally concerned with here and it's02:45:40
what China's neighbors are principally02:45:42
concerned with this includes the02:45:44
Japanese the South South Koreans02:45:46
Filipinos Australians and the Taiwanese02:45:49
we they don't want and we don't want02:45:52
China to dominate the region so we have02:45:55
to contain it but at the same time and02:45:58
this should be music to your ears we not02:46:00
only want to contain it we want to make02:46:02
sure we don't end up in a shooting match02:46:04
with the Chinese because this could be02:46:06
disastrous so you have to have a very02:46:08
smart policy you have to build powerful02:46:10
military forces and you have to make02:46:12
sure you don't do anything that's02:46:14
provocative netive on Taiwan for example02:46:17
the last thing you want is for the02:46:19
Taiwanese government to declare its02:46:21
independence because the Chinese have02:46:23
said if Taiwan does that we'll go to war02:46:26
and of course we don't want that so my02:46:29
view is you want to smartly build up02:46:32
your military forces and you want to do02:46:34
everything you can to contain China uh02:46:37
and at the same time not be02:46:40
provocative so a big component of that02:46:43
is making02:46:45
sure your military the US military is02:46:47
bigger than the Chinese02:46:50
military not necessarily uh it's an02:46:54
interesting02:46:56
question uh a lot of people think that02:46:59
to make deterrence work right you have02:47:02
to be able to beat the Chinese and02:47:05
therefore you need a much bigger02:47:08
military uh and I don't think over time02:47:11
that's possible right I think it's02:47:13
probably not even possible now to beat02:47:15
the Chinese in a war over Taiwan or in a02:47:19
war in the South China Sea I think what02:47:22
you want to do is make it clear to the02:47:25
Chinese either that there will be no02:47:27
winner in other words you don't have to02:47:29
win but you want to make sure they don't02:47:31
win okay it's it's it's a lose02:47:34
lose U proposition if they go to war02:47:37
over Taiwan or what have you uh and if02:47:40
you can't do that right you think that02:47:43
they're so powerful that they're02:47:44
ultimately going to win you want to02:47:47
convince them that Victory would be a02:47:49
pic victory in other words they would02:47:52
pay a God awful price to win the war you02:47:56
follow what I'm saying so excuse me the02:47:59
best strategy for deterence is you win02:48:03
China loses second best strategy is a02:48:06
stalemate nobody wins third best02:48:09
strategy is they win but they pay a god-02:48:13
awful price and the fourth possibility02:48:16
which you don't want is they win quickly02:48:19
and decisively right uh if that's the02:48:23
case then you don't have much02:48:27
deterrence what is a world with China is02:48:31
the sole dominant superpower look like I02:48:34
mean a little bit underlying our02:48:36
discussion is this kind of idea that us02:48:38
is the good guys and China is the bad02:48:41
guys first of all you know the you know02:48:43
dividing the world into good good guys02:48:45
and bad guys seems to02:48:47
somehow miss the Nuance of this02:48:50
whole human civilization project we're02:48:53
undertaking but what does the world look02:48:55
like where China is the dominant sole02:48:57
superpower in a unipolar02:49:00
world well I I don't tend to think of02:49:03
the world in terms of good guys and bad02:49:05
guys as a good realist I I think that02:49:09
you know states are States they're all02:49:11
black boxes you know I don't02:49:13
discriminate between democracy and02:49:15
autocracies but having said that I am an02:49:18
American right and as an American I'm02:49:21
interested in the security of my country02:49:24
the survival of my country so I want the02:49:28
United States to be the most powerful02:49:30
state in the world which means I want02:49:33
the do United States to dominate the02:49:35
Western Hemisphere I want us to be a02:49:37
regional hedgemon and I want to make02:49:39
sure that China does not dominate Asia02:49:42
the way we dominate the Western02:49:44
Hemisphere02:49:45
it's not because I think we're the good02:49:47
guys and they're the bad guys uh if I02:49:51
were Chinese and I were in Beijing and I02:49:54
were XI jinping's National Security02:49:56
advisor I'd tell him what we got to do02:49:58
is make sure we dominate the world or02:50:01
dominate our region and then do02:50:03
everything we can to undermine America's02:50:05
position in the Western Hemisphere right02:50:08
that that be my view uh so I guess you02:50:12
could say I do view the world in terms02:50:14
of good guys bad guys cuz I'm an02:50:15
American and more like us and Them02:50:18
versus yeah it's us and them that's02:50:19
that's a nice way to put it yeah it's US02:50:21
versus them not so much good guys versus02:50:23
bad guys is it possible to have a stable02:50:25
peaceful world with a good balance of02:50:28
power with where it's China and us as02:50:33
superpowers you it's a bipolar world no02:50:36
longer unipolar yeah okay so you're02:50:38
hypothesizing a world where they02:50:40
dominate Asia yeah and we dominate the02:50:42
Western Hemisphere I I believe there02:50:45
would be uh a great deal of security02:50:48
competition intense security competition02:50:51
between those two superpowers the02:50:53
definition of intents matters here so it02:50:56
could be02:50:57
small small military conflicts or it02:51:01
could be extremely large unstable02:51:03
military conflicts right well conflict02:51:06
let's use the word War okay so I I02:51:09
distinguish between security competition02:51:11
and War and what I'm telling you is02:51:12
you'll have an intense security comp02:51:15
competition where there's no shooting or02:51:17
if there's shooting it's mainly proxies02:51:19
that are doing the fighting much like02:51:22
the Vietnam War right uh or you could02:51:25
have a case where one of those02:51:27
superpowers was involved in a war02:51:30
against a proxy of the other superpower02:51:33
Korean War think the Korean War the02:51:35
United States fought the Chinese who02:51:37
were allied with the Soviets at the time02:51:39
mhm but uh a war between the United02:51:42
States and China just like a war between02:51:45
the United States and the Soviet Union02:51:47
during the Cold War that's what you02:51:49
really want to avoid avoid so I think02:51:51
you'd have an intense security02:51:53
competition right you'd have wars02:51:56
involving proxies of each of those two02:52:00
superpowers and you would probably have02:52:02
some Wars where one of the superpowers02:52:04
was involved in a proxy right with the02:52:08
other super one of the super other02:52:10
superpowers proxies so it seems likely02:52:13
then if that's the case then it would be02:52:15
Taiwan is the proxy and us fighting02:52:19
China through the proxy of Taiwan what02:52:21
yeah well that would assume the United02:52:23
States but you want to remember you're02:52:25
hypothesizing a situation where China02:52:28
dominates Asia oh already has dominated02:52:31
yes it's already dominated Taiwan uh I02:52:34
see we we well where do you find the02:52:37
proxies austr the Middle East could be a02:52:40
good case oh wow Persian Gulf right oh02:52:43
boy and then our discussion of Israel02:52:45
becomes even more dramatically yeah well02:52:48
Israel Israel gets involved I think I02:52:50
think in this scenario if you're talking02:52:52
about a us China02:52:54
competition right and you're talking02:52:56
about the Middle East I think it's the02:52:58
gulf it's it's the Saudis the Iranians02:53:01
the Iraqis it's the oil don't you think02:53:03
it could be Israel versus Iran with02:53:07
some very 1984 kind of dramatic02:53:11
Partnership of Iran Russia and China02:53:14
versus is United States Europe and um02:53:17
Israel I think that's possible yeah I02:53:20
think that's possible yeah now that I I02:53:23
mean I hadn't thought about it uh until02:53:25
you said it but yeah I think that that02:53:27
that is possible is isn't that02:53:30
terrifying yeah well that you know in02:53:33
your scenario where China already02:53:35
dominates Asia and we dominate the02:53:37
Western Hemisphere uh I think you start02:53:40
talking about where the most likely02:53:43
places uh that the United States and02:53:45
China go02:53:46
head-to-head or or fight through proxies02:53:50
uh I think it is the goal for the Middle02:53:52
East and the scenario that you02:53:55
posit I mean one one question I02:53:59
have I don't know about you but for me02:54:02
unlike with the Soviet02:54:04
Union and I know I was born there but02:54:06
even outside of that the cultural02:54:10
Gap the the the loss in Translation the02:54:13
communication gap between China and the02:54:16
United States seems to be much greater02:54:19
than that of what was the former Soviet02:54:22
Union and the United02:54:24
States I see two cultures intermingling02:54:28
and communicating as one of the ways to02:54:30
deescalate future02:54:34
conflict it's an interesting question I02:54:36
mean it it is sort of an abstract02:54:39
theoretical level my argument is that02:54:42
great Powers Act according to realist02:54:46
dictates and they understand those02:54:48
realist dictates and uh that can lead to02:54:52
cooperation or it can lead to uh War uh02:54:57
it depends U I would say just in the02:55:01
case of the Soviets a lot of people02:55:03
describe the Cold War as an ideological02:55:08
competition above all else it's was02:55:11
communism02:55:12
versus liberal democ y or communism02:55:15
versus liberal capitalism whatever uh I02:55:19
actually don't believe that I I believe02:55:21
the Soviets were uh realists to the core02:55:25
uh I believe Stalin was a realist par02:55:28
Excellence uh and that ideology did not02:55:31
matter much in Stalin's foreign policy02:55:34
and I believe if you look at Soviet02:55:36
foreign policy uh after World War II you02:55:38
know throughout the Cold War they were02:55:40
realists to the core uh and uh and I02:55:44
think in those days the Americans were02:55:46
realists right uh a lot of liberal02:55:49
ideology floating around out there but02:55:51
the Americans were realists and I think02:55:53
one of the reasons you avoided a02:55:56
shooting match between the United States02:55:58
and the Soviet Union from 47 to uh02:56:02
89 uh was because both sides I think uh02:56:06
understood basic balance of power02:56:09
logic us China competition is somewhat02:56:13
different first of all the Chinese are02:56:15
realists to the core uh I I've spent a02:56:18
lot of time in China I basically have02:56:20
rock and roll I'm basically a rock and02:56:22
roll star in China uh the Chinese you're02:56:27
kind of a big deal in China I love it02:56:29
the Chinese are my kind of people02:56:31
they're realists right they speak my02:56:33
language yeah it's the United States02:56:36
that is not very realist American02:56:39
leaders uh have a very powerful liberal02:56:42
bent and tend not to see see the world02:56:44
in realist terms I Believe by the way02:56:46
just going back to our discussion of02:56:48
NATO expansion I think our inability to02:56:52
understand that NATO expansion was02:56:54
anathema to the Soviet to the Russians02:56:57
was doing large part to the fact that we02:56:59
just during the unipolar moment didn't02:57:02
think of international politics from a02:57:04
realist perspective and didn't respect02:57:07
anyone who thought about International02:57:08
politics from a realist02:57:10
perspective if those various American02:57:14
Administration starting with the Clinton02:57:16
administration had put their realest hat02:57:17
on they would have understood that NATO02:57:20
expansion into Ukraine was not a good02:57:22
idea but we had this thoroughly liberal02:57:24
view of the world that dominated our02:57:27
thinking and it's gone away somewhat02:57:30
since we've moved into multipolarity but02:57:32
not02:57:33
completely and uh this makes me a little02:57:36
nervous right to pick up on your point I02:57:39
mean the United States is thinking about02:57:41
the world in ways that are somewhat02:57:43
different than the Chinese Who real is02:57:46
par exellence so that's fascinating so02:57:49
the Chinese are02:57:51
pragmatic uh about thinking of the world02:57:54
in02:57:55
um as a competition of military Powers02:57:58
all the ways in which he described the02:58:00
realist perspective so that I mean02:58:01
that's a that's a that's a hopeful thing02:58:04
right02:58:05
if uh we can achieve stability and a02:58:08
balance of powers through that military02:58:10
competition yeah I I actually think02:58:12
that's right I think if the United02:58:14
States just let me talk a little bit02:58:16
about the United States to get at the02:58:18
issue you're raising if the United02:58:20
States pursues a smart containment02:58:23
strategy given what you just said and I02:58:26
said about the Chinese I think we will02:58:29
avoid war the problem with the Americans02:58:32
is it's not just the02:58:34
liberalism it's the possibility that we02:58:37
will pursue a roll back policy in other02:58:41
words during the Cold War uh we pursued02:58:45
containment it was whenever anybody02:58:47
talked about American Grand strategy02:58:49
towards the Soviet Union was Containment02:58:51
containment containment we now know from02:58:53
the historical record that the United02:58:55
States was not only pursuing containment02:58:58
it was pursuing rollback we were trying02:59:00
to roll back Soviet power to put it02:59:03
bluntly we were trying to wreck the02:59:04
Soviet Union okay and I would not be02:59:08
surprised moving forward with regard to02:59:11
China if the United States pursu is a02:59:14
serious roll back policy and uh so02:59:17
you're saying throughout history United02:59:19
States was always doing that always02:59:21
where's that from why why can't we02:59:23
respect the power of other nations02:59:26
because they may be a threat to us we02:59:29
well I mean you you don't look you don't02:59:32
respect the power of other nations you02:59:35
fear the power of other nations well02:59:37
fear and respect to Nextdoor neighbors02:59:39
depending on the neighborhood you're02:59:40
living in but I I just mean it's it02:59:43
could be very very counterproductive to02:59:45
try because if you can empathize with02:59:48
their if if you assume they're rational02:59:50
actors you trying to roll back will02:59:53
create um would lean into the02:59:56
uncertainty of potential conflict so you02:59:59
want to avoid the uncertainty of03:00:00
potential conflict caution right well03:00:04
yes and no look your point is you want03:00:06
to empathize you want to be able to put03:00:07
yourself in the shoes of the other side03:00:10
yes I agree 100% but with that right03:00:13
it's very important if you're a first03:00:15
class strategist to be able to do that03:00:17
but at the same time there is this03:00:19
competition for power taking place and03:00:22
what you want to do is maximize how much03:00:24
power you have relative to the other03:00:27
side and the other side wants to03:00:28
maximize how much power it has relative03:00:31
to you so you have this competition for03:00:34
power right uh that's taking place all03:00:38
the time and that's taking place at the03:00:41
same time you want to have empathy or03:00:43
you want to be able to put yourself in03:00:44
the shoes of the other side so those two03:00:47
things kind of go together right it just03:00:49
feels less threatening to build up your03:00:53
thing versus try to hurt the other03:00:57
person's thing the other group's thing03:00:59
right but if you build up your own power03:01:02
you are building up your capability to03:01:05
hurt the other side right but like you I03:01:08
guess you don't rattle the saber just03:01:10
just work on manufacturing03:01:12
Sabers well I agree with I I think that03:01:15
you know the United States you know uh03:01:20
wants to make sure it has a big stick in03:01:22
East Asia for purposes of containing03:01:25
China and avoiding a war right again I03:01:27
want to be clear I'm not advocating uh03:01:30
that we start World War I but the point03:01:33
is you want to have a big stick and you03:01:36
want to make sure that you don't03:01:38
overstep your bounds in terms of using03:01:40
that big stick this is the danger with03:01:42
rollback yeah right that you get too03:01:45
aggressive and you precipitate a war03:01:48
right and you also just have to be very03:01:50
careful what you say and to go back to03:01:52
your favorite argument you want to be03:01:55
able to have empathy or put yourself in03:01:58
uh the shoes of the other side because03:02:00
if you do something you want to think03:02:02
smartly about what that other side how03:02:04
that other side is going to see your03:02:06
action and how they're going to react MH03:02:09
right and and mostly focus on the03:02:11
carrots have a giant stick laying around03:02:13
but never mention it just focus on the03:02:16
carrots well occasionally you have to03:02:18
mention the stick right no everyone03:02:19
knows the stick is there there is some03:02:22
truth in that right I mean yeah uh but03:02:25
you know and words matter a lot it feels03:02:28
you know this uh current President03:02:31
Biden's meeting with Xi Jinping and I03:02:33
think the words exchanged there are are03:02:35
really important I have an oce that03:02:37
leaders can stop Wars just as much as03:02:39
they can start wars well leaders matter03:02:43
there's no no question about that no03:02:45
question but just on on rhetoric you03:02:49
want to remember that Putin has on more03:02:52
than one occasion very subtly rattled03:02:55
the nuclear sword oh yeah and it has03:02:58
been very effective yeah because Joe03:03:00
Biden has paid attention and Joe Biden03:03:03
wants to make sure we don't end up in a03:03:05
thermonuclear war and thank goodness uh03:03:08
he's thinking that way so all Putin has03:03:11
to do is mention the possibility of03:03:13
nuclear War just to go back to Taiwan03:03:15
you know a switch areas of the world if03:03:18
you're interested in containing China03:03:22
and you're interested in03:03:23
deterrence and let's go back to those03:03:26
various scenarios where the Chinese win03:03:29
we win Chinese win but they do it at a03:03:32
costly at Great cost one could03:03:36
argue that that discussion that I laid03:03:39
out before didn't take into account03:03:41
nuclear weapons MH and all President03:03:45
Biden or any of his successors has to do03:03:48
is just very subtly uh03:03:51
rattle uh or or or or or employ the03:03:56
nuclear threat you know03:03:59
uh and just sort of remind the Chinese03:04:02
that you know you start a war over03:04:04
Taiwan it could easily escalate into a03:04:06
nuclear war you want to understand we03:04:08
both have nuclear weapons and if either03:04:11
one of us is put into a desperate03:04:12
situation03:04:14
we may turn to those nuclear weapons and03:04:16
oh by the way XI jingping you want to03:04:19
understand that we're out here in the03:04:20
water and using nuclear weapons in the03:04:23
water it's not that uh it's not the same03:04:26
as using War uh nuclear weapons on land03:04:29
so we may very well use them I'm not03:04:32
saying we will but anyway a little saber03:04:34
rattling yeah right let me just zoom out03:04:38
on human history what makes Empires03:04:41
collapse and what makes them last when03:04:43
they do03:04:45
when you look at human history in your03:04:47
sense thinking about the United States03:04:50
perhaps as an03:04:51
Empire I don't view the United States as03:04:54
an Empire uh what's the What's the defin03:04:57
so to you Empire is a thing that seeks03:05:00
expansion03:05:02
constantly yeah I I think it's a country03:05:06
uh that incorporates03:05:09
different uh regions or areas around the03:05:12
world03:05:14
uh into sort of a giant sphere of03:05:17
influence without03:05:20
incorporating thoseDescription:
John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - Notion: https://www.notion.so/ - ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod to get 3 months free - InsideTracker: https://info.insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off - Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/eu/lex/ to get special savings - AG1: https://drinkag1.com/lex to get 1 month supply of fish oil TRANSCRIPT: https://lexfridman.com/john-mearsheimer-transcript EPISODE LINKS: John's Website: https://www.mearsheimer.com/ John's Books: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393349276 How States Think: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0300269307 The Great Delusion: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0300234198 Why Leaders Lie: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006Q3HZNA The Israel Lobby: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0043IS142 Books Mentioned: Leviathan: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1950330052 The End of History and the Last Man: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0029109752 Who Are We: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0684870533 PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lex-fridman-podcast/id1434243584 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2MAi0BvDc6GTFvKFPXnkCL RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ Full episodes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4 Clips playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41 OUTLINE: 0:00 - Introduction 1:29 - Power 24:43 - Hitler 42:09 - Russia and Ukraine 1:38:22 - Israel and Palestine 2:39:13 - China 3:21:34 - Life and mortality SOCIAL: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/unsupportedbrowser - Instagram: https://www.facebook.com/unsupportedbrowser - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman - Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman
Preparing download options
* — If the video is playing in a new tab, go to it, then right-click on the video and select "Save video as..."
** — Link intended for online playback in specialized players
Questions about downloading video
How can I download "Джон Миршаймер: Россия-Украина, Израиль-Палестина, Китай, НАТО, и Война | Лекс Фридман Подкаст #401" video?
http://unidownloader.com/ website is the best way to download a video or a separate audio track if you want to do without installing programs and extensions.
The UDL Helper extension is a convenient button that is seamlessly integrated into YouTube, Instagram and OK.ru sites for fast content download.
UDL Client program (for Windows) is the most powerful solution that supports more than 900 websites, social networks and video hosting sites, as well as any video quality that is available in the source.
UDL Lite is a really convenient way to access a website from your mobile device. With its help, you can easily download videos directly to your smartphone.
Which format of "Джон Миршаймер: Россия-Украина, Израиль-Палестина, Китай, НАТО, и Война | Лекс Фридман Подкаст #401" video should I choose?
The best quality formats are FullHD (1080p), 2K (1440p), 4K (2160p) and 8K (4320p). The higher the resolution of your screen, the higher the video quality should be. However, there are other factors to consider: download speed, amount of free space, and device performance during playback.
Why does my computer freeze when loading a "Джон Миршаймер: Россия-Украина, Израиль-Палестина, Китай, НАТО, и Война | Лекс Фридман Подкаст #401" video?
The browser/computer should not freeze completely! If this happens, please report it with a link to the video. Sometimes videos cannot be downloaded directly in a suitable format, so we have added the ability to convert the file to the desired format. In some cases, this process may actively use computer resources.
How can I download "Джон Миршаймер: Россия-Украина, Израиль-Палестина, Китай, НАТО, и Война | Лекс Фридман Подкаст #401" video to my phone?
You can download a video to your smartphone using the website or the PWA application UDL Lite. It is also possible to send a download link via QR code using the UDL Helper extension.
How can I download an audio track (music) to MP3 "Джон Миршаймер: Россия-Украина, Израиль-Палестина, Китай, НАТО, и Война | Лекс Фридман Подкаст #401"?
The most convenient way is to use the UDL Client program, which supports converting video to MP3 format. In some cases, MP3 can also be downloaded through the UDL Helper extension.
How can I save a frame from a video "Джон Миршаймер: Россия-Украина, Израиль-Палестина, Китай, НАТО, и Война | Лекс Фридман Подкаст #401"?
This feature is available in the UDL Helper extension. Make sure that "Show the video snapshot button" is checked in the settings. A camera icon should appear in the lower right corner of the player to the left of the "Settings" icon. When you click on it, the current frame from the video will be saved to your computer in JPEG format.
What's the price of all this stuff?
It costs nothing. Our services are absolutely free for all users. There are no PRO subscriptions, no restrictions on the number or maximum length of downloaded videos.