Welcome back to Radio Rothbard. I'm Ryan McKamakin with the Mises Institute and
Though Bishop is on vacation. So with me this week is Zachary Yost
Our foreign policy guy and it happens to be foreign policy week anyway, so the two of us will discuss
what is going on
with
Trump is upcoming foreign policy the escalation in Ukraine and will anything really change
Once Trump is in office, you know was something that Lou Rockwell once said to me was
The regime lies about everything all the time, but they lie even more about foreign policy
And I think that's probably very very true is that it's just next to impossible to get reliable information
Or to really know where any sort of candidate or president is headed on the foreign policy issue
Certainly ahead of time you basically have to just wait and see what they do
And even then you don't know what their motivations are
So we're just we're peering through a fog here trying to try to figure out what the story is
With foreign policy before we do that. I just want to make sure that if you haven't seen it yet to be sure and check out our
Documentary on the Federal Reserve. This is called the Federal Reserve playing with fire
and you can find that
At mises.org MISES.org slash fire and this has all of our top guys right Salerno
Alex Pollack
Mark Thornton Jonathan Newman all offering their insights
On the Fed with some basic explanation about the Fed as well
It's a beginner video
But even if you've been following the Mises Institute for a while you might find some good nuggets in there
Especially how our experts phrase the realities of how the Fed works. So be sure and check that out if you haven't seen it yet
That's
MISES.org slash fire. That's our new Federal Reserve documentary
So on the foreign policy issue
Zach
Uh, so trump won great. I mean, I always wonder how much foreign policy even really
Factors in
To an election. I mean plenty of people tell you oh it's inflation which uh, yeah economic conditions. I think we're a major factor
And there was a plenty of other domestic issues as well
I don't know in the average calculus of
Of the voters and of course it depends on which voter you talk to
as to how much
Foreign policy was a factor now a lot of people I think maybe would admit that
Seeing hundreds of billions of dollars go to Ukraine
While people are having trouble paying for groceries probably wasn't wasn't great
But I noticed that the money given handed over to the state of israel is never was never discussed during the election
There were never any calls to end foreign aid
to
That country just to Ukraine. So
Obviously, there wasn't a general sentiment against foreign aid or foreign intervention here
Just I guess in Ukraine
And on the issue of china too there didn't seem to be much problem with people voting for trump
Given his belligerence toward china and efforts to start a trade war and
A variety of other pieces of tough talk toward beijing
So I don't I have my personal opinions. I don't think we can say in any way. This is one some sort of anti interventionist
election
And that there was any sort of mandate coming for the trump administration to bring all the troops home
Although i'm sure many of the voters would be fine with that
So i'm not holding my breath for major changes in foreign policy, but I wanted to get your sense of that. I mean
And as we've discussed in the past right, I mean foreign policy is what always seems to change the least
When when administrations come and go
Uh and there are reasons for that that we can discuss
But what's your take on on the trump victory and and uh, I don't know on a scale of 1 to 10
What number would you assign to the amount that things are going to change?
With the new administration coming in
Yes, so uh
I think you're correct on
The role foreign policy played most people were concerned with domestic issues. I would say however
Uh, I have seen some polling that in general people did support a less interventionist stance
As you note with israel there is
Differing views on that though. I do think ukraine is sort of the poster child for
people thinking
You know our foreign policies off the rails. I mean people are like, oh my goodness world war three could happen
And also, yeah, just the pouring gajillions of dollars into this war
Uh, there were some people who were very motivated by foreign policy and this is where it's going to be
interesting to see how
Trump trumpian governance actually plays out because
He made huge inroads among arab and muslim americans and also among jewish americans
so that's
I mean, maybe he can cut a good deal as it were
There was a piece in the american conservative a few weeks before the election
that said that
basically the word is that
Israeli governing officials were a little bit worried that trump would win actually
And for to force them to
conclude
the situation
I don't know if that'll make anyone happy or maybe just one side or the other, but that's something that's out there
One to ten of how much things will change I really I can't say at this point
I do know that
There
Are some encouraging signs. I mean to me it's I'm a bit optimistic I would say
With relatively
Small goals in terms of what what makes good progress
About 10 years ago
Now or nine years ago, I guess when I worked in dc in foreign policy
The current situation
Was really unimaginable
In terms of what was acceptable to be said and what was considered kooky nonsense
Specifically just addressing foreign policy
JD vance's comments, I find very
Good
Well before you go on give me some examples of when you were in dc like what what was considered kooky nonsense
And what was considered just standard run of the mill stuff?
Oh, I mean all of our basically everything on this show was
Out there. I mean for a great example is nato
Uh, I mean one of the first pieces I ever wrote that got published in sort of a mainstream thing
I wrote for the national interest
And I think they called it nato doesn't need monti negros teeny tiny military
Uh, where I pointed out this is ridiculous
The new york city police department is like 15 times bigger than monti negros armed forces
How does this, you know support
American security in any way and it was a tiny minority view
That either was ridiculed or just scoffed at
I mean
All of our work on basically saying oh leaving afghanistan
That was heretical
I mean
The the arguments about
Why the situation in ukraine and georgia was closer in history then but
You know arguing that nato intervention nato expansion
Contributed to the situation there was I think his name is josh shifras shifrinzen
Can't remember where he is now, but he had an article come out. I think in um
Uh international security, maybe I forget the journal
but uh
Making the historical case that you know the us
Made promises to the collapsing soviet union slash new russia that nato expansion wouldn't happen
And this this was so controversial
And so
It it made people hopping mad basically shifrinzen was actually chased off of twitter
After the ukraine war started uh people were so
Out of their minds angry
shifrinzen by the way is now at the university of maryland center for international and security studies
Yeah, just case anyone's interested
um
So just basically saying the us should be doing less. I mean the the our motto
Back then was realism in restraint
And that was a minority view that was very difficult to find people advocating for now. It's very common
It's still a minority view, but it I mean we have people in power who are
advocating for it and
I know that there is an effort to get people who are in favor of realism restraint
To be appointed by trump in you know all all levels of the
Executive branch whether that plays out and of course
There's going to be a mix. I'm unsure what to think of marco rubio
Some people say he have told me that he has actually become less hawkish
I've not paid much attention to him since 2016 when he
Dropped out of the race. He to me has not been on my radar a ton
That'd be good. He's hawkish on iran lots of I mean that's going to be there, but
Compared to before to not be hawkish on ukraine in russia
And be hawkish iran is an improvement from being hawkish on everything. Yes, I agree
and um
Yeah, so it to me
This is a dream come true really. I mean we're not
Anywhere close to the job being done the job's barely starting to be done, but to me it's
We've made enormous progress where it's not just a fringe view to be advocating for realism and restraint as as we might put it
Yeah, I think sometimes it's helpful to remind the black pillars
Just how how much worse things were
In not too long ago
And for us older guys who remember times like 2003 2004
Really all the way up until the end of the bush administration
Uh because remember obama won a big victory in 2008 on promises to end
The iraq war and the afghanistan war none of which he did of course
Uh because he's a horrible horrible person and then i'm not i don't i'm not exaggerating like he's truly loathsome
swamp creature obama was
But he absolutely ran on this idea of scaling back military intervention. Uh, it seems every president does that right?
bush ran in 2000 on the humble foreign policy and that sort of thing but
9 11 of course massively set back the cause
Of non-intervention because the state was ready the state was ready to turn it into massive justification for
Surveillance state for the patriot act for department of homeland security all of the seven which all of they had drafted and ready to go
In legislation they were just waiting
For a good reason to do it and you couldn't say anything
against
Constant war everywhere in 2004 2005. You were literally told to your face that you hated america
Uh, the bush administration literally said you're either with us or you're with the terrorists
So it's good to keep that sort of thing in mind
Of course, I guess nowadays if you say anything against, uh, the usual foreign policy
You're either with you're either with biden or you're with putin. I guess that's the current version of that but
At least half the country regards that as absurd
Whereas in 2004 those of us who were against constant intervention were a teeny tiny minority
Uh, so yes, I agree. Uh, also the rally around the flag effect doesn't seem to work nearly as well
As it used to all you had to do it seemed the presidents for 30 40 years
If not longer after 1945 all you had to do was claim that some foreign power had insulted you in some way
Americans would rally around the idea of starting a new war. Some americans still do that usually old guys
But people have largely grown very very tired of that nonsense
So, yeah, definitely, um
Progress has been made. So I guess the question is okay. How much
How much will this actually materialize?
in terms of any sort of
Actual scaling back because I guess there's two phases here. There's the phase where you just stop starting new wars constantly
and
I do think that any attempt to actually send american troops to invade a foreign country would be met with a lot of resistance
Uh, whereas you could get away with that in 2003
Um, even to a country that nothing to do with 9 11 i.e. iraq
To go there thousands of which died
How many americans are willing to sign up and go get killed for ukraine or even taiwan?
I don't know it
But it's going to take a whole lot more propaganda than they've got going so far
To get people to sign off on that. So that's that's phase one where you just
Stop starting new wars or sending americans to go die places. I guess phase two
Uh, would be actually withdrawing
From some places and it doesn't appear that we've reached that phase
at all
Yet, uh, and I agree with you. I think maybe the first place we would actually see that happen would be in ukraine
Where maybe the u.s. Would actually become
anti interventionist or you know it
Quietly just sort of withdraw from that lesson have less and less of a footprint in ukraine over time
They're certainly not going to make any big announcements about how yep, you know russia can do whatever it wants now
But I could see just sort of a quiet
silent withdrawal from that arena
But I just don't I don't know what the odds are on that. I think the the big question right is on iran
But I mean trump. I would describe trump as an iran hawk during his term his first term
But even that materialized in terms of some drone attacks and assassinations
And things like that. I mean it's all dishonest and acts of war
But it seemed orchestrated to avoid any sort of u.s. Invasion of iran or to provoke that sort of thing
Yeah on uh on a well, we'll get to iran in the middle east, but I just want to note
Uh
Trump was interviewed on
I don't remember his first name something bet david a popular podcaster. I'm not familiar with until this election
He trump flat out said we don't want regime change and can't get involved in that in iran
That's not saying yeah, we're packing up and leaving the middle east but compared to where things were before
Huge improvement crazy. This is whoo
practically, you know, we have to see what happens, but you know
Get the champagne
Well, we were talking about regime change in russia just a few years ago, which of course was just crazy talk
It's still yeah, it's it's madness. But so let's go. Let's start with um speaking of russia
Yeah, let's talk about europe and ukraine because we're gonna talk about the three
Theaters as it were. Well, okay, so there was an escalation in ukraine now. This is biden administration stuff
Where I mean what's going on there now? I I wrote a short article for mesis.org for
Powered market on this and I started with the sentence the people who run the biden administration. Yes
Escalated in that theater recently right because I don't know does biden know what's going on
I have a hard time believing biden handed down orders saying yes
Tell ukraine to start using long-range missiles on russia. I mean it's possible, but he doesn't seem on that level of engaged
I mean technically wasn't he in brazil when this decision was made?
But uh
Yeah, so what do you think's going on there the
I cannot view it any other way as in a middle finger to trump by you're exactly right whoever's running things in the administration
To allow so we've we've given
Ukraine these long-range missiles at a cms. I don't remember what that stands for
I think the range is about 250 miles if i'm not mistaken
It's around 200 for sure because yeah, I looked that up yesterday and um, they
The so there's several
Several layers here. We have to talk about so one the first rule
Until now was ukraine cannot use them outside of ukraine's pre-2014 borders against russia, so they couldn't strike russia russia
That that is what was lifted that ban they were allowed to use them in
Kursk oblast where they have their offensive that
In my view has been a disaster
now
and so
That rule was lifted and ukraine
Excuse me. It seems they launched six of these missiles
And russia says five were shot down. Who knows how many
But the point is is that it was viewed as a big escalation
and
There's
two more layers then
The next layer is the technical aspect of these missiles. I'm not, you know
Super familiar with but apparently the targeting needs to be done by basically
these
technicians
And this is not a crazy conspiratorial thing to say
One people have been saying this openly like well, you know, we're probably providing targeting etc etc
But as we talked about many months ago, I can't even remember if it was this year or last year
There was that leaked call
from the german
high military officials
Uh who were in singapore and they were using an unsecured line
And we have the transcript of the leaked call
And they are discussing that this is a problem with them providing
Whatever their equivalent missiles are
To ukraine one they're like we can't give them enough to do really anything at all
to
Someone has to basically input the targeting data
That can't and it not the ukrainians
And so the the call was sort of scandalous in part because like well, maybe we can have this military contractor do it
or
Since the french and the americans are already in ukraine. Maybe they can do it for us
So that's the second layer of why this is escalatory and then then there's the third layer is that russia is aware of this
And several weeks ago or maybe months ago now everything's just blurred together. Putin said
that
you know
An attack on russia
With these missiles basically
By basically by a non nuclear power backed by a nuclear power would be considered basically an act of war by natin
So trump laid that line out real clear and
The u.s. Just laid that line out
I'm sorry. Putin. Yeah. Putin not trump
Putin laid that line out real clear
And in response to trump winning
Whoever in the administration just waltzed right over it
And i'm maybe they're thinking this is a great way to box trump in it's like we escalate the conflict and
It'll be harder for trump to to get out of it
Now
So that's concerning. I don't think world war three is about to pop off. Um, it's a risk
I think the betting odds
We're up to like 18 percent that a nuclear device would go off this year or something
I that's a pretty vague event though a nuclear device going off
I mean, I that could be interpreting a number of ways. I don't
I'm not worried about that. I mean, it's it's a possibility. We don't want to just keep escalating
But partially because I it was very clear that Putin was happy trump won
And polling shows like Russia was like the only country in europe where the vast majority of the population said they would have voted for trump
So I i'm hoping that Putin will be like, okay, we've got
You know to january 20th new administration coming in
Let's not, you know
Just burn all the bridges down as it were. I mean, not that there's many bridges left standing, but
I'm hoping that'll lead to some restraint. It seems russia's gonna retaliate
As a sort of deterrence maintenance
Thing what that will take the form of who knows the u.s. Just shine its embassy down
in Kiev because they're like
There's an aerial attack that might happen
And I just saw on twitter, which you know twitter rumor who knows that they might actually use
There's speculation that that russia might launch a missile
Capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, but will not have a nuclear warhead on it to attack you of
And it's not going to be very accurate. It's going to be, you know
A big payload
With a big wide, you know
It's with nuclear weapons. You don't need to be pinpoint accurate. So
I don't know if that's going to happen or not
As as of the recording that was that speculation that's happening. All right, so let's do something
Well, let's say right the rush the russians are right and uh, trump is the less belligerent party
in terms of
In terms of who is running for presidency in the united states
It's it's easy to see why any reasonable person in russia would want trump to win
Uh, because he just seems less obsessed with the russians the way that
Kamala Kamala's people at least I mean she probably doesn't know where russia is
But at least her people are pretty she's palling around with lis chaney who might have been
Yeah, I want to talk about lis chaney. Maybe maybe maybe next time we could do that
Just to this she's now become the world's most useless politician like has no purpose anymore
But so let's say so okay, so trump's the less
Uh, the less belligerent guy
So what what should he do as soon as he comes into office in january?
What so he's a reasonable guy
What do you think he could get away with doing in washington just as his first steps to really
Try and avoid any further escalations here
Yeah, I mean that that's where it's going to be difficult
For on the one hand, I doubt he's going to be
pushing
For you know big arms packages in congress
I don't know what the bureaucracy is going to do
In terms of continuing to ship things off to ukraine
I mean
All of the talk it's I mean, it's all funny money in terms of fake fake accounting of like
We valued this humvee at x amount of dollars. Actually, we were wrong. It's you know negative x dollars
So we can ship more stuff to ukraine
Um, so they could play tricks like that in a way this escalation
Could potentially be beneficial when trump comes to office in that it really
Serves to remind him how the military bureaucracy screwed him over in his first term
Great example is syria where he's like explicitly get out of syria
Let's go and they stonewalled him and lied to him and they openly acknowledged this
So this is a reminder
Of
You know his enemies as it were and his son don jr. Has been pleasantly
Uh had good takes on twitter and he flat out, you know said this is a move to box my father in
um, so
Uh, and I can't I've seen other people affiliated with the transition and all that complaining about it
So hopefully, you know, that'd be good if it really reminds trump, you know, these people can't be trusted
Um
On the other hand, I don't think trump wants and I actually think it would be bad for the cause of
Reorienting american foreign policy
If there is a just complete and total ukrainian collapse
Uh, I'm glad we left afghanistan. I think that had to happen
As however messy it would be but I don't think it had to be as messy as it was
and I think that that
At the time I speculated that the military purposefully
Made a hash of it because they didn't want to go
So like well, we're gonna make this as messy as possible
And they did and there were afghan people, you know falling out of airplanes
All, you know, it was it was madness. It was a
craziness
so
It would be great if trump could be like, all right turning off this bigot of aid which without which ukraine cannot
Hold on much longer europe is a joke. They cannot replace the aid even if they wanted to
notably
The the german government collapsed right after the u.s. election
So schultz and I forget whatever party he has it's been governing germany for ever
Called putin
This is the first time since uh
Since the war started and some speculate he called putin to be like
Yeah, so the u.s. Is going to give the okay for these missiles and kursk
We're not on board with that. Don't get mad at us. That's one speculation
but
No european militaries
I mean
I've been writing about since since, you know, the middle of last year how we're out of the cupboard is bare to quote
You know nato officials themselves. We don't have much more to say to ukraine
europe especially
Because they've just you know been freeriding on the u.s. Since the 90s
So one might hope that trump could then
organize a deal where
ukraine would
dejore
Acknowledge the annexation of the four oblasts that russia has claimed
In my view, I cannot see I of course can be totally wrong. The future is radically uncertain in my view. I have a hard time envisioning
Putin ending the war without
Control of the four oblasts that have been officially annexed into the russian federation
I I have a hard time seeing that happening
Anything is possible, but I think that's going to be the minimum goal
Uh
Russia is winning
So if russia doesn't like the deal there they can just keep pushing on and gamble
As to whether view, I mean the us will just have to keep being more and more and more involved to stop ukraine from losing
So you could gamble that the us won't do that
Then we're i'm starting to get scared, you know
It seems that what trump should do right is come in give ukraine a chance to save some face by keeping
Dessa in some coastline
And hey let all this other stuff go. I mean these were like 40 percent 50 percent russian ethnics anyway
In a lot of these areas and those are the only areas that russia could ever hope to keep
Anyway really in practical terms as if there's not like
If there's a significant russian population there already these are of course cut what's what's totally never mentioned anymore is that
Ukraine started this war on eastern ukraine. They were shelling cities in eastern ukraine
Before the russian state became directly involved. They had started the kiev started a
A civil war essentially against russian separatists in the east
And then that gave russia the ability to come in and say hey, we're defending our countrymen
Essentially there's the same playbook as in georgia and a couple of other places. Yes. Yes it
And ukraine has just ramped up the anti russian domestic laws
dealing with
The ukrainian orthodox church that's affiliated with
The moscow patriarchy. I think it's been straight up outlawed now
Banning russian language etc. etc. etc. So
The real question is is
Who will be in charge of the ukrainian government?
Uh because there's the hardline nationalists
From eastern ukraine. I
Aren't gonna want to give up anything
And it's not i mean these these are the neo-nazi people. It's not
crazy to think, you know, they might
Drag zalinsky out behind the shed and shoot him and be like there's a new government in charge not this
corrupt puppet who was secretly colluding with russia or whatever they'd say
And um, I mean of course because ukraine is so corrupt. It's it's the perfect excuse because you can say
Zalinsky was corrupt and profiting from the war and you know, that's why you had to be removed
So it's not out of the question that that could happen that I see as being the biggest
Potential hurdle is what what's possible domestically in ukraine, which by the way, I believe for the first time
I just saw a poll out this week. I think or the past few days
That now a slight majority of ukranians want
To cut a deal. It's like 52% of this poll found
That
So people are recognizing the writing on the wall as it were
Well, it's um, yeah, there's a lot of scholarship on this
Even some like quantitative stuff, which just looks at the number of conflicts and their outcomes and all that stuff
and
It notes that virtually all conflicts
Certainly in in the 19th century and for centuries before that
In the west especially
Uh, but even in conflicts in the 20th century that weren't major conflicts like world war two and stuff like that
These conflicts end with negotiated settlements. I mean, this is how virtually all wars end with negotiated settlements
Not not this
Unconditional surrender stuff that that moralistic americans become obsessed with
That whoever the u.s. Is fighting must be completely destroyed destroyed
Of course, the u.s. Hasn't actually succeeded in doing much of that
Since 1945, but that seems to usually be the stated purpose. That's where regime changes, right? That's essentially unconditional surrender
but
For people who actually care about ending bloodshed or bringing an end to wars
Figuring out a diplomatic solution
Wars end with negotiated settlements
So it seems that trump could actually help himself politically by coming in and saying hey
I struck a deal. We ended the bloodshed in ukraine ukraine still exists ukraine has a port on the black sea
And the russians
Were able to get these territories. Yeah, that was an ideal
But that's all that's all in these this mists of an internal conflict that began years ago and
Let's not forget that kiev was was fighting these people before russia invaded
He could really start to paint a picture of the complexity of it
But in the end I ended the conflict
And ukraine has sovereignty again
Yay me and then poodin can go back and say hey look we now have all the coastline of the sea of azov. We have water for
Crimea
We have a land bridge to Crimea and then we helped out our russian speaking patriots
In eastern ukraine and then that's it. I mean
That's all that needs to happen
And and of course, I mean it would be nonsense
Spare me any nonsense about ukrainian democracy because that was
This is a
Country that suspended all elections might not remind you by the way the united states had an election in the midst of its civil war
But ukrainians tell us that no you can't have any sort of election when we're at war
Which only in ukraine, which of course couldn't care less about
Freedom or democracy because they outlaw free speech. They outlaw freedom of religion
This is what americans are supposed to be dying for no, thanks. So yeah, just end of the conflict
But yeah, I agree probably better to let the ukrainian save some face on this rather than have just like a total collapse
Because I think that would just make nato more paranoid and crazed and I don't know what the polls would do in response to that
Especially if russians, I guess started occupying western ukraine that would that would make
Poland go yeah, I I can't see that ever happening
Really, but that would be a long that would be the the absolute extreme. Yeah, I mean to me the word. I mean I
Yeah, there's various degrees of russian victory
I think if the u.s. Does not get involved
I I mean and it's just the ukrainian military collapses
It would not be out of the question. I think for
Russia to impose a puppet government
On what's left of ukraine under a deal with trump. I doubt that there'd be a puppet government
Uh in what's left of ukraine and it's just the longer the war goes on the more doomed ukraine is
It already had horrible demographics. Those have plunged into the basement
Who knows how many people have been killed?
Who knows how many millions have left the country and will never return because it's a bombed out ruin
I mean
given the state of
budgets and the economy
It's hard to imagine anyone wanting to pour in the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to rebuild
ukraine
and uh
It's just it does not have a bright future really no matter what happens
So the the quicker the war ends the better it will be for the continued existence of ukraine
And as a people yes as a nation state. Yes, and in a way
I mean, I'm not sure how smart the ukrainian nationalists are meaning the the neo nazis is what I mean
uber nationalist neo nazi types
But I think they should realize, you know
Discretion is the better part of valor at times. This actually will greatly aid their ukrainian state building project
Because the whole conflict is a result of
ukraine not having exactly a unified identity
uh going back for various historical reasons, you know, what is now east western ukraine was uh
Uh
part of poland for a very long time
it only became part of ukraine really when
The soviet union split poland with germany as we've talked about before
um
But it it really has solidified ukrainian identity
They will probably continue to be a very powerful force in ukrainian politics. They can root out the russian language and
the
The church and all that sort of stuff
That'd be if they're thinking long term, you know, and they can tell themselves. Oh, we will reclaim the donbas one day
um
But I don't know. I mean really it's a difficult situation for ukrainians and ukrainian leadership, especially
but
yeah, hopefully trump can navigate this and
We're I mean cutting off the wet the u.s. Has a lot of leverage over ukraine. They're not gonna
They can't keep the war up without us. So in a way
It they can continue fighting, you know to the end of time if they want just without us
uh, so
You know
People are like ukraine's a sovereign country. They can make these decisions like yeah, but we're subsidizing the whole war
So sure they cannot listen to us, but we cannot
You know
Keep giving them gajillions of dollars
Well, let's talk about the middle east now
and uh, I foresee
That is a far less dynamic situation in terms of us
involvement
and policy
It's actually really difficult to see what trump would do differently from the current administration
Obviously, right. He's gotten tons of money from
pro-israel individuals and organizations certainly has not expressed
Any misgivings about giving tons of aid to the state of israel
Although I mean the the good news the only good news in there is that he plays up the whole
Hey, I'm gonna strike a deal and we're gonna end the conflicts. I'm out
Okay, but does ending the conflict mean in the the total ethnic cleansing of the west bank and gaza
Because we're we're even moving it's clear the state of israel is trying to use the situation to cleanse
ethnically not just gaza, but the west bank
As well a lot more intervention
From televieve going on there. So in southern lebanon, right? I mean this is a spreading conflict
So
What does victory look like for trump there? What sort of deal does he want is and was there anything different from what the
Biden administration is doing
Yeah, well, I mean the biden administration is just flailing around like a chicken with its head cut off
And and not just flailing around but failing
I mean
the
Puthi
I mean really there the de facto government of a big chunky Yemen
Has you know now basically controlled of the red sea
Despite all the u.s. Efforts. I forget. I think we've spent a few billion bucks now bombing
uh
Yemen it's not done anything. I mean and let's remind
Everyone Saudi Arabia was bombing Yemen for like eight or nine years. I don't even know at this point
they've been bombing Yemen for ages and
The houthis are still there and they're still there after we've given it a try
So short of some sort of very costly punitive expedition
Where you send in, you know, a marine corps division or something to, you know
Get bogged down and
Another intractable war
I mean, that's how things are
fortunately
Not much us shipping goes through the red sea in the Suez canal. So
If it's an intolerable situation, maybe other countries can deal with it, which
It's just a the state of of the european militaries
There was I if i'm not mistaken there was like a german frigate or something in
In the pacific
And it returned
Uh not through it returned going down around south africa
It did not go through the red sea
This is I mean we're at this, you know european navies are like we don't want to risk going through the red sea
this is
I mean embarrassing that it's wild but
It's not the america's problem
so
Really it'd be hard for trump to do worse unless he escalates and starts sending troops in or something
so
There was talk in the american conservative magazine a few weeks before the election
There was a report that israeli government officials were a bit
perturbed at trump winning because they worried that he would sort of force them to
Negotiate and end to the conflict before they can accomplish everything they want to accomplish which
Short of yeah trying to somehow get the gossians to leave
It's not really clear what they're trying to accomplish. They're just flailing around with us support
And this is something mirshimer has pointed out
Then in contrast to previous israeli wars
israel today is
Extremely dependent on u.s. Support and aid
They were able to wage, you know sort of rather rapid crushing victories and also a defeat
but
Without the u.s. Basically, you know
Having to you know without it being a crisis of you know a disaster if the u.s. Was not you know
Being the sugar daddy as it were
Um, so it's possible trump as you said could be we got to cut a deal. We got to end this
There's already talk that hezbollah
And i ran are like, okay. Yeah, we'll cut a ceasefire in lebanon
We have to see how that plays out
We have to see what happens with iran
There are a lot of iran hawks
Even people who i think are
Surprisingly pretty good like pete hegseth
i'm
Actually pleasantly surprised with uh
When he was first when he was announced on twitter
I thought like is this a joke like a parody of because it's like, you know, trump is always watching fox and friends and stuff
And i was like wow, that's wild
But then it was pointed out that hegseth is on the record supporting
Uh defend the guard which is to me wild i
Someone nominated to be secretary of defense who supports defend the guard which for those who aren't familiar
Basically would prevent the feds from calling up and deploying the national guard to combat zones without an actual declaration of war
So then the national guard if this had been in place wouldn't have been
Deployed in any war since world war two
um
anyway
He he's hawkish on iran though, but um and we'll have to talk come back again to him for china, uh, but
I don't i mean trump's comments trump seems to recognize we can't fight a war right now. It'd be disastrous
No one wants it. We're broke. So i don't think he's gonna
Return to be like a maximum pressure on iran. We're gonna break them in an institute regime change
As we just said he's on the record of not wanting to do that
um
The u.s. Forces are scheduled to leave iraq
I believe if i'm not mistaken under the current agreement, but that keeps getting extended and stuff, but it'd be nice if we got out of there
Uh trump would be foolish in my opinion to not ensure we leave syria after he was defied openly
in wanting to do that last time
so
Really scaling back to you know perspective and
Marginal improvements if we leave iraq and we leave syria
Big improvements that should be celebrated even though it's not
we've not you know
fixed the situation by any means
tangible valuable progress
Well in one piece of good news that is beyond trump's control really
Uh, it doesn't have anything to do with our election is the fact that the saudis don't seem to be applying maximum pressure anymore against the iranians
Uh, because of course the saudis and the iranians are
Traditional enemies really for control over the persian gulf
and in
Recent years the saudis there seems to be some
Some detente there
between the saudis and in the iranians
And that that seems to be bad for well, they they reopened they reestablished relations between the two countries
Which had been in terrible shape for a long long time
And it just looks like there's less pressure coming down from the saudis to box in the iranians, which
Looks to me like it's been saudi policy for a long time
And that was one thing that allied the saudis with the state of israel too, right? Was that they both are
Against iran, but it seems that there's now less
Saudi opposition to iran. That's not good for israel
Uh, it's good for us though because now they're there's one less place that's applying a lot of pressure on the american regime to
Fight iran about
Um, I don't know how big that changes, but there's certainly been some evidence of a change there
Yeah, I am I'm not sure what to think
Saudi arabia has really been pushing for the us to extend a official security guarantee
Which would be terrible ridiculous. Yes, don't do it
Um
Well, I mean that's always been kind of implied since the 70s
Was a security guarantee, but I guess now they want more explicit
Yeah, they want which is yeah, which I agree horrible idea and I will note
That the head of the saudi arabian sovereign wealth fund, I believe
Is
Was at the
UFC fight with trump
There's a picture of him like sitting right next to trump. So
We have to see what happens, you know, uh, jared kushner will not be around is my understanding
He engineered that abram's accord thing
It seems that the arab world is
Well before the current goings on
Was softening on israel even to some extent they
Still are jordan shot down missiles
Iranian missiles in the first
Iranian missile attack on israel
But the situation in gaza and the west bank is
Of course a thorn in their side, although it doesn't seem that any of the arabian governments like the palestinians really
Well, that's more of an issue with elites versus the population right so the bloodshed in gaza and west bank is bad for the
The normal people the ordinary people in all of these arab countries hate that the elites. I don't think care
Right, so I guess it's a question of how much pressure can normal people put on the elites in these countries in some countries some
In other countries that are, you know, they're military dictatorships essentially. I mean, saudi arab obviously couldn't care less about what regular people think
So I mean that could take a long time to filter upward. So who knows what the time frame is on that? Yeah, and um,
so yeah, it's
Room for improvement that I think is possible. Maybe a good way to phrase phrase the middle east
But yes, I think the the lesson here is don't expect any major changes in course
On the middle east at all although there are changes going on but
And and part of it actually which will lead segue to the next theater
Part of it will depend on what happens in east asia
Because as we did an episode ago one or two
months ago
You know, we have no
Uh, I don't know if we do now, but we for a period of time at least we had no aircraft carriers
In east asia because we were rerouting everything that could float to the middle east
Because of tension with iran and as well as real yada yada yada yada
So it really depends on on if trump actually
Will implement the long talked about but obviously not happening pivot to asia
and
um
So yeah, let's talk about that. So obviously no, uh,
No significant pivot to asia that I can see although certainly no lack of talk about china
and
trump wanting to pursue
further
trade war elements
With the chinese regime there
They don't really state in any sort of explicit way
In fact that what's really behind this is the yeah, the u.s. Wants to maintain
Or grow global hegemony. They want to impose at least some level of american power in east asia
And the u.s. Has
China boxed in in a variety of ways right the u.s. Has been expanding its alliance
activity with
philippines recently and of course the u.s. Is long term
ally with japan
and
South korea and then unofficially
In a more vague capacity with taiwan
So you don't hear much really in terms of explicit talk about taiwan or guarantees of defense for taiwan and that sort of thing
But it's the posture the general posture of this administration is anti china
But i'm not quite sure beyond a bunch of talks about trade and who knows him how much of that is even performative
I don't even who knows what he's telling she behind the scenes
About what relations what trump and vision's relations are between the u.s. And china
So it seems there's a general anti-beijing posture
But it's it's unclear very little has been being clearly said about how that is going to look over the next four years
Yeah, i will if i am not mistaken
uh
In 20 well 2017 i guess or maybe it was 2016 it was either
It was either in the transition period or
Shortly after he came to office trump took
a phone call from i believe
the
Former president of
Think president i can't even remember now in taiwan siging when i believe her name was
uh trump took her call
Which has not happened i don't know since reagan or something
um
So that was noteworthy
um
A lot will depend i mean a a staffing
My understanding of the staffing process right now i guess is that they're starting at the top
You know and then they staff their way down
One thing to look out for is where if l l bridge colby where he ends up he was in the first trump admin
And he is
More uh
He wants more of a forward posture in asia than i would like
But he is very on the record. He does not want war with china
And that basically he wants to support taiwan a lot
He wants the us to be involved in east asia, but he does not want you know saber rattling lets you know
Will nuke china if they invade iran or i mean taiwan or anything like that
He is
An immense proponent of the pivot to east asia
So we have to see what he does
If he ends up in the administration, which i would bet money he will in some deputy secretary position
Similarly to circle back to pete hegseth
He is all sees on video saying basically that the u.s. Would lose a war with china
That is
Paradoxically encouraging to hear someone say that
uh because it
you know
With the ukraine situation, there's this just
delusional thinking of like material
Factors don't matter
You know, we we constantly reference mesis is
1918
Paper on war financing, you know war can only be waged with present goods
It seems that you know the the idea of scarcity as we've harped on also the
You know
Our official strategy is that nothing is beyond us capabilities, you know, obviously conflicts with reality
So to have the secretary of defense who recognizes that reality
Huge marginal improvement
By no means
Does that mean the work is done?
But that is encouraging to hear because it it also
you know
Hopefully that recognition would lead to
favoring a de-escalatory policy
In with regards to china if you recognize g if we start an honest to goodness war over taiwan
We might lose if you understand that then you will
Approach the situation
much
More in tune with reality and aware of the risks
Yeah, and those guys are just talking in terms of a tactical
Loss, I think too, right there. They're they're talking about losing militarily
When you look at the largest strategic picture, right? What does that do to the u.s economy?
Oh, it'd be right. It's just devastating
And I mean talking about this whole like coming to reality thing
I sent you right a while back this this short quote from mirshimer. I think it was this was taiwan ease tv
I guess
He was in china. I think oh, he was in china. Okay
I just got back from china
He uh, he was being interviewed and so here's what he says
He's now. I of course criticized mirshimer. I like him, but uh, he's been too much of a china hawk historically for me
And he's a different type of realist for me
So it's not quite the anti interventionist I prefer but of course we quote him a lot because he's an insightful guy and not insane and
Is certainly I'd rather have him in charge of america for a policy than pretty much everybody who actually is
So but he said he's he he he signals a change in mind
I think on china a little bit recently when he says in this interview
The us cannot do much at this point to slow down chinese economic growth
Uh, and he says he would bet that the chinese will overcome the american effort to damage the chinese economy more than the american economy
Is damaged as a result of these sanctions and tariffs
What he's saying is is basically that his
His efforts he's talked a lot about containing china and now he's expressing doubts
that the us
Can really keep that up that the us as one person put it to the and I don't think these are
Meersheimer's words
That the us has kind of passed the point of no return on
containing china
That is in using trade policy to try and bring china under control to put china under america's thumb
Economically he's doubtful that that's really possible
And of course you have to remember that there's a whole big world out there and the us
damaging
Chinese trade relations with the us
that that
That doesn't necessarily
Do much to destroy the chinese economy because there are other markets out there and we can see how the chinese have been pursuing
Other markets, right? They get 90 percent or 90 percent of iran's oil goes to china
Which also shows how delusional some recent comments have been about how
Um, the trump is going to impose more sanctions on iranian oil. Okay
Well 90 of it goes to china so good luck with that and of course the bonds between china and russia have been really really growing
So the question is okay. How much can the us really hurt china?
And I guess the whole point of is hurt china more than the us economy is hurt by these trade wars
And meersheimer now seems doubtful about that
Even though this is a person who's perfectly happy about containing china and the prospect of doing so if it could be done
So I I see that as a pretty big warning to
People who may be going forward continue to live in this world where they think that the us has some sort of trump card against china
And its economy, maybe it doesn't have one after all
and that may be uh
Happy and more pleasant relations would be better strategy going forward with china. Yeah, I'm not
I I'm not sure to what extent he's referencing just economic containment
um
I mean it's sometimes with meersheimer
It's difficult to know when he is
Pronosticating as to this this is what will happen because of the structure of the international system and this is what should be done
Uh, it's sometimes it's hard to tell with china, but he I believe he would still say the us will work to
Balance against china's rise
um
I do I
Personally, I don't know what to think of the future of the chinese economy. It's you know, riven with
government
Planning and all sorts of bad things and even when it comes to their technical abilities. I have heard very
contrasting things
In terms of what they're actually able to do
but um
I do think it's we can can
Have a bad policy of balancing against china that does not result in
war
Uh, and to me the best way to do that as I advocated way back when in my paper on us taiwan strategy
Is to lead from behind so far behind. We're on the other side of the planet
Let japan
Let india let these huge wealthy countries that have an interest in
Not being dominated by china
do the heavy work
And uh, really, I suppose it comes down to an academic question
What might say between offensive and defensive realism as to, uh
What uh, what china will accept
Meersheimer always said I mean he's told his story so many times about
And very amusingly because he just came back from china where he was like
I tell the chinese, you know, if I was their national security advisor, I'd do x y and z
You know, and that's push the us beyond the second island chain
Well, I don't think china
As we've talked about before china is domestically unstable
And it's not going to be easy or cheap to do that
So if china can accept sort of a status quo of taiwan is only
De facto independent
I mean we're taiwan to declare independence
You know head for the bunkers, but uh, if china can accept that
If there can be some sort of uh
Reproachment between
The us and china in terms of we are competing, but we're not
Deadly enemies some sort of shift in the vibe one might say I can really see things going well
What would really be great
But is unlikely to happen
Uh, I mean really this this is like the somehow achieving, you know
105 on the test
If and I don't think I mean just it's just if anyone could do it trump maybe could do it
I don't think he can though, but if he could really rebuild relations with russia and pull russia away from china
I do think if we look to the future
There will be many books written
many dissertations
on
The bizarro world
Of russia and china being aligned together and the disasters the foolish mistakes the madness
that engulfed us policymakers to lead to the current situation
Because it is not it is not a natural state of affairs. It is bizarre that russia and china are growing closer
and
If russia were to be pulled away from china
Well, that really threatens china's ability to
Engage in rampant military expansion were it to want to which I don't think it's necessarily
Eager to do it is expanding its blue water navy
But you could also say it's doing that because
Of the u.s. Threatening it
um
But I mean the china is as you said dependent on
A lot of iranian oil etc. etc
There the strait of malacca
Sort of in malaysia area
Is where you know huge percentage of
Imports to china go through
And it would not be difficult for india and the u.s. Or whoever
to
You know instantly shut that off
And then china's in trouble. Oh look here's this giant eurasian spanning
Minor great power with lots of oil and natural gas
Uh, they could make it potentially
um
So
That's that's sort of like the bonus points. It'd be great if that could happen
I think it would lead to a de-escalation
Of affairs in east asia
That might be something for you know the president in 10 or 20 years to try doing but
Yes, it would require I think for it to happen faster would require a significant amount of american
public public opinion
to change
Now that could be accelerated by significant changes in american
economic prospects
Right if if there's one thing I've witnessed more than once it's that when your
Domestic economic situation turns very dire
The population loses a whole lot of interest in foreign wars
Yes
For now the regime gets interested in foreign wars because I see this is a way to burnish their popularity or to prop up their
their own regime and so on but
the
The population
In general normal people lose a whole lot of interest in the the glories of foreign intervention
Uh when they're having trouble paying for their groceries and I see I think you see a little bit of that now
But if the economy got significantly worse we get into the middle of a big uh big recession
Right now. I don't know how bad the next recession is going to be. Uh, who knows
That would affect it, but I think you would need a larger overall decline
I think to really changed and motivate a a real turn on
On that subject. I've not had a chance to read it. It's I think several hundred pages
But I've seen excerpts from it the the annual us china economic and security of review commission annual report came out
And um, so noteworthy things I've seen people have pulled from it
One it says we might lose a war with china
So that's an encouraging sign to recognize that
But then it has
Uh few key recommendations
And this is just interesting. I'm not exactly sure what my thoughts
Well, I know what my thoughts are on the specific recommendation, but the number one recommendation is basically to
Marshall all of the country's resources to build a machine god
I I'm not kidding
The the number one recommendation is to institute a Manhattan project like program
To build agi artificial general intelligence, which is an ai that's better at doing
anything
than a human is
So
I definitely don't want the government to build a machine god. I'm not sure exactly what if
How ai regulation should be done if it should be done, but I don't think that's a great idea
But it is noteworthy
That this is another aspect of
china u.s
Competition is that the fear is china will develop agi first
And we can't allow that we have to develop it first
Well, just the latest demonstration that war is the health of the state. I mean, it will look what they can use it to justify
And it it is
I mean part part of me
I'm no computer scientist, but part of me skeptical that an actual machine consciousness
Could be achieved some
I I don't know enough about it to really know but that's just my i'm skeptical of how far ai could advance for various reasons
But I don't think the u.s government should devote
I don't know what percentage of the gdp went to the Manhattan project something like
Should not do that to develop a machine god
Well, of course, I mean the first thing they would want to use the machine for would be central planning
So central planning to own the communists great good good strategy. Thanks. That's yeah, that's how our regime thinks
Well, we're an hour in
So we should probably cut it short this time
Uh, so thank you zack, uh for joining me
We'll know more next month as to what this administration has planned but
We, uh, of course, I mean really next summer is probably when we'll probably do in a retrospective about where things headed
With this administration, but we'll see how much things how much closer we are to, uh, a nuclear exchange
For our december episode
I don't know. Hopefully not not any closer
But until then thank you all for listening to radio Rothbard
Thank you zack for joining me today and we'll see you next time