¶ Ambassador Robert Blackwill joins the Chuck ToddCast
This episode of the Chuck Todcast is brought to you by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, arteisonal pastries, and fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in
nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box, and a new protein box. I will tell you I have done the gluten free box. I have done it a second time. I have also used the code the todcast code. You use the promo code toodcast at checkout you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It
is hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic. They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this. There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade meals with Wild Grain. I obviously highly recommend it. It is worth giving wild Grain to try. Right now, Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off your first box
plus free croissants for life. Come on when you go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code. So if you spend any time thinking about American form moment, you can feel the drift. Alliances are under strain. Trade
is being redefined in some blunts transactional terms. The word
¶ America needs to recapture its cold war "bipartisan consensus"
multilateral has become suspect in certain corners of Washington, and hovering over all of it is the central strategic fact of our time. China is not just rising, it is competing. So here's the question, what is America's grand strategy? Now? It's not a slogan, not a reaction out a tweet, a strategy. My guess today has been decades inside the machinery of American foreign policy trying to answer that question. Ambassador Robert Blackwell is a former ambassador to India, former
¶ Alliances contributed to American strength
Deputy National Security Advisor under President George W. Bush, and really one of the most seasoned strategic thinkers in Washington. He's now the Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and he's out with a special Council special report. I had previewed it for the audience a few weeks ago, actually when it first came out. It's
called America Revived, a Grand Strategy of Resolute Global Leadership. Basically, he's laying out an argument that is both a warning and a blueprint, and I sort of viewed it as must if you're running for president, whichever side of the eye you're on. I felt this was something that I think the Ambassador is hoping it will be something these candidates read and be thinking about, as in case one of them actually wins the next presidency and can implement
what is a twenty first century national security strategy. So Ambassaard Blackwell joins me. Now, Bob, good to.
See you, Good to see you. Thanks for having me.
So look you have you know you're you're part of this world. That you know that some people will criticize as the uniparty, right, that there's always been a and in the Cold War there really was the quote bipartisan consensus. And you talk about this in your piece, and there is no consensus anymore on how what America's role in the world should be at the moment. And it struck me that what you were trying to do is make an argument for a new consensus. Is that fair?
That is fair? The consensus of which you speak, Chuck,
¶ Why were assumptions of China joining the world wrong?
governed America's approach to the world from the end of World War Two to mister Trump, and it was pursued by presidents in both parties. They did it in certain different ways, but the essence was a foreign policy based on alliances which they every president thought contributed American strength, to American values, which every president thought was the foundation of America's power projection into the world, and finally avoiding the emergence of a peer competitor which would dominate a
crucial region. And I believe President Trump has rejected all three of those, and so that has produced the debate that were now acutely in.
So let's start with before we get into what you're what you're laying out, Let's start with what everybody got wrong on China. And it just feels like what you know, I think, you know, whether it was Nixon and Carter believing you could bring them along right frankly Dido with Clinton and Bush in many ways, I would argue those four,
in different ways, had had big impacts. And you know, I think the assumption was that somehow, the more we brought China into the free market economy, the more the people of China would see how great a free market economy is and would reject communism, and it would over time essentially help help us win the argument, if you will, that didn't happen.
Why, Well, first, I would distinguish Nixon, Kissinger from the rest. Okay, they opened up China for geopolitical reasons to balance the
¶ China is the most dangerous rival America has ever had
Soviet Union, and although out of office later Richard Nixon hoped that perhaps China would move in a more liberal direction. Henry Kissinger never made that argument, and I think never believed it. But you're right there, American leaders' presidents after them held the hope that over the decades, China would be integrated into this liberal international approach to world order, and they went on hoping for that up through the
mid twenty tens and far past one. It should have been obvious that China had a different set of objectives in mind, which was essentially to replace the United States as the primary power in the Indo Pacific. And it wasn't until the late twenty tens, after the pivot Asia had failed that finally, finally a consensus emerged that China
¶ Should we have developed an Asian security pact sooner?
no longer could be considered a candidate for liberal evolution. And indeed, Bob Gates makes an argument former Distinguished Secretary of Defense and a wise man makes the argument that China is the most dangerous rival in American history and is likely to remain so for years ahead. So it was a combination of wishful thinking but also not wanting to spend the money on the defense side, which would
be consistent with regarding them as this dangerous rival. And we still haven't spent that money up until this day.
You know, there's sort of two things that I think we in hindsight, I'm curious where would we be if we had pushed for this. One, of course, is the Transpacific Partnership, which seemed to be a great potential economic sort of bulwark against of getting other Asian allies into a trade pack to be a check on China. Then, of course, you know, essentially Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump came roaring in and essentially cowed the establishment wings of
both party to back off on that. And the second is if we should have aggressively developed basically Asian What I use in shorthand is Asia NATO, the quad is sort of we're at the very beginning here. But should we have created both an economic and security packed a
¶ Marxism tells China that for it to be safe, it must lead the world
lot sooner? It should have been something we thought about in the early odds, you know, either your time in Bush or the first term of Obama.
I think that the situation in Asia was not right for any interest in a NATO like arrangement for two reasons. Money is, at that time they didn't regard the China threat as so serious that it was required. But the second was that from two thousand and one on, of course, the United States was preoccupied with the War on Terror and almost to the exclusion of other issues, including the
rise of China. Our good friend Steve Hadley, who's one of the most ditinguished practitioners practitioners in decades, said in public, we just got China wrong, and we got Shei Jinping wrong. And I think the primary reason that we got him wrong is that to this day we have trouble understanding how Marxist Chi Jinping really is. It's so foreign to the way we think of the world. And there's hardly
¶ Liberal internationalism has gotten weaker in its expression
anybody still alive who remembers that very Marxist Soviet Union. Its last three and a half decades was a gradual slump from that acute Marxism. And what does Marxism tell Hi Jinping? That China is not safe in the world without leading it because the other forces will try to do China in And so that's I think his policy, and we still have not developed the will to combat it with increases in the defense budget and so forth. I'll just give you one example, but it is an
example of the limp policies of liberal internationalism. The militarization of the artificial islands in the South China Sea. We
¶ What should we make of Xi purging his military leadership?
could see that coming. We watched it, indeed, perhaps spectators, Yeah, we were spectators. Wow, And I think we backed away from the danger of a collision with China, and in that period we were much stronger in naval forces in the South China Sea so forth, but we just let it happen. We are our limp reaction to the twenty
fourteen Russian acquisition of Ukraine. I have a great long list, but liberal internationalism became weaker and weaker in its expression, and China, I think, was in bold and buy that and has taken advantage of it. The last few liberal internationalist presidencies I think would be unrecognizable to Harry Truman, or to Jack Kennedy, or to Scoop Jackson, or to Dan moynihan and so forth. They have been weak in
¶ U.S. intelligence penetration of China has been limited
their reaction to the challenges that we face around the globe.
So you have to live in the I always joke, he used to say this all the time. It meet the press for politics as it is not as I wish it were. So we can we know, we could talk about what we could have done, should have done, et cetera. Now the question is now what do we do? And I want to start with there hasn't There's been a lot of in the foreign policy news world a lot of intrigue, concern uh, and focus a little bit on on the purge she's been doing of his military.
What do you make of that? And how should we what do you how do you view that? What's what do you think is going on internally in China's political leadership at the moment?
First, the first thing that one should say, since there's so much commentary, is that not one of the people who are writing foreign affairs articles and op eds know what it means. So it's all speculation.
Is our intelligence that week in China?
Well, in order to know since they're such a small circle, and it's smaller now than it was a month ago, it's such a small circle, it would be wonderful if we had penetrated the very inner workings of the five men who made decisions led by Shi Jinping.
Sounds like we might have gotten close which got him paranoid.
Well, let me just say it is when a general is charged with leaking nuclear secrets to the Americans. Well,
¶ China is working very hard to prepare military for Taiwan invasion
hooray if it's actually true. But there are a variety of other interpretations one could make in the Chinese government saying that, so we are hopefully the president is receiving from the intelligence community their best judgment of what's going on, and they're speculating less how much they know. I'mdoubtful they have penetrated the inner inner workings. So there are two biometrically opposed explanations. One is that he's getting the military ready for action, as he said as soon as two
thousand and seven against Taiwan twenty twenty seven. That's theory one, and he's the older generations are corrupt and not warriors, to use a word that's now prevalent in Washington. The second is that this elderly leadership of the PLA began,
¶ Worse outcome: Let China invade Taiwan or fight them over it?
perhaps in the faintest possible way, to dissent from the path that Chi Jinping is on, which is more and more dominated by this single personality. I don't nobody knows which of those it is, or a combination of the two, but I think we do have to take seriously the military threat that China represents with respect to Taiwan, which
they're working very hard on every single day. And one of the things that's happened during this period that we've been discussing, let's say, the last fifteen to twenty years, is they've dramatically narrowed the gap between our two militaries, especially concerning Taiwan contingencies, and we have to do something about that. Deterrence today is the weakest it's ever been with respect to deterring China from acting on Taiwan.
¶ Biden clearly said he'd intervene on behalf of Taiwan
Well, I'm going to positive theory to you tell me if I'm either too cynical and fully fully respect that. But my concern is that she is on the clock because he knows that that Trump might let him have Taiwan. It seems to be it's on the negotiating table. Trump has seemed to have allowed that to be. That we could quote change our posture starting, you know, no longer support independence, things like that. What's what's a worse outcome
¶ Trump doesn't seem inclined to defend Taiwan
that we just sort of let it happen and they and they get Taiwan without really firing a shot if there is a fight, but they get it without us, you know, and we sort of help but not enough and they get it anyway. Or is it something we should be fighting all the way to stop?
Well, you you at the end highlighted the major issue which is not really discussed in public, even in the elite, which is the question that Britain asked itself in nineteen thirty nine, are we willing to go to war with Germany over Poland? And the question not asked around Washington in all of the palaver is are we willing to go to war with China over Taiwan? Yes? Or no?
¶ China's military isn't battle tested, invasion is a huge risk
And an American president should know that he doesn't have to announce it, although Joe Biden did for sure.
Did was that a work? That was the first time an American president ever done that right?
And at each time, as we know, the State Department walked it back the next morning. But I think we do have some evidence that Biden would go to with China over Taiwan. I think you're right that there is no such evidence with respect to President Trump, and he has said things like Taiwan has a little dot on the coast of China which stole all of our chip technology and so forth. So would he go to war with China over Taiwan? I think that at least there's
¶ How have Iraq/Afghanistan informed the debate over defending Taiwan?
a doubt in his case, and President Shi Jinping may want to test the hypothesis, maybe.
Not with a I mean if I were sitting in his shoes. And again, I don't want this to happen. I wouldn't wait for another American president to do this, I'd do it under this one.
But it's still nobody knows what an American president is going to do before he does. And this is particularly i might say erratic American president. He can't, even with the perhaps footprints in the sand, heading toward a quiet reaction to such Chinese aggression. He can't be sure. And using his military force is a great gamble. It hasn't been in combat since the late nineteen seventies, it's corrupt and all the rest. So what if he tries and fails?
So making that decision to say okay, there's not going to be a better moment than now go. I wouldn't
¶ A majority of Americans wouldn't support war with China over Taiwan
want to predict what he'll say, but it's certainly true de terrence is weaker under President Trump. There's no doubt about that.
Any If you were in Taiwan, would you be more concerned now under the current situation than you've ever been?
Yes? Yeah, absolutely.
I've always thought the biggest problem American political leaders have on the Taiwan issue is, particularly with the memory of Iraq and Afghanistan still still recent enough for enough people that you'd have a hard time convincing the country that it's worth going to war over over Taiwan. I mean, you see, we're look, Americans are always instinctively isolationists, and and then you know, we can be talked into it. But I think that's a tall political order, Bob, it is.
I agreedy. But if the president is suddenly informed that China has started military action against Taiwan, then what does he do. Well, he can try to avoid responsibility, as presidents have done and said, well, the Congress has to decide this, not me, but there'll be pressure. There'll be pressure on him to make a decision, and the longer
¶ What would you advise next President to do with Taiwan if no war by 2028?
he waits, the more likely we won't intervene. So he has that time to try to persuade the American people. I believe, though, with you, that if it were to happen and he were to ask the American people, should I go to war with China, a majority is likely to say no, it's too far away, it's not important enough. We seem to have a recent inclination to lose wars. No. But that's where American leadership comes in and explains to the American people, here's why we're going to war. Uh.
¶ Trump is unique, will take most of "Trumpism" with him when he leaves
But it's a it will be a tough sell. Just again, to use a historical analogy, we will never know whether Fdr WU and the American Congress would have declared war on Germany. On Germany once Pearl Harbor had occurred, if Hitler hadn't declared war on US first, because the the the body of of of opinion was, let's concentrate on Japan. They're the ones who attacked US. Germany hasn't attacked US.
And that decision by Hitler to declare war four days later after Pearl Harbor, that's what marri lea Guardia called a doozy. Uh. That's that's a historic doozy.
This episode of the Chuck Podcast is being brought to you by Quins. As you you know, a well built wardrobe is about the pieces that work together, hold up over time, and frankly allow you to be flexible and sort of business casual, to say social casual. Quins does this really well. They have premium material, thoughtful design, and some everyday staples that feel easy to wear, easy to rely on even as the weather shifts. I've got some
sweaters from Quints. I love them. I can use them for here on the podcast, I can do a business meeting with them. They have every day essentials. I love the quality so far. It's lasting really well. I've had
¶ Debate after Trump will be between nationalism & liberal internationalism
it for a while. They have organic cotton sweaters, polos for every occasion. They have some nice jackets, including you know, lighter jackets as things I hope warm up at some point down here in the Mid Atlantic. The list goes on. All of it is built to hold up for you to wear this stuff all the time, right, Not just something you pull out once a quarter to look nice at work. No stuff that you might wear every week. They only partner with factories that meet some rigorous standards
for crashmanship and ethical product. Bottom line, I wear it. I'm happy. It's been really good. It isn't going to break the bank. So refresh your wardrobe with Quints. Go to quins dot com slash chuck for free shipping on your order and a three hundred and sixty five day opportunity to return it. Now available in Canada too. That's qui NC dot com slash chuck, free shipping, three hundred and sixty five day returns. Quints dot com slash chuck.
Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out of Office gives you the social buzz without the next day regret. They're best selling out of office gummies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a gentle one point five milligram microdose to their newest fifteen
milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy. It's variance. Soul is a wellness brand
¶ Tough to know what Democrats strategy for role in the world is
that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THHC and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and simply help you unwind so if you struggle to switch off at night. Sol also as a variety of products specifically designed to just simply help you get a better night's sleep, including their top selling sleepy gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep restorative sleep. So bring on the good vibes and treat
yourself to Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order. So go to get sold dot Com use the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code. That's getsold dot Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off.
Yeah.
Well, and obviously a giant misstep by the Germans in that time. So let's talk about let's assume we get through this term without without being fake, without anybody being
¶ How do you rebuild alliances in a more durable way?
faced with the Taiwan decision. What are you advising the next president to do in twenty twenty nine or what do you hope the next president is thinking about come twenty twenty nine.
Well, I myself am an optimist in several respects with respect to your question. First of all, I think President Trump is a unique singular figure in American history, and that he will take much of trump Ism with him as he goes out the door, in particular, in particular the erratic behavior that he prefers, the contempt for America's alliances, the statement that American values have no place in American
foreign policy, and so forth. Those are so un American those views that I think he takes them out the door with it.
You're that confident a president JD. Vance would throw all that away?
Yes, well, I'm speculating. But let me say what I think he won't throw away, which is American nationalism, which has dominated American grand strategy since the founding.
I'm glad you point this out. I try to tell people the Cold War was an outlier in American history in a variety of ways, political parties, political extremism, isolationism, and nationalism versus multilateralism. I mean, and unfortunately or fortunately, we get to live in that era and we saw, hey, that's pretty good. Erica really benefited from this era of multilateralism, which makes it a head scratcher. Why would want to give it up?
Became weaker? As I tried to say earlier. And I can't be sure obviously who the Republican nominee would be and what you would say, But I think the challenge the debate after Trump will be between American nationalism, which, as I say, for more than one hundred and fifty years was American grand strategy, and I hope a much stronger liberal internationalism with a much greater capacity in the military,
¶ The American people don't support the admins "gangster" foreign policy
most more defense of international institutions and so forth. And I think that'll be the debate. It'll be the Western hemisphere versus the globe. And I don't the American people, instinctively, as you say, Chuck, all the way back to the beginning, are anxious about alliances, about intent angling alliances, to use the founder's words, and so if it is, if it is vice president advanced, then he will call campaign as a Trumpist. But I don't think he will be a Trumpist.
I think most likely he'll be an American nationalist. And then that is raising the question, well, who is the Democrat candidate and what is the Democrat approach to world order and US grand strategy today or more pertinently during the campaign. And I don't have a clue. Perhaps you do, but I know I couldn't. I could sit Yeah, I mean you might do.
I think that your peak bootage is your Joshapiers or Wes Moores would be would look very familiar to you as far as PID policy over the last thirty or forty years, I think so. But who's to say they're going to be You know, I think this, You know you don't know for sure, let me look at it through Europe's perspective here, you know, Europe is you know, I've often joked that Trump's going to make Europe great again because They've got to sort of like, well, can't
¶ If Europe is separated from the U.S., they'll truly go on their own
rely on America anymore. So let's start making our own economic deals, and let's start thinking about our own defense packs and things like that. It's going to take a while for our European allies to trust us again. So how do you build really, if we're going to if you get a president that wants to rebuild these alliances, how do you do it in such a way where it becomes more durable and essentially trump proofit for the next time.
¶ Trump says nothing positive about Europe, but praises China & Russia
Well, that is related to what I said earlier At Davo's. Friend of mine asked a foreign minister, well, what about after Trump? And he said, well, if the next resident looks more like ones we've seen before, okay, but then we can get another Trump. And my argument, which my friend didn't use, but my argument is no, you're not going to get another Trump. He is such a singular figure in American history that, as I said, I think many of his policies will go with him, but it will let me pause.
You there, I mostly agree with you, but we have I have a friend of mine he always says, you know, with Trump, we sometimes forget the phrase failure of imagination. And you know, there have been multiple times we thought this would do in Trump, We're not going to return to Trump, and yet we've done it. So I would you know, I've wondered if the second election of Trump really sort of cemented skepticism about America at least for another decade.
I think you're the expert on domestic politics. It's not my line of work. But I think it mostly shows the weakness of the Democrat candidate, or at least.
That I don't disagree. I mean the last part of it.
But but back back to the fundamental point, which is the Trump approach, which is, as I say, I think, at at the base an American because it has no values in it, and every president back to Washington had values in in their approach to international affairs. I don't think jd. Vance will say the same thing, for example, that President Trump says and mister Miller says about that power and strength is everything in the world. I would be very surprised when I was in the Serengetti. Recently,
¶ Hard to believe Donald Trump would abide Article 5
I had a guide say in the Serengetti every night animals eat and animals are eaten. Well, I think that's mister Miller's view of current civilization, and it's not shared by the American people. And I think if mister Vance were to campaign on that gangsterism, which incidentally has some loyalties at least, that would be a mistake. So anyway, whoever's the next president will have the opportunity to build that trust. If it's mister Vance and he keeps denigrating
¶ NATO could collapse if Trump doesn't respond to action against Baltics
our democratically elected allies, then trust will not be re established. And in life, we know it can be re established unless the perforation of the trust ust goes on. And so if the next president says, I know trust in America has weakened to the Europeans, but just watch me, and you're going to see a consistency of our policies. And I hope we'll build trust over time. It won't
happen automatically. But the question which you imply, Chuck, is and I don't know the answer, is, well, what about if the next president treats the European allies the way
¶ Taiwan remains greatest risk for the duration of Trump's term
this one has? Well when is it that they finally give up on America and they're not going to do it to amplify their risk. But a Europe, and this is something that the administration seems not to accept. A Europe which really is separated from the United States, is a euro which will go on its own, not just in dealing with European security issues, but with trade with China or treating Israel in the Middle East or whatever.
It will have no incentives to care much about what the United States thinks or advises if we separate from them in the way that the President and the Vice President seem to want. This curiosity in which the President
¶ Any peace deal in Ukraine will reward Russia's aggression
can say nothing positive about Europe while he emphasizes his close friendships with Shijinping, who's trying to displace the United States as the principal power in Asia and beyond, and Vladimir Putin, who is seeking to murder as many innocent Ukrainians as he can, are close friends. It is unfathomable. For it is me at least.
One of the my reading of history is nationalism is usually comes before wars, and that nationalism is also contagious,
¶ Ukraine remains determined not to lose their statehood
and when we get more nationalistic, so does the world. When we get more protectionists, so do other countries become protectionists. And this is something that I think you write soberly, but to me this I read it with a bit of alarm. I think we've never it feels like we are at there are a lot of we are at a moment where there's quite a few places where a spark could cause something that we can't control.
Well, in some places it's gotten better, but in some places it's gotten worse. I do want to point out, and it's not because of American olyes. It's because of
¶ Putin knows he'll never have a friendlier American president than Trump
the IDF and Israel. But that spark is much less likely in the Middle East now than it was before the Hamas attack on Israel.
That is true. The stability in the Middle East there may be political. It may have caused more political instability in the Democratic Party here, but there is security stability in the Middle East in a way that we've not seen in a long time.
Right. But in Europe the danger is and it's an analog to what uh you raised with respect to Taiwan, who believes that Donald Trump will abide by Article five, that is to say, an attack on one as an attack on all. Essentially, if Little Green men go into a Baltic state.
Oh, we've heard Tucker Carlson say this about Estonia. Our America is American America gonna spill blood for Estonian.
¶ Intelligence sharing is most valuable thing America provides Ukraine
Right and so uh can Putin, especially if he can't conquer Ukraine? Uh? Uh will he test the proposition too? About Trump? Souh a spark there could lead to the collapse of NATO, for example, Uh if the United States were not willing to uh to uh abide by Article five or even worse, somehow endorsed the uh little green
men from Russia the paramilitaries into the Baltic States. And President Trump, after his interactions with President Putin, often seems to accept President Putin's explanation of what is happening in the world. So there there's a point. But the most dangerous I'll just say this to make it clear. The most dangerous place on earth, as that spark you mentioned
for the rest of the Trump term, is Taiwan. That's because of the reasons we said, I think is the most dangerous, and that spark quote could happen anytime.
This episode of The Chuck Podcast is brought to you by American Financing. Let's be honest. The math just isn't adding up lately. Between the grocery store and those skyrocketing insurance premiums, even with a steady job, more families are being forced to rely on high interest credit cards to cover expenses. So if you're a homeowner caught in this cycle, carrying balances with interest rates in the twenties, frankly even
the thirties, it's time to get some relief. Right now, mortgage rates are at a three year low, and my friends at American Financing are helping homeowners pay off that
¶ Trump can do so much more to rupture our alliances in 3 years
high interest debt at rates in the low fives. Their salary based mortgage consultants don't just push loans on you, they build exit strategies from debts. On average, they're saving their customers eight hundred dollars a month, so if you start today, you may even delay the next two mortgage payments. There are no upfront fees or obligations to find out how much you can save. American's Home for home loans is American Finance eight sixty six eight eight five ten
eighty one. That's eight six six eight eight five ten eighty one or Americanfinancing dot net slash the Chuck Todcast important disclaimer nm LS one A two three three four NMLS Consumer access dot org APR for rates in the five start at six point one ninety six percent for well qualified buyers. Call eight six six eight eight five one zero eight one for details about credit costs and terms, or americanfinancing dot nex slash the Chuck Podcast. Having good
¶ Europe is more traumatized by what Trump says than what he does
life insurance is incredibly important. I know from personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away. We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in the best shape. My mother, single mother, now widow. Myself sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot, but it was important at the time, and it's why I was able to go to college. Little did he know how important
that would be in that moment. Well, guess what. That's why I am here to tell you about Etho's life. They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst comes to pass. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process and it's one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you
just answer a few health questions online. You can get
¶ What to make of Marco Rubio's role in the administration?
a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home. You can get up to three million dollars in coverage, and some policies start as low as two dollars a day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quot at ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot
com slash chuck. Application times may vary and the rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance is something you should really think about, especially if you've got a growing family. If the US helps create a peace steal between Russia and Ukraine that essentially rewards Russia, what's the fallout from that?
Well, the peace steal, the one I would support, will reward Russia because there is no stomach in the West and no capability in Ukraine to drive Russia out of the Donboss and out of Crimea, so they are going to profit at the expense of more than a million deaths and so forth from their invasion. The question is rather is rather, can we stop them where they are and retain Ukrainian sovereignty And some of the things that mister Wikoff has proposed in the past would jeopardize or
even end Ukrainian sovereignty. So that's the question. And I think, sadly the war is likely to go on because I think that there is a a determination in Ukraine not
¶ Rubio has to perform an incredible balancing act
to lose their statehood, and that's what Putin, of course wants to accomplish. And I just hope the Americans, the American administration are not going to assist President Putin In that by putting pressure on Ukraine to give up its sovereignty.
Look, I sort of positive this idea that I think she knows that if he wants to that it might benefit him to test the premise while Trump's still here, then waiting until after Trump leaves. I assume that times ten with Putin, that Putin knows he's got he'll never have a friendlier American president than the one he has now, So what does that mean when it comes to his actions in the next two and a half years.
Well, what can he do? Uh, that's exactly the right question. His progress on the battlefield is painfully slow, uh and doesn't seem to uh to accelerate now. So I think there's no breakout for Putin in the military campaign. So the strategy would be to persuade President Trump UH to put so much pressure on Ukraine that it will abandon its determination to retain its sovereignty and succumb. Well, how
could President Trump do that? He could say, Uh, we will no longer support you with intelligence information, which which
¶ Trump is driving "swing countries" like India into China's arms
would be a catastrophic It's.
The single most valuable thing we still do for them wedily give them military, but it's now indirect the way it was more.
Direct, exactly, and it helps them with their targeting, with moving their force of all the rest. Well, he can as a presidential act actor with unlimited power in that regard, he can end it tomorrow. And he could say, if
¶ We aren't headed for a multipolar world, it will be bipolar
you do not accept X y Z, I'm going to end it. Second, I'm going to stop selling weapons to Europe which they then pass on to you, and Europe cannot keep you sufficiently supplied with specially artillery shells, but other things as well, and so forth. So Putin could hope that with that ultimatum from the United States and from President Trump, perhaps the view in the Ukrainian leadership would succumb to this American pressure. And I think Putin will keep working on that and be patient we talk.
And this is I'm guilty of this more than you. But when I when I'm hopeful, chuck about what America's future might be with respect to its its foreign policies.
¶ Partners want consistency from America, based on strength
When I'm hopeful, I have to say that I have to compartmentalize that hope and ignore that the president is in office for.
Three more years.
So what will he do to further rupture to use the Canadian Prime Minister's words, to rupture alliances for now? For now? And Greenland is a good a good example. Europe is traumatized by what President Trump says, not what he does. So so Davos was was a flitter, not because President Trump did anything about Greenland. It was he said he would consider the use of force. What we need, I think to be acutely aware of as in the next three years is what does he start not just
saying but doing. For example, does he make the decision to withdraw US forces from South Korea or substantial numbers from Japan, from the from Europe? Does he succumb to the one China interpretation of the Chinese interpretation of one China, which says Taiwan is part of China, and so forth. So I think we need to adopt what you and I will remember, and others ed Niss's line about watch
what we do, not what we say. It's especially true that to become traumatized every night at two am when he tweets out is not a productive way to spend your time at two am.
I still have some you know, what do you make of Marco Rubio's role here? I view him as a little bit of a firewall in that administration. He certainly has the ear of the president. He has his own agenda that he is trying to you know, as I joke,
¶ 2028 candidates need to present a vision for America's role
he's going to there'll be more streets named after him in my hometown of Miami than anybody else in the next twenty years if he gets what he wants in both Cuban Venezuela. But he is a I think he's an internationalist. I think he believes in multilateralism. He certainly has changed his rhetoric to appease Trump. But would you be a lot more concerned if he wasn't there?
Yes, and yes, And although if I were more important, what I'm about to say would damage his standing.
But I admire everybody's afraid of saying that. Don't praise him too much.
Right, But I admire what he's trying to do. And I think he's essentially a classic as I am, a classic Republican in the view, in how he views the world, the strength of alliance.
Of the Republican of the as I say, from Eisenhower to Romney, there was sort of a Republican foreign policy consensus generally, right, Well, I think.
It went beyond that, but any but in any case, I think he has it. In just one topical example. I think that he and perhaps Secretary hexas Uh put the language in the National Security Strategy, tough language on the balance of power in the First Island chain and
¶ China ahead of America in Africa, South America & Asia...not Europe
the threats to that. But and so I'm delighted they put it in. But because of the President, they couldn't mention the country that raises these anxieties, that is to say, China. So it's as if, well, let's see who might that be? Yeah, yeah, right. So I admire what Secretary Rubio is trying to do, and it's the most look at balancing act to go
¶ China isn't ahead yet, but trends are bad
just far enough but not too far. I don't believe he himself, for example, ever said we must take sovereign possession of Greenland. I think he tries to make his point, perhaps often through silence, and so good good for him for trying and retaining. If he has an year of the president.
Yeah he is. At some point, I expect the President to turn on him, but so far he is. That hasn't happened. Get your opinion on something. Jake Sullivan, when he was Biden's National security advisor, gave a speech it may have been in front of CFR counts on formulations where he viewed He said, look, we're in a competition with China, and there's some He said, if you if you want to look at it and use American language,
you know of swing states. But he viewed him as swing nations, and it was sort of at the time he was basically trying to convince Biden that he had to work with Saudi Arabia. We know you don't. You're personally angry, and Biden was not wanting to. You know, you'd made this pledge about Saudi Arabia and then you know, you make all the pledges in the world and campaign and all that, right, and the reality hits. But he identified four countries and it was Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India,
¶ America's contempt for the third world has been detrimental
and I think it was Brazil as sort of these swing countries that we had to, you know, these that it was necessary to have close alliances with to prevent them from going into China's arms. Do you generally agree with that take and do you still see that as an issue? And I do feel like we've had in the twenty first century consecutive one consistency is you've had all the presidents trying to make nice with India.
Yeah. Yes, I do agree with that. And in that context, I think we are headed for not a multipolar world in which the superpowers are first among equals and so forth, although there's a lot of talk about the Middle powers now and so forth. I think we're headed for a bipolar world that will be very familiar to us, and it will be the.
Old War too.
Basically. Huh yeah, Well, in that sense, there will be many differences, but in that sense, and it will be the United States and China trying to attract these major other countries in the in the international system, beginning with and including the four you mentioned, and that it will take ignoring in some cases they are human rights, domestic practices, and others. India comes to mind a determined avoidance of anything that smells like an alliance while they get closer
¶ Trump's approach to the world won't change in the next 3 years
to the United States, which has been happening and so forth. And what they want, I think out of the United States is a consistency based on American strength, based on American strength, not a consistency based on ideology from their point of view, and I tried to make an argument. It's argued at length in the report that American strength has not been impressive the application of American strength you mentioned, and I neglected to follow up the the Obama administration's
decision to abandon the Transpecific Partnership was catastrophic. It was the chance to have a framework for international trade in Asia led by the United States, and now we have no multilateral framework. Meanwhile, Asia itself is organizing and has organized itself with such a framework, and we have the irony.
Now is in charge of it is.
China has applied to be a member. What is the essence of the Transit Pacific Partnership. So what I'm advising is a much more robust engagement with the international system than recent administrations. That's liberal internationalism, strength and in every dimension. And an increased defense budget which stops China from narrowing the gap and therefore produces deterrence for the across the
Taiwan Strait. And I know that'll be a hard sell and the American people, the American will have to be persuaded. But that's what we used to believe presidents do, which is persuade the American people that what they want to do, what America's role in the world should be, is part of their job. And I think President Trump has articulated a vision very powerfully. I think it's counter productive in
almost every way, but he's worked hard at it. The next president, if it proceeds anywhere near along the lines, I would like he or she will in an equally resolute way give the American people, beginning in the campaign, a different view of America's role in the world and the role in which they and their children are going to live. And to go back to the most primary point, do the American people really want to live in mister
Miller's world? Do they really want to live in a world without rules, in which the strong dictate to the week, without any without any framework of right and wrong? Do they want to live in the world in which the American president says, I operate in no moral context, what I decide is right or wrong. Is that the world they want their kids to live in. It's not the world I want my kids and grand kids to live in.
Let me get you out of here on this, which is you talk about that we're headed to this bipolar world? And you know, I think in maps, and I think in numbers, and I think in states, and I look at the world and I look at continents, and China's ahead of America in Africa, China might be a head of America in South America. China might be ahead of
America in Asia, not in Europe. And you know it's maybe, maybe we have a slight advantage in the Middle East, But are we behind when it comes to this great competition? If this is indeed where we're headed.
Not yet, But the trends are bad the military trends are bad, and that's the reason I believe we need to increase our defense budget and reform our defense processes and acquisition and all the rest. So militarily, the app is dramatically closed. China's diplomacy is still outmatched by American diplomacy. Look who's negotiating, uh, the Gazza, the Gaza cease fire and Ukraine and support.
But I got rid of a ID that wasn't a good idea.
Yeah, but they they are gaining ground. And then of course economically, they are forging business deals and trade agreements with India, with Europe, with so forth. While we have a basically a we will course you into an agreement in principle which is condemned by your domestic audiences, and
we'll see if they really come to pass. And just a word, the President said in the last week that we'd produced a miraculous new trade agreement with India, where I spent from your ambassador, and Mody now is in across the board attacks that that agreement in general does not protect Indian vital national interest. So we are losing
ground and contempt for the Third World. Quite apart from the moral vacuum that is is over the long run, detrimental to American national interests if you look at the population trends, if you look at where the minerals are and so forth. And to just talk about the Third World as if it was only a swamp that can never be rescued the way the president does is just bad strategy.
You are proving, you are proving your experience as a diplomat. I think what you're referring to is when he would call them s whole countries. But I can say it, and I know you will never say it that way, but that is what he did.
Well, that is what he did, you know, and I want to say that. I don't want to end. We're getting her then on a negative note. But the one thing I would say two, I think America remains the most powerful country on Earth, militarily, economically, and diplomatically. So we have vast instruments to help shape world order to our benefit and to the benefit of our values. That's number one, and that will be true at the end
of the Trump administration. But number two is that the trends are against us, and President Trump with three more years in office, I do not believe is going to change his view of the world or how he operates. I believe this is what you see is what you get. He's believed many of these things. He's detested the Europeans and their democrats and their democracies for half a century or more. He's not going to change. He's not going to change his attraction to autocratic government and so forth.
So we're powerful, but we are in this very dangerous next three years of the combination of the growth of Chinese power and a president who does not defend either traditional American national security, vital national interests, or American values.
Well, hopefully this is a document that many a presidential candidate reads and absorbs on both sides of the aisle. And here's hoping we can actually have a debate, though I fear our twenty twenty presidential primary debates will have a couple of questions on Taiwan and Ukraine and then everything else will be back to domestic. But you of outlined why we need a better debate about America's role in the world, and hopefully we'll get one. Bob'says terrific.
Great to catch up with you. I always learn a ton from you.
Thank you very much for having me