China v. Ukraine with Elbridge Colby; TikTok's Clock; Election Meddling Is Cool Now? | GoodFellows

At this critical juncture, I believe that new

election

s are the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about Israel's future at a time when so many Israelis have lost confidence in the vision and direction of their government. . It's Tuesday. March 19, 2024 and welcome back to Good Fellows, a Hoover Institution broadcast examining social, economic, political, and geopolitical concerns. I'm Bill, I'm a distinguished policy fellow at Hoover. Today I will be your moderator, accompanied by two of our three Good Fellows, John Cochin. will not be with us today, but we have the presence of historian Neil Ferguson and former Presidential National Security Advisor and fellow historian hrcm, both Neil and HR are senior colleagues at the Hoover Institution, gentlemen, two blocks we go to enter today in the In the second block we are going to talk about the measure of the Tik Tock Congress that tries to force the Chinese company Bit Dance to sell its stake and Tik Tok and the question if that is good legislation and we will also link it to a conversation about Chuck Schumer. and the Senate Majority Leader's recent comments about Israeli domestic politics crossed the line, but first we're going to have a conversation about America's foreign policy priorities and we'll be joined by Elridge Kobe making his Good Fellows debut.

Mr. Kobe is the former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategic development and is co-founder and director of the Marathon Initiative, a policy initiative focused on developing strategies to prepare the United States for an era of sustained great power competition. , is also the author of American Defense Denial Strategy in an Era of Great Power Conflict published by Yale University Press, which came out in 20121 Elber, welcome to Good Fellows, it's a pleasure to be with you, gentlemen, okay, let's get into it because I know you guys are going to I have some, maybe some conflicting thoughts on this, I want to take you back, bridge to one piece and Politico April 2023, the headline, meet the conservative intellectual you were looking for remake Geop's foreign policy, let me read you some of what he said in this. quote from article Ukraine should not be the center of attention, the best way to avoid war with China is to be demonstrably prepared for Beijing to recognize that an attack on Taiwan is likely to fail, we need to be a hawk to get to a place where we can being a dove it's about a balance of power okay bridge question that was six months before Hamas invaded Israel uh the world has changed a little the war in Ukraine continues what are you saying here?

Are you saying Taiwan comes first before Ukraine and Israel? that a military buildup is first and foremost, and if so, what's going on in this whole equation with Ukraine and Israel? Do we continue to provide them with weapons? Do we turn our backs on them? Tell me what you mean by that article. Sure, what I'm saying is I'd put it this way: China is our biggest threat, which seems to be the conventional wisdom, but I'm really just following the logic of that, since it's 10 times Russia's GDP and probably 30 or more times the GDP of Iran and Asia is the largest region in the world, I think it's pretty close and will exceed 50% of the world's GDP, so if I mean, frankly, this is a pretty standard classical equilibrium of power thinking, you know, anti-hegemonic thinking that has deep roots in the American Republic, but even deeper roots in Britain and other European strategic thinking, you don't allow even a potentially hostile power to dominate such a large fraction of the world economic area .

So I think starting with Ukraine and Taiwan is starting from the wrong side. It's more that the consequences of a US defeat or a collapse of our geopolitical position in Asia would be serious, so really everything I said. There is only more truth now, especially now that war on war has broken out in the Middle East and you know that the bid administration's budget proposal is 1% growth which is below the inflation rate, and much less the crossed organic factors, the crossed factors within. the Department of Defense and just to give you an example, which is the only one among you, you know dozens, you could probably choose from hundreds.

I think the administration, well, the United States spent a year's worth of, I think it was SM6 missiles, uh, fighting the Houis, so it's essentially fighting a tertiary power within a tertiary region and you know my point. about uh uh, you know, the role of the military is again a kind of old-fashioned peace through force, which I don't find credible or that it would be convincing to launch economic sanctions or, much less, any kind of persuasion moral to persuade China to stop in Taiwan or, you know, to get kicked off the island of Taiwan. Military forces are needed.

We no longer have a nuclear monopoly. said in 1952 or 53 Visa V China, so there have to be a lot of conventional forces and it's just an objective fact that we are not prepared, and despite a lot of rhetoric and the rank and file corporation, you barely know a group of bomb throwers. so to speak he has said that we are on a trajectory to lose, so it is quite simple, basically it is as if we should be able to deny the Chinese invasion, we are not in a position to do so and we cannot act. like I mean the president says and a lot of Republicans say frankly oh we have a ride and Sh chic is like sorry that's not where we are we're in a world of hard decisions like I said um bill is I think there's two layers to my argument.

The second layer of my argument is that China is the most important threat and that we should focus and we should have a denial strategy. I think I'm right, but I think I don't think there's room to disagree? I mean, for example, I think Neil has an and, but the reason I have so much respect for the argument is the first part. I think the first part is the criticism, which is where we are. We live in a world of difficult decisions, scarcity and a harsh reality where we cannot cover all our bases and if that is not part of the proposed strategy, I don't think it should be.

I don't think you should be considered credible. because I mean, for example, I said this at the Heritage Foundation a couple of weeks ago when they released their defense report, whoever is in the position of primary responsibility and defense, but also on national security issues, you're going to be, you're going to be to be in the seat in 2027, if I mean if you stay, no one knows what Shen Ping is going to do, but I think you won't be able to spend your way out of the problem and there isn't much. of support in this country to spend our way out of the problem anyway, so I think that's the key message, so everything I said six months ago, a year ago, two years ago, three years ago in my book is truer and makes more sense, and that Actually, what explains the type of final thought is the increase in acuity and, according to my rhetoric, it is because we headed straight for the iceberg and hoped to graze it, which was not so successful in the original Titanic case, but Am I?

I'm like, come on, let's move at least 100 yards away from the Titanic and that's not what we're doing right now, so the question obviously comes up and you've been asked hundreds of times, but here goes, well, doesn't it really help? to China if Russia wins in Ukraine? How do we stabilize the situation in Ukraine while addressing their concerns? I think they are well founded on Taiwan. My feeling is that there is a slight danger if your argument is caricatured. It becomes about getting rid of the Ukrainians and, well, the Israelis too, because Taiwan is very important and it seems to me that China would be a big winner if Russia won in Ukraine.

How do we reconcile these conflicting imperatives? So, again, I think this gets to my point. About this is kind of a level two argument where I agree with you on my position and it's often caricatured and I want to say, that's life in the big city, but it's not like that. I don't have a theological opposition if we lived in one world. without restrictions, I would, I would support it, you know, strong, very strong support for the Ukrainians, right? um and my position, as I laid out, for example, in a My Time magazine article about six or nine months ago, is to provide an excess of items, especially weapons that cannot plausibly be used. in a first defense of the island chain, such as tanks or engineering equipment of certain types and F-16s, for example, um, and I support supporting the Israelis in a similar way, but with prioritization that includes in particular money , political capital and resources, uh, and attention. of the defense industrial base um, I think the key thing that I would say, the word that you use that I would reject is stabilize.

I don't think we can hope to stabilize and I think that's one of the main flaws, as I believe. What I infer from the kind of strategy of the administration and Jake Sullivan, but it's similar among the Primacy wing of the Republican Party is that we hope to stabilize them in some sense before what is not admitted as such, but you know, now you hear slight. oh, the lesson is that you can't ignore these regions, well, I mean, sometimes you have to, you know, take a lot of damage in a secondary or tertiary theater. Now I understand your point, what I would say Neil is that, um, I'm not in favor of abandoning the Ukrainians, my strategy is to get the Europeans, in which capacity it is completely within the capacity of the Europeans, in fact , now they are doing it because, frankly, I think that the realities that I have been pointing out and the strategy that I have been pointing out are now looming much further on the horizon, much more visibly.

I wish they had started doing that two six five six years ago. I've been reassuring myself that it's not that important to be. I think that's been clear to us for a number of years and now we're in a position where we don't have two military wars, we won't have two, we don't have a new one. military, but we are not clear if we have one, we could very plausibly lose the big war and of course if the Chinese defeat us in Thailand, that is not the end of the story because they are building an army to go further. that and of course, as you have written, you eloquently know that they have the attributes of a great power.

I'm not saying attack Hun Orol Hitler, but I don't know Britain, America, they are a rising superpower and will act accordingly. So the situation will be much worse in Europe and the Middle East if we screw it up in the Pacific, I think so, but being clear on this point and not saying that we can walk is really essential to get our allies to act in a different way. way and I think there's a new bargain that actually and I've been saying it a little bit recently like on Twitter is to say no. I think we should go back to caricature ourselves a little like the Tor and Newan guy. approach to Europe where we are the dominant ones and we decide where everything goes in a certain sense if the Europeans want to work, for example, through the viar format, it is fine, you know, we will support it, but they have to assume the main responsibility and the people.

Like Boris Pistorius, they say it might take 3.5% to recapitalize the Bundes and of course the polls are doing a good job so I think it's a world of bad decisions. I'm not saying don't care about Europe. I mean also, although we know I want to say that the Chinese are backing the Russians if the fate, you know the common slogan that Vice President Pence or others will use if the fate or Governor Haley if the fate of Taiwan is going to resolve in In Ukraine, the Chinese would intervene rationally and directly, which is not what they are doing right, that would be the rational course of action.

Instead, they are supporting the Russians enough to exhaust our resources, our political will, our money, our weapons, um, while tying us up. in Europe without provoking opposition from Europeans that they can't be willing to do it in a fight over Taiwan, but not now, so I guess I mean, that's what you know if there's a better way to manage everything. these things I will do, I will go out of my position, I just haven't heard that he faces these tradeoffs before HR intervenes and I know he is anxious about what I am worried about is the time frame in which the Europeans are not going to be .

They will be ready for prime time in much less than 10 years because there has been a huge erosion of their military-industrial base and while it is great to hear German defense ministers talk about significantly more spending before you know that it will be becomes a military capability, a lot of things have to happen right, there's kind of a matter of time, it's not the bridge, but the Chinese, as far as Bill Burns, the director of Central Intelligence, is concerned, they could aim for 2027, well, we definitely need to avoid the collapse of Ukraine before then, I would say.

I don't think we can just leave the Europeans and hope that goes well, but before we continue, let's talk a little bit about your expectations for the moment because I'm not convincedthat Xiin Ping is ready to invade Taiwan in 2027 or even 2037 CU, that's a very difficult thing to do, give us an idea of ​​what you think the timeline is and if the Chinese have an easier option than invading Taiwan like the blockade. No, I don't agree with you on that, I think. what I understand you're writing I don't think they I don't think the lockdown fails uh or is at risk of failing because it's based on a cost imposition strategy, our own experience and that of others have been, I mean, there isn't, There is no real example, I think maybe there are, but there are no important examples of blockades that achieve the objective of forcing a country to give up its autonomy or independence.

I mean, blockades have been features that you know, the anticon strategy or blockades during the SEC's WWI and WWII, but they were always secondary to the direct military. confrontation the problem with the blockade for China is that it is very questionable if it would succeed on its own, in fact I don't think so and I think the main problem is that it fails badly, because if they impose a blockade that is severe enough to make the Taiwanese surrender, that is obviously an act of war and they will have to put themselves in a position where they would shoot at the Americans who would raise ships to challenge the blockade if we do what I think we would have to do because the blockade in a sense would imply that they have no confidence in the invasion option, we would be ready and they would have lost this element of surprise or position, etc., that could be, that could be. there for something that is really valuable for a successful invasion now, to get back to your point, if that is correct, your behavior now is very consistent with preparing for that type of scenario, now they could do a low level block to shape it . the political narrative and maybe try things, but I think I actually think we're in the window, I mean, a couple of points, first of all, I'm skeptical about the intelligence community's assessments of what won't happen, no.

Because they are not good people, there are many excellent people there, but because it is a very difficult goal, it is inherently subjective stochastic. Etc., we don't know, we have overestimated, for example, the US intelligence community predicted that the Ukrainians would fall apart, right? They didn't get the fact right that the Russians were going to invade, but they got the other one: we thought the Afghans were going to hold out a lot longer than they actually did when it comes to something as subjective as This I think is very, so I'm skeptical and when you see a real him, he goes up and says, "Oh, Chin Ping doesn't want a war." I mean, it's reported in the Wall Street Journal that we have, we don't want.

We have good sources within the Chinese leadership, frankly, I wouldn't even believe it if we had said yes, because Xin Ping strikes me as a paranoid Leninist who probably doesn't trust his wife, so deception is part and parcel of this. Furthermore, preparation is a relative point. I mean, my favorite example is the German high command who opposed going to war in 1939 because they said we're not ready and Hitler said we're better readers than them and things won't get better. It will get worse and that is the problem, I think there will be a peak window problem later in this decade, so even if they say we are 81% ready, if in 5 years we are only going to be, relatively speaking, a 72% of that. it gives you a strong incentive um and that's what leads me to think that there's a huge global danger paparo who is the Indo paycom now I think it's been confirmed now he said they could essentially leave without warning at this point and you know if Look open evaluations.

I think the CSIS evaluations, the CSIS evaluations, the public evaluations were relatively optimistic by their own admission. I'm just pointing out what they said, they said that ranked wargames are much more pessimistic, right? And that's a big problem. and of course, you know, Rand, led by people like Dave or Manik, has also been pessimistic, so I think that's something that together leads me to think that we are in real trouble. My point about the Russians is that yes, I don't want to quit. We Ukrainians, frankly, we've been warning the UK the Europeans about this not as clearly as we should, but the Russians won't head to the canal or the Ryme, you know, they're fighting in the East.

Extreme of what Europe is traditionally. I don't want to be cruel to the Ukrainians, but from a strategic point of view there is enormous protection. I mean the Poles alone are formidable military forces for the Russians to get through. I mean, General McMaster would know better. about that I do, but in the meantime, if the Chinese escape from the first island chain, I mean, they are Central Power, they are right there and if you are in Manila, I mean Manila, Philippines, 100 miles from Taiwan, I mean, you're I mean things could really fall. I mean, I'm not a domino theory guy, but credibility is important, especially in this context, so again, I'm not saying we have an Easy Choice.

I'm saying where I want to mitigate, especially that You're so far back is in the main theater P where the guy where they are at the Ry effectively already yeah, hey, first of all, I agree with Bridge's two main points, first of all, China, you are the most dangerous threat. The most significant threat from a military and economic point of view certainly and then, secondly, that we are very behind in defense capabilities and especially in defense capabilities and that includes not only the deployed forces and our joint force, organizations and capabilities, but also in our defense industrial base, uh, and the resilience of our supply chains, so what do we do about that?

I think the important thing is to invest significantly more in defense, I mean, the president's budget is insufficient, especially to really deal with the wave of deferred modernization that is affecting the force dating back to Obama's 8 years of Defense Cuts , while we were still fighting wars and we were spending, you know, most of that budget, that would have gone on procurement and so on, on operating costs, and we've never really made up for it and we have a disability problem because of fundamentally flawed assumptions about the nature of future war. We thought we could guarantee our security by investing in high technology, higher and superior technology More sophisticated exquisite technologies uh manifested in fewer and fewer platforms uh when, in fact, uh the Chinese, the pl pla has been implementing countermeasures to those exquisite capabilities that now I think they put a greater primacy on capability and uh Chris Bros, others have written about this in terms of the types of capabilities that we need, there's a project replicator at the Department of Defense starting to work on this, but what Where I differ with the bridge is that I think it would emphasize the interconnected nature of the challenges we face.

We are confronted in Ukraine because of Russian aggression and throughout the Middle East really because of the actions of the axis of aggressors, including Iran and Russia, and the reason these are connected is for the reason that Bridge mentioned in In terms of how credible we really are, it is their weakness that is provocative and I think if you look at the decision making by the aggressor axis and I include North Korea and the latest provocations here, it is really the perception of weakness in our resolve eh, that. that encourages our adversaries, I would say it was the unenforced red line in Syria and the announcement of the Obama administration's pivot out of the Middle East, you know, and the withdrawal from Iraq, uh, and the lack of resolution associated with that, which encouraged the initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014 I think there is a direct line, you know, between the humiliating surrender to the Taliban and the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the reinvasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and I think there is a connection between our inability to maintain support for Ukraine due to the slim majority in the House of Representatives and the several neo-isolationist members who are delaying a vote in the house and October 7th and I think you know the supreme leader in tran, you know , he said, hey, if they can't support, you know, can they support Ukraine after committing to do so?

Now maybe it's time for me to leave and there are other factors as well in terms of the perception of the weakness of the Israeli government and perhaps the tense relationship between Administration B and Israel and so on, and I think that also applies to the actions of the PLA and the CCP, uh, if Shan Ping really does identify weakness I think he did when he started building and arming the South China Sea island and started really massive cyber espionage campaigns against the United States unchecked during the Obama administration. I think it will be encouraged to take action against Taiwan and of course, you know, I think in terms of the walking and Shu gum metaphor, I think there are some misunderstandings about the nature of support for Ukraine, support for Ukraine is not, It is not the same as the support that is necessary for, for example, arms sales to Taiwan, the weapons systems are quite different and, in fact, it has been a great bargain, for approximately the equivalent of 4% of our budget defense, the Ukrainians have destroyed the Russian conventional army, um and and I think it has certainly been a wake-up call for us in terms of lack of ammunition and weapons production capacity, which we are just beginning to rectify, but not with the degree of sense of urgency or the type of investments required for it.

I see it as a false dilemma, you know, I don't think we have to essentially leave the rest of the world to compete with China because, actually, the competition with China is playing out in these other theaters as well. The partnership between Russia and China is closer than ever. China is allowing Russia's offensive to continue. The attack on Ukraine with the hardware and equipment necessary to sustain its war machine and especially the purchases of Russian oil and gas to feed Putin's ATM. he requires to continue the war effort the iranians are providing shahad drones and i think also missiles they have already agreed to export the missile drone complex uh and these are connected theaters uh and and uh and and i think we can do more than one thing at a time, I mean, if you really think about, you know what it would take, from an investment perspective, it would take a lot less than the amount, you know, the value of the checks that we sent out. to the Americans during Co, for example, I mean the problem with the budget, you know, it's not the defense budget and that's what we need.

I think there's significantly more investment, but overall, you know, I agree that China is the number one threat, um and we. We have this massive wave of deferred investment in defense from a capability perspective, but also from the integration of new technologies that are essentially countermeasures to the countermeasures that the PLA has implemented in recent years. Well, if I could respond, I mean, I agree with a lot of what you say, I'm actually referring to the first parts, but I would like to emphasize that you know the fact of the parity status of our military and obviously you would be much more expert in this. than me in terms of readiness, but also in terms of the platforms and the bow wave as the Reagan Era for the Force ends, but I would like to compare that point about having an inadequate Force as if we didn't even have a force. of war, much less a two war force and the second part of what you're saying is that we don't have to choose and I just guess the point I would emphasize here, frankly, in time and in history is whoever be in the position where you know he served honorably or someone else, whether it's the secretary of defense or the undersecretary for policy, they won't be able to, even if there is that money available through deficit spending and borrowing. to solve the problems in the defense industrial base that you are astutely pointing out.

I mean, it's us. The analogy for me is that we are deep in a hole and do we stop digging or try to find a way out? we're kind of not going to get to the place where we need to by when I think you know and this goes back to Neil, your point about 20127 in 2037. I think the fact is that nobody knows, but we have to know what's right. paparo but I think others like Dave Berger have said this I think CQ Brown says this we have to be ready today tomorrow and in five years I think that was five or 10 years ago, I think and I have human resources. closer to your view on capability versus technology over the years and happy to get into that, but I mean, I used to be closer to at least where Bob's job was six seven eight years ago in the third comp , but I think I have been imp numbers and attrition are important especially if both sides are high tech but if that is the case we are not where we need to be I mean we have 20 b2 if we get if Russia attacks NATO and the United States shoots down elements of the air defenseintegrated Russian, some of them are going to be shot down, a lot of those munitions are going to fall and, honestly, I don't think it's accurate to say that there is no compensation, first of all, money is, I mean, money is tight.

I mean, if you look at the American people, they don't understand that they are willing to make preparations for Reagan whether we want it or not. I think they would make our lives a lot easier in many ways, but they aren't. I mean, not even Republicans are in favor of increases in defense spending. I mean Biden's 1% is not just for Democrats, it's also Republicans, you know, with budget limits and there could be a marginal increase, but will that stay ahead of the costs? inflation Personnel costs Healthcare etc. etc.maintenance I don't, I don't think that's true at all or we can rely on it, but we need the air defense we need.

I think we have to assume that the Chinese would come ashore in force, in fact, the game we have. publicly available, like the CSIS stuff, there are supposed to be strong Chinese forces on the island. I think that's prudent, so I guess what I mean is and whoever you know if you get called back to duty or know any number of the others. people, I mean, I think those who say that we haven't spent enough, that our military is not what we need, is one more reason why we should be really worried right now because, in a sense, if we could walk in chew. gum so that actually to me that justifies Biden's policy which I don't think is justified I think he's a I think he's lying I'm worried he's lying about Taiwan I'm worried he's lying about Korea I'm worried he's lying about other things too in the Middle East because it does not have the capacity and this is a real point.

I agree in part with your point about solving human resources, but I think the key thing is that we need to go back to the kind of cold war mentality where military power in particular there is a deficit, we don't have enough things like you, I think I was rightly saying, and if you don't have enough things, you create some kind of problem with Task Force Smith and a lot of people die and that makes it harder to generate political resolution, whereas if the American people say, "Hey, there will be Desert Storm again", you know, HR McMaster, heroically plinky guys in the non-plinky, I shouldn't say that, but you know, tank battles that are completely dominated by our incredibly well-trained people from Reforger and so on, that's a different level of resolution than, oh my God, we're going to have 30,000 Americans killed in the first few weeks and we're going to get smoked.

I think it's going to be harder to generate that resolution and this gets to another point that I'm afraid and Neil gets to his point that a lot of the and I hear this from people that in a sense we're investing so little. political capital and national support um in Europe in the Middle East and people I think honestly a lot of people not only on the new right but across the spectrum would say, I'm sorry, at what point do you want to come in? a war with China over Taiwan, are you crazy? That's what worries me, especially when they see the bill in lives and money, and what I'm saying is that we need to have as much stored power to deal with that situation and make it as plausible as possible for them, can I ask a question practical nature?

What would you prioritize right now to make Taiwan more defensible? I think what we're all talking about here is deterrence. I see the Biden administration as kind of a kind of failed deterrence opera in the first act, the Taliban, second act, Putin, third act, Iran and we're kind of sitting there wondering if the fourth act will happen to Taiwan, but if you wanted deter China quickly, like in the next few years, what would I do it precisely because I think our listeners would really like to get an idea of ​​what we can do to avoid this war so we don't have to fight because we successfully deterred China?

I think I would stockpile as much ammo as possible. possible relative to obviously anti-ship fighting but also attack and air defense Munitions uh c4isr capabilities I think admiral aino has talked about this in an open testimony um uh posture Investments I mean a lot of things because I actually think exactly to the point of hr no there is a magic bullet and this is a really critical point as to why prioritization is necessary and I made this argument in a how to article if you'll excuse me I know the army guy here but he basically says we need multiple layers and e.g. , I think the Army's role in the Pacific, you know, led by the fantastic Commander Charlie Flynn.

I think it's really important because you know, yeah, you want the Yamato or the moushi or whatever, pick your Japanese B, but you also want Okinawan-style terrain digging capabilities. to make it really very difficult to expel or occupy uh uh, you know, an island and I think developing the capabilities of one is probably the biggest, you know, you know, survey in store in terms of reward in the short term. Now that has to be measured because we are in the window, it has to be, you know, where we really risk provoking a Chinese attack, but I think I've written about this in greater detail, but I think at the end of the day, what if it was up to me the way I spoke to Mike Moral a few years ago about this and he said the logic I was giving was similar to the way Panetta came in? how the CIA reprioritizes and revitalizes the search for Len is if you know if I were the king for a day or if I was advising the king, I would say clean up the schedule, you know, clean up the esubs and all the stuff. and I mean what do we need not only for presence but also to be as ready as possible attack submarines you know bombers air defense satellites orbits uavs posture Etc and that's where I'm going to put my my my my scarce Poli I capitalize on it and I think even so it will be a closed question, to quote one of you, but there is a challenge here.

BR, you mention that you mentioned attack submarines, you can't build attack submarines in two or three years. The United States, precisely, Wonder operators take a decade, so yes, Neil was referring to if we look at the year 2027, that's the model, what should we do in the next three years? Well, that's my point, although it's exactly like that, all you have and this. The argument why the triple whammy argument on Ukraine fails is because we're spending these things and, by the way, even if they were reserved for Taiwan, which isn't necessarily going to take five six years to build.

So, everything we have we should manage, we should buy it, we should buy it so that the South Koreans give it to the Taiwanese right because we are not going to be able to make that purchase again. I mean, I said there was one article and the other. day about how the Ukrainians are reassembling Boney artillery pieces like we're not able to scrape a lot of those barrels now, so, you know, we're trying for the long haul, you know, the analogy I use is like heart disease acute. Like, yeah, you're going to change your diet and you're going to exercise more, but first you have to unblock that stent, which is the main thing you need to take care of.

A quick question about Japan. It seems to me that any denial strategy really depends on Japan's early commitment. any conflict, how sure are you that that would be there if the crisis came? I'm not sure, I mean, I'm hoping my book came out in Japanese, not that I know, but I'm just trying to lay out the argument. They interact a lot with the Japanese, huh, but you know, the Germans, as we all know, actually had a formidable army during the Cold War. The Japanese were much more pacified, obviously the self-defense forces played some role, but I think Japanese society was really demilitarized. and now we need them to be militarized like Cold War West Germany and they are not and ab was better kashida.

I mean, kashida is giving Patriots to the United States to give them to Ukraine. That surprised me because it's like the entire archipelago is under intense missile threat from China, I mean, repeatedly for weeks and weeks and they're giving away this super scarce military asset and they're patting themselves on the back and RAM Emanuel is patting them on the back for getting to 2%, supposedly it's actually, 2% of the 2022 budget, I think by 2027, which is the year that's supposed to be like the year that Xinping knows that we think they're coming, and presumably , being a Leninist and an intelligent guy, he won't exactly do it then if he does it and I don't know what he's going to do, but he's acting in every material sense.

It is a conventional military buildup. military forces that assume Taiwan has taken over the nuclear buildup. Economic sanctions. Sorry, you're preparing for economic sanctions against the backdrop of huge economic headwinds when your incentive is to open up again, right? Tell me these are very expensive signs that he is serious and, by the way, even more so Neil and I have been greatly influenced by your thinking on this. I think they have rational reasons to think and we talk. About this, they think we are strangling them. Shin Ping repeatedly said that he told Biden that. I mean, I'm using your analogy from 1941.

I mean, we're strangling them at least in their perception from a position of military weakness. The worst possible is the worst possible, but it is a bad strategy. You know, my point of view closest to yours is actually to withdraw some of the economic and ideological issues and focus our efforts on the military issues to give them the feeling that they can. achieve the great Rejuvenation and the Chinese Nation peacefully what you are communicating is that you don't seem to believe that is the case or at least I think we should be very concerned about that, okay, we are running out of time in a segment guys, let me ask the exit question to the three of you, we have discussed American involvement and American interest in three regions, two of them with hot wars in Eastern Europe in the Middle East and the Cold War iOS Neil Ferguson recorded it in the east of Asia here is the question of those three areas and let's look towards 2027 which is the most appropriate for a greater American presence and by this I mean boots on the ground deploying ships deploying planes, would you send them to Eastern Europe?

Would they send them to the Middle East? or you send them towards the East Asia Bridge, well, East Asia, for sure I mean the forces don't necessarily need there because the threat of Chinese missile capabilities is so great within the first and even the second island chain that actually forward deployed forces are very important, but they are under great threat, so it is more essential that those forces be assigned and ready, you know, kind of analogy, I think it's Top Gun 19 86 style for that fight, that's what we want, it's very difficult to imagine US deploying troops to Eastern Europe or the Middle East under the current circumstances, whether it's a Trump administration next year or a Biden administration, so I think that by default, if the United States is going to make serious military commitments, it has to be in the Far East and I agree with the fundamental prioritization that Bridges is proposing here.

My question is a little different for HR. Could I add a variation if I were to update the national security strategy, a critical document that I have also been having my students read in London. You know, how would you update it? Because it seems like a lot has happened since 2017 and, in particular, on the topic we are discussing today. What would be the update? Tel I wouldn't update at all. I think we saw it quite clearly. Honestly, I mean, if you went back to that document and looked at it, what would you change? Know. I think part of the problem has been an implementation.

I think we demonstrated, you know, a profound lack of resolve in Afghanistan, a humiliating lack of resolve in Afghanistan that emboldened Putin. We had Russia as a significant threat, I mean what one of the counters I would do. To save this characterization of the Russians, you know there are two ways to fight, you know, asymmetrically and stupidly, uh, and you hope that your adversaries will choose stupidly, you know, and fight you symmetrically, uh, Russia, I think I think with the exception The massive invasion in February 20122 had done quite well, with the Russian Next Generation War trying to achieve objectives below the threshold of what could provoke a concerted response and, of course, Iran has become very good at the use of powers and in the use of similar expenses.

The Arabs live as necessary to achieve their goals in the Middle East, so I think we all want to fight, you know, be prepared to fight China and that should be our top priority in terms of all the problems that we have. I have mentioned here from the defense industrial base to lack of capacity and deferred modernization. Wars choose you,often, other than the other way around, you know, and we've never been good. In fact, our track record is perfect for predicting the next conflict. Actually, it is 0%. So I think we have to be prepared for a variety of contingencies and not optimize just for one theater, but I mean the capabilities that the bridge is highlighting that we've talked about here are relevant, you know, across all three.

Those theaters, what's missing, I think, is really the delay in the deployment of many of these capabilities and, as we've been talking about the capability, both in the size of the Joint Force, and in its ability to respond effectively to one contingency let alone multiple contingencies and then in the defense industrial base, one thing that I would highlight Bridge uh there is one thing that I think we could do uh to address the defense capability issue would be a predictable multi-year defense contracting because that then encourage our defense industry, you know, to make the necessary investments to increase production capacity, okay, gentlemen, let's leave it there, Brid Kobe, thank you for joining us.

Great conversation, thank you, it's a pleasure to be with all of you in Block B and gentlemen. We are going to try to do two songs in a very short period of time. First, it's a question of Tik Tok, what the future holds for that app since we watched our last show. Pretty notable happened on Capitol Hill Bill introduced into the house to force Bite Dance which is a proprietary Chinese app developer of Tik Tok the bill would force Tik Tok to sell would force Bite Dance to sell Tik Tok within six months of the bill being passed otherwise Tik Tok is removed from TiK ToK app stores for true, it is used by between 150 and 170 million Americans 8 days after the bill was introduced, it was passed by the chamber that is now in the Senate, which seems to be getting slower.

Neil asks very simply: is this a good idea? Well, I said it was a good idea in 2020 before it was

cool

. I haven't changed my point of view. It's pretty clear that Tik Tok is one of the most powerful media tools in America today. and it is foreign owned and I would not like the PCC to own any major media assets. I think it is good policy for media assets to be owned by American nationals, they are too powerful. Tik Tok is clearly a very influential media outlet. medium and therefore, in my opinion, this is not controversial.

What's strange, are some of the arguments that one hears on the other side, like the First Amendment. Come on, these are terrible arguments. HR, hey, I agree, I mean, you know, and I just think in terms of reciprocity. which is a word that President Trump told us. I love, I love that word, reciprocal. Well, how about some reciprocity here? You know, like Triston Harris says at the Center for Humane Technology, he says, "You know, hey, the Tik Tok version." here in the United States it's crack, the version of Tik Tok in China is spinach, you know, for young people, so you know, I think it's a no-brainer in terms of you really know the risk to the data, but also the risk to perception, you know, and the ability to change the perceptions of, in particular, young people, but more and more people are getting their news from the algorithm, you know that's controlled at least indirectly by the Chinese Communist Party, okay , Neil, if this is a no-brainer, then why isn't it going anywhere in a hurry in the Senate?

Well, of course, you enter the realm of givers. The donors include some people who invested in Tik Tok and myself. I think that's part of what's happening here. I think the Senate likes to go slow just on principle and this has moved pretty quickly in the chamber, so there's kind of a mentality of we shouldn't delay, but of course, the big surprise is. Is this Donald Trump's position on this? You would have thought it was very easy for him, but he turned around and decided that he was actually in favor of Tik Tok because if you ban it, Facebook and he will quote zaku. double his business and you know one can only interpret this as the action of a man who needs all the donors he can get given that he has a campaign and a multitude of demands to pay, well, let's not overlook anything.

Neil and HR, and the thing is that a lot of young people use Tik Tok and a lot of young people that the Democrats want to vote in this

election

, so maybe the Senate Democrats don't want to move so quickly because they don't want to make the young people angry at HR, which brings us to Senator Chuck Schumer, who did something quite remarkable the other day: he gave a 44-minute speech on the floor of the United States Senate and said the following, and I quote 5 months into this conflict that he's referring to . Israel, it is clear that Israelis need to take stock of the situation and ask whether we should change course at this critical moment.

I believe that new elections are the only way to allow a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel in At a time when so many Israelis have lost confidence in the vision and direction of their government, let me edit here , before continuing. The other day I looked at a survey that was conducted by an independent non-profit organization, Israel, about 62% of Israelis. Right now I support BB's policy for what comes after Hamas is destroyed, so HR was Chuck Schumer in bounds or out of bounds with what he said was completely out of bounds, right, it's a democracy .

I mean, Israeli citizens don't need Chuck. Schumer to tell them what to do and, of course, you know, Israeli politics is ugly, right, it's personalized, it's fragmented, it resulted in a really, you know, strange Coalition here, but that's the right of their government, etc. . I just think in the middle of this war it was exactly the wrong message, the right message might be hey, we really need Israel and we will help Israel take more mitigation measures to mitigate the harm to civilians as they evacuate. Get them out of Rafa and into areas that were previously cleared so that they can carry out and continue the offensive operation against Hamas, which must be completely destroyed.

I mean, from an Israeli perspective, what is the alternative after October 7? I think there are many more. that this can be done in cooperation with the IDF and with the Israeli government to mitigate the damage to the Palestinian population but to try to dissuade them from continuing the offensive when they still have around 100 hostages, I mean, it is absolutely ridiculous to me, it is okay, Neil, this is back to my theory with Tik Tok, this is about the Democratic base, yeah, I mean, they're looking at Michigan and they feel, they feel uncomfortable, but call. A change of government in Israel so explicitly in the middle of a war is the kind of outrageous thing that Democrats used to complain about the actions of the past American administration.

Now I used to wonder who they won't be able to dissuade. 2024, going back to my previous Riff on deterrence, I didn't expect them to fail to dissuade BB Netanyahu, they currently fail to dissuade him from going ahead with the destruction of Hamas and Gaza and it exposes, I think, the weakness of the Biden administration in an almost uh way . in an incomparable way in which they cannot even impose their will on Israel and are reduced to these crazy calls for a change of government which, by the way, have provoked a fairly broad rejection not only from Mr.

Neto but from many of his political opponents. who I think quite rightly feel that this is an unwarranted intervention in Israel's domestic politics, as they were in Israel last month. I have to tell you that despite all the political division there is a fundamental sense of unity on the need to destroy Hamas and make it clear that what happened on October 7 cannot be allowed to happen again and, by the way, that It will not be the end of the story because Hezbollah still has to be taken into account on the border with Lebanon, so what we see here is the weakness of the announcement. of the Biden administration was even more exposed than before, Hi Neil, I would just like to ask you how you ask for a change of government in Nicaragua, Venezuela or Cuba and get Iran, which might really need a change of government more than anyone else. part of the region, but it is just extraordinary and G is going to look very weak because it is clear that Israel is going to go ahead and finish the job and G, including Rafa, and we will see once again the president of the United States, not to mention to Chuck Schumer, who seems completely unable to impose his will even on allies who have a long history of being heavily dependent on US support.

We only have two minutes in this segment, so I'm going to ask you a complicated Question and fit it into a limited amount of time, but it goes like this: What is the Administration's position right now on Israel? On the one hand, they say they support Israel. On the other hand, they want bib n and Yahoo to leave. On the one hand, they say support Israel and then today you hear the State Department spokesperson say that we support the degradation of Hamas, which seems to me to be a rather curious use of the word degradation, not destruction, but degradation.

Can you two enlighten me here if you hit the nail on the head? when you said there's an internal political problem for them here, I mean, I think Joe Biden showed the true instincts of him early on after October 7th, but it's only recently been explained to him that there's a really deep anti. Pro-Palestinian Zionist mood among young Gen Z voters and Bu Muslim voters in states like Michigan and I think it's causing a kind of split-personality schizophrenia in Poli and that's why it's weak because they don't actually say it in Seriously, that's what they say. it's uh, but they don't really mean it and I think Israelis understand that and I suspect Democratic voters understand that too hey J yeah, I think it's just uh, it's completely inconsistent with what's necessary, I mean, ya You know, degrade or whatever. are you using, I mean, hey, you know what about destroying the enemy?

I think that's exactly what has to happen in this case after October 7th and you know people always want to find a clever way to fight wars that you know how to avoid. You know, the heavy hand of war, but in this kind of situation where you meet people who have been systematically brainwashed to hate Israel and who have communications that committed the kinds of crimes that they proudly broadcast on October 7th, there are really only two, you know, two appropriate outcomes for them and that is to kill them or capture them and keep them forever, okay, ask a question, gentlemen, uh, Israel enters Rafa, what does the administration?

More empty speeches that uh don't move a single needle plans you know to provide humanitarian assistance, but also as they evacuate Rafa so they can test the population as they come out, especially you know, military-age men, who they should probably collect biometric data from. as they leave and, uh, because you know what the homas will try to do, uh, try to use any type of evacuation to preserve, you know, part of the strength of their military and terrorist organization, very good, gentlemen. We go to the lightning round, okay, we start the lightning round with a viewer question, actually a viewer observation, and it comes to us from Howdon and Dubrovnik, who write the following.

He wants to remind us that Donald Sutherland, who is HR's choice for the role of him in Kelly's Heroes this is our question last week about the best actors in American cinema hro and Donald Sutherland. I went with John Vernon to Animal House and our dear friend Holden tells us that they are both proud Canadians and so many distinguished contributors. to American Excellence, so thank you sir for the correction and a reminder, folks, if you want to send questions to Neil HR and John, send them to uh hoover.org, ask, good fellows, gentlemen, here we go with the lightning questions, uh.

Question number one comes from Gabrielle in Brazil, who writes: It's been two years since I had the pleasure of virtually welcoming you to Liberty because in Porto Allegre we have since seen two things happen that you predicted: the world is more geopolitically unstable and monetary policy. is still struggling to adapt to fiscal irresponsibility, your question: will the usual situation in these times be unstable political and economic balances, unlike the great moderation of the 1990s and early 2000s? Is US politics becoming more like Latin America with the aftermath of Biden? Trump, well, I think he might be directed at me and I'll answer briefly since it's a lightning round.

Yeah, I mean, the 2020s look a lot like the 1970s in terms of political instability against a backdrop of cold war and inflationary pressure. It seems thatThey persist much longer than central bankers. What is new is this Latin American turn that American politics has taken. You know, in the 1970s, there was a very different kind of politics. You got avalanches, he thinks in 1972. Here we have these. very close elections that maybe end up being decided by law and that's a very Brazilian kind of turn that American politics has taken, so yeah, that's partly the benefit of going to Brazil.

I went to Porto allegri preco not virtually and I remember on that trip that It was before the election of Jer Bolsonaro realizing that he was going to win because of the atmosphere I found on the ground. Brazil is increasingly looking like a kind of reflection of the United States. Everyone needs to spend time there to see. that there's a certain kind of resemblance, a bit like looking in the mirror, yeah, right, everything that Neil said, I mean, I think we're obviously experiencing more and more, you know, Division and these very thin margins, you know , In the elections.

I hope we can get out of that NE What is your prediction on the chances of doing that? I mean, I think it would be great to have you, but if you're too close to the rematch we're about to happen. Everything is decided in court, then the losing side rejects the result and it's always about well, you know, someone ends up in jail and that's the Brazilian style of politics that we've inadvertently imported. Alright, our next question, according to a new study conducted in the last 20 years, couples meeting their partners online outshines any other method: is there some type of deeper meeting in this trend and older men tell them to the children in the audience how they met their wives?

How do you mean Kti Katie didn't get a chance to see you in uniform? No, we met at church, no, we met at a bar, actually we met, we met at Bobby McGee's in Long Beach and I was here playing rugby because the Army Navy game was in Pasadena and I'll tell you, but Simply by a crazy series of events, members of my rugby team had been training in Greece and had met one of Katie's friends there, they reconnected by pure chance while we were away. here playing rugby uh, we had played Long Beach State that day uh, I wasn't feeling very well after the game, I had a concussion and a bruise on my heel.

I was guarding the guy in front of me who was a USFL running back, so I thought, you know? he was like man, I'm this guy that's not going to happen to me, so anyway, long story short, we met at a bar. I was a designated driver because I wasn't driving because I was uh so I was completely sober and we just got along uh uh completely. and uh, and the prostitute from the rugby team was there while I was exchanging addresses because we had a long letter writing campaign after that, and this guy, our prostitute from our team, Billy Co, said, come on, you'll never do it.

You're going to see this woman again in your life, says Neil, well, the algorithm that would have brought Aon and me together doesn't exist, that had to be done the old fashioned way, we met, uh, at the Union League club, uh, in New York, at a melan society meeting in the depths of the financial crisis in early 2009 and uh, I think I may have said earlier on this show that I was the closest to Natasha in Pierre Sé's War and Peace which I will ever get to uh I think we both I immediately knew that something extraordinary was happening, but in a sort of comedy twist that took us away from Tolstoy after the event, when I finally managed to catch her before the elevator and convince her to have a drink with me , they followed us, they followed us. a very serious German economics professor who in the most tone-deaf way possible didn't realize what was going on and kept asking me questions about monetary policy uh and I'll always remember the kind of IC quality of that first meeting, but Yeah, I look at the data of these dating apps and it amazes me to think about the social change this represents.

I worry that there is some worrying trend here that makes the encounters too premeditated. You already know. In both cases that HR and I have described, they were completely spontaneous, a random type of chance encounter, there was no premeditation, but everyone who accesses a dating app has begun a partner selection process that I don't know if It is appropriate for automobiles. I don't know if it's really the right way to find love. Sorry kids, this is not the way to do it. Well, let me throw a hypothesis at you. Neil Ferguson, let's hypothetically say there's a very nice gentleman who hypothetically works. right of Center, think of T hypothetically in a very hostile corner of America to say, think of T and, hypothetically, that nice gentleman, oh, let's say, let's call him Bill, hypothetically runs into eligible women that he knows and who think the moment they discover it works.

In said Think Tank thinking that he walks around his apartment and dances to the horse ship song that they are so unhinged by Donald Trump is not the argument that needs to be made, Neil, that that nice gentleman, let's call him Bill, could be on apps. social media and maybe expand your network a little to get out of the crazy area you live in. You know if it works for you, Bill, and if you find that way, more power to you, that's all I can say, but I would personally recommend you do it. Keep going to bars and parties because it worked well for us HR, and you just don't go to enough bars or enough parties, that's my theory.

I'm not getting enough concussions, that's the problem, by the way, NE, I think there's a phrase that that German professor was doing to him, he was Scottish blocking, you know, I'm sure there's an even worse word for that, but we won't say I'm good friends and with that we'll say Ad du to this episode of Good Fellows, uh, we. We give our best to high-flying John Cochin, who couldn't be with us today, but on behalf of my colleagues Neil Ferguson HR McMaster, all of us here at the Hoover Institution, we hope you enjoyed the conversation. We will be back in approximately two weeks.

The new show until then, take care, thanks for watching if you enjoyed this show and are interested in seeing more content with HR McMaster. Check out Battlegrounds, also available on hoover.org.