Presidential Speech Series: Vivek Ramaswamy

ladies and gentlemen welcome to the Betsy and Wally Stern Conference Center here at Hudson Institute I'm John Walters president CEO Hudson thank you for joining us for this event with 2024 Republican presidential candidate Mr B ramaswami Hudson Institute has invited all the major presidential candidates of both parties to present their views on National Security at Hudson while we have experts that do analysis and make policy recommendations and a full range of national security policies we know that free and open debate is critical to a healthy democracy so far we have heard from vice president Mike Pence Senator Tim Scott Governor uh Doug bergham our future speakers include Governor Chris Christie and Ambassador Nikki Haley today we are joined by Mr ramas Swani welcome he is of course a New York Times bestselling author and a successful entrepreneur as an entrepreneur he was a founder and was executive chairman of uh is it Roy Vance uh uh Sciences a biopharmaceutical company focused on applying technology for drug development he established royant in 202 2014 and led the largest biotech IPO in of 2015 and 2016 resulting in successful clinical trials and multiple in multiple disease areas and FDA approved products he was born as you many of you already know to Immigrant parents and raised in Ohio Mr ramaswami graduated from Harvard College and earned his JD from Yale law school 2015 he was featured on the cover of Ford magazine for his contributions to drug development in in 2020 he emerged as a prominent commentator on stakeholder capitalism free speech woke culture and as he's notes Mr wwami is an example of American Opportunity he will make some opening remarks followed by a conversation with Mike Durant Hudson senior fellow and director of our Middle East Center and he will conclude with some audience questions so without further Ado the floor is yours Mr Ras [Applause] swam thank you for the warm welcome and I'm looking forward to the conversation I am here principally to discuss a vision of my foreign policy but wanted to ground all of you who I'm many of whom I'm meeting for the first time in the vision for our American Revival and where my foreign policy agenda fits in my view is that we are in the middle of a national identity crisis today we lack a good answer to the question of what it even means to be an American I'm 38 years old I'm the youngest person ever to run for US president as a rep Republican and I think if you ask most people my age what does it mean to be an American you get a blank stare in response that is the vacuum that is the void at the heart of our national soul and I believe that if we deliver an answer to that question revive the ideals of the American Revolution that is how we dilute the poison to irrelevance wokeism to transgenderism to climatism to cism depression anxiety fent these are symptoms of a deeper void of purpose and meaning now one of my goals here domestically it's not the topic of our discussion today is to revive those 1776 ideals in our culture in the United States of America but I also consider myself to be a George Washington America First conservative when it comes to our foreign policy revive the Washington Doctrine revive the vision in 1776 revive the vision of George washingon Washington's Farewell Address when it comes to our foreign policy in putting American interests first and that's what I'm going to talk about today principally as it relates to a new vision for realism in our foreign policy that departs from the consensus of the last 25 years and I'm looking forward to a thought-provoking conversation with with Mike Duran as well as with all of you in the audience very shortly I'd summarize my foreign policy in nutshell with three simple objectives avoid World War II declare economic independence from China and then secure the American Homeland protecting our own borders and bringing cyber defenses super EMP electromagnetic pulse defenses nuclear missile defenses space-based defenses that were missing here in the United States a few weeks ago I gave a speech in central Ohio at a manufacturing firm that was onshoring production from the US to China laying out a pragmatic strategy for how we could actually declare economic independence from our enemy communist China in a way that doesn't really disrupt the US economy as much as we're taught to believe last week I visited the US Southern border laying out a vision for how we ultimately fortify our homeland defenses right here at home and the subject of my speech today is how we avoid a slow but I wor steady March towards World War I in a way that would not Advance American interests I want to lay out my core pillars of what I consider to be a Revival of realism in our foreign policy the moral obligation of the next US president if I'm elected your new next US president my moral obligation to you as a citizens of this country is to put the interests of American citizens First full stop without apologizing for it of course we're going to require allies to achieve that but that is a means to the end of exclusively advancing the American interest the decision to go to war should we ever make one should be a necessity not a choice or a preference military engagement should never be a moral Crusade or a substitute for social work but a necessity and perhaps most importantly of all we require transparency and open debate not just in normal times but especially during time of Crisis or during times of War I say this in part biased by the generation I'm a member of I'm 38 years old as I said I grew up into watching the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wondering now6 and A5 trillion dollars in thousands upon thousands of innocent American lives sacrificed wondering to what end we entered these wars in Iraq we still have a hostile anti-American regime vulnerable to Iranian incursion in Afghanistan a Taliban that is still in charge that was the same Taliban that was in charge long before we entered Afghanistan I'm Keen to make sure that we don't repeat those same mistakes here in the United States today and I worry that we are Paving the path to larger scale conflict that repeats those mistakes not at the same scale but at a larger scale than ever before so I'm going to kick this off foregrounding our discussion before I speak to Mike I'm looking forward to that conversation going around a couple of the areas where I see the greatest risks it's certainly the areas that are the top of your minds as well offering my perspective which run a little bit contrary to those of the rest of the Republican field and that'll be a good way to practice what we preach when it comes to free speech and open debate as we head into potentially major conflict that I'm concerned about let's start with the war in Ukraine I do not believe that this war advances American interests to the contrary I am deeply concerned that we are Marching our way into major conflict with the nuclear power in Russia at a moment where we have for the first time since the early 1970s found ourselves in a moment of no nuclear non-proliferation agreement between the United States and Russia I worry that the Russia China Alliance is the single greatest threat to the Future existence of the United States of America Russia matches outmatches Us in its nuclear capabilities in its Hypersonic missile capabilities China outmatches Us in its Naval capacity and even more importantly is an economy that we depend on for our own modern way of life today those two countries are allied with one another and I worry that our continued engagement militarily in Ukraine is driving Russia further into China's Hands by the day strengthening that Russia China military Alliance I'm well aware that Vladimir Putin is not a trustworthy part partner of the United States I do not trust Vladimir Putin but just because Putin is an evil dictator just because Putin is bad does not automatically mean that Ukraine is good to the contrary this is a country that has banned 11 opposition parties that has Consolidated all TV media into one state TV media arm has implicitly threatened the United States not to hold its elections this year unless we Fork over more money it's leader zalinsky even very recently implicit praising a Nazi in his own ranks it's the Russian speaking regions of Ukraine that are actually occupied now you can see it in the map in front of you regions like luhans and donet principally Russians speaking where many of the people don't even view themselves as part of Ukraine Russians speaking regions that have not been represented in the Ukrainian Parliament for the better part of the last decade those are facts against the backdrop of which we have to make decisions about the future of us engagement so my view is that the correct answer here is to provide a reasonable path to peace a deal that would quickly end this war that would foremost make a hard commitment that NATO does not admit Ukraine to Nato something that respects the commitment that James Baker made to gorbachov in 1990 the not one inch commitment that NATO would expand not one inch past East Germany and further even yes freezing the current lines of control approximately where they are seeding those Russian speaking regions to Russia but not for free to the contrary advancing American interests in the process by requiring that in return for that deal Vladimir Putin and Russia exit its military alliance with China thereby weakening and disbanding the single greatest threat to the United States of America today that is the Russia China military Alliance there'd be other elements of that deal we can talk about in the Q&A I think this could be an opportunity for the removal of a Russian milit milary presence in the Western Hemisphere that doesn't help American interests Venezuela Nicaragua Cuba and elsewhere this is an opportunity for requiring that Russia remove its nuclear weapons in kaliningrad the region of Russia that borders Poland but this is an opportunity for us to ask the question that we always must ask in any foreign conflict how does US engagement further Advance us interests that's how we would do it in Ukraine but instead I worry that we are escalating a conflict increasing the risk of potential nuclear engagement by Russia tactical nuclear weapons or otherwise and pushing them further into a corner into China where right now I don't believe Putin enjoys being xiin Ping's little brother but we're forcing him to be that at a moment where still every time that they meet Putin will still send weapons to India and to Vietnam showing us that there are kinks in that armor This is Our Moment to exploit The Kinks in that armor to actually pull apart the two allies Russia and China that together threaten the United States today at that same time that we're seeing an escalating conflict in Ukraine we're now seeing of course as as well known to everyone in this room concerning conflict in the Middle East aring surrounding Israel now what happened to Israel what Hamas did to Israel it was wrong it was barbaric he was medieval he was immoral and Israel absolutely has the full right to defend itself and its right to existence the United States should support Israel's existence diplomatically making sure that International institutions from the UN on downward don't create a false equivalence between Israel's right of national self-defense and the actions of the terrorists Who attack Israel creating the need for its National self-defense at the same time I am very worried about the pending ground invasion in Gaza which I do not believe will advance Israel's best interest but that's not my job to pontificate about my job is to ask whether this advances or us involvement in such an invasion advances us interests here's what I worries about to happen and you can sort of see the map in front of you many of you are familiar with it as Israel proceeds to a ground invasion in Gaza which looks increasingly inevitable by the day I'm worried that will mire Israel in a war in the South that will leave it vulnerable to an attack from the north from Hezbollah who has made very clear that that is their red line for attacking they may not do it instantly they may wait to Israel's detriment for when Israel is mired in a urban conflict in some of the most difficult terrain to achieve military Victory to strike from the north Israel's then in a two-front war there's no reasonable scenario in which if Israel's own existence is on the line the US isn't going to get involved militarily to protect Israel however that's a red line that crosses the pre-specified boundaries of Iranian back militias from the houis in Yemen to the B bade in Iraq that will then cause them as they've said and they've already gestured accordingly to strike us Targets in the region keep in mind we have our largest Embassy in Baghdad that has us once again all over again in a long-term prolonged likely no- win war in the Middle East all the while with Israel Meed in the South and Gaza effectively taking Civ civilian casualties that'll be unavoidable on both sides of this that cause International allies even us allies to then turn their backs on Israel and to what end even if Israel is successful in toppling Hamas with no clear plan of what fills the vacuum other than a likely Hamas 2.0 so when you think about the range of criticisms of Israel entering Gaza I want to be very clear about what my position is you'll hear many voices on the left worried about concerns relating to proportion ity or humanitarian concerns I I'm actually prepared to put that to one side Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself but I worry about two separate questions that I don't believe have been debated sufficiently is Israel even likely to succeed in that ground Invasion and even if it does achieve its stated objective of toppling Hamas will that Victory merely be pic in nature when someone other than Hamas just as Isis succeeded Al-Qaeda what succeeds Hamas 1.0 might be a worse version if history teaches us what might happen here all over again so these are my concerns I think that these are concerns that we ought to debate in the open I worry that many of my fellow contenders in this GOP Primary intelligent enough people many of them are are afraid to have this debate for fear of being labeled as I incorrectly have been anti-israel to the contrary the vision that I'm laying out here for our engagement or non-engagement in Israel is actually a deeply pro-israel Vision that is consistent with the original Zionist project altogether the idea that Israel was never supposed to rely on the fleeting sympathies of the rest of the world but to say that this is the Jewish state that belongs rightly for all of history to now to the Jewish people and that is why Israel exists is why it came into existence to be able to fully defend itself as it's capable of doing and I worry that we instead Now find ourselves in muddied waters and we have played a role in muddying those up Waters in the worst of all worlds where the US is in some ways if not expressly at least implicitly constraining Israel's ability to defend itself while at the same time mudding the water is not enough for Israel to fully seek out its own well-defined missions and so we have a choice to make I come out in the side of voting against I'm strongly against I think I'm the first presidential candidate to be explicit about this against the $106 billion Aid package working its way through Congress right now as we speak first on principled grounds that we should not conflate these different conflicts where there are very different issues at stake but even on the elements of each against further funding to Ukraine and yes even against funding Israel in this conflict without a clear understanding of what the objectives are for Success it's not up to us as a big brother to demand that Israel answer to us Israel doesn't owe us any answers Israel owes it to itself to defend itself but if the us is going to be involved then we need to understand with Clarity what exactly are the objectives what exactly is the plan for success and what exactly is the plan for succession after success without which we can't possibly decide what we're going to fund and what we're not what we are or are not going to support militarily so this is a vision of foreign policy that yes advances American interests but my concern is that as we are instead mired in conflicts in Ukraine that drive Russia further into China's hands that were mired in another no- win war prolonged war in the Middle East the ultimate beneficiary of it is of course none other than our ultimate adversary communist China communist China would be pleased to see us deplete our military resources look at the artillery look at how much we've sent to Ukraine one and a half million rounds of artillery we're producing about 20,000 per month we have trade-offs it's a zero sum game even look at the amount that was stored by the US Israel 300,000 rounds or so that we previously sent to Ukraine that we might now regret communist China is the ultimate winner in this and what I worry is that the window for potential invasion of Taiwan or annexation of Taiwan expands further closer to the present the more likely we are to be mired in conflicts elsewhere in the world and then if China does choose to invade Taiwan this is the one instance in which it would be and is in the interest of the US to intervene to make sure that Taiwan in the foreseeable future is not annexed by China in that respect and before wrapping this up that'll be the final area that I offer you my views on before getting into discussion with Michael I'm worried that if China invades or annexes Taiwan today we will then forever have an economic gun to our head because of our Reliance for our modern way of life on the semiconductors produced in Taiwan the little chips that power these phones those cameras in the back these lights that power our entire modern way of life they're manufactured on a tiny island off the tiny set of islands off the Southeast coast of China and if China invades today I believe that we have to depart from the current consensus position in both the Republican party and the Democratic party of strategic ambiguity to move to strategic Clarity to be clear that yes we the United States of America will defend Taiwan for the foreseeable future at least until Taiwan has achieved the US has achieved semiconductor independence from Taiwan at which point we can then suitably resume our current posture of strategic ambiguity from a greater position of strength while fortifying our homeland in the meantime cyber defense's super EMP defenses nuclear defenses on down achieved semiconductor self-sufficiency while also putting Taiwan on notice to appropriately increase its own military expenditures as a percentage of GDP from less than 2% where it is today to closer to 5% where it needs to be which is what makes Israel such a good partner is that it actually pays for its own National self-defense so this is a realist view of foreign policy I will admit I an outsider to politics I built my career in the world of business my parents came to this country with no money in a single generation I've gone on to found multiple multi-billion dollar companies did it while marrying my wife raising our two sons following our faith in God I did not imagine that I was going to be running for US president even if you asked me two years ago or a year ago that being said I think it is going to take an outsider coming in outside of that consensus establishment in both the Republican and Democratic party alike to not only bring realism to our domestic policy this is a speech I gave a number of weeks ago right in this town of how we're going to shut down 75% of the federal bureaucracy how we're going to restore the Integrity of a three branch constitutional republic that would make George Washington proud but also a foreign policy that yes would make George Washington proud too a foreign policy that truly puts the interests of the American Homeland and the American citizenry first and does it in a way that not only achieves peace through strength but achieves here at home once again our strength through achieving peace thank you very much for the warm welcome I'm looking forward to the conversation Michael thank you for the invitation as well and and I welcome the dialogue thank you everybody thank you thanks a lot thank you m app okay great to have you here um where do we start let me ask you something has nothing to do with foreign policy sorry fair enough thank you no uh why are you a Republican or when did you become a republican well I mean honest with you I'm not a party man even now I'm not a party man I'm using the Republican party as a vehicle to advance what I see as a pro-american agenda that this country is hungry for in need of and I do cringe at the characterization of our domestic and foreign policy divisions through the caricature of this red versus blue or Republican versus Democrat Vision a lot of people wonder you know as we speak we don't have a speaker of the house in everybody's Fring over this as though that was the main threat that we face in the United States the absence of a speaker these are symptoms of the fact that the Republican versus Democratic divide elides the real conflict in this country I think the real conflict in this country the real divides between the 80% of us who believe in the ideals of the American Revolution who believe in free speech in meritocracy in the pursuit of excellence in the rule of law and a fringe my minority 20% or less in this country who hates our country and the values that we're founded on that's the real divide in this country it's not black versus white or red versus blue and so you know I uh have have voted Republican more than de I've never voted Democrat I voted libertarian in my first election back in 2004 but I consider myself an American I consider myself a a Unapologetic American constitutionalist and I'm using the Republican party as a vehicle because we live in a two- party system it's interesting the way you put it though that you're you're you're using the Republican party for the vehicle why why did you choose that vehicle well I think the Democratic part is lost I think I think it is it is it is beyond Lost Cause and a party that has pledged fty to a new religion of race gender sexuality and climate it's almost bordering on an Establishment Clause violation of a religion of modern secularism that's using the tools of the state and the private sector to fo onto the American people a set of fundamentally anti-American values that are hostile to our national identity and so there's there's zero chance that I find any any alignment with the domestic vision of the of the democratic party the Republican Party by contrast at least offers promise in that it is a blank slate right now right it is it is a it is an opportunity to redefine what it means to be a Republican and to me I want to redefine what it means to be a republican to be unapologetically pro-american Unapologetic in favor of the ideals of the American Revolution and I think it's worth remembering those are not moderate ideals the idea that you get to speak your mind freely as long as I get to in return the idea that we settle our differences through debate to be these are radical ideas I don't get to be completely free there are two things at Hudson you can't be you can't be Pro drugs and you can't be anti-israel other than that we have to total freedom Pro well I think that's that you're free to be at Hudson well I suppose that was a choice no no no there's no other choice but everywhere else the restrictions are greater I see I see well look I think that uh I think that these are certainly the American landscape these are extreme ideals and I think that it's one of the things we need to get comfortable with embracing is my model of national Unity is not one of showing up in the middle and compromising first of all that assumes that there's only two polls to the political Spectrum I don't think that's true but second of all the thing that unites us As Americans are the extreme ideals of the American Revolution the radicalism of the American Revolution and I think that we live in a moment where we would do well to revive those ideals that unite us across our skin deep differences and so that's what I'm doing in this race okay I'm with you on everything you say up to when you start talking about foreign policy that's why I'm here I believe in open debate and came here intentional let let's start let let's start with uh with your idea about breaking up Russ and China let me start asking you this way yeah every president since I don't know certainly Bush maybe even before Bush has come in saying the guy before me didn't understand Russia but I've got it um and you're so you're you're in this tradition why do you think all of the guys from Bush on what what did they get wrong and how are you going to do it differently so I'm a Critic of George Bush on a lot of things particularly the post n 11 response as it related to Iraq in particular but I will say one thing before 911 actually the Bush Administration did flag the risks of the 2001 Treaty of good neighborliness and cooperation between Russia and China were it not for 911 I think the Bush Administration was on track to prioritize further dismantling that Alliance so so give credit where credits do I think they at least till 911 did recog iiz that threat so I'm not sure that they had it wrong so much as that they were distracted by what was initially the necessity and then what was projected to be the necessity of a focus on the Middle East now part of my views where have we missed it in the in the Obama years and even before Bush as well I think our postc Cold War policies of overexpanded NATO people obsess over the 1994 Budapest memorandum I I believe in keeping our commitments but completely thrown out the window the James Baker not one- inch commitment that he made to gorbachov has consistently I mean NATO expanded more after the fall of the USSR than it ever did during the existence of the USSR when supposedly the whole point of it was to curb the USSR that was part of the mistake let's go with Obama because because because Obama had the same spirit that you have I don't think so no how do how does your how does your drawing red lines and keeping them credible red lines so I'm not going to make up some red line in Syria and then do nothing when they cross it when I talk about I mean there were there were implicit I'll make them explicit red lines in that speech right there we draw credible red lines grounded in our self-interest and we will and there's a reason why no other Republican has the spine to say we will defend Taiwan for the foreseeable future at least until certain conditions have been met what's your red line with Putin the red line with well that presumes that we are we Haven have a understanding of what those were in the first place so my red line would come out of the deal that we would do he does not touch a NATO Ally he doesn't touch a region of what would be a sovereign Ukraine that comes out of the deal that we would do but we have to give each other a reason to enter that deal reopen economic relations Is I think the key element of how we open that deal now is a moment where I think we have to do what Nixon did with MAO and I use Mao as an example because Putin's bad Mao was worse we didn't trust Mao just as we shouldn't trust Putin but Nixon as a person who shares my skepticism of the administrative State and the bureaucracy around him pulled Ma out of the Chokehold of BR of L USSR and I think Putin's like the new Ma so we don't trust him but we can trust him to follow his self-interest and so opening economic relations with Russia and standing by the commitment we made in 1990 that NATO would not further expand combined with yes freezing approximately those current lines of control is a basis for getting far more in return at a moment where there are kinks in the armor ran China relationship wasn't that the theory of uh of Joe Biden when he when he uh when he lifted the sanctions on nordstream two so I think that there's nothing that's there's nothing no but under but the under Joe Biden we bomb nordstream to no the when when Biden came in he took the sanctions Off nordstream 2 so that there could be economic relations between Germany and Russia so Michael with whatever whatever happened to nordstream too I don't believe that b but that happened after that happened after directly or indirectly consented to to the well we we don't need to argue with that but that happened after the after the Russian invasion of Ukraine so but the the Russian the Russian invasion of Ukraine came after we we opened up economic relations with between Russia and Germany we didn't really we didn't open up economic relations between Russia and Germany Germany opened relations we still have long had closed relations with Russia and I think the other thing that I would say I mean let's just sort of for for I think a productive conversation because world world of politics I've gotten acclimated to this I think that the impeachment by analogy to Democrat is I don't think really a particularly useful frame of whether it's similar to an Obama or similar to a Biden turns out my foreign policy is dramatically different from that of Biden and Obama as well as that of bush and much of the historical Republican base but let's just start without the partisan filters asking what actually makes sense we've absolutely restricted economic relations with Russia I don't think it's productive there's a lot that happened before Russia invaded Ukraine Angela Merkel made some disastrous comments about the Minsk Accords just being about biing time as we were arming Ukraine to the teeth in the meantime Putin asking for a reinstantiate of the commitment that we made in 1990 that NATO wouldn't expend we couldn't give it to him so there's a lot of factors that preceded and I believe precipitated in part Russia's invasion of Ukraine but the question is from where we are now I'm not here to blame the people who came before me Republican or Democrat as the next president what do I want to do I want to lead us to advancing the American interest of weakening if not dismantling the Russia China Alliance but to do it while securing peace on reasonable terms that allow Ukraine's own sovereignty to come out intact which I worry is not exactly the path that we're on the spring offensive that became the summer offensive that became effectively the non-effective offensive that ever was this is not on track to succeed even for the people of Ukraine and the Ukrainian boys who are dying there and at some point I think we're allowed as human beings also ask the question about the Russian boys who are dying over there and make sure we never get to the point of the American boys who be dying over there to ask the question of to what end are we fighting or fueling a war for Russians speaking regions most of whom believe that they shouldn't be part of Ukraine they haven't been represented in the Ukrainian Parliament for nine years either we believe in democracy or we don't and so I think that in many ways that we're even if you're using the pro-democratic argument that fails on Ukraine but I think the national self-interest for the United States that's where we more obviously fail flatly what what makes you so when I look at Russia and China they look very happy together to me what what are you seeing in that relationship that makes you think we can do a deal with Putin where he's sure so I I think that there are cracks in that relationship if we're opening our eyes and willing to see it I I refed it in my opening remarks I think it is not an accident that after the 2022 No Limits partnership meeting right after they part ways Putin sends weapons to India and to Vietnam both of which share a border with China he was sending a signal I think it's not an accident that in Northeast China they have yet to been a be able to complete the completion of a railroad which would be an economic Boon to Northeast China which is struggling in absence of that railroad able to make it to the sea but for running through a part of Russia so fundamentally it is my belief that Putin does not enjoy being the kid brother in the relationship that he's in with xinping but that's the position we've put him in when we've cut off relations from the west and when you describe someone as an enemy I mean it's one thing to call China our adversary and our enemy I am comfortable with that because I think it is grounded in truth with respect to there's only two superpowers right now and a World War requires two superpowers with allies neither of which is obviously able to defeat the other that's the state we're in but if you then start calling everybody else an enemy we can go down the list but Russia's high on the list you start incentivizing them to behave like an enemy and that's exactly what we've done as opposed to moving to what could be a trilateral international order between the US Russia and China rather than the bilateral one that favors China currently with Russia in their camp and so I think that those are examples of evidence of cracks in that armor that I think we should be exploiting now and using the Ukraine War more precisely the end of it as one of the catalysts that helps us pull Russia out of its relationship with China by renormalizing economic relations with Russia making a hard commitment relating to Nato not admitting Ukraine to Nato yes territorial concessions that track what I think is actually the reality of pretty close to what self-determination there would look like anyway and I think that would be a good outcome for the US I think it would be a good outcome for Ukraine to come out with its own sovereignty intact backstopped by actual Us in interests that issue that's a far more secure piece than whatever path they're on right now and I think it would be good for Russia which doesn't have to be a bad thing for the US and I worry the main obstacle to doing this deal is that last part of what I said would this be good for the US yes it would would this be good even for Ukraine I think it actually would be good for the people of Ukraine but the thing that's stopping us is the idea that there could be some good in this for Russia and I and I think that that's a datedness to a cold war mentality that that presumes the USSR exists and that regime change in Russia is somehow though you're not supposed to say that out loud the lurking agenda that's actually at work here I think that that is not the way that we should be making decisions as US policy makers as opposed to asking what's best for the US interest which is part of my case for generational change in who leads this country from the White House I do think it's going to take a different generation let's let's move to let's move to Iran so sure Iran has attacked Iran or its proxies have attacked United States since Joe Biden came into the presidency between 80 and 90 times including eight or nine times in the last week um what would you do uh about that so I think that one of the travesties of the Biden foreign policy agenda is that we have been indirectly funding multiple sides of conflict in the Middle East I think the $6 billion hostage release was exchange for the hostages was disastrous I think it set an awful precedent I think a lot of the so-called Aid that we have been providing including in Gaza and other parts parts of the Middle East have not actually strengthened our position here in the Middle East and so that's the first observation I would make is that our funding of two sides of conflicts have been a disaster I think at the same time it's been disastrous for us to open up this year I mean I think this was this was one of the most fool hearty decisions that has been underd discussed in the United States was opening up a serious discussion about nuclear technology transer to Saudi Arabia which I think is also I me I want to keep you on Iran yeah but this relates to Iran so how how are we going to do about the Iran's aggression the dis the disagreement what I'm getting at the disagreement I have with you yeah is that is that you you say there are deals out there to be had without the application of talk about that in Russia's case yeah but but I feel different's different that's what I want to get at Iran's different because I don't because I don't think that these actors Russ Russia China and Iran can be that there's a that there's a a dial that we can turn I think Russia come and come to agreement with them without the serious threat of military force so in that's where I think that's where I think you and I disagree that's so I think one of the areas where we maybe have different prism is I don't have an overarching uh theory that analogizes each of these regions to another because I think they're fundamentally different okay so let's go on Iran analyze not analogize that one description of my approach to foreign policy so analyze the Russia situation we a deep how how do weop how do we stop IR from attacking us and our allies so now let's independently analyze Iran I think that the deterrence that the Arab Nations including Saudi Arabia turkey and Israel which let's just acknowledge or you know I don't know if you're supposed to say this or not but has nuclear capabilities Israel turkey and the Arab countries do not like Iran and it is not in their interest for Iran to expand its sphere of influence you're talking about a country in Iran that's what 3% of the economic might or might of any capacity of China it's a sideshow compared to China I think that that successfully if we provide a diplomatic Iron Dome for Israel combined with turkey and Saudi Arabia and other Arab Nations which who in whose self-interest it already is not for Iran to expand these are already we have a balance of power not it's a comfortable balance of power but we've had a balance of power in the Middle East that I think can work to contain conflict on its own and even with the best intentions our involvement has actually exacerbated risks that the US faces except Iran has been expanding quite quite start in a startling way and it's actually attacking Americans directly so how do how do we how do we stop the attacks on America well I think that there's something baked into that premise that I'd like to challenge it's that America should have been in the places that we were being attacked I mean why where are they attacking us they're attacking us in places that we shouldn't have been why are we in Syria why are we in Iraq we shouldn't have been in either of those places so it comes back to my premise that we in the name I'm not saying it was bad intentions I think there were some bad intentions involved but I think it's mostly an outdated vision of foreign policy of interventionist foreign policy that put us in a place to be attacked that we couldn't have been attacked and then ask the question of how we're going to stop that from happening the best solution is we shouldn't have been there in the first place okay so we shouldn't have been there in the first but we're there Arab countries turkey and Israel but we're there now so so we pull out well I think that I never does that reward Iran for pulling out I'm not going to be pulling out in a moment where we're being attacked right but but asking a fundamental question the premise of it we're never going to be we're never going to be leaving a region with guns to our backs okay or that's not the way it's not the ideal way to exit it should be from a position of strength but if you want to just understand how we think about Iranian deterrence I think it would have been and in the future can be most effective when it's the Middle Eastern countries that have the as neighbors vested interest to protect against Irani aggression to be left to themselves to do it but we have to do a position of strength now how do we establish that so I think the position of strength right now is let's just talk about like what's at hand right this is not an academic discussion we're in the middle of a serious imminent War right now I think we should provide full diplomatic support and intelligence support for Israel to fully defend itself that's not going to deter Iran from from shooting at us I'm not I don't I don't I disagree with you I think if Israel's fully defending itself and its National right to exist I think that there is plenty of deterrence baked in I me the US is nuclear equipped Israel is nuclear equipped in a way that Iran is not even close to either of those Nations and so I do think that the threat the idea that we're somehow at risk or our principal military risk is Iran somehow striking the United States of America is I think a straw man compared to where our actual threat is which is communist China that has a far greater leverage over the United States and every iota of further involvement in this conflict weakens US versus China why do you think Iran is attacking us well I want to just ask you precisely what are you referring to you're referring to Iranian backed militias hitting Targets in other areas of the Middle East they hit they hit two they hit two US bases in Iraq or more actually in the last couple of days they're fundamentally hostile to Israel we know that and they're fundamentally hostile to the United States as an extension and a supporter of Israel we know that too and they're fundamentally hostile independently to the west in the United States of America so we know that so we have a hostile nation in the Middle East so what do we do with that well the question is I start with the principle of Do no harm right we are we have done more harm to us interests over the last 25 years of our involvement in the Middle East then we have aided it and we have frankly a bigger objective to address that we're weaker in being able to address when we're drawn into yet another no- win war in the Middle East 33 trillion dollars in national debt 6 and a half trillion of which was attributable to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan we are we are we are where we are they're shooting at us we want them to stop you want to you said we have to have a position of strength I want to I want to see your vision of position of strength so I would say from the present if you're hitting us targets you will have hell to pay for it we have to be crystal clear about that and say it but against the backdrop of also being clear that our longer term plan is to exit these Middle East engagements that we should not have been in the first place and I believe that will be sufficient what is hell to pay for it look like well I think that I think that it depends on the scale of the attack and this is also where you're going to get into telegraphing exactly what specific bombs you're going to drop where no we're not going to get into that disc talking I I know I want to make sure that I understand that heal to pay to pay is economic sanctions military action all of the above here's my view and I've said the same thing with respect to defending Taiwan we will defend Taiwan militarily I'm not going to get into the specific examples of what're let's do with Iran I'll move to the Taiwan but but I'm going to give you an example of what deterrence actually looks like I think it's going to be every bit as effective here as well you will have hell to pay for it if you're hitting us targets but you can do so against the backdrop of knowing that also we are not going to be here forever to the contrary my goal is to exit our engagement in these regions of the Middle East that we should not have been in the first place and I believe that will be more than sufficient deter to make sure us targets aren't what what is what is the value of the Middle East and our positions in it to American foreign policy I think that our involvement in the Middle East and our presence physical presence in the Middle East has not served us interest so you'd get out entirely I would look to a path for As Much disengagement from the Middle East as possible and and with all of those energy resources and the role that they play Central to the to the econ economy of the world if they fall under China and Iran what happens what happens to our Economic Security that is your fundamental so I don't think they're going to fall under China and Iran I think we actually again have it backwards in that framing where China is not a natural Ally of any Muslim country I mean China is the country that has a million religious minorities Muslims in concentration camps subject to force sterilization communist indoctrination and wors but it is the US involvement in the Middle East that actually is drawing China into what would other wise be an unnatural engagement for China itself you talk about energy security we might find some common ground here for sure I do believe our energy security is National Security we have hampered our own ability in the name of this climate cult to Shackle energy production here in the United States I don't think Russia would have gone for Ukraine or had the confidence to if we had been a net exporter of energy at the time that Russia made that decision and our way of dealing with the Middle East is reducing its leverage that it has over the United States by Drilling and fracking and burning coal another the answer another issue we agree on we agree on attacking wokeness uh uh unlocking fundamental unlocking energy but unlocking energy affects if we're really serious about doing that this is where I think you know the Biden Administration and the left badly fail that reduces the stakes for what oil is or isn't coming out of the ground in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the Middle East but it's still going to be but it's still going to be Central to the to the economy of the globe and I don't think our presence there has helped the matter that's the answer okay so now on Israel I I I see a fundamental contradiction in what you said because you said Israel has the right to to defend itself and we should we should uh and and we should support that right an absolute right but but but yet you want to restrain it from destroying its enemy I don't want to restrain it from Destro to me so I'm glad you're smoking this out because I could you I could see where this could be uh sound bided into seeming like there's there's two two talk tracks here before before you go can I can I add another part of the contradiction please because I think the apparent contradiction but I'll tell you no I think you're guilty you have a double contradiction I think I'm not but but I'll let you state your case Okay so uh you you want to support Israel uh but but but restrain it and then also and then also when we talked about Iran you talked about empowering a coalition that will deter Iran which means then that the that that Israel has to use military deterrence against uh against Iran which when you were presenting your your the scenario that worries you the most about getting Meed in the South and then having an attack from hisbah you said that could lead to war with Iran and then pull us in if I'm not president it will have so so so so that your your scenario for our withdrawal of building up Allies who are going to deter Iran right is is really exactly the same scenario that you said you feared so I understand your question I'm glad you're asking it because this is important and worth being C still clear on so my view is absent us engagement we have no business telling Israel what to do I mean if we're not debating a $6 billion bill here in Congress to Fork over $16 billion of our own money when we're 33 trillion in the hole and we have been sending annual Aid of $3.8 billion to Israel per year if that's off the table we have no business telling Israel what to do and I actually worry I think many people in Israel sayane voices in Israel are frustr ated by the fact that the US has had the effect of impeding Israel's ability to fully defend itself by having something of a vague seat at the table I I worry we've muddied the waters so against the backdrop of us disengagement militarily and financially then I think the role of the US is to provide full diplomatic support think about the UN and other institutions that have wrongly drawn I mean it's offensive false equivalences between these terrorists Who attack Israel and Israel's own right to defend itself it's the job of the US militarily and then further as a friend Mutual intelligence sharing with Israel to help it defend itself fully but now we're going to enter a different scenario if the us is going to be involved financially and militarily if we're talking about actual us resources being sent to Israel that naturally then has to open the question of what exactly are Israel's objectives for Success that the US has to understand and know to understand here's what we're going to back and here's what we're not going to so my view is let's be consistent and this is I think a deeply pro-israel view actually at a philosophical level it is consistent with the essence of Israel's soul is that the Zionist project was all about the Jewish State's ability to fully defend its right to exist without being reliant on the fleeting sympathies of the rest of the world and Israel absolutely has a right to do that and I stand fully in favor of it but once you muddy the waters and say hey 16 billion here three billion there a little bit of artillery here and move some move some fleets over there then I think we muddy the waters where the US has to then ask the question of okay if we're going to be involved how much further are we going to be drawn in and if Israel is in that twoof front war is there a realistic scenario in which the US is actually not going to get involved militarily which then crosses a bunch of other red lines that draw us further into prolonged conflict in the Middle East and against that backdrop my it is my opinion that this grounding Invasion into Gaza is not going to be good even for Israel I think the probability of success is not nearly as high as it should be for them to have the confidence to go and even if they're successful in toppling Hamas whatever that means right that itself is a vague goal but even if you're accomplishing that vague goal I think it's a pretty clear goal it depends on what Hamas is I mean what is a fractured group off of Hamas in the middle of that top L is that Hamas or is that not Hamas SE this m they're going to strip it of military capability and they're going to destroy the leadership that means they're going to kill the leadership and they're going to kill leadership so so that that's that so then we're Shifting the terms of discussion I think an In-N-Out operation that takes out the leadership of Hamas take the top 100 put their heads on Stakes line it across the southern border Israel to Gaza to say this will never happen again that's reasonable to me but that's different there's no such thing as in and out without taking over the strip well I I I'm not I'm not sure that that's true because I think you're I'm I'm not you purposely being vague I think the discussion is vague right now toppling Hamas or or or destroying Hamas ending it right destroy them is different because there's a lot of people even on that side of the debate who would say that if you take out the leadership of Hamas there's no such thing as the leadership of Hamas there's going to be the next layer that comes up so I think we have to have what we're missing today clearly defined objectives very does destroying leadership who's leadership what layers of leadership what counts as actually success what is the post succession plan of who governs in Gaza we need those answers to question those questions before financially or militarily supporting what happens here and if we're not involved that's fine but Israel to decide whatever the heck it wants to do and we support them diplomatically but you've already stated that as president you want to disengage from the Middle East so the next step is if I'm Israel and I see America disengaging I'm going to do exactly what I see the UAE already doing and that is I'm going to go to China and Israel has Israel has a number of things that are extremely attractive to China um it has a it's a cyber super power and it has advanced advanced Weaponry Michael can I ask a question about this cuz CU a second ago you're talking about isra you were talking about your concern that China was going to go for Iran in an alliance but now your concern is that China is going to engage with Israel which one is your concern I just want to make sure I'm responding to it because you can't have both of those at the same time sure I can so you think that that your actual concern is that China is both going to enter an alliance with Iran and Israel both of whom are enemies of one another in the region CU that's a contradiction in the premise of the question not at all not at all because what I see happening is I see China empowering the most uh disruptive element in the Middle East which is Iran but then you're also concerned that they're going to have an ally of Israel if we're not I'll explain I'll explain I'll explain it's it's with it it is with its right hand it is empowering Iran which is threatening all of our allies and we because I I don't see anything different in your foreign policy premise than the premise of the Biden Administration or the Obama Administration understand the impeachment by an actual argument I'm making an argument I'm making an argument I'm making an AR whether it's OB anybody else we are not we're not providing we're not providing a defense umbrella to our allies and they recognizing that and they feeling that we're on on our way out that we're halfway out of the region already are hedging towards China and China understands that China's we China is exploiting the contradiction in our policy which is precisely the contradiction that you are that you are presenting where where where we only give half a guarantee to our uh to our allies in the face of a rising Iran and so they have nowhere to go they're looking for a place to go they go to China so I I I think you have have a different view I think Iran and China China wants China wants uh it wants to be the leader in all of the industries that are going to drive military and economic in um innovation in The Next Century and Israel is a great prize for them because it has all of that knowhow plus it's deeply embedded in the American Security System I hear you it's a blow to the American Security system and an advantage to their you know with with due respect and and I think this is a healthy dialogue and I how much respect am I due I think I think I think a good amount of credit for bringing somebody who disagrees with you and talking to them I'll give you credit for that and and I I try to I try to do the same because we're not having enough debate critical debate about critical steps that are going to affect this country for the next 20 years so this is this is productive in that sense I do think it is not coherent to at once simultaneously worry that our Retreat from the Middle East will somehow create a vacuum for China to at once Ally with Iran but also with Israel when the whole premise of the discussion was that Iran and Israel or Iran is fundamentally hostile to Israel I don't think Israel will work with China than this happens in foreign policy all the time the United States is the Ally of turkey and Greece the United States is the Ally of Saudi Arabia and I don't think that's a so of the scope of concerns right so if you have one menu of concerns that if the US pulls out that somehow China's going to both be allied with Iran and with Israel and somehow that's hostile to the United States it's called versus it's called divide and Rule versus the alternative of the US wasting our resources and militarily distracted at a time when our own Resources stock piles and financial capabilities are thin for China to go after Taiwan that's the risk I worry about far more than the theoretical risk of through our Retreat when they no longer have those targets to hit that The Boogeyman of China somehow is going to show up in the Middle East their top objective is to go for Taiwan and they're much happier if we're wasting our own resources in the Middle East in the meantime so if I had to pick between those two sets of concerns it is as it relates to China it is abundantly clear to me that the us being mired in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere and running thin on our own resources to be able to defend our interests elsewhere to be able to go after Taiwan the near- term which is a core vital Chinese Communist Party objective versus the vague idea that they might fill some void with Iran and Israel but without even being really clear about what they're accomplishing for themselves or anybody getting out of that relationship it's not even clear to me which is the greater concern and so that's the way I look at it which is why I think we need to have our eye on the ball communist China is what we need to focus on Taiwan matters for the US national interest in a way that for example Ukraine does not we need to be prepared to defend but for me to stand up and say us that we will defend Taiwan it better darn well Beed that we can even defend Taiwan and we're not going to be able to do that when we're multif front Wars that don't Advance us interests in the meantime China China is uh heavily dependent on energy Imports and those Imports come either come from the Middle East or or or Transit through it to China so if the United States is agree with if the United States is the dominant military power in the Middle East it holds it holds China's uh um energy supply lines at risk if we leave the Middle East so this a productive Point as as if we leave the Middle East as you're saying then we open up it it incentivizes China move in so it controls its supply lines and I just let me finish AR please the and the supply lines of all of its adversaries in East Asia who are equally dependent on uh on energy that comes from the middle EAS or transits through it so you've put your finger on an important pulse which is China's Reliance on Middle Eastern Oil I agree with you on that I'll make two points one is our presence in the Middle East is insufficient right now we're in the worst of all worlds to do anything about China actually being able to get Middle Eastern Oil supplies I mean there are multiple rots for them to get it here's how we deal with that actually an alliance with India an upgrading of our alliance with India the overwhelming majority of those Middle Eastern Oil supplies go through the Enderman sea particularly through the malaka straight I think we have a crystal clear opportunity I've laid this out of the Nixon Library we can talk about this more as well of the kind of agreement with India I mean India would would be thrilled to get anything even resembling the kind of agreement we have with Nations like Chile or otherwise economically that could be a win for the US to even decouple some of the dependence we have on China but we should get more out of that a hard commitment that India would block the andmany or the malaka trade which is a far more reliable way to be able to choke Chinese Middle Eastern Oil supplies in the event of conflict than some vague nebulous presence in certain parts of the Middle East but not others that's not going to accomplish the goal and I think it's another one of these vague wishes that somehow by being present that's going to actually allow us to choke China's oil supplies that's nowhere near realistic for where we are today and having you know certain Aid to certain countries in the Middle East and certain troops and EM embassies and bases in certain places somehow going to stop us from getting Iranian to Saudi oil all the way to China is I think a myth that would prove false in the moment where we would need to call on it the most and so therefore measured against the two options yes I favor being out of the places in the Middle East where we shouldn't have been shifting our attention to the real threat that we face that is communist China who we depend on for our modern way of life whose Naval capacity exceeds ours forgetting sometimes as we do that the foundation of war is economics industrial capacity and so when it comes to Munitions look at the one and a half million rounds of artillery we've sent to Ukraine we're not getting that back we're producing 20,000 per month to replenish it that math doesn't add up our Naval capacity is not at a pace where it's going to put us in a competitive position to win in a war in the South China Sea with China God forbid if that's a scenario that we're in now my job is to achieve credible deterrence strategies but my ability to offer credible deterrence as commanderin-chief is diminished if we're mired in another long no- win war in the Middle East and I think that's exactly what China is rooting for okay we're going to we're going to move to would you have time for question absolutely but before we do I got one last issue I got I got to raise with you because it's it's dear to my heart sure you uh you you've been uh in a number of your interviews you've been talking about aeran and Armenia and uh uh I I am the most fervently Pro aeran person in Washington DC so I have to raise this and you and I together here in this interview we're going to do a service to the nation okay because we're going to make the term zenor Corridor uh well not exactly a household name but it's going to be it's going to be people can pronounce it's going to be it's going to be something that at least a few thousand people are going to understand what the zenor corridor is after we finish this discussion because the Zen gazor Corridor is 100% in your worldview this is a realist position we should be we we should be supporting the zenor corridor it's good for it's good for aeran it's good for Armenia it's good for America it unlocks all of the resources of of Central Asia so that they can make it to Europe without being controlled by Russia China why do you why are you against the zor so my position and I was very clear here to be consistent is I don't think the US just just for the for the for everybody there if you could just say Zang gazor cdor about seven times zor cor how about the L Lin Corridor although you'll Lain Corridor Lin you'll you you're up on your pronunciations there too so these are corridors that you know connect potentially parts of Armenia with other parts of with let's just say the nagorno kabak region that historically and this gets into some complex history here but has historically been ethnically religiously Armenian Christian for a long time there's a lot of history in all of these regions in the Soviet periphery but 1994 onward has largely been viewed as a autonomous region governed separately that are that azaran has more or less just decided in a way that is not dissimilar to how Russia decided to invade the regions of the dbas its region that it's invaded in 2020 first through violence and then you know September of this year just a month ago barreling right through and saying that we're not going to respect that anymore this is ours and so I think that that's no more a violation of the 1994 principles that we set into motion for example during the Budapest memorandum that is fetishized in corridors not far from where we are today yet completely forgetting about other 1994 agreements made in the post Soviet era as well and so to be crystal clear I consistent on this I do not think the US should be militarily engaging here my problem is the US has been indirectly engaging by writing all kinds of exemptions what is it section 907 exemptions or whatever that have allowed us to transfer arms to azaran that put aeran in a stronger position here special exemptions to the trans trans Adriatic pipeline for the Iran sanctions that found their way through Iran and so my view is it is if I may just finish this thought you can finish it we we wey of us we want America to be aware of the zenor that's just true but but but but I think this is no more in America's interests to get involved here no less in America's interest to get involved here than we are in Ukraine but I think part of the reason why is that Ukraine and aeran have very effective lobbies in the United States of America I mean I think what we are fed is the conflict of good versus evil that we engage in versus a different good versus evil conflict that we turn our Blind Eye to I think is an example of what I'm highlighting is inconsistency but in my case I would say no military engagement in either and so that's where I just want to be Chris what my position is I I I think you're 100% wrong on the facts three three important facts number one no arms are going to aeran from the United States none zero none have gone from none have gone to no arms no arms no arms there no no there no transferred equipment by check me on this check me on this YouTube Google check me on is or otherwise none have made their way toer uh Israeli arms make it that's Israeli arms those are not American Arms that those are not American Arms us okay so this this will be this will be discussion foring okay no no no us arms uh uh uh number two uh I forgot what it was that's okay it's terrible it'll come back no this this is horrible because we we have to educate America here uh but the third the third one is that uh that kabah is is aeran oh no no no according this is this is wrong kabak isan wait no wait you got your word and you got let me just get it's like the donbas saying the donbas is Russia then no it's Russian speak no no kabak is aeran recognized by the by the International Community as aarani territory again check me on this you'll see and and it was multi-ethnic until aeran ethnically cleansed it so that's the in you what did I say I'm sorry I think you meant to say Armen thank you I I know there a confusing issue so I won't for it no no Armenia Armenia but it wasn't an ethnic cleansing but you meant to say Armenia Armenia thank you I appreciate that actually Armenia ethnically cleansed it in in in 1993 and it's recognized internationally as as as aabani so we'll agree to disagree on the international recognition point but and the corridor the corridor aeran is the only country in the world that borders both Russia and Iran if there is no zeng gazor Corridor through through Armenia and we're just talking about a transport Corridor we're not talking about taking we're not talking about taking territory an economic and transport Corridor which Armenia agreed to in the November 9th tripartite agreement uh at the uh this the ceasefire agreement at the end of the war if that if that Corridor opens up it opens up the economy of of U of Armenia Mr pashinyan would like it and if it's not opened up then aeran has to connect to the west and to its um exclave of Navan through Iran so we strengthen Iran and we push Armenia into the arms of Iran as well if we don't open up that Corridor so and that's in addition to all that it does for Central Asia so it's and oh I know what it was I know what it was I can't sorry second Point second point and then we'll take some audience questions yes we will we will but but that there's a strong aeran Lobby and what there's no you you're the only person in American politics who doesn't think there's an Armenian Lobby this is just ridiculous I mean I think I think soar has funded a very effective operation in where show me I mean the pesta group let's start with that right exhil Clinton go straight down the plof you can go straight down the list uh I'm not doing the impeachment demat people who P Nancy Pelosi Menendez Shifty shift all of them there isn't a single you're your your talking points are the same as as shifts so say well what again not doing the impeachment by oh you said the same thing as somebody else thing but look at the people who are lobing for I'm the most prominent lobing firms in the US but put that to one side you brought it up I think that this this does not directly you know we talk about Russia Ukraine talk about China Taiwan talk about you know of course what's happening in Israel these directly relate to the American interest I want to be Crystal Clear despite the fact that I have tried to be educational about what's happening here to a lot of people who have no awareness of it this is an area where I believe we are being inconsistent for the good versus evil crowd right I mean this is a battle between good versus evil that's what you've heard from much of the Republican party and I could tell you that probably the other Republican presidential candidates until I was talking about had never heard of nagoro kabak I mean that's just the fact of the matter and so if they're talking about good versus evil in the donbass region which they hadn't heard about until four months before then I think that it is inconsistent not to be talking about it in this case where I come from the school of thought that we should not I said this in my principles of realist foreign policy our military engagement should never be a moral Crusade it should be grounded in American self-interest so I am not advocating for any American involvement here if Armenia aeran but that's a principled position that's consistent with the same reasons why I don't advocate for it in Russia and Ukraine either that being said I think that my top concern is what actually does advance American interests and so far thank God we're not sending money and resources military resources over there but I am Keen to make sure that we stop sending them to places like Ukraine where we're on track with a bill to send $61 billion over there so that's where I'm coming from I'm going to convert you to this okay all right I look forward to discussion because it's clear you've been close to this for a while so I was here opposing to the Zen gazor Corridor yeah uh we'll uh we'll open it up here thank you there's a lady in the back I have no idea who she is but she's but she has a yellow dress on it's very easy to see thank you I'm a former Jerusalem Post reporter my name is Carrie Sheffield I'm a journalist um great to see you VI um I would love to know more how are you going to convince China and Russia to dissolve their Alliance you know I I understand that you know you would give some land to to Russia you know some Ukrainian territory but number one why would you trust that and number two I mean how do you know that's sufficient leverage yep so it's not going to be through persuasion and it's not going to be through trust because we cannot and should not trust Putin or xianping to do anything it's out of self-interest so there will be consequences for non-adherence to an agreement like there is for any serious agreement and there will be incentives to enter that agreement so if you put yourself in each of our shoes this is an agreement that makes sense reopening economic relations with Russia from with the West including the United States reduces its economic Reliance on China that's one of the things they get out of it the end of this Ukraine war in most importantly the hard commitment that NATO won't admit Ukraine to Nato this has been a long-standing objective for Vladimir Putin but in return from that we have to things we can monitor no joint military exercises between Russia and China dissolution of the 2001 Treaty of good neighborliness and cooperation so these would be the basic principles and Contours of a deal now is that going to be the exact deal that gets of course it's not these are complicated things but these are the broad principles I would require from our side removal of Russian military presence from the Western Hemisphere Nicaragua Cuba Venezuela and particular removal of the nuclear weapons from kin and Graden to the extent they're moving any to bellarus from there as well this is a reasonable deal that if you put yourself in the shoes of either party the United States or Russia and even Ukraine makees sense to actually see through now I think that there's two schools of thought here on the other school of thought defeating Russia illd defined whatever that ever means is the mainstream thought amongst most of the Republican presidential candidates I'm not going to be somebody who says that I'm going to get a deal done instantly without telling you what the Contours of that deal are I believe in transparency and telling what the principles of that deal are and that's why I've laid those out but I'm confident that in a rapid amount of time we would be able to reach a deal that advances us interests and involves a big win for the us but also small wins for each of Russia and Ukraine in the process in the window that we're in especially when there are at least signs of weakening or potential weakening or softness in the Russia China relationship so that's what I would say and the economic lever is a big part of how we accomplish it thank you Carri this lady here in the black nice to meet you nice to see you speak in person um my name is Amal Torres I have a Department of Defense background so National Security and foreign policy uh Rings tree to my heart so I'm going to bring up a topic that has not been discussed too much but related to semiconductors and it's about Africa and uh China as we all know currently owns a significant portion of global rare earth metals Metals required to build advanced technology and weapons African countries have large deposits of these critical resources and are actively partnering with China and Russia and America seemingly refuses to make meaningful attempts to Foster beneficial relationships with those African countries as president uh what is your plan to ensure America has access to these critical resources needed for advanced weaponry and support of our national security it's a great question and I think one of the great risks to our national security is the Reliance on Rare Earth minerals in China to make among other things our own military equipment you think about what an F35 fighter jet manufactured here requires it's pathetic that we require Reliance on the very adversary who God forbid were in a conflict scenary we're going to have to fight for the very parts required to fight them that doesn't logically work so I think there are other places to look would come to Africa in a second I mean even if you think about Chile look at the amount of lithium CH Chile is I think you know approximately give or take the third largest reserves of lithium that were able that are at least exporters are used we could get our lithium from Chile we're getting it from China instead Chile exports eight times as much as much lithium to China as they do to the United States which itself makes no sense so there's all other partners we can we can exploit we can make use of here now as it relates to Africa I think that what's happened is we've let them tug on our heartstrings a little bit much many African nations where they say things like when two elephants fight the grass dies something like this is the expression well I think that we should force them to choose to say that if you're going to accept foreign direct invest investment from China then we're out but I think right now we have been in many ways allowed to be exploited so we say that choose us or choose China you can't have both I think we come out winning in that so from foreign direct investment from deals I mean crippling debt deals that have Capital capitalization table structures that these nations on the back end it's an UNC topic to talk about but China absolutely has racist undertones in its relations with overtones if we're able to call call it that with Africa that the United States despite what you'll listen to you know a given person say on a given day here in a college campus doesn't exist in the United States not in any relevant way compared to China's attitudes towards Africa they're much more naturally for the US to be an investment partner an economic Ally for many of those African nations that have those Rare Earth minerals relative to China but we have to make them choose and the mistake that we've made is allowing them to have both but if we make them choose we come out on the winning side of that and I think China is going to be left holding the B bag that's the short answer to that question thank you for asking it was a smart question thank you so uh a little bird came and told me that we have to uh bring this to an end oh that we had too much fun okay yeah let me let me thank you a lot and I I particularly appreciate that you have come to my view on aeran I I I appreciate you for coming to my view on making sure that we end the war in Ukraine so yeah I want to end the war in Ukraine too instead yeah with with different methods yeah okay can I just say can I can I just say something in in closing which is I want to thank the Hudson Institute for welcoming a presidential candidate that has views that may differ from that of on certain of these issues at least that may differ from that of the consensus of Scholars here and other Allied institutions and I think it speaks to how we're going to revive this country the way we're going to revive this country is and I want to thank you for this more conversations like this one open conversations say in public what you'll say in private and and I'll just close on this because it's a centerpiece of this campaign it's a centerpiece of the Revival of this nation is that the best measure of our country's Health the best measure of the health of American democracy we say this in Washington DC it's not the number of green pieces of paper in our bank account it's not the number of ballots that are cast every November those things are important but they're not the most important thing it is the percentage of people who feel free to say what they actually think in public right now we are doing poorly in this country the only way we're going to do it is all of us not just me all of us you're doing it too I'm grateful to you all of us starting to speak openly again and it is in moments like these where we do have one thing we will agree on is serious and concerned in conflicts brewing in other parts of the world we are at our strongest when we have true and unfettered debate and discussion of open ideas and I want to thank the Hudson Institute for being among the places that Fosters the kind of debate that we're going to need to revive this nation and if we do then I have confidence that one way or another our best days as a nation can still be ahead of us it's just going to take all of us starting to talk more openly again so thank you for that I appreciate the wel agree with that

Channel: Hudson Institute

Views: 128,794

Keywords: Hudson, Institute

Id: vASj4OML254

Length: 77min 25sec (4645 seconds)

Published: Wed Oct 25 2023