traces of damaging livelihoods. here's the south african farmer explaining the difficulties that he's facing in his own words. my name is peter table. i am a crop farmer from free state rovers, south africa, being fined me for 14 years. uh before that out. now everything looks good, there was no way of showing the and this way in here we are now things as, as just changed. i've never seen this kind of throughout the heat we, we are going to help us and nothing. and i mean nothing in the past couple of years it was between 3 ton and 5 ton to my area, the heck the on mays. but this, yeah we, i like we are going to have is nothing that out this effect that me find the should that have employees. i need to maintain that from i need to maintain that mission

mattie and i must expand. this was a do this quinn dishes is going to be a big problem and we will have one buy expect a cronum east about to, to come in a nino. but we never expected this kind of damage. i have expressed this and you know before but the to us not this of this like the truth. yeah. i don't know the people are being picked it by this route. so now people don't be offended. they'll pay more money to buy food too because of this throughout christians, around the world of the mocking the easter weekend in different ways and hating people are trying to keep their traditions alive. even though dying and filing this is getting worse. children and adults are still making and trading colorful paper types is done every easter weekend on games control, much of the capital of culture, price, inter and prime ministers resign doctor, he was blocked from returning from a funding trip. satisfied is a re,

an act of the crucifixion of jesus christ to mark a good friday and one of cut off as poor this neighborhoods division began in 1986 was a 90 percent of the country's population. this conflict. meanwhile, the leader of the roman catholic church has missed the traditional good friday for session in rome. the vatican says 87 year old poke francis, the saving his energy for other events is expected to preside over the vigil on saturday at a mass to mark easter sunday. upfront is up next and i'll just see the elizabeth is going to be here a few minutes more on all the stories and about how i'm rolled moccasins. stay with us on august the in size, the content creators have become journalists, rescuers,

heroes, and targets for your to customers. so when a visa queens you meet on and yet they continue to report that the close of business, the story of just one of the shall be should be a little bit higher for the love of. cuz on that, just as united states is under fire for its continued support of israel, brutal war on god. and while it becomes further invest in a costly war and you pray many are asking how is this affecting washington's global stance? is the us overstretched and click the signal, the end of us middle polarity will ask renown political scientist, john mearsheimer ended up front special the nearest time with thank you so much for joining us on upfront. my pleasure to be here. it's been nearly 20 years since you co authored your seminal piece of titled

the israel lobby, dealing with the lobby's undue influence on united states foreign policy. have there been any major policy shifts or any other changes or developments since you wrote the piece? so well, i think there are 2 things have changed. one is, i think that we help to open up this course about the lobby before we wrote the article and then the book a, not many people talk about the lobby, explicitly lobbies, influence on us foreign policy. and i think in terms of the discourse of we had a significant influence in terms of actual policy. i think we've had little influence at all. i think that the lobby remains as powerful as ever, and american foreign policy towards israel and towards the greater

middle east remains gratefully influenced by the lobby. i mean, one could argue you're being too hard on yourself, but you're selling yourself a little bit short to the extent that there isn't least resistance now, and that resistance does matter. i mean, there's a campaign against the lobby group, a pack, the american israel public affairs committee, and how they influence us politics. specifically the targeting of progressive democrats, according to one pole. 62 percent of respondents who voted for president biden in 2020, agreed that quote, the us should stop weapons shipments to israel until israel discontinues. it's a tax on the people of guys and now present it by and certainly continues to provide military aid and financial support to israel. there's no doubt about that. but there's at least the perception of a risk that bite in this taken now that wouldn't have been there 20 years ago. is that safe to say? well, i think there's no question that a attitudes towards is real and towards israel's policies. regarding the

palestinians has shifted in the body politic, especially among young people, and especially among democrats. and there's no question that causes problems for president bite. but the fact is that the lobby still remains exceedingly successful at influencing a policy at the elite level lobbies influence in congress, and the lobbies influence on the white house remains as powerful as ever. so what you find here is something of a disjuncture between public opinion on one hand and the lobby's ability to influence policy on the other hand. and how that plays out over time remains to be seen. it could be the case that bite is defeated in the fall, in large part because he is supported israel down the line up to now

and that he continues to support is real down the line and that comes back to bite him. that may be the case, and if that does happen, then attitudes towards israel and towards the lobby and towards the is really american relationship, i think will change even more and maybe policy will change. but that has not happened. so for fair enough, the something memo organized by the us state department staffers, which was leaked back in november or early november, a warren that the us is failure to criticize is really war crimes quote, contributes to regional public perceptions that the united states as a biased and this honest actor, which at best does not advance and at worst harms us interest world wide, is been us, has continued support for israel, affecting it's global standing. and there's no question about it. the united states

is effectively complicit in the genocide. that's widely regarded. our ability, uh, you know, to influence people around the world has diminished significantly as a result of this. all of this makes a joke out of the concept of a rules based order, which we preach about all the time. so this is a disaster for the united states, but i would point out to you that despite the fact that the disaster, the united states continues to support, is real down the line. now the rejoinder to that, at least the most reasonable rejoinder to that would be that this is absolutely a matter of national security. that is really, is not just the recipient of us large, yes, for philanthropic reasons or humanitarian reasons, but that is a strategic interest in the middle east that goes beyond the money. but it is, it's actually directly tied to us. national security interest is supporting israel . vital to maintaining us national security. i think your comments have it dead

wrong. israel is a strategic albatross around their neck. it's a liability. we gain hardly any benefits from our relationship with is real, any strategic benefits, and there are significant liabilities as we're seeing now. furthermore, it is a powerful moral or ethical dimension to this. and the idea that being joined at the hip with is real is in their moral or ethical interest is not a serious arguments. as i said to you before, the united states is complicit in a genocide. this is certainly not in their interest. so the idea that you know, we're supporting israel unconditionally because it's in our strategic and moral interest is not a serious argument. yet. but the moral side was more saying, if we cast aside the more argument against supporting israel, of uh, is this still a, a strategic interest that trumps that instance?

some people would argue whether it's, whether it's being wary of your, on whether it's proxy wars that there might be some vital military reason for being there. and being so staunchly tied to it. but you say there's no, there's no credible argument there. i don't buy that argument for one second. and stephen, i lay out the case against that argument in both the article end of the book. and by the way, with regard to a ran, i believe we would have much better relations with a ran today. we're not to the lobby in our chapter on a ran in the lobby book. we make it quite clear, it ran, tried to improve relations with the united states on a number of occasions of the eighty's and ninety's and the lobby moved in and chilled their efforts to accommodate the or randy ends in any way. and furthermore, if you look at the jcp away, which is the nuclear agreement between basically the united states as a ram,

that i think affectively shut down the rainy in nuclear program in the short term. uh, it was israel in the lobby. they put enormous pressure on the united states to put an end to that agreement, which i don't think was an error interest. so help me understand why we end up in this place if there is no legitimate moral argument here to your point. and if there is no legitimate strategic interest and it's certainly a financial burden, we're talking 3 or $4000000000.00 a year. and we're talking about in post october 7th, an attempt to get even more tens of billions of dollars to israel. it's certainly a financial burden. why does the united states continue to double down in this way in the sixty's? we say it's hawk missile sales. perhaps, you know, we might say that it's a, it's a, it's an attempt to leverage a geo political standing in order to access oil more. but now in 2024. what good reason does the nicest have to do this? they're not doing it blindly. they're, there must be a reason. what is it as well,

let me just point out that the united states just doesn't give israel lots of weapons and lots of money and supported diplomatically it does it unconditionally. there is no relationship between any 2 countries in world history. and it looks like this relationship, the united states again, supports israel, no matter what it does. this is truly remarkable. we don't treat is real like a normal country and help it because it's to our benefit strategically. that's the argument you're basically making. this is a strategic asset for the united states as a normal country, and we take advantage of it. that's not what's going on here. so give a little why. what is the organizing principle behind this special relationship that it's a fascinating argument you're making, but why then, why is us doing it? because of the lobby. the united states has

a political system that is set up in ways that allow interest groups to have great influence. just think of the national rifle association. when you look at poles in terms of how americans think about gun control, what you see is that there are lots of americans who are interested in some serious gun control, but it's almost impossible to get any meaningful gun control because of the national rifle association. the national rifle association is the interest group that wields enormous power when it comes to legislation involving gun control. well, the is real hobby, is one of the most powerful lobbies, if not the most powerful lobby in the united states. and the lobby goes to a nor misplace to make sure that american foreign policy supports is real unconditionally and it is wildly successful. truly impressive, how good the lobby is, getting us foreign policy makers to support israel, hook,

line, and sinker. never the optimism that it's, you know, is the invincibility of apax that are, of invincibility breaking down. and i think that's a little too strong. i think it's a road in somewhat of what the future looks like for sure. it's hard to say. let me make 2 points there. first of all, the lobby now has to operate out of the open, and it has to engage what i call smash male politics. before we wrote the article in the book, the lobby could operate behind closed doors and for any interest group, the ideal situation is to operate behind closed doors and not out in the open. but when you're out in the open, like the lobby is now when you're engaged in smash mouth politics, it's going to cause you all sorts of problems that's pointing out. ready one, please, number 2 that israel's behavior has gotten more outrages over time and

a good manifestation at this point is what's happening in regards to today. and the situation is not going to get any better with the passage of time. it's widely recognized. it is real, is that apartheid state. and furthermore, it is engaging in a genocidal campaign at this point in time. well, that tells you that the lobby has really got a difficult job confronting it. it has to work over time these days to defend is real and it will have to work harder and harder with the passage of time. because more and more people are aware of what's going on in the middle. at least they see what is realistic doing. but i would never underestimate the ability of the lobby to adjust to the circumstances and, and prevail. a more that may not happen, but you don't want to underestimate the lobby. that's my basic point. understood, that's what the warranty you praying a bit in october of last year, president biden had asked congress to authorize $61000000000.00 and ukrainian

assistance, in addition to another $14000000000.00 for israel, which for now still remains stalled. in the us house of representatives of the us department of defense in early february, we stated that without us funding ukraine's defense will likely collapse, given that the funding is now stalled. what do you believe the impact would be for ukraine and for us policy to well, i believe that ukraine was going to lose this war to russia, whether they got that 60 plus $1000000000.00 or not. the fact is that the ukrainians need weaponry. and furthermore, they need manpower because they're badly out numbered in terms of troop levels. well, we can't do anything to help the troop levels. and in terms of weaponry, we don't have the weaponry to get them. when you listen to people talk about the 60 plus $1000000000.00, you would think that this is going to allow us as soon as this aid is provided,

to take all these weapons off the shelf and ship them to ukraine. and that's going to go a long way towards redressing the in balance and weaponry over there. but that's not true. we can't, we can't give them the weapons they need and large enough numbers, because we don't have those weapons. and that we includes the europeans as well as the united states, so we can give them dollar bills or yours, but that's not going to do much good. so we can't. number one, we dress the weaponry in balance. and number 2, we cannot re dress the man power imbalance. oh, so there's money, largely and effective to the point that it's, it's a little legitimate argument not sending any that's worse than that. what it does is it encourages the ukrainians to continue fighting, which means they'll lose more territory and more ukrainians will die. when, if we cut off the aid and what you can go its own way and become a neutral country, ukraine could cut a deal now and get

a better deal today. then it will get tomorrow if we give it the to continue finding a little bit like i won't call it appeasement, but thing to effectively yield a significant portions of your land because you can't when uh, when there's an entire global community that could offer support, feels like a tough decision to me and you get an on site with mohammed ali. you go to rounds with them and it's quite clear that he has the ability to kill you. what are you going to do? quit after 2 rounds or continue to fight and allow me to kill you. well, if i, if i'm wearing gloves and he's not, i've been yelling, so somebody, hey, is there a rest of it? i can put some gloves on the guy. i feel like rushes by the way, our gloves and know it was watching. well, in the international system, there is no higher authority that can rescue you when you get into trouble. ukrainians are in big trouble, and there is no referee, no god, no higher authority, no, whatever up there that can rescue. and my point to you is that with the ukrainian

should do now is they should cut all security ties, cut all security, ties with the west, right, and declare neutrality and work with the russians to make it clear that they are a neutral states and have no interest in joining nato, and then the united states should cut off all way to ukraine, and the ukrainian should rely on economic aid from europe in its place. oh, the russian president dmitri made video of who's now deputy chairman of russian security council was recently asked at what point russia should stop its invasion. and he stated, it probably shouldn't be keyed if not now. then after sometime, maybe in some other phase of the development of this conflict of president putting himself also stated that russian troops would push further into ukraine after a rush of success and taking over the town of of the of car. do you think pollutants goal is to take over all of ukraine and especially even capable of doing

this? and i think that despite the conventional wisdom of the west, he is not determined and never has been determined to conquer all of ukraine. and indeed, he would be foolish to do that. and furthermore, despite the conventional wisdom in the west, there has never been any evidence that he is interested in conquering other countries in eastern europe as well. the idea that he's trying to recreate the russian empire or create a great, a russia is not a serious argument. but what's your argument isn't that he's trying to take over the rest of europe, but maybe just the rest of ukraine? no, i don't believe that there's no evidence to support that. he'd be a full to try to conquer all of ukraine because the western half of the country is filled with ethnic ukrainians, who would resist russian occupation mightily. he'd have a serious insurgency on his hands, and that's the last thing you need. and as i said the before,

they would be foolish in the extreme to try to do that. but let's move on because there's a, there's another thing i want to ask you about. in december of 2023 us defense secretary lloyd austin stated, rushes, military is badly weekend. and last year, the head of the defense intelligence agency said that it would take somewhere between 5 and 10 years for russian to rebuild the capabilities of its armed forces . some argue that ukrainian resistance with western support was, in fact important to prevent further aggression from russia. what do you make of it? i think it's just dead wrong. i think the russian military today is much more formidable, that it was then, it was when the war 1st started. armies at the start of a war, rarely look like armies midway through a war or at the end of a war. and by almost all accounts in the ukrainian media, this is in the ukrainian media media. the russian army has gotten much better with the passage of time. they mobilized lots of troops. they've trained them up,

the equipment is much better. and most importantly, the tactics and strategy are smarter, which is what you would expect in any army the fights of protracted works. it gets better in most cases, which the past with the passage of time. i think the concern was the wiping out of ground troops and that to replenish those tubes. it would take 5 to 10 years. but i hear what you're saying loud and clear, which is that those numbers are inflated and that, and that they're, they've replenish troops and much more quickly and efficiently than that. i think that's exactly right. the numbers of casualties for inflate. ready and furthermore . ready who has mobilized a huge number of troops. they've trained them up, and they now have a quite effective military fair enough. you recently stated that the u. s. as in trouble in regards to the middle east and ukraine on ukraine. you said a quote, we were committed to beating the russians in ukraine. we were committed to wrecking the russian economy and knocking the russians out of the ranks of the great powers

we sailed. this is a devastating defeat for the west. you said i'm from here. stand point is this the end of american unit polarity, you know, una blared in my opinion, ended in 2017 with the rise of china. and the fact that brought the russians back from the dead between the period of 2000 when he took over in 2017 due to polar moment lasted from roughly december 1991. when the soviet union collapse, until about 2017, we were the only great power on the planet. and it was the ideal strategic situation to be in. but the world that we live in today is not uniform. it's multi power is china, there's russia and there's the united states. and let me push back on that just a little bit because the us still remains the largest economy in the world, according to g, d, p, and g d, p per capita. in 2023. and in 2024,

the us was still ranked as the most powerful military in the world, with the world's largest defense budget, in excess of oblique $750000000000.00. there we have military base in well over 70 countries. right now. can i have a partners really threaten the unipolar strength of the united states as well? i was going out to you that you're absolutely correct that we are the most powerful state on the planet. but the argument i'm making to you is there are 2 other great powers on the planet, and although they are not as powerful as we are, they still qualify is great powers. but the fact is that china is a pure competitor, and china is bent on dominating asia, and the united states has been on preventing china from dominated nation. so we have an intense security competition now taking place between china and the united states in east asia. so in that sense, china is a threat to the united states with regard to the russians, as you will know,

in ukraine, we are effectively involved in a war against russia. so we have these 2 other great powers in the system, russia and china. and in both cases, we are competing with them at the security level and very serious ways. with regard to russia, one could make an argument that were more with russia in the past when countries have attempted to challenge or break 3 of us orthodoxy, they faced the wrath of the u. s. government. some countries today are still enduring. a ferocious array of sanctions, others in the past with victims of resumed change operations that were supported by the united states or other western governments. does the us do have the same ability to threaten nations that go against them or have things changed? so i think things have changed somewhat. i think that to other countries like a ran, for example, in north korea, which we're in a much low layer position during the unit polar moment,

can now cosy up to the chinese and the russians who are willing to cozy up to them . and this just goes to tell you the weaker countries in the system can find allies who will help to protect them from the united states and its pension for regime change. so before we go, let me ask you one more question. so if i accept your argument that us uno polarity is over, what comes next? are we going to see a genuinely multi polar kind of political environment here? or are we going to see a situation where china eventually takes the us as plays and imposes the new kind of imperialism to were in a genuinely multi polar system. and there is no evidence that it's going to end any time soon. one can make an argument for demographic reasons, moving forward, we will eventually go back to a unipolar world. and the reason i say that is it's quite clear that the chinese

and the russians, but especially the chinese have wicked demographic problems. and their populations are going to shrink in significant ways over time. the united states has a bit of a demographic problem itself. but we have one great advantage that they don't have . and that is that we're an immigrant culture. so we can import all sorts of people to redressed the demographic problems that we have. and i think an argument could be made that you know, 50 years from the hours the united states may be back to you in a polarity, in large part because of the demographic reasons. because you understand the 2 principal building blocks of military power or wealth. and demography, you have to be rich and you have to have lots of people in china and russia are in a very precarious situation over the long term because they have declining populations. john, this time i want to thank you for your time. thank you so much. for joining us on our part with your insights,

you my pleasure. thanks for having me on the show. i enjoyed it. all right, everyone, that is our show. a product will be back in the 2 weeks ago. the government of china now was to hike in the price of fuel, was made to it, declared an emergency in areas of food and nutrition. the united nations listed chide is one of the world's most insecure countries in terms of food supply, mainly due to the impact of climate change. the world foot program size, the food in these warehouses. it has 4017 percent of child support the nation. that's 2900000 people for depend on the toner supplies. it's for, for flushed out, especially now the ages is couple of to, or know many drill,

phone counseling, the cost, the world's population is shrinking rapidly. how will that affect the global economy? regulations on both sides of the atlantic cracking down, take monopolies, plus the june the gas and take jones's narrowing. but when will it be want doubts counting the cost on alex's hair? why have american evangelicals become his real strongest backer? is us president joe finding the right to stand with israel with no red line, as long as us support continues? is there anything that can stop is real, solve on concept, from going on in? definitely a quizzical look at us. government takes the bottom line with every donation given with every hearts that cancel, we are changing lives in palestine showing that love days. you donated we deliver to a partnership we'll be in bringing you husband love to palestine for to see so

donates, with confidence, donates with outcast foundation. we are in palestine together. we are changing the world one hawks at the time. the, the, the alarm elizabeth put on them in distance and use our life from jo. how coming off in the next 60 minutes escalating violence on the israel 11 on board to 3 united nations. observe is at a translator and did vine explosion in southern lebanon, as well as military denials, responsibility, destruction on the streets of gaza as trunks have killed at least $82.00 palestinians in the past 24 hours.