the relations between north and south korea arrived there was for several years across the d minutes. rise and separating them so has resumed full costing critical messages to doubts because well, thrown young has been sending balloons filled with rubbish from a private post. now, visitors to the d. m. z museum learned the story of this heavily armed uncontested frontier from its founding at the end of the korean war. through the decades of angry exchanges, driven by propaganda campaigns by both sides as effects of including the production and distribution of leaflets. by the 1000000000, we know that we showcased the process of how the dmc was formed that resulted from this division and the current military standoff between the north and south. the museum also has on display the type of speaker systems that the 2 sides have resumed using at the nearby observatory,

south korea and visitors compare into the notes. the recent resumption of loud speak of propaganda indicates the height and tensions between the 2 careers. but this eastern end of the d, m. z with its coastal road linking north and south, was offered the hope of back to relations even until a few short years ago. this crossing was used for the unions of families separated in the will and for a short lived joint tourism project. villages like this one benefited from the cross border exchanges, but that prosperity has faded as relations have listened. today on the left there were about 10 restaurants backs in, but now there's only one of the villages economy is struggling. and so the effect is from the newest. now working as artists in the south display, some of the work. oh some child was a propaganda painter. for the military producing the kind of fervently packed for

y'all, take paintings used to rally support for the north korean regime then. and now the north korean art search is a powerful tool for the mental in statement of the people. it's used as a way to uphold the regime. back on the d. m. z web propaganda has raised tensions once more. both sides a wait, the next development in that full relationship. rob mcbride out to 0 goes on county, south korea. you can find more on our website, i'll just say we're a dot com use, continue set of to upfront the challenging place to work from. as a journalist, you're always pushing our boundaries we are the ones traveling the

extra mile where all the media goals. we go there and we give them a chance to tell their story as united states is under fire for its continued support of israel's brutal war on gaza. and while it becomes further invest in the cost of the 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 science as john mearsheimer ended upfront. special the nearest time, or thank you so much for joining us on upfront. my pleasure to be here. it's been nearly 20 years since you co author your seminal piece of titled the israel lobby, dealing with the lobbies 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? well, i think there's 2 things have changed. one is i think that we helped to open up

this course about the lobby before we wrote the article and then the book a, not many people talked about the lobby explicitly, lobbies influence on u. s. foreign policy. and i think in terms of the, this course, 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 of, towards israel and towards the greater middle east remains greatly in fluids 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 is at least resistance now. and that resistance does matter. i mean, there is a campaign against the lobby group, a pack, the american israel public affairs committee,

and how they influence us politics. specifically the targeting and progressive democrats, according to one paul, 62 percent of respondents who voted for president biden in 2020. agree that quote, the us should stop weapons shipments to israel until israel discontinues. it's a tax on the people of guides and now president biden 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 biden is 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 is real 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 lobby's 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 bike 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 as really

american relationship, i think will change even more. and maybe policy will change. but that has not happened. so for fair enough, a dis, something memo organized by the us state department staffers, which was leaked back in november early november, a warrant that the us has failure to criticize is really war. crimes quote contributes to regional public perceptions that the united states is a biased and this honest actor, which at best does not advance and at worst harms us interest world wide is the u. s. has continued support for israel affecting it's global standing. there's no question about it. the united states is effectively complicit the genocide that's widely regarded. uh, 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 it's a 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 of 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. 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 israel, 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 so 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 in the lobby, moved in and killed their efforts to accommodate the for rainy ends in any way. and furthermore, if you look at the jcp away, which is the nuclear agreement between basically the united states and a ram that i think affectively shut down. the rainy in nuclear program in the short term uh it was, is real 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's 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 and not doing it blindly there? 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 israel 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 the why, what is the organizing principle behind this special relationship that it's a fascinating argument you're making, but why that, why is you was 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 polls 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 norm as ways to make sure that american foreign policy supports israel unconditionally, and it is wildly successful. truly impressive, how good the lobby is. getting us foreign policy makers to support is real, hook, line, and sinker. you have any optimism that it's, you know, is the invincibility of apax that are, of invincibility breaking down. so 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 the open, and it has to engage what i call smash mouth 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 point. ready one point number 2, that israel's behavior has gotten more outrages over time and a good manifestation at this point is what's happening and god. so today and this situation is not gonna get any better with the past at the time. it's widely recognized. it is real as in 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 real is 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 a 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, the u. s. 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 them with troop levels. and in terms of weaponry, we don't have the weaponry to give them. when you listen to people talk about this 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 number one, we dress the weaponry in balance. and number 2, we can not 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 good. it'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 to somebody, hey, is there a rest there? 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 that 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, dimitri 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 keith, 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 rush of success and taking over the town of, of div 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's interested in conquering other countries in eastern europe as well. the idea that he's trying to recreate the russian empire or create a greater russia is not a serious argument. what. what do we document, 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 is no evidence to support that. he'd be a fool 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 to you before, they would be foolish in the extreme to try to do that. but let's move on because there's, 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 when he making 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 troops and 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, inefficiently than that. i think that's exactly right. the numbers of casualties heard flight. ready and furthermore, poor 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 america and unit polarity, you know, una blurred, in my opinion, ended in 2017 was the rise of china. and the fact that who brought the russians back from the dead,

between the period of 2000 when he took over in 2017, the unipolar 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. there's china, there's russia, and there's the united states. and let me push back on that just a little bit because the u. s. 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 u. s. 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 and in well over 70 countries. right now, can i have a partners really threaten unipolar strength of the united states? well, i was going out to use it. 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 peer 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 well 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. and with regard to russia, one could making arguments that were worked with russia in the past when countries

have attempted to challenge or break 3 of us orthodoxy. they faced the raft of the u. s. government. some countries today are still in during a ferocious array of sanctions. others in the past with victims of resume 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 let me ask you one more question. so if i accept your argument that us, you know, polarity is over, what comes next? so we're 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 that 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 now, the united states may be back to unit polarity in large part because of 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 were 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 doing this, and i'm from 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 a

pod, his aim interviews is israel and obstacles piece. i think that the new thing, the f one is government with the says 5 digit, you say getting russell, a thought provoking. odd, since the e you made weapons of being used in guns. no guns should be used in an offensive way. that's our facing realities you're running. mean what does he bring to the table? hard from the presidential go to some we cannot take the fact that he was signing up, present as not the need for the fact that he had the story on talk to houses in the shop, outside of and t dash $313.00 each of the time i bought it or to get in the

day, but i gotcha. and i get bought a lawn state. they show up on a block on 20 now for mission to find the n e y gosh, who to go to avalon? stay ne, i mean, not expensive gas. good, yeah, because the low quality contact the guy i ever just need a note, but i like i should agree. i a flash that was actually shot. but on the side of the shop guys hiding gosh good. i am going to come and shop those had been gas calling. the mazda was running, my god, the protect you all plugged the dentist clear to our mazda mazda,

and it causes the suit to levels quote, to buy the 19 children more than 50 inches, as is rarely forces boma, not the 3 homes in kansas city. the don kevin johnson, this is al, just aaron, not from the whole set coming you ins. agency for children, described sconces was across this as a senseless manmade stepped probation. don's army says it has repelled the major a soldier in north stuff foot. i mean international meetings for the.