a big noise in the sort of a couple days. it is hugely important, so not only the visitors, but also those of us who live here lu, sale stadium, where the world cup file is going to be held in a way me hello, i'm emily and grinning doha. these are the top stories on which is era. ukraine says the price comp on russian oil should be low, it to $50.00 per barrel to heat its economy hotter. on friday, g 7 nations, stria, and e, you agreed on a $60.00 a barrel limit. russia says the movie is dangerous and will not cope demand. mohammed valve has moved from moscow. russia doesn't seem to be deterred. and also it doesn't seem to be shocked or surprised by this decision. and that's

understandable from the reaction, the level of reaction so far. we are used to at least 3 types of statements coming from the midst of defense, the kremlin, and the minister of foreign affairs. but so far we don't have any of those reactions. the daily speech is about whatever is going. we have only this statement from the russian embassy in washington in which, as you mentioned, the move by the g 7 countries and the countries with regards to the price comp on, on russian oil is a dangerous attempt. israeli forces have shot at a 22 year old palestinian men at close range in the occupied west bank. 159. palestinian had been killed in the area since the start of the year for the bride is in occupied easter. listen, there still seems to be some dispute about her, the exact course of events leading up to the shooting itself according to people in

the town of hawaii. it began with an altercation of between the man he's been identified as 22 year old. i'm on miss lee and an off duty officer, according to a police statement. they say that to miss les tried to break into a car that had to is raised inside one of them being off duty soldier who had a hand gun. he fired at miss les at the man, then ran across a producing a knife and attacking a border patrol a boarder force officer. south korean truck drivers are continuing to strike despite a government order to return to work. hundreds, march through the capital, sol, demanding high wages. the action has disrupted supply chains across the country with fees or fuel shortage in the coming days in his him as more from so good. so you'll see behind me thousands of our members of various unions making a march after gathering in front of the national assembly building. here in sol organizers said there are thousands more in the port city of pu time. all

galvanizing their support for the truckers union which extends its right for a 10th day to day. they are calling for a permanent extension of the minimum pay system which is set to expire at the end of this year. and they wanted to apply to more truckers as well as currently it only applies to those who transfer a container is an cement chinese authorities have announced or further easing of coven 19 restrictions. some testing periods in badging have even closed. the capital no longer requires negative test results to enter public places. the u. s. has unveiled its 1st nuclear cell the bomber and more than 30 years. the be $21.00 writer is designed to replace the aging b one lancer and b to spirit aircraft. secretary of defense lloyd austin says it's crucial for defending the nation. no other. what long range bomber can match

it's efficiency. it won't need to be based in theater. it won't need logistical support to hold any target at risk. was talk about the big breach what he wants still 50 years of advances when low observable technology have gone into this year. and even the most sophisticated, your defense systems will struggle to detect the b 21 in the sky. and south africa is president says he will legally challenge a report that suggested he may have violated his oath of office. so run the poser was investigated after filing to report the theft of millions of dollars in cash from his farm in 2020. all right, those are the headlines. i'm emily anglin. the niece continues here on al jazeera after the bottom line to stay with us.

ah hi, i'm steve clements and i have a question. is the world looking for a whole new order with less america in it? let's get to the bottom line. ah, very soon we're going to be looking at the ukraine war in terms of years and not months, despite losses here and there on the battlefield. the way russia sees it. this is a vital war and it doesn't matter how long at last, the alternative to moscow is much worse. that would be living under the thumb of nato and the united states. and under their rules, chinese power is bursting at the seams as beijing attempts to widen its sphere of influence globally. when u. s. present, joe biden and chinese presents each in pink met last month. they said they were looking for ways to co exist, despite their many disagreements, so tensions while they're diminished. for now. but are we witnessing a major shift toward a new world order?

one that's not fully dominated by the united states? and what would that look like? today we're talking with one of america's leading foreign policy thinkers and writers. richard hosp, president of the council on foreign relations, and the former official at the white house, the state department, and the pentagon. richard, it's always an honor to talk to you, but i just wanna get some straight talk from one of the smartest people in world affairs. i know are we at the end of one chapter of american engagement in the world and the beginning of another chapter? what are your thoughts? short answers. yes. in par for reasons that are not directly about america, but simply about the world. there's 2 things that are going on that delineate this moment. steve. one is the re emergence of intense, great power rivalry. many thought that had been put to bed with the end of the cold war. now the united states science itself, dealing with russia, with china, and with 2 hostile, medium powers, north korea, and iran. and then secondly,

we live in an age that before the centuries out, could ultimately come to be defined by these global challenges. we're just at the, hopefully the tail end of infectious disease and that by climate change, obviously it is happening. and it's going to happen with ever greater effects as this century unfolds. and then thirdly, there are things that are about us. we changed fundamentally, ways as a country, as a society. there's no longer a consensus about american foreign policy. indeed. does that a consensus about anything really any more in the united states for far more divided than we ever were? certainly in modern times. so what i think defines the 0, there's this combination of these 2 global changes, geopolitical and global challenges, and then all against the backdrop of the united states and at the risk of sounding boastful. we're not just any other country. we've played an outside role in the

world. i would like to think for better others. they disagree. but i would say for better. but in any case, we played an outside role and outside role for 3 quarters of the century. and i'm not sure we're prepared to do it with the scale or consistency that we've done it now for 75 years. you know, i was recently at a veteran's day parade in a, in a small town and american for our global viewer is veterans days. a big deal here. you often have that ins who fought in wars in america's wars in the past. and i was looking at those veterans from the korean war for world war 2. and they're not going to be many of them around they're not many around anymore. and it just, when you talk about america being that sculptor of the world and being deeply engaged and there being a sense that our being involved not only helped others, but it help the united states as well. are we going through a generational phase where there's now no, you know, just not much memory of the benefits of being globally engaged in is that's what

going on that younger generations. just don't understand how vile it is to be engaged in global affairs. to some extent, that's true. i mean think about it, even though something like the war and ukraine is a long ways away. it doesn't affect the daily lives of americans. in some ways, you know, blessings to affect us in the way of foreign policy directly was 911. that's more than 2 decades ago now. and the wars in places like afghanistan and iraq, as costly as they were, were fought by an all volunteer force. so large elements of this society didn't necessarily feel indirectly. and throughout all of this domestic life went on pretty much unchanged. i also add to this, steve, is the reality that we don't teach these issues in schools. you can graduate from the harvard or yale or stanford and essentially be, i'll use a harsh word, you're illiterate,

uninformed about much of what goes on in the world. our news media doesn't cover it nearly as thoroughly as it did when you and i were growing up back in the dark ages . and you had all the saw. and i think you have an american citizen rate, which is less aware of what is going on in the world and less understanding of the, to a connections between how the world affects just in how we insure the world. you've been at the helm of the accounts on foreign relations for 20 years, and perhaps this is an unfair question. but you know, nearly everybody that matters in foreign affairs, not only in the latest generation, but previous ones. and i guess one of the things i've been wondering is, do we have richard holbrooke around? do we have dean after since around do we have, you know, kissinger's and others, you know, that were folks that you knew well and seem to be aware that the institutional global contract that america was making through engagement in the world that we had people that could sculpt that, and i'm just interested in

a candid assessment on whether that kind of crowd still exists, not only in the bite administration, but just generally in the foreign affairs world. modify your question a little bit. people can reach this journey, not just in there. you know, once every 50 years, launch century kind of individuals quite, quite extraordinary. george marshall might be another one. i think what it's now the less that we, we don't have remarkable individuals, recent perfectly capable individuals, either in government or who could come into government. i'm not sure though, that the best people are attracted as much to government as they used to be. we've denigrated public service. i also think you can, it can be more difficult to mobilize, the american people circle back to the conversation we were just having. i think earlier, people like the atchison's or the kissinger's, they didn't have to rally the american people quite as much around the proposition that the world matters. i think now you've got

a much stronger sense that whatever it is we do in the war comes at the expense of what we ought to be doing here at home. i don't think, i don't think a lot of people. busy into it that national security is really a 2 sided coin with things international and things domestic. so i think the challenge of leading has become more difficult and i think that goes beyond the character traits or the challenge of this or that individual. you know, we're now seeing after the mid term elections, the united states, things are rubbing up for the 2020 for presidential election. we know president trump has thrown his hat back in the ring. there are a lot of other republicans that look like they're going to potentially challenge him for that. but i think the big question is, is whether or not your gut feeling tells you that one of the lit mis tests is going to be whether isolationism is on the ticket again. and i don't, i'm try not to be crude about the word isolation and it's very hard for the united states to withdraw from all the trappings of engagement. but there is a kind of drift where you stop caring about the world as much and you start making

decisions. well, we've got to help something on our locality as opposed to key of because of trade off there. and i'm just interested in whether or not you fear a creeping isolationism in american politics. well, i see, and i see them both parties are you see it with the progressives on the left. you see it with us. the extreme right of the, of the republican party. it's not clear to me though that in either party, people of that philosophy or orientation or hold the preponderance of power. so it's quite possible in 2024. we're going to have people who are more representative of the modern more it's part of the spectrum, representing more continuity and change. look, i can't say doubt with a 100 percent confidence. one of the lessons i've learned of the over the last few years. i can't say anything with a 100 percent confidence anymore, but i wouldn't assume any time soon that the neo isolationists are people who have

what you might call a narrower, pinched view of america's relationship with the world. i don't think they're yet not there yet. dominant in our politics. you know, one of the big questions going on right now is the ukraine war am. and obviously i've read your use and ukraine also read them on afghanistan in which, you know, the hope in washington d. c. anyway, was it afghan forces would be resilient and would hold longer, turned out not to be the case. the general assessment of presidents alliance given in ukraine as it would fall fast. and i guess part of this is, you know, whether or not we're reading that the terrain quickly and, and how for our viewers, what is ukraine mean for the united states in for western powers right now, is this a defining challenge, or is it something that can you know that we could walk away from i don't see us walking away from it. i do think it's defining. i think it's been the defining foreign policy challenge of the by present g. i would add that i think the

president by that his team met it quite well. most of what they've done, i think deserves flawed. it deserves applause. and i don't see us walking away from it. there's a majority in both parties that will support this, the standing up too late, and russian aggression and brutality. that's possible down the road there can and will be some differences over the scale of american health or over this or that piece proposal. but the lion's share of all those americans who are focused on this war, i think, are very much behind the direction of this president, which is an alliance 1st leaning forward approach that wasn't the case of dennis than i would just say there wasn't so supportive of what we did, and i would say, i actually think we might have been more resilient by the united states. been willing to stay even a relatively small numbers. the president decided otherwise we left. but i think

for your viewers it's, it's wrong to read into afghanistan a somehow a model or template for all american foreign policy. this president and several people around them had very strong views that f dennis, there was not a place for the united states to continue investing. but i think he's made it clear that he is willing to invest in ukraine. and he is willing to invest in taiwan and pushing back against china. richard, you once had a job that i've told people, would be my favorite job in government if it were to be offered. it never has been folks, which is the policy planning director at the state department, which, you know, the, you know, very well known. george kennan once held, he, you wrote famous article on what mr. x would do under the name mister x, about soviet containment. you wrote very bo, with papers bold ideas from, from that seat. and i'm just sort of interested that if you were to kind of take

your accounts on foreign relations, have off go back into thinking in big ways, state department memos, et cetera. what would be some of the ideas that you think would be worth considering about kind of keeping america in the game or some of the tradeoffs perhaps with china. i'm interested in that kind of mr. x article today is applied to today, and what ought to be on the radar screens of people who do care about, you know, the stability and course of american engagement in the world. with russia and china, we can't do whatever it is we want to do unilaterally. so i would have an alliance 1st approach. it would deal with diplomacy with deal with military contingency planning. also, economic contingency planning. i think we need to put into place potential sanctions against china. not that i want to trigger them, but i want china to know that any use of force against taiwan would be extraordinarily costly for it. i think we need to build coalition to what i would

call steve the light minded. we're never going to deal with global problems effectively if we think of multilateralism as resembling the un general assembly. we just had the 27th failure of global attempts to deal with with climate change. it's not going to change with the 28th or 29th or 30th. what we need to do is get smaller groupings of countries that are prepared to work together, perhaps with companies, perhaps with other organizations to, to deal with these global challenges. i would also spend more time speaking to americans, going back to our conversation about why the world matters. why what it is we spend an invest in the world is not a form of philanthropy, but it's a form of self interest. i think we have to draw those connections. so there's lots, i would do, i say one other thing. i would also introduce a degree of modesty. i don't think the purpose of american foreign policy can or should be to transform the world. don't get me wrong. i would love to see more

people around the world in russia, in china, in north korea, in iran, living in democracy. maybe they will get there. but if they get there, they're going to get there largely on through their own devices, on their own feet. it's not going to be because the united states, as a foreign policy or promoting democratic transformations using force as we did in iraq and afghanistan. so i think we need to have a degree of modesty. the principal focus of our foreign policy should be on the foreign policies of others. that's where i think we can have the greatest the back . we can stand up and should stand up for greater freedom in places like around. we should help those people where and how we can with what tools are, are relevant. but again, the 1st order of american foreign policy needs to be, to shape the external behavior of other countries around the world. how do you do? you just mentioned iran, but also china, and right now we see in china, you know, considering so we almost see no domestic upheaval, but significant protests against the government over coven policy. we've see

protest calling for an end to one party rule. it's hard to scale whether these are large or small, they're just different than what we've seen. and we see, i see a lot of american commentators saying, hey, with be with the protesters. you know, they want to be like america, and i'm like, wait i, i don't see it that way. i'd just be interested in what council you have when you see protests in a place like china. and you're sitting in washington, d. c is a policymaker where what are the limits of our enthusiasms or involvement in that kind of domestic situation inside china? i think we have to observe the hippocratic principle at 1st doing no har. these protests did not begin because of american foreign policy. they, they initiated because of fail chinese cobra policy because of the slowing chinese economy. cause of large scale unemployment. it's a long list and

a leadership in china that a show consolidated power. can't blame anybody else. why don't think we ought to give them targets to blame? we're not going to be able to fund the mentally all to the course. so there are largely oper restraint where we can get information and information is shut down. that would be helpful. i think we need to speak about our respect, the defense of the human rights, but ultimately the chinese are going to have to shape their own future. and we've also got to deal with them on other issues. we've got to deal with china on ukraine, on north korea and so forth. so we have to understand that we still have the obligation to conduct foreign policy, even against this backdrop. do you think that president financing pings, meeting and bali on the, on the edge of the recent meeting with a constructive one, it seemed to me that tensions diminished a bit. i think so. i think both sides had a certain stake in that the chinese, in particular, are they needed to lower the temperature. i think they were quite taken aback by

how robust the american response was with its partners in europe to, to ukraine and to russia. i think they're, they've noticed some of the new alignments. we have in the endo, again, that the base they took, the teacher noticed they're the new export controls we. we've introduced, i think the chinese wanted to calm things out. and i think the fact that we re introduced a degree of the pharmacy we've institutionalized. some meetings, i think is healthy. i'm realistic in my expectations. this isn't, we're not talking breakthroughs. we're not talking a new euro, but sometimes it's foreign policy. you content yourself. not so much with what you can achieve with what you can avoid. and i think the priority has to be to avoid direct chinese help of russia and ukraine and even more to avoid a war we're trying to overtime. you want to tell our audience, richard hoss has authored many, many books,

and i think i read every word of all of those books, you know, along the way. and they're really like conversations with people. they're not weighty in a sense that you lose your folks. you're having a conversation about the importance of foreign policy and i think one of the themes which we were getting out a little bit in our earlier discussion. but it was also part of the national security strategy that was issued by the biden white house. was that you know, the inside of america, what's going on here? the economic health of the country, the way a certain group of people are feeling demeaned by circumstances matter is because it makes it very hard to be engaged in affairs that are outside. and i'm just interested in your insights, you know, both running the council on foreign relations, but in your book tours, what resonates with americans that may not already be inclined to be globally engaged. what are the kinds of things you think that we all should be looking at in terms of, you know, changing that equation for many people who, who, who look at this is irrelevant to their lives. i think you have to connect the dots

. people in america like that they have lives, they have families, and i think there is a preference. so far. policy is something that others handle americans get most interested in foreign policy. unfortunately, when we're or what americans are paying a price, human price for that war or economic price for that war. but i think there's many other issues they would understand. they supported the cold war even though remain called. i think there, there's obviously support to deal with terrorism abroad. i think we've got to do a better job of making the argument for, for confronting climate change. i don't think the administration did, for example, a very good job of showing the importance of vaccinating much of the world against cobit 19 again, not sure because it was a good or right thing to do for them, but also because it was a smart thing to do for ourselves again, i come back to this idea that you've got to constantly connect and not assume that

people see the payoff. she how, what happens over there doesn't stay there one way or another. it will get on the highway of globalization and come here and affect us, and i wouldn't assume that people see those connections. one other thing we should constantly point out is the cost of doing this is not prohibitive. what we now spend on defense as large as a dish is what roughly half the level as a percentage of our gross domestic product that we spent during the cold war. and during the cold war, we showed we could succeed foreign policy and succeed at nation building here at home. and i think we have to be prepared to make the same argument today. thank you interest real quick. finally, richard, i'm interested in the middle east as well. and one of the measures of whether america is perceived to be strong or weak is not by looking just at the rivals, but also looking at the allies. and there was a saudi opec decision, essentially to cut production. and if you go to the middle east today and ask people,

honestly they see russia is more ascended than the united states. what do we have to do to turn that around? well, good luck and turning to russia, if iran gets even close to the nuclear weapons, good luck and turning to russia. if you want to see peace broke and elsewhere in the middle east, russia has its hands full with this war of choice. it started in ukraine, its own society is turning against its government. it's in many ways a failed state, with oil and with missiles. i don't think russia holds out much of a path to hope for the middle east. again, i'm not saying we're perfect, but i still think the united states is in a unique position. the offer security and economic development, as well as the hope a greater political opportunity to the countries in peoples of the middle east. i don't think russia's a serious alternative. i also for that matter, don't think china serious alternative it to has its hansel with its own domestic inbox. one last quick one,

what would you say looking back in hindsight may have been america's biggest mistake that it made that had it taken a different course, a with russian nato or something of that sort. we might not be in the situation we are today. i'm not sure anyone can answer that. we competence. we don't know how much of this was not reactor. what was simply mister putin waking up and assessing this was something he could accomplish. a minimal cause given the way he viewed the united states europe. ukraine give it his assessment of his own military. so we can argue as much as anybody wants that we could have handled nato enlargement differently. but actually think this is a war of choice invented by platinum here, based on his own rational, but in the end, flawed assessments. so i'm not sure this war could have been avoided. well, we will have to leave it there. richard hoss president of the council on foreign relations, author of many books on foreign affairs that you should all read. thank you so much for being with us today. my pleasure sleep. so what's the bottom line?

my guest to day is worried about how domestic politics can undo americas global standing. it's become a lot harder for us to have a strategic vision for the world because of extreme polarization. one party comes in and reverse is almost everything the other party just did. and countries just aren't sure how to deal with that kind of washington. on top of that, half of the american people are asking why their country is engage in the world, the 1st place when they'd rather be focusing on problems at home than abroad. so politicians continue to win votes by exploiting threats whether real or imagined and push policies that can harm america's interest. ambassador hoss worries that u. s. foreign policy can be torn down from within an he is right. and that's the bottom line. ah, we understand the different americans have culture across the world. so no matter

how you take it out you 0. we're bringing the news and current to fast cut meta to count his ear. oh, a . there was a time to be direct there basically on the verge of legalizing racial, jerry battery to cut through the rhetoric. this isn't a universal death already crisis. the seems to be one of particular populations to dismantle the sound bites. there are lots and lots of women who are white agenda,

a kind of anti feminist agenda, and demand the truth, those of thousands of ashes, we have to really recognize what were offered you. we are determining what is the future of democracy in this country. join me markham on hill for up for on al jazeera lou. ah, hello, i'm emily anglin, in auto headquarters. these, the top stories on al jazeera ukraine says the price cap on russian oil should be lowered to $30.00 per barrel to hit its economy harder. on friday, g 7 nations, australia, and b, e u agreed on a $60.00 at barrow price cap. russia says the move is dangerous and will not curb to mont. israeli forces have shot dated 22 year old palestinian man at close range in the occupied west.