i everyone. i'm amelia stanley. and i'm senior director development here at sixth. and i on behalf of sixth and i and our partner politics and prose. thank you so much being with us tonight and for supporting a nonprofit and an independent bookstore. we also want to thank you for your understanding the need to switch tonight's program to a virtual format and express how much we appreciate you logging on and being here with us. for those who may be new to sixth anni, we are a center for arts entertainment, ideas and jewish life in d.c.. for the past 18 years, our mission has been to inspire more meaningful and fulfilling lives through an unexpected mix of experiences and embrace the multifaceted identities of we serve. it is rare to hear someone who has witnessed and participate in as much history as our guest this evening. dr. henriquez major, in 1938, at

15 years old, he fled nazi germany with his family and five years later was drafted into us army. he would go on to become the national security advisor and then secretary of state under presidents nixon and ford. a recipient of a bronze. the nobel peace prize. the presidential medal of freedom. and the medal of liberty. dr. kissinger joins us this evening. soon after reaching the milestone of turning 99 years old. he recently released his book leadership, six studies in world strategy, which quickly became a new york times bestseller. the book draws on dr. kissinger firsthand experience from knowing each of the six leaders he profiles and his insights from participate in many of the events he describes as a reflection on world statecraft and the indispensability of

leadership today. the book adds to a vast collection of dr. scholarship on foreign policy international affairs and diplomacy. tonight, dr. kissinger will be in conversation with andrea mitchell, nbc news chief, washington correspondent and chief foreign affairs correspondent and the anchor andrea mitchell reports. she joined nbc news 1978 and in the ensuing decades andrea's award winning reporting has covered presidential politics since the carter administration. and consequential news across congress, foreign policy intelligence and national issues. we are to have her with us tonight. we are including link to purchase signed copies, leadership in the chat box. so make sure to check that out. thank you again for joining us. and please help me. welcome dr. henry kissinger and

andrea mitchell into your homes. good evening and thank you so much, amelia and what a privilege it is to be at. and i especially because i have the honor of being with dr. henry kissinger, dr. kissinger, i can't tell you how honored i am. you, the young age of 99, have produced 19th book and leadership studies and world strategy is really a primer on statecraft. so thank you so much for being with us tonight from new york. it's a joy to have a chance to exchange ideas with you, as we have worked quite a long period over to my benefit as both substantively and well, you are eager to meet your models

because it is always to our benefit to hear you and you read your books and i wanted to draw on your insights about leadership to better better understand some of the events of the day right now, even as we gather tonight, president biden had what has been described as a marathon call with china's president xi jinping. today lasting more than 2 hours. in fact, the first call in several months at a time of considerable tension between our two countries, with the prospect, the visit of the speaker of the house and a congressional delegation to the great distress of beijing visit to taiwan. and a warning by the chinese minister ju, our secretary of state, that this should not be taking place. you know china so well having was engineered the dramatic breakthrough of america, the united states to china and written china back in 2011.

so tell me about the importance of this moment and what do you think the possibility of the speaker of the house going to taiwan? it's a moment in which the third person in line for the american president to as indicate did she basically is it time to end the chinese issued if explicit that was even a military component if she carried it out. this is the said situation that the relationship between china and united states is being based on military and particularly at

the moment when we wrote to it in military confrontation with russia and to. manage to be in to military military with two major allies. the two major countries. so simultaneously, it's not a deal diplomacy. it's to be need to reflect on how to do it and so to the situation. to be as put. the carrying out of the risk. they could not call of the visit by senior palestinian official on the basis of the military to

from the chinese side. but we should let the position. of the chinese leader, xi jinping said to president biden today, at least, or this was the statement of the foreign ministry, i should say afterwards those who play with fire will perish by it. that is a very strong statement. summing up their conversation, it's a strong statement and it's the it is carried out between the two most advanced countries in the world. facing weapons to which there's no experience in their use and which inherently difficult, if not impulsive to them.

it at. so i would it to lead it will learn from this experience some of dialog which creates conditions in which this whatever disagreement we have the way that we deal with them on the basis of diplomacy and that visit to it. do you think that president biden has contributed to the current tensions by three times, most recently in may, saying that the u.s. would defend taiwan militarily? which is a departure from 40 years of strategic ambiguity, of arming taiwan, being an ally of taiwan's, but never saying explicitly that we would go war to defend taiwan, that the

united in may up to this and it's always made clear that these but which open to its roots of the taiwan issue it would oppose or reject any space. i i think that the shift to a confrontation of validity with china of those back to the previous the dissolution is the accelerated. but this. i want to make for you the fundamental american national interests which we will defend

if we but you to applaud even against that technology in country of of but the goal of diplomacy should be to create a situation in which it into a towards under each will that be thought but it's a. the. the president's declarations come at a time when xi jinping is approaching the party congress and china facing considerable challenges. there was the covid lockdown policy the economic youth unemployment. how do you see his xi jinping as a leader going into this party? congress. and if fundamental governmental to love of two and in the united

states states we are a democracy. china is jointly autocratic system that operates but different printing. is more importantly the story back to cut. it's different the united united states is by its extend its intelligently through. if you would huge china has a history of whatever is china considered itself that it was it said sort of to send to both asia without views to to hear

the two countries with different it is controlled it the on the basis of the very experience in a entirely new to it will do that and how to manage disagreement the to split without threatening will do with world peace. it will be judged to challenge over a period no no to president to its up for it kind of reelect its its party congress to both of domestic situation in which

they have to explain the actions to follow followers of the it should deputies to the other side. it's. very dangerous and very complex situation. now course china has sided with ukraine with russia over ukraine and have that extraordinary meeting with vladimir putin back in february where they signed their agreement. so at this stage, can china manage to avoid violating sanctions, as it apparently has so far, and still support russia? is this is it no longer even possible to drive a wedge between china and russia?

but most fundamental disputes, i believe the russian, the ukraine, which also will need to find the diplomatic solution. and and will find it diplomatic to move it measured and so. china and russia equals a decision that accelerated crises. the decision in february, it could have made. a degree of confidence. it was not worried by the existing balance apologies that didn't what was intended. as progress into a war that.

it's no but it said it could to do and do it. so i believe believe that it's it for the leaders need to think. good to go to the interests and their values and find a way that which they could coexist without big into catastrophe. i don't think in the discussion book did over its place to go to detail and i don't pretend that i know every detail of what is

it very complex situation in which basically supported what the administration committed to do in ukraine both that different view on how to protect china. but. you have met vladimir putin many times, 15 times. i think so. you know him as well as anyone does as any westerner does a what qualities made him so successful in cementing power and his control and. i. i have met putin edges out and but one to give 15 or two years to review the situation.

with it. and he knew i would report what he said and i. first discussed what i would say to it without government before with did so it was the private. of my view putin is that he is a. special kind of patriotic tourist with a should of view of domestic quality of the help the country to live in time to it it large number of enemies around its it has to kill the disease

hope to pressures of its the history and. therefore of the other hand. it's also part of the russian tradition that wanted to be linked to it. somebody and to that people. it. but the immediate issues he considered the collapse of the soviet in the in in europe. it's a historic disaster period and he considered ukraine it should of the anchor of been the world and for that and the all east of it became open to actually of the surrounding

countries. he considered it until from his food. it's closer to the ukraine to the two countries who joined a military allied that he considered host and but up to the region created. i thought he was a regional health related and the idea that he would attack. ukraine that over its territorial issue but over. then began to set the nature of the. system and of the do as i and so

he started a country of a little bit i would not sort of passively or lightly notice that none of the dunder-mifflin incumbent you could it would it would have indicated that i was of the view that it was a mistake to try to build ukraine into day two. but it was also the independence of to create what it could the structure of europe and therefore agree with them. but to support it with military, it's just. like the taiwan issue. it should have got to that it is

could be debated but with no excuse for putin do attack on the scale. it and move itself to the diplomatic field to move it to it. was it very confrontation with. you in davos that ideally? well, first you said that negotiations should really ideally begin in the next two months. and this was back in may before he creates appeals, tensions that will not be easily overcome. you may have reached that point now with the way this war is grinding on and how dug in they are. he went on to say, ideally, the dividing line should be returned to the status quo ante, pursuing war beyond that would not be about the freedom of ukraine, but a new war against russia.

so you were saying negotiations to go back to the the territory that was held before on february 24th, before the or possibly well, the present situation is that that russia is. about 2050 of ukrainian territories. that is. and that. 20% of the territory beyond the that it will instead. so then there are some territory beyond that that was acquired by russia to seem to meet most effective cease fire. that would be for for russia to

withdraw to where they would. to to vote. is it to men what treatment it is and it continue to make it somewhere along the line when the develops a punitive should be will be put to the but my personal remain to one have made it which to be to ceasefire that because to to oblige 20% of the ukrainian territory in the period in so. this period of but may do it united and united states supported ukraine that this would be viewed its strategic

fit that for the future which of the other end if goods we should remember that russia had to reduce of it did it it but because it's defeat of russian attack which convinced of what was which exterminated. but you could take hope europe those two is in a way dissipated because it showed that even the fairly european country with nato's could prevent a russian victory. but it's satisfactory settlement would require the russia of that territory to do to cut to

integration. does regain does ukraine have to regain some of the territory it has recently lost you know in the donbas in the black sea regions before it can really hope to try to negotiate getting back to where they started but it's hard to comment on the diplomacy that has studied yet and it's conceivable to me it's important to an opportunity for maybe somebody achieved by and that will then have to be touched indicative to that. it is due to american agent. i would propose because the deliveries sent a neutral nation based on this said that food need to do that stage which i

think should be avoided. how do you assess president zelensky's leadership qualities. to. extraordinary phenomenon? a active who became president from the background expect ukrainians see this the president who in a lot of crises relative society and it spoke that it's accepted it's a it's a way to take think it's extraordinary for a and to face very tough did the transition to

peace because to find this outcome it really to support if these military conditions it's going to be very complex but has brought it's displayed a unique role it may be interpreted to how how do you assess europe's ability to nato's ability to stand solidly behind ukraine as the winter approaches as fuel costs continue to rise and with their own internal, you know, issues, the chaos, you've got a new leader in germany got macron losing his parliamentary majority my majority just had to know that government collapsed in italy it's really challenging time for europe and course

there's the uk. it's a challenge situation with goods of what is happening on the is it's in a way different from the hopes that people may had. we are facing situation now in the world in which there. crises some optimism in many but based on different story a period and so to find a general to move is what i hope one point difficult, beautiful, existential transition period and it's. you write in your book that

without leadership institutions adrift and nations growing irrelevance and ultimately disaster in some ways is that applied to the united states, britain, the it's important make it is that every society in the kind of transition from the past which notes to the future which it not it's not yet and this detachment of leaders is to help it people in the direction that will enable them to fulfill the potentialities. that the united states is moment to challenge these people

because in order to make this but as to if faith in society and in what and the society is extremely divided and did different views about future and indeed about the good of future of its then much of the energy. it's too of the attitude continued didn't conflict with of the but it's with each other instead of reconciliation that would give impetus to to it to a better future and a future to put that did what is needed to do that today. i want to ask you about richard

nixon, one of the six leaders you profiled. his leadership on a lot of domestic policies that are often overlooked, the environmental protection, law enforcement assistance, a lot of domestic issues. i was covering then as a local reporter. but on foreign policy the extraordinary leadership on the middle east laying the groundwork for middle east talks and course china. is there any way you can you can understand the failure of resignation and the events that to his resignation with all of those leadership qualities that you were part of? so so closely that you witnessed amidst name of the leader you referred to? i was in speaking of richard nixon, understanding how how you

can reconcile some of his domestic and foreign policy successes, extraordinary successes on foreign policy with you were so much a part of with the of the read of his resignation. nixon. footage to a degree if you commit admit to american graduates but he had an element that in security that made him make it to the actions which he thought would protect you but which in practice is the role and to it was it was a tragedy and i can say this because it's an example of how to i had never

been here put security but which is the foot most important job i think i'd never met the country i had been a close personal friend and close collaborator with nelson to approach this issue in to president of and it's evident it's some of the that is and when i rockefeller at that i. i did not accept it right which was extremely strong because when the president of united

states of interests is to live with a pretty to try to help but it i told nick i need to talk directly to and rather than dismiss me to you he said you could which i did i to see and read your pellucid as it occurred you that richard is taking a much bigger tread on you that you the and that was wonderful advice to that much help to go goods him except the

which is and so so what i learned above doing i learned through experience with it and i was it is to build trust all the great courage that i see building with that and in the context for but it's almost unique directive that it's until chapter i describe i said weaknesses and all to be at it but at the the empty interest the country and the. do you how do you compare his

resignation with what we are now learning about president trump and what he did before and after january six? that we don't know everything yet but the current investigation investigation. of i don't really to get too much into personalities but it's important to remember that is still watergate credit which is love to to it he never. did with many of them which people that the administration would made heroes of themselves but they made it david preventing him from doing this i never saw that light it's it's

evil except it just didn't it it. suffered greatly it itself and also from makes it that he had made that he through in world vision so it would seem to be known that the watergate bridge. and in fact back in 1960 on january. sixth 1961 he didn't challenge the john f kennedy election, stood as vice president and certify to the electoral count. without objection, he would so such an act would divide the country in a way that was that compared to this this is without getting into the personality of

donald trump. yes. how do you view this whole question of not accepting the decision of the voters and perpetuating. claim that they should not before a congressional? and i think the american process really with it and to. to and before it they will give this man do what would have happened it hasn't biden recently faced a lot of criticism for going to saudi arabia and meeting with the crown prince mohammed bin salman after saying that saudi arabia during the campaign, he said that saudi arabia should be a pariah. it was, i think, a classic this trip between american and values

even. well, what do you guys there is in the immediate in the nature of approach of the act of saudi crown prince was morally wrong deeply. to tell lent to the american president it's what relationship it needs to conduct in the basic interests to the united states. and both can achieve and in fact we occasional situation it's during the period would in office that you would dealing with somebody who doesn't actually you would recommended but on the other hand the

interest of the united would seem to be just to to the president as to navigate is you should therefore careful what should makes which complicated look may turn out to be the overriding. there's interest but i hope sympathy for say saudi arabia is a country to be and to appreciate that at least day of i will do things that i would not do as a private citizen. if we have that. but the balance between values

and interests so which it is in the in part the fact that. and interests to some extent to. that it's so that fell into one of the challenges of statesmanship. and i thought that the leaders discussed it put the phone. it good balance between created that it but so good but if it. right now the president is made

a decision the last 24 hours that they have to announced to try to do a prisoner swap for the celebrated basketball player. brittney griner, writer for an businessman, paul wieland, both being. wrongfully in russia and trade someone that the kremlin wants back very much. picture boots this, arms dealer and the white house acknowledge that the risk here is that russia and other countries will take more americans as hostages for chips would what kind of decision is that to agree to a prisoner by the president. it's one of those decisions we just covered in print. you don't want to. it is established situation in

which you encourage hostage to it me to the contract it concessions you would not otherwise make and this but in the in which i would in of this the. stated it to print it we negotiate about it. i don't remember event but, but i wouldn't be surprised if when the actual picture you mean that if way to humanity and feelings of if it puts out preemptively it shouldn't be but but.

i would not not the new faced the attitude situation when it could bad but it changed pretty bad it it it should in principle that and in print be one to take. we do not engage the hostage negotiations, but i don't know. and it it did but do it at some. by the it's substituted humanitarian values for the. but but it should be it should

not be put principle it should be. an enrichment of individual pages without it should extend and if each case is different, each countries and there's health considerations the like. i know a lot of our participants to ask questions so we've collected questions from people in our zoom tonight guillaume in dc is asking what possible scenarios do you foresee that could unfold the coming weeks for the in ukraine? and can we reasonably expect a negotiated solution if you at the situation in ukraine now it a three of outcome opposite to me this one is in a through the

advance of or at least in to a good stalemate. the other is. the ukrainian victory. and. the it is as you said, it's stalemate. but each of them have their own complexities to go to days of stalemate. you make the settlement of the bid to the stalemate. it's on one level is if. they do it that the argument you make it. if the ukrainian win instead of it defeated it and if the if ukraine ukraine consists of the

war until it's regained that had previously be closed before the outbreak then due to open to approach of escalate should directly say. but it's so too many trust though it is. but in my view within the next six months you should going to crystallize to it one or the other. and what i would provoke is that the government and bequeathed the very large. we come to seven decisions of would considered is for defeats at two of europe and that we end up through good decisions

somebody be who to whatever their legitimate leadership of option but of what did this american and democratic would be. because we have a mark in new jersey how do you view the change leadership qualities of khrushchev and brezhnev as compared to vladimir and would your diplomacy with putin and these populist in today's world. compare president van putin it's a big bush yeah but the question how would you compare the leaders you had to deal with the soviet leaders of khrushchev, brezhnev and treated they had to deal with the president of

society. did one word to and so and about which it was believed that there strong but did they actually do that could be but towards the end of period if in the period i did to elements of the the sentences of that that they were only and therefore. they were in the end so long as america remains very strong they were like to take finally this. the way putin with the putin

state ability but it move that he should have understood what really to get so the putin which were recruits that. the prisoners to the would go to they tried to we with prisoners whenever made it clear that through the soviet treasures would be to actual american boots people that. we have who is a grad student graduate in dc want to know what are some of the skills and

experiences a leaders should have to prepare for a future with a very heavy chinese presence in the international landscape. but it. isn't a huge challenge. i would say, to develop the country. the skills that to coach the historically it's not fully applicable to devoted to to the current situation technology. it's still complete and technology to develop be out matic capabilities that to understand the impact of these becomes much more difficult

there of education system does that history to diversity to any the extent that used to be it but if you don't have this what are you going to get straight to it to the it's a danger to open it to it's intimidating. and be. of creating it and this is big challenge for those regardless of it beyond but. we've got to keep it from on in berkeley. do you have any for an undergraduate student interested

in a career in leadership and. you know, somebody has take this out prepared to intuited said study. study history study history. no it's that that history is that shows you a comparable situation that our leaders should that's why i wrote this. to see what one could learn through such said flight of correctly. we have a question from andrew in bethesda based on your historic in latin america and u.s. latin american relations what prospects do you for u.s. leadership on democracy and human rights in the current

state of the region and specific in regard to brazil and chile? that's a lot, but what do you see as the prospects for u.s. role? the president just had a summit for the democracy in los angeles recently and there was controversy because of the divisions in latin and the attitudes towards the u.s. and it that in american countries it might it undergo more dramatic shift than any other part of the. and one reason for that is that they are interrelated from the power politics. so this would to the to pay it.

to their domestic politics to different support through the european and to both. or to what tell your listeners that the those of the study did with the to is it did european american nation but the so they have the same problem that everybody a of a domestic structure in which people believe but the experiences to different that they feel they could do to the to use your own

would so what they would did to the of. three shifts is a question a about how has changed in these recent decades. is diplomacy more dated these days? do state leaders to study more about economics, trade tariffs in cyber security compared when you were practicing diplomacy as secretary state? you know, when i was secretary of state. i thought life was tough. i didn't think it was effective. but i had one that was one big difference, which is that the approach positive, which is noted with democratic, but never

to deliver it. leaders to go and to assure that it was and they wouldn't do it. but we had it between the party. its degree of collaboration. it is is got and in the meantime or to be educational value to become lower both focused on fact that it let's put that out of to be to fix it prove that but to i have great faith.

countries that i. video if we will put the true so the dispute because we are the key to the evolution of those who attacked. i that's a wonderful optimistic note to end our conversation on but i think everyone who's participating tonight can continue by reading leadership the six studies in world strategy and learn a lot more about the wisdom of henry kissinger at the young age of 99. we look to what you're going to do next, dr. kissinger said very much that the way it's skewed

conducted is that it was indeed my pleasure and i know all of the people participating really value your wisdom and your experience. thank you all so very much. and i think amelia has us to thank everyone and say good night. yes, you so much to dr. henry and andrea mitchell for being with us and to everyone who's

welcome to politics prose. i'm brad graham, the co-owner of the bookstore along with my wife lissa muscatine and we're very delighted this evening to be hosting nicole hemmer who's here to talk her new book, the partizans the conservative revolutionaries who remade american politics. nicole's a political historian and founding director of the new center for the study of the presidency at vanderbilt university. she's also a co-founder of made by history, the historical analysis section in the washington post. and she writes regularly for number of other