washington journal continues.

>> welcome back. here to discuss some of the foreign policy changes facing the country in the incoming administration, we are joined by the executive director of the mccain institute at arizona state university. good morning.

as well as the foreign policy vice president at stans together. good morning. first of all, can you talk about the background of your group, we were affiliated with and how you view funding? >> pra philanthropic organization that also works towards policy advocacy and change. we were originally founded by businessman charles koch, although we know benefit from a community of donors who share certain principles to advancing a better america. one of the dimensions of our work focuses on foreign policy were i had been fortunate to meet foreign policy, trade and veterans affairs, not just at the va. host: and do you have any affiliation with the income demonstration? guest: we are technically nonpartisan but i acknowledge a

certain valence that some people might suppose. host: and can you talk a little bit about the mccain institute and some more information about that? guest: the mccain institute was founded by the mccain family and friends in cooperation with arizona state university but we are here in washington, d.c., we operate independently. we are a nonpartisan nonprofit focus on democracy, human rights and leadership, and it's really with the spirit of john mccain advancing internationalist foreign policy and again, in order to strengthen democracy here and around the world. host: i want to talk about a piece you recently co-authored in foreign affairs. trump must not betray america first, the case for a foreign policy that issues privacy and embraces restraint. can you talk about how you expect president-elect trump's foreign policy to differ from that of president biden, and what you think they should be doing differently? guest: i think that most

observers of american foreign policy would agree that president trump has rather blithely parted ways with a lot of the orthodoxies in washington and america's role in the world. this dates back to 2016 where he was slaughtering sacred cows on the way to the white house talking about the obsolescence of nato to the potential for nuclear breakout in states and the indo pacific and kind of just questioning. i think we some more of this on the campaign trail in 2024 and we heard more of this from running mate jd vance. jd vance obviously parted ways with the republican caucus in a number of important ways on u.s. foreign policy, not least of all with respect to ukraine. i think that some of those statements and commitments made by trump and vance helped propel their candidacy, especially in

contrast to the harris-walz campaign, which embraced a lot of the orthodoxies assumed by president biden with respect to ukraine or kind of campaigning with liz cheney, things like that. so there was a studied contrast between both campaigns, and i think that trump and vance benefited from breaking. host: can you be specific about what you mean by the orthodoxy. guest: i think orthodoxies assume a sort of almost indefinite assurance of nato. not that i think trump and vance are talking about stepping away from the alliance, but asking more of our european allies and partners to reserve their commitments. i do think that trump talking about ending the war in ukraine presents a sort of studied contrast from president biden's

support at least rhetorically to the ukrainian cause. and i think that with respect to trump's track record vis-a-vis north korea, to actually commit, there are some differences here in trump's application of foreign policy, the way he talks about it, the way he intends to go about it, from president biden who i do think it's frankly kind of a mainstay of those foreign policy orthodoxies. host: evelyn, can you sort of talk, i know we talked about the contrast between biden and trump now, but what are some of the top foreign policy challenges you see facing the united date in the incoming administration? guest: first just to add to the earlier conversation about the contrast, president biden, president obama, president

george h w bush, the orthodoxy has always been america engaged, america leading a coalition of allies, working with our allies in order to create a world that is more prosperous, that fosters american foreign policy interest and economic interests. and so the alliances have been important from that perspective because we are a lot stronger and right now we are in an environment, i'm getting to your question, where the biggest challenge is the fact that we are in standout as a democracy. america is the strongest economic political and military power in the world, we shouldn't forget that, but we are in a standoff with autocracies. china, russia, north korea, iran, but they are now working together and that is a distinction that is really important and really dangerous. we are in a world where our government needs to be actively working internationally to reduce the threats and frankly

countering those autocracies from a position of strength, increasing our deterrence, increasing our diplomacy. so that is number one threat. of course there are still issues with nuclear proliferation validity climate change, few global threats host: as well. host:both of you have mentioned ukraine, i will point to a reuters article that has been reported in many places that trump says he sympathizes with russia's opposition to nato membership ukraine and president-elect donald trump settled tuesday, this is january 7, he sympathized with the russian position that ukraine should not be a part of nato and he lamented that he will not meet russian president vladimir putin before his administration. he was asked about the future of the war in ukraine and the role of nato as well as russia's posture last week. with listen to a clip of that. >> ukraine, it is a lot more complicated. >> much more complicated because

it would have never started. >> but it has started. >> not only started, cities are largely knocked down. >> to hold on the leverage in dealing with president putin, would you make a commitment to the ukrainians that you will keep supporting them? >> i wouldn't tell you if that were the case. >> provide a security guarantee if they do enter into an armistice or a cease-fire along the lines of the french and the germans. trump: you know a big part of the problem was russia, for many years, long before putin said you could never have nato involved with ukraine. they said that. that has been written in stone. and somewhere along the line biden said no, they should be able to join nato. then russia has somebody right on their doorstep and i can understand their feelings about that. but there were a lot of mistakes made in that negotiation and when i heard the way that biden

was negotiating i said you are going to end up in a war and it turned out to be a very bad war and he could escalate. that war could escalate to be much worse than it is right now. my view is that it was always understood. in fact, i believe that they had a deal and that biden broke it. they had a deal which would have been a satisfactory deal to ukraine and everybody else, but that biden said no, you have to be able to join nato. nobody knows more about nato than i do. years ago when i first started this, i didn't know too much about nato, i got it right anyway. i'm the one that got in, the secretary-general is your two weeks ago saying that if it work for me, nato wouldn't even exist right now because from countries that were paying their bills at that time, 28 countries, 20 of them were not paying their bills. 21 to be exact. they weren't paying. or they were paying a very small portion.

and i raised over $680 billion. that was the number he gave. by saying if you don't pay we are not going to protect you. and it soon as i said that, the money came pouring in. but obama could have said it. bush could have said it. nobody said it but me. host: the biden administration is expected to deliver about 500 million dollars weapons package to ukraine before trump takes office. obviously trump has been reported to have a pretty close relationship with russian president vladimir putin to ukraine's disadvantage. what is your take on how trump will handle the conflict in ukraine? guest: i can't of course speak you president-elect trump's relationship with lender the i do think what he's offering is an ejection of honesty which is long overdue. we've been making frankly hollow promises to ukrainians for at least the 2008 bucharest summit

when we provided a sort of gauzy pathway to membership for them, which frankly achieved the worst of all worlds, provoking russia to the response of putin and offering nothing the ukrainians by way of actual or material security commitment. so we keep talking about our ironclad assurances to ukraine, and we offer our material support in this conflict, but the understanding has long been that the alliance would not accept ukraine. and if president trump is going to be honest with the ukrainians, i think that does less morals and the fury of injury to the ukrainians than promising something that we don't intend to deliver. host: what does an end to this conflict actually look like under a trump administration? guest: i don't know but first of all i think it is really important to correct the record. there were so much that

president trump said that was historically inaccurate. the most important thing to understand is that vladimir putin is an imperialist. he wants to refashion the russian empire. it's not even just the soviet union, it's going back even further. he thinks he is now the new peter the great. he does not believe that the state of ukraine, that the ukrainian people have the right to determine their political and economic associations. that is what they have the right to do and that's what they are asking for. they are afraid that if there is a cease-fire without a security guarantee, meaning without the united states or nato saying we will come to your aid if russia tax again, russia will attack again, and why do we know that? because vladimir putin is dead set on getting ukraine under his control. we don't want to go back to a world of empires. so president trump, if he wants peace, and he says he wants peace, the only way he's going to get peace, even though both sides are tired, is to put pressure on the russian government to allow some kind of

security guarantee to ukraine. it doesn't have to be nato membership, but it needs to be a bilateral u.s.-senate ratified agreement, and only president trump can deliver that right now. post: i want to move onto another big foreign policy issue which is the ongoing war in gaza, a story here in the ap pointing out that earlier this month, congress was notified that the biden administration is planning an additional $8 billion in weapons sales to israel that would add to record of almost $18 million in aid that the united states has given to israel since the hamas attacks in october of 2023. what are you looking for in terms of u.s. policy in the middle east under a trump administration? guest: it's a little bit similar. we need to put pressure on our ally, our partner israel to come to a deal with hamas. certainly we need to put pressure on iran and we need to

demonstrate to hamas, make it very clear that there is no future for them in the middle east and in gaza. if we can do that successfully than we can at least get the hostages home. you need to get about 100 or less hostages out of there and then we need an agreement for peace. saudi arabia, the other gulf countries can step in and help, but only if there is a cease-fire and a path towards peace. and that means we have to be negotiating. we can't just give assistance to the government of israel, we need to also make sure that they understand what our expectations are with regard to the promising. make no mistake the bad guy here is iran and hamas, but we need a peace deal and we need the hostages home as soon as possible. guest: my crystal ball is pretty murky on this one, frankly. it's difficult for me to predict with certainty, and i appreciate her jumping into the fray here to make some assurances, which i

think all sound completely sensible, but looking ahead to the trump administration, it's difficult for me to ascertain how he is going to approach this. you can imagine some call back to the imuran records which he obviously proudly conducted. you can imagine some throwback to maximum pressure on iran. this is complicated by the fact that he has also talked about negotiating with iran. he has a famous relationship with benjamin netanyahu. one wonders how his personal style of diplomacy will engage with the myriad and complicated factors. host: we are going to be taking your calls with questions for our guests on foreign policy. ahead for the trump administration. the number for democrats, (202) 748-8000. the number for republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002.

another foreign policy national security issue is climate change. looking at these terrible fires happening in los angeles and obviously hurricanes becoming more severe and a variety of threats in that regard. president-elect trump set on truth social talking about this the fires are still raging, in allayed the incompetent pols have no idea how to put them out. thousands of magnificent houses are gone, many more will soon be gone. this is one of the worst catastrophes in the history of our country, they just can't put out the fires. what is wrong with them? how do you see the threats from climate change in terms of national security and our threats? guest: climate change is actually probably the number one existential threat because people can die. thankfully so far contrary to what the president-elect said, there actually happened and that

many lives lost relatively speaking. 11 is too many and there may be more lives lost and that is horrible, but the reality is that we need to get a handle on mitigation. so how do we strengthen our societies, our buildings, our communities, so that we can better withstand what is already happening, and then how do we get ahead of the problems? we have policies that the biden administration put in to incentivize business to come up with more solutions, to move us to electric cars, for example. we have elon musk clearly has an entire industry betting on this for the future. the president-elect, it is unclear exactly where he stands because he's made a lot of statements that are really very retro. we don't really know what his actual policy will be. hopefully it will before leaning, hopefully he will embrace the reality. i think the business community and the grassroots communities across america will be calling for more help from the federal

government. guest: president trump is a resident of florida, undoubtedly on the front lines of some of the biggest challenges confronting us because of climate change. i suspect that his concerns for real estate values and frankly just the integrity of our material world will hopefully propel him in the right direction. i don't have a good sense of what this administration will shoulder in terms of the burdens presented by climate change. too soon to tell for me at the moment. host: during his first term he very famously withdrew the united states from paris climate court and are taught that he would do the same again this time. guest: and unbinding treaty and one that i think is perhaps more symbolic or moral in a sense than material. i do wonder about the impact of mosque in this relationship, the bet on tesla and the proximity

of him to the president. he does seem to be serving as something of a defect of diplomat at the moment. it will be interesting to see but again, it is too soon to tell. guest: and there is a china competition aspect because the chinese understand that the future is electric because of climate change and they have pivoted, but so many of the resources behind it, which is a challenge to auto industries across the world. so that is another aspect. make no mistake, an electric car is a computer that can be weaponized, beckett spy on you. there are implications here for our geopolitical contest with china. host: hope we get a chance to chat a bit more about china with our callers but i do want to go to a comment we received v text message saying that trump wants to buy greenlands. china threatened to invade taiwan. russia invaded ukraine. peace not war. dan in pennsylvania referencing statements from the president-elect on wanting to

buy greenland, also wanting to purchase the panama canal back from panama. the hill.com has a story about house republicans introducing a bill that would pave the way for trump to acquire the panama canal. before i get to your comments i do want to play a clip of president-elect trump last week when he was asked for more specifics about his plans for the panama canal and greenland. let's listen. >> let's start if we could to greenland and the panama canal. can you assure the world but as we tried to gain control of these areas, you are not going to use the military or economic war? trump: no. >> can you tell us a little bit about what your plan is, are you going to negotiate, are you going to ask the canadians to hold, what is your strategy? trump: no, i can assure you of

either of those two, but i can say this, we need them for economic security. the panama canal was built for military. i'm not going to commit to that. it might be that we will have to do something. look, the panama canal is vital to our country. it's being operated by china. china. and we gave the panama canal to panama, we didn't give it to china. and they've abused it. it should have never been made, by the way. giving the panama canal is why jimmy carter lost the election in my opinion. more so maybe then the hostages. hostages were a big deal if you remember, and nobody wants to talk about the panama canal because it is inappropriate i guess, because it is a bad part of the carter legacy, he was a good man. look, he was a good man, i knew him a little bit and he was a very fine person that that was a big mistake. given the panama canal to panama with a big mistake.

we lost 38,000 people, it cost us the equivalent of $1 trillion, probably the most expensive, they say it was the most expensive structure, if we call it a structure, which i guess you can, ever built. and giving that way was a horrible thing. and i believe that is why jimmy carter lost the election even more so than the hostages. those two things. host: before we go to you, i will point out that he was a story in fox news that the panama canal ceo has denied trump's claim that china is in control of the panama canal. thematically, some of the things that trump is talking about here would lead that reorientation that we referenced with my co-author. what i think we are looking at right now is a broader reorientation on foreign policy

that is more focused on the western hemisphere. talking about greenland or the panama canal as opposed to some sort of far-flung and distant theater that has more or less monopolize our attention over the last 30 years -- host: are you referring to the middle east? guest: afghanistan, syria, etc. the thing that those places have in common is probably less strategic value to the united states than either greenman or the panama canal. greenland, there is kind of a rich history of america flirting with and courting acquisition of greenland. this dates back to frankly seward's folly, settlement on alaska. at that time we had investigated actually acquiring greenland. fdr during the second world war more or less militarily annexed greenland with the permissions

of denmark, who were unable to defend it. so they still have a military base. there's kind of a long history of america thinking about the strategic dimension of greenland with respect to the panama canal. there's probably no more vital strategic chokepoint in the western hemisphere. if we want to move naval assets from norfork to the pacific, that is where they are going through the fact that trump has expressed some concerns about chinese holdings buying the canal including at least one or two of the locks is not completely incommensurate with i think legitimate strategic concerns that relate to frankly stuff that they factor the monroe doctrine. host: i think this is really a misguided message that president trump is sending, underlying it is a rational concern which is frankly the competition with china. there are rare earth minerals and greenland. magnesium, all kinds of things that are required frankly for

the future of air industry, especially when it comes to electric vehicles. so there's rare earth minerals are important. there's also the arctic sea lands. we are having arctic sea melting and that means there is a transport area there, but it is also a military corridor, an area we need to wash because of russia. and we do have a space-based there in order to watch with the russians are doing in terms of missiles. so there is a geostrategic region because the chinese have been trying to make deals with greenland to get the rare earth minerals, and also they are interested in having control and more access to that land in the north pole. in addition to that, there is also a competition with china for influence for trade, for ability to transit, but we don't need to threaten military force against our partners and allies. in the case of panama, we are sending transport through there.

let's just focus on what the threat is, which is china. greenland is part of denmark, they have their own home rule, it is very complicated. they have historically enjoyed working with the united states to counterbalance the big government in denmark, so they will be very open to making a deal with us and in fact we've seen pushback against the chinese. i don't think the president should be threatening military force. i do think that he should be looking at the situation and making deals in the interest of u.s. national security. host: maxi and is in kansas on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: yes, i have a comment and a question for mr. smith. first about, the comment is that

the abraham accords were by negotiations with the palestinians. and my question is donald trump on the campaign trail that he could end the war in ukraine with a phone call. do you think when he made that statement that he could actually do that? thank you. guest: thank you for the question. i wish it was the case that president trump could end the war in ukraine with a phone call, but i suspect that is not the case. i would actually love to get your thoughts on this, too. there's going to be a lot to negotiate with respect to what those security obligations look like, what territory swaps look like, what prisoner swap's look like. what the contours of this dealer going to look like, that is

anybody's guess at this point in time. i can reflect upon the eisenhower administration in its negotiations to end the korean war. if i recall correctly, that took about two years and more americans in this case died in the latter two years than in the preceding time, so i think there's a lot of that before us. i do believe trump is committed to ending the war in ukraine but i don't think he could be settled with a phone call. host: i should point out that you recently had a piece pointing out that if he is able to resolve the conflict in ukraine, one of the way that president trump could potentially win a nobel peace prize. guest: if he really wants to bring peace, and it is admirable but that he said he wants to, that's fantastic, but he could not do it with a phone call. and he could not do it if he

eases up any pressure on vladimir putin right now because those sides are exhausted militarily. the ukrainians have more of a manpower problem than the russians and mostly because the russians have brought in the north koreans. putin doesn't want to mobilize more of the russian people. the ukrainians have mobilized more but they have fewer people to mobilize. when both parties are tired there is the opportunity to make a deal but the thing is, what president trump will soon figure out is that the ukrainian people, i mean it is a democracy, unlike russia which is a nominal democracy but not really, it is an autocracy. in ukraine if the ukrainian president accepts a deal that doesn't offer a security guarantee, meaning a guarantee that russia will not re-invade, then he will he moved out of power, they will be demonstrations in the street. ukraine has to have some kind of guarantee. that means putting pressure on putin because putin wants to control ukraine and come back in. guest: can i just reflect on that briefly? i do have some concerns about an

american security guarantee, only insofar as i think we've already demonstrated that america is not willing to send its sons and daughters to fight and die in the donbas. i actually worry that any american guarantee or security obligation would be dubious from the start. host: so the alternative being that you would want to see that come from european nations, from ukraine's neighbors. or nato. which could also be the united states. guest: that's correct. the reality is i don't think we would have to put boots on the ground to defend ukraine against russia. russia right now cannot win the war against ukraine. if nato were to enter in militarily, it would be over. we would defeat russia. we don't want a war with russia but the threat of a war with russia is what would make russia back down. guest: do you worry about the potential for security escalation there, either

vertical or horizontal, something like nuclear war? guest: i do not, the reason because there are a lot of factors that mitigate against vladimir putin wanting to use nuclear force even though he threatens it all the time. they would be literal fallout for him, he also doesn't know what it would mean politically for him inside of russia. he's not in a very strong position politically inside russia, let's not forget about a year and a half ago when the russian warlord leader marched on moscow and if he had had a real partner inside the military establishment in russia he could have taken vladimir putin down. vladimir putin has demonstrated to be very weak in that instance. host: earlier this month, represented adam smith was a top democrat on the armed services committee as you both know, he was asked about the incoming trump administration and how a gop controlled congress might

approach the conflict in ukraine and also continued military assistance to that nation. i'm going to play a clip of that. >> when it comes to supporting ukraine, additional weapons or money to buy them, what is your confidence level that that happens in the 119 congress with republicans controlling washington? >> it's not high. idly worry about the approach that donald trump has taken to this. look, we need a negotiating done, i completely agree. this war cannot go on forever. it has been devastating to ukrainian to the broader world in many ways. but you don't get to a negotiating settlement if you don't fund ukraine, if you don't give ukraine the power to defend itself. if putin seizes ukraine, he will not stop. so when candidate donald trump said he opposed an additional supplemental to support ukraine, he was basically handing ukraine to the russians.

has he changed his mind on that? is he going to give ukraine the power to defend themselves? if ukraine is strong and has security guarantees, but i think that forces putin to the table to negotiate. and then donald trump, the great dealmaker wants to make that happen, good for him. but there's going to be no deal to be made if you don't give ukraine the power to defend itself. host: it was a challenge to get ukraine funding through congress even when democrats were in control of the senate. what do you see ahead for funding for ukraine moving forward? guest: it would still be a challenge but there is still bipartisan support at large, meaning in the senate. and in the house as well, it is just that there is a very vocal, powerful minority in the house, the house republicans and perhaps the speaker himself has aligned himself with assistance ukraine, so it remains to be seen how that shakes out. i think it is possible to get aid through again, but it would

be a very difficult way ahead, and of course you can have a presidential veto if president trump tales to understand that peace through strength, at representative adam schiff said -- sorry, smith said, peace through strength means strengthening ukraine. guest: so agree that it could be complicated, however if president trump wants to negotiate from a position of leverage with russia regarding ultimate termination of the war, something that is both swift and solid, it may be that he will turn to congress and request some sort of additional aid to demonstrate that leverage and show putin that he is not civilly backing out. so i can imagine circumstances such that trump in the interest of war termination goes to the congress and says this is what we need to get the job done, and this is what we need to provide

ukraine to assure its defense and to give us the best position at the negotiating table. so we will have to wait and see how it plays out, but i think that is not an unforeseeable hypothetical. host: david is a new york on the line for republicans, good morning. dave, are you there? we've got you, go ahead. caller: i'm sorry. there's so many things to talk about. venezuela, cuba, this new triad of people with north korea, iran, russia, china all working together. i think that poses the biggest danger in the very near term. and anything we can do to obstruct that relationship, be it through the relationship

between trump and putin, whether the media likes it or not, that is a good thing because people who have big egos like putin and trump can get along. i just hope that the media, the elitists, the orthodoxy of the military-industrial complex who have been taking our ideology and have weakened this country, america needs to lead. i said i was going to talk about ukraine, but there are so many issues. host: let's take this point that you raised about kind of going back to the point on orthodoxy and trump's potentially unique ability to negotiate with some of these players. guest: this is a point that i think we relay in the fa piece. it's become unfashionable in

washington to negotiate and do diplomacy, especially with implacable foes. we don't like to talk to our adversaries anymore. this was once a hallmark of frankly, republican strength in foreign affairs, and i think donald trump and the art of the deal is willing to at least engage with adversaries. be it putin or kim, he has demonstrated willingness to talk, which is not a demonstration of weakness, but rather in some cases, a show strength that america can come and negotiate on behalf of their interests, our allies and their partners. so i do think for -- this is orthodoxy. guest: i think just talking in meeting on the international stage is fruitless and can actually be dangerous because what president trump did in his previous administration was essentially bring the north korean leader out of the darkness and make him appear legitimate by putting him on the stage with the number one political and economic military

power, which of the united states. and we got nothing in exchange for it. we got a little bit of freezing of the missile development, but that was scrapped as soon as the north korean leader realized he wasn't getting anywhere with the united states because president trump thankfully didn't compromise anything that was in our national security interest. same thing with vladimir putin and it was even worse when he met with vladimir putin. he said well, russia has told me they haven't interfered in our elections when our intelligence committee had told them that russia had. so he was deciding very publicly with our adversary on the international stage. that is dangerous. speaking with leaders is important, but you have to do a lot of diplomatic round work to get it where you are actually having a fruitful conversation. guest: on the north korea front, i agree that talking without gaining is for the birds, so to speak. but actually achieving a

cessation in nuclear and long-range missile test was more than we had gotten. so yes, perhaps scraps, but not nothing. i do think the instinct to actually engage with these adversaries is of critical import. i do hope that trump with at least test their mettle. guest: can i say something about venezuela? post: rich in sout korea to massachusetts said our national security depends in pa sharing information with our allies. given trims famously careless approach to protecting classified information how do you think this will affect our working relationship with our allies? i wonder if we could talk a bit about that as well. guest: it's going to be a very slow start because allies are going to be looking can we trust president trump? we know that when he was in the oval office he met with the russian ambassador and foreign minister and gave them highly sensitive intelligence that was

shared by ourselves and our israeli allies and he gave it to them right there in the oval office and we know because reported on. it was classified information. and while the president can certainly give classified information because there is an idea that the president can it declassify the resumption our when he is in office, not what he is not in office, but that is something that allies would be really nervous about, but president trump just give away some classified information? you're also concerned about his nominees including tulsa gabbert who has basically made excuses for autocratic leaders like al-assad of syria. just a quick thing in venezuela, that is an opportunity also for president trump to make a positive difference in terms of helping bring about democratic change in venezuela, and we know that the hopefully incoming secretary of state marco rubio is motivated also to work on this part of the hemisphere, in the western hemisphere.

i have to mention that a mccain global leader is being held hostage along with other americans, so he's not american, he's venezuelan, but there are many people being held hostage by the brutal regime in venezuela which is illegitimate. i just wanted to apply the caller for mentioning it. host: jeff is in new jersey on the line for independence. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i want to just give you a little history of me. i'm a proud american, i come from a military family. my father fought in world war ii and was awarded a purple heart which i still have. i want to ask the caller, especially the doctor a question. if russia put missiles in mexico or canada, how would we feel about that?

you know, the whole thing about ukraine, the warsaw agreement, they dropped that and we kept going with nato. we broke our agreement with nato. the war in ukraine never had to happen. i'm not a fan of donald trump but what he talked about ukraine, he is speaking the truth. that is a war that never had to happen. so you put yourself in that position. host: ok, so there is another side to the story. so the history is that the cold war, communism collapsed. the cold war meant the warsaw pact dismantle because the eastern european countries which had been under the russian soviet spray said we don't want to be part of the warsaw pact. the act shall he would prefer to be part of nato. and nato transformed itself in terms of mission as not being aligned against the soviet union because there was no soviet

union between 1989 in 1991 but after that there wasn't. nato said we are going to be a collective security alliance and we are going to provide security and stability so that there can be another development. we are going to make sure that all the members of the expand make a commitment to not have war with one another, so would had as much to do with stability among countries that had border conflict in the past, that had fought one another. so what was about creating stability and security initially, not about russia. russia invaded in 2008, georgia, a neighboring sovereign country and then of course in 2014 invaded ukraine. if you don't like nato, the way to express your discomfort with nato is not to invade other countries. so the problem really is russia in terms of what to do. ukraine is a sovereign country, it is a decision by ukraine and the nato members whether ukraine enters or not, not anything to do with russia, per se.

guest: let me just reflect on the colors analogy. i don't think we have to imagine circumstances whereby russia or china places nukes close to us. we actually ran that experiment in the cuban missile crisis and we brought the world to the brink of annihilation. so i think we actually know how america would react to provocation with nuclear adversaries dropping strategic bombs pretty close to our home shores. i am a little less suede perhaps regarding the benign neglect of nato vis-a-vis russia. i do think that when russia watched giving assurance, they were concerned, alarmed, and

even if ukraine was not going into the alliance, it did appear that the alliance was going into ukraine with arms sales and upper ability. i think those concerns underlined russia's determination to alternately invade again. host:nother question we've received from text message, is israel guilty of genocide in gaza? several prominent hughts organizations have studied the situatio and find them to be guilty of that horrific crime. do you agree with them? guest: this is an easy one. genocide is a term of international humanitarian law and is also hotly contested and debated in academia. outside of match parties, i do think what has happened in gaza is unprecedented, at least in my

memory, and a tragedy on both sides. i believe my answer there. guest: i would say that genocide does imply intent. i don't believe that the israeli government is trying to eradicate the palestinian people, although there is a far right in israel and in the israeli government that doesn't want a two state solution, they want in one state solution which means that there is not a good future for the palestinian people can israel and the palestinian people, the united states government have said they have the right to their own sovereign state. the way that israel has waged war in gaza is appalling. the overuse of military force without sufficient concern for civilian loss of life, the humanitarian cost. sidney mccain, she runs the world food program. they have said time and time again they don't have enough access provided to the israeli government to get food to the

people in gaza. a lot of military assistance right now, there have been reports of freezing conditions. so it is a humanitarian catastrophe that we haven't seen the israeli government addressed properly, and that is another reason why we need to bring a cease-fire as fast as possible to address the humanitarian suffering and put us back on track with the palestinians can see a future for sounds. host: massachusetts, line for democrats. caller: i hope you guys give me enough time to answer without cutting me off please. i'd like to see that america is the master of the inside job great, terrific. you guys funded communism, fascism and zionism. i want people to listen to a book that anthony sutton wrote a long time ago. this war was funded by both sides and it was created by the elites.

it's like government and corporate fascism disguised as capitalism. so your globalist elite want to create a one world government. so that is why we are going to sit here, we are going to kill this economy, going through a crypto world government that your elite wanted. the world health organization. you will own nothing and you will be happy. is that why hollywood is burning it, because all the pedophiles -- host: ok. guest: ok, i think that my fears of a one world government are rather subdued at the moment looking ahead to president-elect from snakes administration. if anything i think he places great emphasis on nationalism and state sovereignty. so i'm not too concerned, but

all due respect to the caller. guest: i think that that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, i'm just going to call it out as such. having said that, there is a lot of concern about elites and regular people, and that did come out in this election, it has come out in elections around the world. the capitalist market needs to be tweaked in order to better provide for more people in a way that is perceived as more legitimate and fair. host: hurricane, utah on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i'd like to ask your very knowledgeable guests about their opinion on if the ukraine war ever would have been started from the israeli conflict we are in now if donald trump would have been elected to a second term. guest: i'll just start. ukraine war was ongoing of course one dollar trump came into office the first time. it was still ongoing when he

left so i don't think that vladimir putin is afraid of donald trump and he knows vladimir putin has his interest in his agendas, he is an imperialist. he's not going to let donald trump stop insulin urgently i don't think that would have happened. on gaza, the israelis suffered a horrendous attack inside their country, but from gaza into israel. and then of course, hezbollah across the border from lebanon into israel. the israelis had no choice, they had to defend themselves and all the trouble wouldn't have even tried to stop them from doing that. it's just the way the war has unfolded. perhaps president trump would have counseled netanyahu and he would have listened. having said that, president trump didn't try to hold president netanyahu or prime minister netanyahu accountable