you so much, mike, for coming on just before we get to the book, and i go to say, your book makes it very hard for journalists because the scope is massive. as co director of the brookings advocate, security initiative, you will click fluids on events in the shad. my understanding is it's the largest c i a base in the world. i get as base 201. i don't know, 500000000000. don't how many millions of dollars are being spent of the us public money on it and an american trained soldier now runs these. yeah, well, greetings and you certainly are right to dramatize the significance of the counterterrorism cooperation with the share including the base. it probably is a, this point, multi $1000000000.00 base in terms of overall investment, but i'm not sure on the exact numbers. we also know that roughly 20 percent of all american troops in africa are in the share, which is obviously is usually disproportionate number. and i thought it was 54 countries to have such a concentration and in the absence of the french being able to work like they did previously. and molly,

this has become even more important given the prevalence of isis and other extremist groups throughout the broader. so how so yes, is really brings to a focal point why united states government has avoided calling this a cruise so far, even though we all know that it is why the united states government is still hoping to pull a rabbit out of the hat and get some kind of a conciliatory process that gets president by soon back in office, or at least in some kind of a power sharing coalition. you know, the odds seem pretty high against that. it is striking to see just how forward leaning nigeria has been in this situation and i admire the nigerians for that role of the government lost the battle in jerry and parliament to intervene. they haven't invaded you go. exactly. so it is not really clear what nigeria would or could do anyway. i sort of really being willing to risk it all out war, which was the presumably is not really what nigeria needs right now we're lost. so this is very much a work in progress as a, it is not

a good thing because in there are situations around the world where being a think tank or i can say, you know, that crew does it look all bad to me because the government got rid of was clearly corrupt or ineffectual, or, and you know, inciting violence or what have you. this is not one of those cases. there was not all that much negative to say about the incumbent when he was the post was electronic with doubts a day and found us altogether. and of course, the countries neighboring it see it is a great to we some of the pictures of the stadium, and they've thrown out and imperialist french american lucky give me but of course, victoria newland from divided administration. a couple of the countries most, most of the countries around do not share that you as you know, and most of the countries around consider this to be very, very insidious and dangerous trend in west africa. we've also seen a fact malia and breaking up also where you have a small group of officers for selfish reasons, taking it upon themselves to throw democracy, to the winds,

and then perhaps bringing the wagner group and create essentially uh, you know, a started where we don't we don't know whether the self is we know the governments that were there previously were arguably selfish because of the amount of poverty in those countries. but do your book, i mean victorian unit and famous for that phone call. uh, when the 2014 cooling in ukraine. she's beaten the jericho's. why is it a good book? good time for a book about military history, encompassing the civil war, world war one with 2 iraq, afghanistan and palestine, vietnam, korea, all of this in such a, such a small book, a why is a good time for this book right now? there's not too much on palestine here, right. i just do a side of some of some of the conflicts in the middle east that even if the united states was not directly involved, set the context for the wars that we were later involved in ourselves. so in that sense, i do speed my way through the 67 more, the 73 war, et cetera. but thank you. thank you for having the let me give 2 answers to your

question. the 1st answer is very selfish. i'll admit that i'm selfish, which is that this was a good time for me to write the book, because i wrote it primarily during the cold and shut down. and when you're trying to write history and historians know this better than i do, because i'm not a real historian, i, i dabbled in this history, i've been and admired and consumer of history my whole life. but i am not a full time professional historian. it does archive or research, but you need to be able to just sit with your thoughts and almost imagine yourself back in that time period. if you're going to do anything like engaging writing, that captures the feel, captures the motives captures, you know, what was really the driving people's actions at that time. and so for me, the right time to write, it was when i could pull out of my busy life and spend just 3 or 45 months. just thinking about the american civil war and doing almost nothing else except going for walks with my family and you know, feeding the dog. and that's the way history. i think this all makes that needs to

be written, needs to be researched and that's myself is. yeah, so in terms of why it's relevant to today's world, well, i only wish i'd gotten a copy to vladimir putin before he invaded ukraine because the book was still being completed at that point. and the problem that put and exemplified or demonstrated, which we also had in the united states with the iraq or is that was almost never go as quickly or easily as the aggressor or the attacker. thanks. and there is always a tire rotation to believe that you're new technologies. you're really in general's and their fancy work flags. the marshal virtues of your own country, relative to your potential adversary, that these things will combine to give you a pass to a smash down, a knock down victory on short border. and when most countries go to war, that's what they want. and that's what they expect, but the history of nature, conflicts is almost always one of protracted war where outcomes are not at all what were expected often become very uncertain for

a protracted period during the conflict itself, including should've known better. just like donald rumsfeld should have known better and 2003 to believe that he could decisively defeat, you know, a substantial military and country with a 3 or 5 or 10 or 20 day operation. that would have been the best benefit and it's going to be relevant in the future. if anyone in china or the united states somehow lose themselves into thinking they could to the, the other side. with the right. a i empowered, advanced military that has all these fancy gadgets and a brilliant war plan. you know, history tells you why the rush was using all the advance war for here. i mean, they're not doing anything like the iraq or you would support it in the hitting a ministerial targets in baghdad. in fact, surely one point to the res, there is a of the payments ask in proverb of the to the americans that you may have all the tanks. we have the time the same with boots, elizabeth, i mean they just slowly exhausting. i don't know. hundreds of thousands, dad,

you met zalinski hundreds of thousands of dead in this war so far and rushes just dug in there. and i think the initial point of the move anyway, wasn't it to protect? don't yet skin little hands golf to prove in did so little to give it to save the 14000. that was shell by nature back troops since 2014. well 1st of all, i think you're right. the president has a strategy now where he's trying to win through attrition and perseverance. and he wonders if may be american politics or some other development in the west will give him that victory, or at least give him the 20 percent or 18 percent of ukraine that he currently holds. so this is eunice, he's prostate. if going back to you, but and as you utilize grant, but in fairness that's, that's not what bruton wanted 1st. and he did want to use shock and all to take down keys and the government of the last night. and he didn't even send an aircraft

to bomb care if he didn't send will plans to level give you haven't attempted operation. try to seize the air field in the north. you had a 40 mile long convoy of, of vehicles trying to descend on keys. and he also had commanders in the area and cyber warriors trying to bring down the training and networks. they may have been badly done. i'm not saying it was a good plan, but he definitely was targeting keys and russia could have leveled care of goodness . well, you might have a 2nd level it tomorrow. i mean, it's a choosing. don't use it, you only get to make you only get to make one point in time. if you want me to respond intelligently, your 1st point was the food and did not really see a rapid overthrow even that's rock. he did so you can wrap it over, throw a key that may have been a bad plan. but it was very seriously attempted through a combination of airborne attacks on the airfield. cyber attacks on the networks a 40 mile long through conway, descending on key from the north and assassination teams in the capital. and he

thought he would point they want to do is fascinate landscape. right. the way i, i just, i, it's very difficult to compute that. anyone in washington dc, things today that if russia really wanted to do what use edited, it couldn't do it. i mean, the point about roger is obviously they didn't want to alienate the whole. their brothers and sisters in ukraine assisted the country. they couldn't do what the united states did to baghdad or a tripoli in libya or in other countries as they have done little in vietnam se. but anyway, i mean that, okay, that's, that's your view. i mean, i don't know, i don't have the food in the bathroom, but as 800000 dead, there's 800000 dead ukrainians, most of them dead from showing apartment building. so i'm not quite sure i see the new on site, so they're not soldiers. you, you understand that they're a 100000 civilians in ukraine that have been killed passing, have roughly speaking and you crank, but the players, let me explain

a point of agreement that you and i have here, which is that at this point pollutant has settled into a war of a slow, long ride, where he still seems to think that either he has the upper hand or he just can't seem to find a graceful way out or both. and he's going to be patient. he's sitting on top of an economy that's barely declined in g d p. since the war began, even though there is obviously great suffering throughout russia in terms of families who have lost loved ones. and there is a lack of access to it, western capital and, and technology that will hurt future generations of russians. right now. food and probably sykes. that time is on his side. so i think you're probably right about that. that's the 2nd strategy that was not as versed wrench rusher is overtaken germany and g, b, b, b, b of the latest figures in terms of the world's bigger economies. but you have applauded the c i. a for predicting russia is moving to ukraine, but folded them and forecasting that the war would last a few days, presumably because they thought the strategy was a strategy you are referring to,

which, you know, i don't have the, the gremlins plans in front of me to see what their, what their ambitions we have what that targets with. so you want on top of the $220000000000.00 given to zalinski you now one button to give him f 16 war plants as well. yeah, but i'm in the ironic position perhaps so not really thinking that will turn things radically around. so i'm at the point where yes, i favor standing in the tags sooner than we did. because i think if we are given ukraine tags by early winter, they might have been ready to launch this off. and so by spring rather than summer, but we've all seen the results even of a summer office that which are not particularly compelling. and the same thing, i believe will continue to be true. i think we owe ukraine a fair chance to take back as much of its territory as it can. but by this point next year, i think there is a very high likelihood that we will have to encourage ukraine to consider an alternative strategy, and then decisively defeating russia to seize and re gain all of his territory may

be morally justifiable, but it is militarily unrealistic but i can't make that case now, in fairness until we gives the lensky a chance to use a combined arms to maneuver operation without sixteens and other kinds of weapons like that. so that's the one piece. he still doesn't have that. i think we should give him that. i think that will be what happens in the course of the next few months. this offensive will play itself out. we'll get into the cold weather. we'll have a debate. countries on countries are already offering us sixty's, as you know, we'll decide how many will wish the ukrainians well next spring. they'll do their best to win back some territory. we'll see how the us presidential election plays into this. and then we'll have to take stock in a year. so i hope you have me back then to, to michael. and i'll stop you there. more from the senior fellow and director of research in foreign policy at the brookings institution after the short break, the

the the

the welcome back to going underground. i'm still here with dr. michael though, i'm a senior fellow and director of research and foreign policy at the brookings institution and former advisory board member at the c. i like you were saying i am the one about how do you think the bible should send the have succeed, will planes now immediately? what could uh, we'll give us do to prevent the zalinski using the f. 16 planes against moscow. obviously, uh, equity. if you listen to the pentagon, though, the state department briefings they just look know of as generally as these a. well what roger goal is to have her attacks because they clearly know of any military significance. the drone attacks on civilians,

structures in moscow. surely the policy, your advocating is f sixteens attacking mosca, american f sixteens. well, zaleski is obviously very strong willed and patriotic towards his own country and wonders why he can't fight back the same way, rushes fighting against him. and that's why we do see apparently these occasional ukrainian drum strikes now against russian cities. but i think president, still, as he is also well aware that he depends, as you put a just a minute ago on the $220000000000.00 and assistance from the west. he's received over the last 18 months and he can't jeopardize us at a time when republicans in the united states in particular are questioning whether a to ukraine should continue at his current level or even continue at all. i don't know the president, so as he wants to play the russian root like game of actually doing something we've explicitly asked him not to do. and we certainly can cut off the pipeline of spare parts and other support for those that succeeds where he needs to start using that in that regard. so that plus the fact that f, 16

a tax against russian cities are probably not going to end the war themselves anyway. i think will be a compelling enough reason. that's the ones he would use them on the battlefield. but, you know, i think he's proven so far that generally speaking, he's a man of his word, a man of great moral courage way. so washington controls you just said, washington controls lensky. and i should say he's patriotism, he's arguably in question given he's banned the opposition and cancel the elections next year in close down a little opposition. use papers, but you're saying washington would stop sending spare parts and things of the landscape didn't take his orders from washington. i didn't say orders, i didn't. so we control them. i say we influence so many knows where he got the $220000000000.00. and he knows that president buying is very serious about not risking direct escalation with russian that could involve the united states. so i think that you finding and so far, despite these occasional drawing attacks, have been quite disciplined and how they've applied military for a certainly far more disciplined than the russians. and i want drew a tax on this crimson one bedrooms and, and apartment books. there, i mean i,

i do want to get back to the book. are you watching? are you watching what's going on in this war? there are, there are tens of thousands of ukrainians dead who have been shelves in their apartment buildings. they're virtually 0 human. i mean, again, go back to us now. human did not send guerrilla fighters, which even didn't 10 guerrilla fighters to go and kill people in the white house loan during the vietnam war. i mean, that's not, that's not the way normal wolf are in your book, evens as it, when you talk about the, the, the defeats of the united states in vietnam, f kindest on come body allow nicaragua, don't get a mention, i'd say 0 or libya. i the, i mean the, how's the real war in the united states being at home? i mean, the civil war on the killed. what, 3 courses, the number of those who died of code in, in one year. and the, the doesn't estimate the 183000 di every year according to university of california

to poverty linked to diseases. and when you talk about the fact that, suppose 45 things have gotten better in the united states. i mean the united states in prisons more per capita, arguably than styling or malware. vintage, you have living conditions that as you say in your book, have go back to those living conditions, statistics globally, a skewed by china. moving 800000000 out of poverty and 40 s as well. there's a lot that you just said most of which i agree with, but please don't quite hard present system with style. i mean there's a certain point in which rhetoric gets carried away. but having said that, i think you already know what you do mention race, but i mean the war is at home is martin luther king junior. would say i'll give a shortly. you say you there are we still wrestle with serious racial tensions domestically? but generally you say, you know, how would it be so successful?

well, failing so often. i mean, many people in the global south and the reason to break some, it's in the 2nd i cooperation organization, the talking about a new world is 40000000 americans won't be able to eat tonight without federal aid . and i do talk a lot about the problems of the united states in my previous book, which was not about military history like this one. and the book is about military history for the modern strategist. so i did stick to my actual of focus, which as you say, is already pretty broad. but if you're not want to talk about overall grand strategy, i agree with your main point that if there is anything jeopardizing america's role to help backstop this global order, that for all his problems are still doing a lot for a lot of countries and allowed china to do what it's done successfully and bring so many out of poverty that yes, we have to heal our problems at home. i mean, like why a lot of america is debate is turning to that set of questions. if you both encourages me, but it also frightens me because if we get so convinced that we cannot maintain a strong for our policy, because we have to turn all of our energy and resources,

edward weekly wind up pulling back from the world in ways that are not helpful either, but i agree with your point, the probably the greatest threat to american and perhaps even global long term stability is domestic not light, life expectancy is higher now in cuba then the united states, the official figures in cuba, it is a country that the united states is arguably being at war since 1959. but the problem is you may agree with me, but a brown university estimate was 2 trillion dollars for the war. the last war in afghanistan, 8 trillion dollars of us public money. the could have gone to save those americans that will be dying this year because of poverty link disease. and you didn't want bite and to leave afghanistan, you didn't want to obama the laser rack. you want to more money spent on these was way really the americans. we don't welcome you talk 1st of all about the global south and i agree with your focus on that area. but as you know, that's a catch all term for many different regions. you're sitting in

a region which as you know, better than i, has been disheartened by american disengagement for a period or perceived this. i'm not sure about that. you know, the saudi embassy just opened in tehran in the past. you know, a few days i'm, well i'm happy about that myself. so i don't see this all in narrow, you know, pro us pro china pro, sorry pro ron terms. i think that relationship should improve for the betterment of the region. but a lot of, most of the middle east experts scholars and diplomats that i interact with have regretted the rapid american disengagement from the broader middle east. in afghanistan in 2021. we only had about $5000.00 us military personnel on the ground . that was not what was producing a trillion dollar price tags. those were the price tags associated with the big difference of yesteryear. so yes, in afghanistan discussion is certainly worth having. and i understand the other point of view, but i did favor trying to preserve what modest amount of hopefulness there was

still in afghanistan. and there wasn't a lot who certainly was more than other than that. i mean, clearly the americans were but with for her and i mean i, you know, why is it that? and then when the americans leave, as you say, get more disengaged. p starts breaking out with syria with the wrong, with the b starts breaking out in between the 0 period. every tray, a piece starts breaking out in latin america. wherever the united states just engages from peaceful is as you actually want a response to that. i mean, that's just such a sweeping rhetorical over simplification. i don't know where to begin. afghanistan, today is a mass. you're right, that at least they're not having a civil war. but the degree of impoverishment is striking. we tried this engagement in 1989. you know, your history as well as i do. did that didn't work so well either that led to math, where ation and ultimately you have to understand we help, we help the afghans defeat the soviet squared away with this. when the united states was supporting what would become al kyger and helping been loved. what do

you mean? we just engage this thing gauge a tool. we might. all right, this is a bit like in your book when you say the reason use a 40 around or even retrospectively. saddam hussein got you. we got rid of saddam hussein and his family, the americans bought said i was saying they were paying am i, i do want to get back to the american civil war. ulysses grant, you use a quote of his, the and then we have to not on, on me enough, easily like classic a what rusher is doing and what the anti global south. where does that go back in russia? thinking when it comes to the rest of the ukraine situation isn't, isn't there a power over the 1st of all, i don't think the global south is backing russia. i don't have any regard particularly for you or for me or anybody setting uncomfortable places like we both are right now. the global south thinks of his own mind based on his own interest, a little is being on this program. he's president of brazil. and he clearly doesn't

like the way the united states did to him on con is being on the show. he, he said it was a washing and cooling that over through him. we've had pretty major people from the global south on this show. you're making separate points, your original point was, are supporting russia, which is nonsense. and you don't know, let's just get back. it's a nonsense and you know what, what they, what they don't support necessarily as our interpretation of why the war began. and they don't necessarily want the water be settled on the terms we propose that they don't like the war and they're not happy about what food is gone. most of the ones i know now we're talking about a 150 countries. so obviously we can't generalize too far, but my, my central point on this issue is that you are right to say we can't just presume that this war is going to be wound up on terms that we insist upon or even presidents the landscape. what's the do with the united states and tool? this is a war in your world. i mean, a powerful blowing of the north stream. why, why does the united states feel it has anything to do with what's happening in your

what's it going to do with you or the united state? you heard of world? how far from your orders all your questions, does it lensky as to not use these billions of dollars a much needed public money at home as well? i think, you know, the history of world war, one of world war 2 and their origins and they, they happened when the united states was completely disengaged. and since world war 2, europe has been generally at peace, partly because of nato and the american engaged they to bomb this love you ever in the ninety's very cause the only war since 1945. and that was washington was with, to destroy your, with the general trust that the general thrust of history in europe was at war for centuries on sale. roughly 1945 since that time europe is had 2 substantial wars over an 80 year period. they both been tragic. i wish they didn't happen there to, to many. but the idea that the united states should this engaged to me just smacks of the united states was at war with itself,

arguably for centuries before. and obviously since independence as you delineated in your book, 11 obvious question. i know we were actually in the anniversary 79 years since the world, a massacre. $50000.00 dead, stefan mendera the hero. a celebrated in case of today. he was responsible for that in poland on the 12th of august, 1944. no mention of that in this book. is there a problem with working at the brookings institution, knowing that northrop grumman spend so much funding? your salary is lockheed martin x on mobiles, chaperone bank of america, microsoft and google pen pentagon contract as well. would you feel no influence a tool knowing that your salary comes from the ons contract? is the benefit from the recycling of the us public money through the dead and wounded of ukraine into their bank accounts as well. if you read my writings over 30 years, you will see i have often opposed weapon systems, often oppose defense budget increases. often opposed wars. and by the way, you misrepresented my thinking on

a rock. i supported the search was agnostic on the invasion and they saw that there was a way we could avoid it. well, making sure saddam did not have w n d and any kind of a verifiable way. we should not have that one. so there are plenty of times where i have not done what the defense industry, what it was necessarily by your caricature have wanted. and so i guess that's the best i can do it. answering that question, we decided not to take money from the governments of the broader middle east region at a time when we thought that we should be not accepting money from non democratic regimes . that was a big decision that happened about 4 years ago. and that was in a sense weighing the same kinds of considerations that you are putting forth, that even though we weren't being told what to say by the saudis or the m moratti's . there were concerns about perception. there were concerns about potential allegations that we were influenced more than we were. we certainly always spoke our minds. people wouldn't work here. they couldn't break with a belief because as we all are, as is stubborn independence scholars would like to be able to have our own voice

told you my go ahead and read the books out though. thank you so much. i to thank you. that's it for the show will be back on monday, ahead of indian independence day with one of india's most famous politicians and intellectuals, indian national congress and funeral to shushing through it. but until then you can keep in touch with i will i social media if it's so expensive in your country and that to our child going on the ground tv on rumbled, they'll come to watch new and old episodes of going underground see monday, the summer to attend and i'm here to plan with you whatever you do. do not watch my new show. seriously. why watch something that's so different. little opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to please,

or do the have the state department to see i a weapons makers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. change and whatever you do. don't want marshall state main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called stretching time, but again, we don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way you the we have this to boom on tenderness in the united states. we've exported it now to the world because of multinational corporations and we've been damaged to believe that babies needs be nurtured in care for and love. and, and so you've got a whole bunch of traumatized people all over the world with post traumatic stress disorder. don't nobody here

the, the headline, most glass, his mouth and tier bruce lake just been tempted. terror attacks on the crime the in bridge which of being propelled by russian, a defensive i could watch them on the top of the speak. sounds like ac blocks, potential military intervention in need. yet, as local supplies for independent and demand, strong links, the west african regions, the french does have to leave, or someone else set up their independence. until today we were like flags. the french just have to leave our country today. i'll be more expensive and what would be owns nissan as it is with west and central african countries calling for the athens.