A New Kind of Diplomacy with Russia (Keeping the World Company)

Welcome to Keeping the World Company on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm your host, Jay Fidel. This episode is entitled, A New Kind of Diplomacy with Russia. How likely is it to succeed? Our co-host for the show is Tim Apachella. Our guests for the show are Ben Davis, University of Toledo School of Law, Jean Rosenfeld, Independent Scholar, and Manfred Henson, ameritus professor of political philosophy, uh Monoa. Welcome to you all. In the way of introduction, a CIA director, um a quiet trip to Moscow, Russia's public threats over the UK missile tech transfers are two sides of the same coin. Private diplomacy running alongside public threat and escalation. Don't mistake fiery statements for inevitability, they say. But don't dismiss them either. These things signal how each side plays to its own audience. This winter, the real story is resources, interceptor stockpiles, missile technology sharing, and troop movements. These things reveal intentions rather than rhetoric. Stay informed. Question dramatic headlines. Always track what's actually moving. Weapons, technology, and diplomats, not just what's being said. Is quiet diplomacy, the kind of diplomacy we have now, actually working, Tim. Is it actually working? We won't know until um events reveal themselves to the to the media and the public. Um I think it's always good that you have back channels of communication. Uh the media doesn't like it because they're not privy to what those back channel communications are are are are all about. But uh you know if it wasn't for back channel communications in the Cuban missile crisis, uh we probably wouldn't be speaking here right now. it was those back channel communications that averted a nuclear holocaust between Russia and the United States. Um so I I see it as a possible sign that um Putin is in a corner and he knows he's losing his popularity. Uh his rhetoric is getting ahead of his mouth. uh certainly of the the ministers um that UK is uh uh on the brink of crossing a line that uh they ought not be crossing and they're probably going to cross it with uh aiding Ukraine with missile technology, production technology for uh those missiles that you mentioned. And um maybe it's just a good oldfashioned check-in, a period of check-in to say, "Hey Vlad, you're you're not as strong as you think you are." And um it's not going to go well for you. So maybe it's a reality check. Um maybe it's to try to calm tempers and um you know, hostilities. Uh I think you're right. This goes into the winter time and it'll be about um who who can outlast the other. And I I think Putin's in trouble and I think Zalinski's in trouble. >> Yeah, I saw something with John Mirshimer on YouTube. Very interesting because he was clear that when you take a look at the weapons, take a look at the, you know, the manpower in the field, Ukraine is losing. That's what he said. It was no, it was nothing ambiguous about it. Uh is where does Ukraine stand on all of this? Is Ukraine winning, losing? Is it a draw? uh what is what is what is encouraging or discouraging Putin >> at the borders you know in in Ukraine uh Russia is making very little gain as far as territory I mean yes they are gaining a little bit but certainly nothing of consequence I I think this is a drone warfare um battle that's new technology and what I worry about is you know up to this point Ukraine has been hitting oil refineries and military targets where of course since day one Putin has been hitting civilian, military, anything goes. Nuclear, you know, facilities, anything was on uh on the list for targets. Well, at some point, if things get desperate for for Zalinski, he may go after targets that are not just strictly military or energy related. And that's what I worry about that this expands the brutality that all war brings to the forefront. And that could include civilian targets uh certainly within Moscow. Uh drone warfare now can go pretty much quite deep into Russia and vice versa from Russia into Ukraine. >> Is it a win for Ukraine or lose or is it a draw? How are they doing? >> It's like World War I in the trench warfare. Uh this has gone on what four and a half years now. Um how deep we are into this? I I don't I see it's a draw right now. And I've said 3 years ago that maybe the solution is you give a concession to Russia, you let them keep you the Crimea uh area and uh you set up an establishment similar to North and South Korea, heavily militarized zone. Um Ukraine does not become a member of NATO and you just let it simmer and settle down. >> Ben, what are your thoughts about these things? The first loss is uh truth. Okay. So that's the first casualty of war. So I I have no idea really what the truth is. But um when there is a a threat being made to Britain with regards to providing technology to the to Ukraine, um somehow that reminded me of certain missiles being uh put into Germany back in what was it the 80s under Reagan and there was a lot of pressure uh against those missiles being put in and saying that this was a red line etc. and all that and ultimately those missiles uh did go in. So the way at least it looks from for me is that if the United States is not providing Ukraine what Ukraine needs, uh the Europeans uh at least some of them are willing to provide what Zalinski is asking for and Russia's trying to intimidate those Europeans are willing to do it. uh and that's precisely the moment when you go ahead and do it when they try to bluster you uh with regards to the the the the military space. So it's not saying that uh who's winning or who's losing. But what it's saying is that the battle lines are definitely being drawn in do in some new ways uh with the United States possibly not being as uh well United States kind of being out of the out of it for the European part for now. U but you know we've been pussyfooting around with um Russia for the entire Trump administration. So, um I think that that's all been kind of factored in. Uh so I guess the feeling that I have is that um it's just a very chaotic moment and uh I have I don't know which way it's going to end up. uh but uh I I don't know anything uh to predict anything about whether Ukraine would become part of or not of NATO. I I think the more possible thing would be Ukraine being part of a European structure more but that's the only thing I see uh with sort of a some associate status with the European Union. >> Silinski made a comment a week or two ago which really surprised me. He said if it would be uh in the interest of Ukraine, he'd be happy to step down. At the same time, he has corruption scandals going on. Uh he's firing people. People are quitting out from under him. Um he's he's uh desperate for new recruits. I mean, the news is sort of leaking out about problems that Zinsky is having. Um so what what does this mean, you know, for the future? I mean, yes, he's got people making drones. Yes, he's got technology, but he doesn't have a lot of money to implement that technology. And you wonder how that matches up with the Russian ability to uh develop drones, manufacture drones, send drones over him, and the Russian brutality, if you will, on civilians. How is Zilinski doing? It seems like he's somewhat desperate right now. No, >> I think that Ukraine's been desperate for for since since the invasion. Okay. U by by by Russia. Um there's I may be completely wrong on this, but um you know there's the information war part of this that is uh we're in a period now where there's an information war trying to say what the Zalinski is weak, right? Um, there's been an information part of this that's been going on for a while with regards to Putin being weak. I don't, you know, I don't know what what the truth is in the behind it. Yes, there's a corruption scandal. Well, guess what? What else is new? I mean, in in in a corrupt world, what is a corruption scandal? I mean, my god, we, you know, uh, so I, you know, I'm just, so what I mean is that I think there's an effort to make us think a certain way. Uh, but what is actually going on the ground, um, I'm just not so convinced of. The only thing that I can think though is that um, it's hard. It's very hard for Ukraine. Okay. From what everything you can see, but it's not like the Ukrainians want to give up one inch of their territory. And I think that independent of all the scandals and all that, there there's no sort of Ukrainian, let me give you a piece of me and I'll and walk away because they they know the bear. They know the bear well and the bear knows them. And so, you know, it's, you know, it's a bear looking at a tiger. And that's, you know, I don't know how that works out, but it looks pretty pretty brutal. >> Yeah. Manfred, you know, very concerned about Germany and AFTD. They didn't take over the the what is it? Bunchad um but they came close and uh Mr. Herz Hertz um is resisting them. A lot of people are resisting them, but they're there. They have a big following at the same time. Uh remember Leap remember Leipzig. What is Putin doing in Germany? He's busy boy with his hybrid war in Germany and elsewhere. So how is Germany? It was the bull work, wasn't it? Is it still the bull work? >> I don't want to talk about what is happening in Germany at this time. I wait for two weeks because you have elections in two other East German states. We are speaking not about Germany. We are primarily speaking about a divided country and the five East German states should not be identified with Germany as a whole. Uh of the 82 million Germans uh only a minority lives in East Germany. But what is so interesting about uh the success of the AFD is they they are they part of their victory goes also back toward their support for Putin and their critique of the Ukraine. You know they blame the FD blames the Ukraine for having started the war. I mean they are as crazy as some of the Reagan of some of the Trumpists are in this country. And you know what you have is after this election this really sickening behavior of Vance and Trump in congratulating the AfD because they feel you know like Putin that this move to the right not only in Germany but in all other European countries helps the United States. I don't think it will help the United States and I don't think it will help it will help Putin either. You know, I'm not as as pessimistic about the condition of thei of the Ukraine at this point. Uh I think the the spirit in the in the in the Ukraine of the people is still uh very very solid against uh compromising with uh with Russia and I do not completely agree with Mayor Simmer's comments you know he has made constantly about the war and I don't find him that reliable you know in his predictions. So for that reason, you know, I am uh I'm I mean I the MS I mean the the German government at this point under Chancellor Mats is in trouble now. How they get their act will get their act together, we have to wait until two for two more weeks when we see the elections including in Berlin. Uh but the other one is in uh Miglin for Pomman and that is strangely enough the part where Angela Merkel had uh her constant victories you know as a member of the Bundist. Uh so I think the the situation in in in Europe is well in Germany first is a little bit uh confusing. I would not like to make any predictions at this point. What happens in two weeks when you have these two other elections, these state elections in the former GDR? >> Let me move to the title of our show and shift gears a little bit here. Jean, we're talking about a new kind of diplomacy. We're talking about two inexperienced diplomats, uh, two channels, if you want, who are running around from one war to another, don't seem to be achieving anything. Although I suppose it's better to talk than not talk. I think it's better to talk than blow everything up. But I I would say they're not really helping. Um, is this the kind of diplomacy that is likely to work or is this just a huge waste of time? And do we have sort of an American vacuum that is achieving only more violence? What do you think? >> I don't think you can look at the uh Cats and Jammer kids going to Moscow, I mean uh Whit and Kushner uh without uh pairing that up with John Ratcliffe, the the serious uh director of the CIA uh making a very quick trip on a military transport first to Lithuania where he stopped. and Lithuania is perhaps the strongest ally of Ukraine and then to Russia. I think what happened there was that Ratcliffe went to set this the table for Whit and Kushner to talk to Putin. Obviously, they went there with an agenda and normally uh diplomats who are in the public eye uh go there to uh close a deal or to deliver a message which has already been heard and prepared for. So they they don't go there if they're going to look like they have egg on their faces. So I think Ratcliffe was there to deliver a message and people have been speculating about that message. Um largely it was I think produced by the Europeans who got in touch with the Trump administration and said we're worried that Putin is going to make moves on Europe before 2030 or even 2028. So that hustled things and he went there to tell Putin, look, you know, we may look weak on the world stage that uh he may even have said in so many words, we know that our president is not fully functional and we have to step in and take care of things ourselves in a not so great way. But don't mistake the fact that we are still the most powerful military in the world. you make any moves, you're going to have to answer to us. And I think that's the message he delivered. Now, how it was received, I don't know. The last time a CIA director went was in 2022, delivering the message to Putin, don't invade Uka Ukraine. And Putin did what he wanted. Putin lives in an echo chamber. And what they're trying to do is bring messages from the outside. And whether or not Putin deliver uh believes this, I don't know. but he certainly has a great sense of his own power and uh of all of the guns behind him. Nevertheless, I think Ukraine is facing a terrible winter. Philips O'Brien, a military historian who has a Substack and is in Edinburgh, is is very savvy about Ukraine. He continually corrects the media impressions and the public pundits on what Ukraine is capable of. and he feels it's going to be a very very tough winter for Ukraine. But we also know that of all the countries in Europe, Ukraine is the most um resistant to a Russian takeover. Russia is extremely um skilled in maybe not winning a war, but extremely skilled in winning a peace negotiation. So, back to your first question, the Cats and Jammer kids. No, they're not they're not really up to the task of dealing with the Russian plan, which Putin knows well. He's used in Lithuania in 1940. And the Lithuanians, I got a book there when I was there two years ago, have warned that there is a playbook that he follows. And all he has to do because um Witoff and Kushner went there to say, "We want a three-way negotiation. we want to be involved and all he has to do is convince them that oh yeah Ukraine will be fine with a neutral government as long as they are neutral that's fine with us and then they go about over a period of months or years of actually infiltrating that neutral government with their um their sympathizers there are Russian sympathizers in Ukraine and taking it over and taking over the peace. So, Ukraine is much more um resistant to Russians because they basically had uh a genocidal uh famine that uh that that Stalin uh laid on them and Putin as Stalin trying to Stalin's history. So these are two intrigents and I don't think Ukraine is going to fold, but I think it's going to be a very tough winner. >> Well, you know, Tim, we got wars everywhere. I mean, there are little wars everywhere, more little wars than you could shake a stick at, but we got big wars, too, and we got too many of them. I mean, Trump Trump is essentially at war with Canada. He's at war with the people of the US. Um, he's I think he's kind of at war with Latin America. Then of course he's got a, you know, he's vacuum on Ukraine. He's not doing a good job. He never did. Never. I don't understand what his problem is. Maybe it's the Trump hotel in Moscow, uh, that informs us of his intentions. And then, of course, he's got the useless war in Iran where he's running out of gas and running out of um, you know, weapons. So let's talk about Iran, not only in the sense that Iran seems to be a living, breathing mess uh on every level, but because it has an effect on the other wars. Um your thoughts about Iran these days right now? >> Well, we've discussed it before. Iran is a population of people who are just as determined to keep Iran Iran. um they are they are not a population that folds easily um and in the current regime uh they're zealots uh they just assume fight to the last person then capitulate so when you have that kind of determination uh they're not going to fold like Venezuela they're not going to fold like perhaps Cuba would if if if the US were to go into Cuba um so yeah you can expect a long-term term slog with Iran versus the United States versus the world and they don't care and yes they are going to deplete our resources. Um how much money does it cost to send a Patriot missile as an anti-missile ballistic missile versus a $40,000 drone? And we can't This is how we bankrupted Russia back in the 80s and 90s. We we bankrupt them because we made them think we were in a a nuclear um a nuclear uh buildout uh an arms race. And of course we weren't. And but we we fooled them to spend more money. And you know, Econ 101, you either have money for guns or you have money for butter. And uh I'm afraid that at $40 trillion, Iran is going to force us into further uh trillion dollar debt. And um that's not going to be good for us. And so at some point this is going to have to be curtailed and curtailed soon. We don't have that kind of money for these kind of weapons. And unfortunately Ukraine is going to be the recipient of less um anti-missile technology and and and and funds for that for the United States. And they're going to have to figure out how it is they they fend off Russian drones and Russian uh missiles and ballistic missiles. So the Iranian war has an a huge impact on the world and particularly with Ukraine Russia war. >> You could fool me, but it seems like Jared Kushner and Steve Witco are uh in both of the these locations. They're trying to negotiate peace in both of these locations with um you know equal results in both of these locations. Uh you don't you don't hear about the State Department. Marco is not there really. Uh there's nobody nobody else from the government is actually a special envoy, if you will. Um are they likely to have any success whatsoever in dealing with, you know, uh Iran or Ukraine? Um because, you know, Trump is not involved. He's busy, man. He's busy. He's got all these vanity projects going on in Washington and elsewhere. He's fighting with Canada and Cuba and and Latin America in general. Um he's making a money making money beyond description. He's got virtually thousands of personal stock trades he's doing and making all kinds of money. He's distracting us with every day, every hour some kind of distraction and he's playing golf all the time. So he's not doing it. He's like he likes to micromanage it, but um it's the the guys on the ground are Whit and and Kushner. Um, is that a way to peace? Is that the new kind of diplomacy that we have here? >> It's kind of like before the show started, I I mentioned, you know, during the Cuban missile crisis, the back channel communications. Uh we had an ABC reporter by the name of John Scali um work a back channel communication with uh the Russian uh station chief situated in Washington DC to open up what seemingly was no communication. So I mean it depends on what kind of relationship Kushner and Wickoff have with Russian personnel. And I'm not talking directly with Pug, but I'm talking about his underlings. I mean they may have a solid I don't I don't know but they may have a solid reputation and relationship and that helpens opens the channels of communication and maybe they run past ideas about what would work as as far as a negotiation ploy what what Ukraine has privately told them they would accept and and maybe they pass that along in a back channel way. Um it so I mean based on qualifications no I agree with Jean they're the C jammer twins but um maybe there's something there that we don't see that maybe it's money maybe it's the promise to Putin about great sums of money if he capitulates or backs off uh this war with Ukraine I I don't know but um as we said or as you said um more communication could be helpful >> communication that's a good segue to the question I want to ask you, man. We getting a story here. I mean, I'm getting in so much confusion myself and the people around me, even us guys here, we try to spend little time and understand what's going on, but we're really not getting it because there's a failure of communication. Um, fact is that he hasn't had a press conference since May. My god, that's a long time. and uh he's he's frozen out most of the most of the legitimate uh you know media from talking at the Pentagon, getting information from the Pentagon. It's only what he tells us which you know is the news. And so these guys are playing us. It goes back to our earlier show with Tim about um performative non-performance. Uh and and I and I suspect uh that the media is not doing a good job. They are following the the shiny objects. What do you think? Are we getting the story or is this leading us all astray? >> I don't feel like we're getting the the real story. We're getting bits of real story here and there, but the the the the thing that I try to when I look at all of these people and I'm going to agree with Jean's cats and jammer vision is that who has gravitas in all this who who when you see them when they speak about this in our administration um or uh around has gravitas about what's going on. And with so many of the news media, uh, at least in the States, having been hollowed out with regards to their foreign correspondents and all that stuff, they can't help but just be followers with regards to what's going on. With regards to the Captain Jammer twins, I look at them as just fig leaves. fig leaves that are just floating back and forth between different places. Uh do you think that there's anything really serious coming from either of them of any imaginative uh usefulness in this setting? No. Do you think there's anything coming out of Rubio where they've hollowed out the State Department? No. Do you think there's anything coming out of the White House? No. Maybe something in the intelligence community, but uh I'm, you know, Ratcliffe to me does not seem to be what I would call the first team with regards to the intelligence group. So, you know, I look at them all and I'm like the deadly serious ones, Zalinski. Absolutely. Uh Putin, absolutely. Those two definitely the Iranian leadership deadly serious. Okay. Uh and uh so I uh Carney deadly serious. Those are the ones that I see that are now I can't speak to the UK too much because the guy's really new. Uh but he seems to be a different style from Pierce Stormer before that. Um Mron's on his kind of his way out. Mertz has got a serious issue, but he's a deadly serious person. And those folks in Poland and all those from what I can see, they they seem to be deadly serious people about all this. Uh Ci Jinping deadly serious. Okay. So when I look at it that way, those are the players that I look to and trying to think about what are they going to try to do in this kind of setting. Uh and you know, weapons to Ukraine, I think, are going to keep flowing in this harsh winter. in the harsh winter. I will stipulate to this being a harsh winter, but you know, I I was in DC when uh they uh uh uh inaugurated the uh monument to the Hello Debor back a few years back. Just randomly happened to be in front of Union Station when it was all happening there. And it really stayed with me to see all of those Ukrainian Americans, including my representative, Marcy Captor, uh uh there. And and that's just the American side of it. But in in Ukraine, I you know, I think that there's a there's a level of uh of seriousness that uh you know, they're not going down. They're not going down. I'm not so sure that Russia is ready for that. >> Manford, you know, you need to look at NATO. Is NATO still viable? Can NATO provide uh real money and real weapons? You know, we talk about how they're going to increase country by country, they're going to increase the percentage of their GDP um you know uh to defense, but is it getting to Ukraine? Um Ukraine is starving for money and weapons. You got to hand it to them. They're courageous and creative. But is is R is is uh you know is is the U. EU I call it the EU because I don't think that NATO really has much of an effect these days actually doing what they should be doing or is the EU sort of fragmented? Has all this hybrid war by by Putin discouraged them, demoralized them? all these threats and uh Trump's Trump's withdrawal, his abandonment, that must de demoralize them, too. So, are they providing can they provide the money, the weapons that Ukraine needs? Uh I'm I'm very concerned that uh that Ukraine isn't getting it and I'm also concerned that uh Europe really doesn't care much about Iran. One thing that I wanted to comment on Tim's assessment of Iran. Iran is not a solid country. It is a divided country. And I think we have to be aware of that that this leadership does not represent the majority of the Iranian people. we had these huge protests over the years and I think this protest uh potential is still there but beside aside from that yes I say I would say that Ukraine gets the money uh it got the money from Germany for example and it will get the support from Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries. So what you have there is a solid European um support for for the Ukraine. Look and you have in I mean the the fear the angst you know of Putin Putin's Russia but you have also to understand that Putin is not in a solid position. I mean, you have now these rumors going on in Russia that he is preparing for draft, general draft, and you have thousands of young Russian men trying to get out of Russia at this point, flying to Cyprus, to all kinds of other countries. So, the depletion, you know, of uh the military, the Russian military is absolutely extraordinary. Now you could say you have the same problem certainly in the Ukraine because the death toll there even though it's not as high as in Russia but it's high and so there's a limit you know a limit of the replacement for the military in the Ukraine but the support of the people for Sinsk's 's policies toward Russia I think is solid. So for that reason um if there is a population you know that is solidly behind uh its leadership it's in the Ukraine it's not in the United States it's not in Russia it's not in Iran you know you have a very bizarre in that regard a very bizarre situation now I think u the the EU uh uh in a made profits from this uncertainty and you have more candidates now waiting for becoming members not only countries like Georgia but others uh and I think the EU should have admitted under Angela Merkel's leadership uh the should have promoted the admission of the Ukraine to the EU the NATO membership I think did not have the support and the Ukraine should not become admitted to NATO. >> Let's go to Jean. Jean, you know, it it's all it seems like chaos and u many people have said we're we're in a at least a cold war. I mean, a global cold war, including both a shooting war and a hybrid war. Some people say we're ramping up to World War II. Um we have all these wars going on and I haven't even mentioned other conflicts in other places in the world. Um and there's no organization no acronym out there. I mean is it is it this week uh that uh uh the bricks is meeting in New Delhi and uh I don't think they're interested in stopping either of these wars because you have uh Russia uh China in fact you have Iran is included in the BRICS group so they don't really care organization UN is is um you know is is is incompetent these days NATO you have to wonder about it the US you don't have to wonder we're not doing anything and Trump is never going to do anything. That's why this is all a performance of sorts. Where are we? That's my question is sort of general, but where are we? Are are we we in a cold war? Are we in World War II? Where are we heading with all of these conflicts and all of these people who are not competent to stop wars or not interested in stopping wars? We have to look at this in a big historical canvas. um what Trump has succeeded in doing by cobbling together what is basically a ultraist movement and succeeding to make it the administration and then to make the executive branch uh more autocratic with the help of the Supreme Court um is to move us back to the 19th century. Uh MAG is a very backwardlooking movement. it it wants to go back to where we were or they think we were in the 1950s or before. But in terms of foreign policy wants to go back to before World War I where you had a lot of nationalist states who were looking sideways at each other and had all kinds of little spats going on. And if you look at the history of Europe before that, it's a history of wars between states. So that's where we are now as our international um organizations are weakening through the rise of nationalism in all of their countries. And there's a huge propaganda war going on as well among the right-wing parties in the West. They're on the same page. So people are getting the idea that they have to retreat into their own countries and not care about the other guys. But the world doesn't operate that way because there is a coalition under China and Russia that has brought in proxies Iran and North Korea and is wooing all of these so-called unaligned states who want to stay out of these conflicts and it's trying basically to take the place uh as world hegeimon uh both financially, militarily and politically. So Trump is totally not up to this. By the way, I just want to say I may have talked about Ken Burns going to Moscow was William Burns. He is one of our diplomats ameritus and security guys ameritus. And I'm sure I agree with Tim that there's a lot of there's a lot of people in this government who are know their way in over their head and they're talking to people like William Burns um who have been all over the map and know it very well. The fact is that as long as you have a retreat into nationalism and especially the uber nationalism of Putin, uh you are on a track for another world war. We are in a great historical era of ultraism and world wars. And I'm actually working on the thought processes that are behind that that are basically in the western world apocalyptic. Apocalyptic is on everybody's mouth and and and it's been around since 1914. The World War I was considered an apocalypse by Americans. And then you had plague and then you've had revolutions and you've had more wars and you've had, you know, on and on. So yes, but that's a broad picture. In the narrow picture, what is going to um give us a better idea is are the two upcoming elections, the one in Israel in October and the one in the United States in November. That's the one to look at. Yes, the elections in Germany are interesting, but as Manfred has pointed out, it's largely, you know, in East Germany that this movement is strong. So, Mertz still has a government and West Germans are still not in agreement with the AFD. It's here that counts. It's how we do we deal with an ultra nationalist movement that has taken over our party of traditionalists and conservatives in this country. What can we do to restore the Republican party to its rightful place in the American government? And basically to get rid of this movement that Trump has cobbled together out of all the misfits and and outlanders and have nothing but anti-government sentiments and don't know how to govern a country. That's the question. >> Okay, Jim, time for uh closing thoughts if you don't mind. Can you sort of bring this together, make some sense out of it? Um, I think we're in trouble. That is, the whole world is in trouble and the US is not here to help. Um, but what are your thoughts about where this is going and where the US is going and and whether whether if the US turns around and says we're back whether that would work whether whether the the US if it it finds some real diplomats um you know we'll be able to negotiate peace or at least ceasefires and stave off uh what I'm concerned about what Gan is concerned about namely a broader Yeah, >> Mark Carney said it best in the Davos speech basically that the United States is not to be dependent upon uh as far as a a solution provider or as a partner be it um an economic war or be it with a kinetic war. um he'll cut and run and he's shown that in the past. And if if if you're on the receiving side of of of the United States help, I would question highly whether that would continue or not because uh he's knifed our allies in the back multiple times and he'll do it again cuz that's how he plays. So uh this the conflict between Iran and the United States certainly is disturbing as all wars. Um I think it will in the future. um settle down. I I think the Ukraine Russian war eventually will settle down, but how many lives, how many, you know, how many missiles have to be spent, how many economies ruined for for military purposes is anyone's guess. And it's unfortunate, but um we've always had wars, unfortunately, and I think we'll continue to have them. And and Ukraine, Russia is no exception, and Iran, and the United States is no exception. Um, I think people will have make their money off these wars. Donald Trump certainly already has. And um, there you are. I mean, we've got a grifter and chief and as long as war is profitable for him and his his cronies, then you may see it continue. >> Ben, back a few years ago when I was in the service, um, the military was asked to be a diplomatic organization. Coast Guard went hither and yan and they met with diplomats, they met with their parallels, their peers in various countries and in fact um the APCSS, the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies um down there in Wiki at Fort Darusi now known as the DKI APCSS DKI is Daniel Koe um you know was interested in bringing people together on a diplomatic level so they wouldn't be angry and that their progeny wouldn't be angry. And for a while that was successful. For a while the military was successful um as sort of second tier diplomats. But that isn't the case anymore. You can see the military has been hammered uh and fragmented by Trump and it's no longer what it was. I am thinking of of the Lincoln uh pulling into Phuket uh with with uh rust all over it as a statement of American military hegemony. It's not like it was with rust everywhere. Um so, you know, the question is is is there anybody home here? Are we going to be able to talk our way out of this or have has the world written us off? I don't think that the world can write off America per se. Okay. It's just too present. But I would say that the America uh that the world has at least discounted America somewhat more severely than than maybe uh some people think. Uh uh and so you know the thing that I would think about on the military level is that you can't ignore the American military and I distinguish between the civilian leadership and the military actually uniform people. I think that military to military in terms of the uniform people in different countries they are likely to communicate with each other to what what's that famous word deconlict deconlicting there's a lot of deconlicting going on uh I would believe military to military so they don't that you know people don't misunderstand what a move is um I saw something about I think the the commander for the uh the far east you know being in contact with the equivalent of China to try to explain exactly what was going on at a military, you know, functional level, not at a political level and and keeping it in the language of functionality uh with the when when the political level is crazy. So, uh so yeah, I think that there's a certain amount of discounting uh that would be done of American political power. uh but there would not be discounting of the potential uh militarily. Uh but if you if if you want a final thought, you know, on this ultraist thing, I just was thinking that it's kind of a I don't know, it's kind of an irony that we essentially have an ultraist international you know or you know going around the world all these people are talking to each other you know Elon Musk is throwing some money to here there and everywhere whatever is going on you know they're all talking to each other you know marriage and all the rest of them, you know, it's like an international, you know, like people used to talk about the the communist thing. Woo. Remember back in the day? uh and and so uh um uh but uh I do think that uh the tension is that I think the realists will understand that in coping with such an enormously difficult set of movements that are coordinating across countries that at least the leaderships of the countries that want to maintain democ democra ies I'm saying the leadership who wanted to m maintain democracy. I'm distinguishing that from our Trump administration uh uh would uh would make sure that they are in concert with each other and you know they're you know the fact that we're seeing the Scandinavians somehow seeming to play more significant roles than you used to at least in a military senses. It's fascinating to me. I mean, we know we used to think of all peace and love up there, but you know, they they've seen it. They've seen this stuff before, you know, and, uh, and so, um, I do I do find I I I would say there's one thing that I found really interesting very recently, uh, which was that what was it? Canada, United Kingdom and a couple of other countries are banning what imports from uh products that are made in the uh West Bank. Several other countries at the same time did that in a coordinated fashion. That's a really interesting development, you know, in the context of all that's going on with regards to Israel and the and the and the war there that they would do that. You know, it's I don't know what that means, but it was something that I found really interesting that like four or five European countries did the same thing around the same time. Um I don't know what the significance of it but at least to me it was a signal that there's some definite dialogue going on among those states about different places in the world where they can have impact uh and uh and so you know that my my my optimism uh or if I call it optimism my my my sense of hope for peace lies with uh the those who who who are showing gravitas. I look for those who are showing gravitas and those are the ones I think that'll get us out of this. >> Manfred, uh I love the notion of a nationalism international. What do you think about that? What are your final thoughts? >> Two things. I I'm sorry to have to disappoint Ben because Germany and Israel just started military industrial uh cooperation. There will be a major Israeli defense uh factory being opened with German support in Germany. Now uh you but on the other hand you also have uh German Ukrainian industrial cooperation in the in the production of weaponry. So in that sense you know Germany against the opposition by the AFD is cooperating with Israel and Ukraine. Now at this point I must however say that the only political adult in the room is the prime minister of Canada. So I have to congratulate Ben that he lives uh in Canada. I do not find at this point anyone who equals you know his uh sober political uh vision. It's sad to say that. And you know what one has also to hope for is that the not only the German major parties, the Christian Democrats and the social democrats regenerate and become political viable, but the American parties need this kind of political regeneration. You know, nobody really uh understands why the Republicans are in a state they are. The democrats are fighting about their identity with the democratic socialist that some even of you think are communist. I don't think they are communist but doesn't matter. In any case, there is a creative struggle going on in the Democratic party that hopefully will lead to some kind of carnification, you know, of American politics. >> Uh Jean, you're the anchor woman if you don't mind. uh put it together for us. What are your closing thoughts? >> I think we're in the middle of it. It's a big mess. But I do think I agree with Manford about uh Mark Carney. He gave a a amazing speech. He uh was head of the World Bank. I believe lived in Europe a lot of years, made a lot of contacts. He is building bridges to Europe. Uh the Scandinavians are coming together in a military union in a way that only they can. Yes, they um have been on the one hand neutral, on the one hand not all involved. I'm thinking of little Iceland. On the other hand, occupied as in Denmark and and Norway. So, uh they're also positioned in the Arctic, which is um a major area of Russia. They've just Russia has issued a warning to the West to stay out of their territory in the Arctic area. Russia controls about half of the uh coastal area in the Arctic. As you know, the ice is breaking up. China, they've let China in. China is now making transarctic uh shipments of goods and material to get to Europe to avoid that troublesome area in uh south west Asia and the Red Sea. So, look to the Arctic. And I think the Scandinavians mean business. They are also very close with the Baltic countries and will try to weigh in and protect the Baltic countries if uh the Baltic countries cannot depend on NATO. And of course we know that Russia has a port in the Baltic Sea where it never let go of Koenigburg after World War II. Took it from Germany. It's now called Colleen Grat and that's where they've been doing a lot of their hybrid uh kinetic stuff against Europe from they have uh a shadow fleet there that cuts cables and do does all sorts of mischief. So we have this little um flare up this kind of low lowkey annoyance that Russia is carrying on in Europe. So Europe is trying to get past all of the disappointments and distractions internally and externally from Trump and the AFD and and people like that uh to make their own uh arrangements and alliances because they feel that they're under threat and uh they're also fighting to keep their tow hold in the Arctic um and to control the ship the future shipping lanes that are going to go uh along Greenland. And so we have to look both to the past and the future. These authoritarian parties are looking to the past and so is Russia trying to reconstitute greater Russia. I don't think there's any future in that in the long run, but it could lead to more and more violence. >> Okay, we'll have to leave it there. This is what a world which is losing the liberal world order looks like. That's what it sounds like to me. Thank you so much to our co-host Tim Aella. Thanks to our guests Ben Davis, Gene Rosenfeld, Manfred Henson. I'm Jay Fidel, host of Keeping the World Company. The title of this episode has been a new kind of diplomacy with Russia. A new kind of diplomacy around the world. Thanks to our viewers for watching. We'll see you again soon for the next one. Aloha. Aloha all you guys.