Yeah.

Welcome to the Aaron Harber show.

My special guest, retire Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman.

Alex, again great to have you back.

Thanks.

We've been talking a lot about the Ukraine.

One last question about Ukraine, which is Ukraine essentially gave up its nuclear weapons and in exchange for actually sending them to to Russia.

It got assurances in writing from the United Kingdom, from the United State and from Russia that they would recognize its sovereignty.

What happened to that deal?

This is an unfortunately, this is a feature of international relations.

In, you know, there have been many episodes in which, diplomac achieved a particular outcome, and it was suitable for that moment.

You know, for years or a couple of decades.

But, conditions change.

And I think what, what the U.S. probably perceived at the time, I think, without even explicitly saying this is they were concerned about Russian aggression, Russian imperialism.

We use the term assurances explicitly because we didn't want to offer security guarantees and put us on the hook for defending Ukraine.

And Ukraine acted in its own national interest.

There was the it would have been extremely costly for Ukraine to sustain a nuclear arsenal.

Just from a, a monetary standpoint and then from their ability to be able to integrate with the Western world and, build relationships with democracies.

If they weren't, we're not denuclearizing and joining the nonproliferation regime.

So I think at the time it made a lot of sense.

Very, maybe some of the biggest mistakes of denuclearize was the fact that we did it throug Russia and that Russia actually took control of these nuclear arsenals and bombers and in some cases, the bombers that they're using against Ukraine to this day.

And it's an unfortunate that in the intervening years, because this occurred in 94 and then took some more years because that we didn't do more to secure and bolster Ukraine and harden them.

So like this, they wouldn't b such a, ripe target for Russia.

I'm going to jump to Iran.

Is there any way to really prevent Ira from becoming a nuclear power?

Now, the calculation within the Iranian regime is does, can they get away with it?

Can they manage to conduct a clandestine, nuclear program where they achieve a nuclear bomb, test it, signal that that they are now a nuclear stat and then successfully warn off, both Israel and the US from other strikes or other, use of military force.

That's, that's that's a tough thing to do.

I certainly Iran looks thoroughly penetrated, being able to conduct this kind of breakout, after the damage that the nuclear weapons program has suffere is not the easiest thing to do.

So they need to decide whether they want to risk it, because what it will end up happenin is that the Israelis have this, this term that they all mow the lawn.

They'll just continue to do maintenance attacks to make sure that, that Ukraine doesn't get to this level.

But I think, it does send a signal to Iran and other regimes around the world that the ultimate security guarantee is a nuclear arsenal that prevents, the U.S. and other states from attacking them.

So that's the that's the kind of the calculations that are going through the regime right now.

When you look at the war in Iraq, where we los almost 4500 troops, where over 32,000 others were injured where we spent over $2 trillion.

Was that a mistake?

Just from a from the standpoint of U.S. credibility, from the standpoint of what was the justification for for the war?

It was the theory that we would we were going ther to make sure that Saddam didn't have a nuclear weapons program, which he didn't.

So on the face of it, it was problematic.

We would have we would still potentially hav a, authoritarian regime there, although a lot of of those regimes, you know, ended up failing.

And, withering and disappearing.

It's arguabl that after a couple of decades of investment that we don't have one an authoritarian regime.

And, we managed to leave the situation there with lots of broken pieces, but with a kind of some sort of.

Way for the Sunnis, the Kurds and the Shias to coexist.

And it is a functional state.

It's par of the international community.

You know there was a concern that it was a proxy to Iran, that that's not the case anymore.

Our our elimination of this, same regime allowed aroun to emerge as a regional power.

But now that Iran has been weakened.

You now have a city state.

I could see, you know, how for many other folks that you have, interviewed, we could make a case for why involvement there would would make sense.

But I don't think it was.

It was justified.

What about Israel?

What's the endgame there?

Israel is fundamentally i a different security environment than it was in, October 7th, a couple of years back.

A much better, much, much better security environment.

Hamas has been decimated.

Hezbollah has been decimated.

The military definition is like 90% destroyed.

So these are fundamentally for Hezbollah, for for Hezbollah.

And what's probably Hamas to Hamas, too, is suffered massive losses.

The Assad regime has gone there.

It looks like there's going to be a peace treaty between Israel and, Syria.

It opened the path for Israel to conduct attacks on Iran's nuclea program and significantly weaken the regime in Israel.

Israel going to keep the territory that it's taken in Syria?

Do you think so I gave one side of the equation.

I think the other side of the equation.

What bothers me is that Israel's brand is Israel's standing i the world, is taking a huge hit over a war that I thin that's a polite way to put it.

I think Netanyahu's a bad actor.

I think Netanyahu's a bad actor.

He's friends with Trump because they share a lot of the same character flaws.

Could care less or put his own interests ahead of Israel's national security interests.

More callous with, with human life.

I think that, this, this war that is being waged against Hamas doesn't end with bombs.

It ends with some other solutions.

And you know where you are, where both the U.S. and Israel could have invested much more in resources in trying to bring the Arab world together to play a constructive role.

But I don't think Netanyahu cares about that so much.

You rather continue to bomb like this.

It keeps him out of jail because he's subject to lots of corruption investigation.

So I'm concerned about, the long term hit that the moral leadership that Israel has taken, although frankly very happy to see that one of America's most important allies and I'm Jewish also.

So I understand the importance of a Jewish homeland, a homeland, that Israel is secure.

I think the sooner that, Israelis could vote out Netanyahu and bring in a, leade that sticks to, Israel's values, which are a very huge departure from where Netanyahu is the better.

And then, you know, they could embrace what they've managed to achieve with regards to security, but they have a lot of work to do to, to rebuild.

I think their relationships around the world is a two stat solution, in your opinion, debt and, any, any path to that, for example, I mean, the, the off the chart, you know, idea that I had was give Gaza to Israel.

It's been decimated.

Have the US set a, be a model for, resettlin a quarter of a million people?

And then you ask so many other countries in the area it sounds like the Trump plan.

Yeah, we're talking about, but I already have a design for the hotel.

And then but, but you know, the flip side is that we create a Palestinian state and that, you know, Israe is going to have to deal with, a new country and not be able to terrorize Palestinians the way, the way Israel is doing, especially of late.

I mean, the stories that are coming out of the West Bank in terms of, I mean, it have been settlers harassing, you know, Palestinians.

And then, now it's evolved to the poin where they're they're injuring, they're killing, and where before the military wasn't involved, then the military, you know, would turn its head.

Now the military is actually involved in these, and it is a singula conflict, in part because as it as it evolved after 1948, when there was a viable I mean, the formulation was for two separate states.

Unfortunately what ended up happening is that the Palestinians were bolstered by the fact that the Arab there are Arab states and neighbors were not willing to accept Israel.

And those condition dating back, you know, decades and generation allowed a situation to unfold in which it really undermine the idea of a two state solution coexisting together.

The fundamental idea was to create, you know, these two populations that had different visions of the future.

I think you fundamentally nee to figure out how to get there.

I don't know how in this moment I don't know how, mainly because I certainly under the Netanyahu there's no interest in doing this.

You would need massive investments in order to help build rebuild Gaza.

You would need to figure out how to prevent Hamas from, operating freely and, building and, you know, a rebuilding, a terror operation there.

What I could tell you, you know, clear as day, is that this is not likely the administration that' going to be thoughtful enough.

Surgical when you talking about the Trump administration to be able to resource a, an end game two state solution, and and, of course, it doesn't hel as long as and yahoos in power that there's no interest there at all.

Netanyahu and Trump I don't think we get there.

But I think, you know, beyon beyond that time, beyond 2028, I'd like to see some some sort of strides to get us back to what the conception was of, of the world in establishing the state of Israel and looking for a two state solution.

And you might be able to do it, actually, strangely enough, because back then you had external actors propping up and then resisting the idea of a two state solution, rooting it out, maybe with all these alliances that Israel is establishing Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, maybe, maybe there's a way to do this, but it's going to take years and some it's not Donald Trump or his, his, you know, Steve would call for any of those folks that are going to come up with this, but let's, travel to the other side of the globe, China, is China going to attack Taiwan?

My concern about Taiwan is probably around 20, 27.

There's this, you know, a bit of a magical number.

If you look at the some of the, I think, thoughtful analysis, it's when they have the tools in place, they have the capabilities.

They built enough ships.

I think that's part of the equation that they, you know, have developed the military capabilities.

It's when you act, yo have you act on on capabilities and intent.

And I think the intent to act to, to resolve this, this issue under a Trump administration in its last year, when you might be able to do, like a sweetheart deal with Trump, who's very transactional, really doesn't care about Taiwan.

He doesn't necessarily want China to win, but he he might be able to be incentivized to look the other way.

I think 2027 becomes a really challenging moment in which if they don't act, then, then they may miss the window for, the use of military force to realize their policy.

Why?

Why would they miss the window?

Why wouldn't that window stay open?

Because I think the US, continues to be, just the the the, global heavyweight, that our economy keeps growing in a, in a extremely robust manner.

The Chinese economy is, is contracting the population.

They have enormous demographic challenges.

There's a theory called power cycle theory.

So the idea is that they've created they're now kind of on the decline.

Their their economic growth rates aren't as are not sustainable in the certainly in the double digits or even the high single digits, you're looking at 4 or 5%.

So, so which actually to us would look good here.

It would look good.

But that's not where they want to be where they need to be in order to, to actually provide work provide services for, for their, for their population.

So because they're on the decline, they crash, they're on the decline.

They've got emerging India as a challenge.

They are now grasping on to retain, you know, power.

And part of that would be going after Taiwan.

So I think it is a closing window you know, beyond 2030 and 2035, I don't think it's the same China that as a potentially effective tax on personal questions.

Give me an example where you were wrong on foreign policy.

Are there a lot or just the very few?

I've been I've been pretty good, certainly in my in my core area of expertise called Ukraine, correctly timing and scale.

I, pretty good on, on things.

I take the time to study, comfortable declaring that Trump was going to act.

But I have been wrong.

And I think part of the reason that, I may be better at calling some of these things is because I've learned from mistakes in the past.

I think in my portfolio, I had Belarus, and I made a bad call about Belarus in, in around the 20 2019, 2020 period.

The 30 was that we take th overtures from the Belarusians, that they were going to conduct free and fair elections in August of 2020.

We take their desire to maintain their sovereignty, independence, and, we see if there's a way to test this, you know, remote.

I, we recognize this was remote idea to drive a wedge between Belarus and Russia.

And, we did that by sending signals that you know, to acceptable regime that, that they could take these, repressive tactics against their own population.

And, that's a that's a mistake that I made that it would, I learned from and justify the means, and I don't I try not to think in that manner.

No, but I mean, it's also good to, you know, be able to be self-critical and and especially to learn from it.

Speaking of learning how would you describe President Trump?

The opposite of learning.

If you can contrast, Trump, if there is any difference, I'd be interested in your tak between Trump 45 and Trump 47.

So that's an easier one.

I think Trump 45, was constrained.

He was constrained in that he didn't know anything about wielding power.

He knows a little bit more now.

I think it's a feature of the fact that in the first administration, he had competent foreign policy practitioners that would counsel him, that, he was making mistakes and often he would reverse course.

You would do it behind the scenes, and these things would not play out in the public eye.

Sometimes they did play out publicly.

One of the most famous moments was Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, resigning in protest about this hard pivot away from the the Kurds who were helping us fight, ISIS and ISIL in, in Syria, casting off that relationship.

And, that was a public spa and, and Trump reversed course.

But by and large, he just he listened, to folks, that were really jumping up and down, telling him that he's making a mistake this time.

He doesn't have that.

He has cheerleaders, folks that tell him that he's brilliant and beautiful and can do no wrong, and he needs to follow his instincts.

And that's one of the biggest, one of the biggest differences between this and last administration.

And that's very, very dangerous because he is now acting, you know, he he's not just a liberal, but he's a lawless and he's, you know, looking for ways to test the law, to test the Constitution and undo, you know, the, this country as we know it, wher the where everybody is subject to the law and he looks like seemingly he's not.

So, how would I describe his character?

The only person that matters is him and then his family.

And then everything else is largely irrelevant.

I've been fascinated by the effort, by Trump and administration to reduce, you know, to do budget cutting where, they're literally seem to be decimating agencies without much thought about, the cost benefit ratio that, how much are you really saving versus, you know, what, what you're doing.

I'd like your thoughts about that, especially in regard to, like, the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, Voice of America is a is a minor example.

Certainly some of our scientific research, when it seems to everybody, including in that administration, knows that, if you're going to really make any kind of substantial, difference in the, the national debt, and annual federal deficits, it's going to be a function of where we, you know, we spend money on transfer payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.

We spend almost.

Well, yeah, the Department of Veterans Affairs, we spend over $1 trillion a year in, you know, in defense.

And there's there's actually not that much left, to play with or raise taxes, obviously, which which, frankly, we probably might need to consider that an option in itself.

It seems the president ha expressed some, some openness.

Much to my surprise and pleasure to that concept.

I think that, we are headed toward greater crises in this country.

One of the reasons we find ourselves in this challenging momen in our hyper polarized society is that we left too many people behind.

Globalization, deindustrialization, left people behind.

And there was an opportunity for our leaders to do better.

We could have thought through jobs, programs to retool and, keep folks engaged and access to to prosperity.

And instead, we dammed a federal government, demonized public servants.

And we are face we're actually on the horizon of something, you know, far more dangerous.

We're on the horizon of a can I revolution that's displace more jobs.

That means more people that are, upset and looking for outlets for their anger.

So from my standpoint, why are we taxing our this country's, you know, poorest folks?

I think there's a case to be made that, you know, if you make below a certain number, I I'll leave it to the experts to decide 30,000, 50,000 for a family.

Maybe you don't need to pay taxes.

I think there's something to be said about, you know, the tax base and the loopholes for the way that, corporations pay taxes, that needs to be closed.

And, you know, this idea that our, our businesses are going to go somewhere else, that's kind of absurd.

The reason that they exist and thrive is because we have a unique environment to allow these, these existin and new industries to flourish.

So I think we need to be a little bit more thoughtful about that.

I think we need to be thoughtful about what gives people the mobility, to, you know, achieve some level of wealth and happiness.

And that's social safety nets, that's social security that needs to stay intact.

That is, health health insurance.

We need to do bette on expanding health insurance.

If that's that could be something along the lines of, you know, approaching universal health care.

We this is these are the things that as the richest country in the world, we need to be able to d the the current debates about, taxes, immigration policy and border securit are really Band-Aid Band-Aids.

And we need to think a lot more creatively, especially on the back end of what I think is going to be a pretty disastrous, you know, another thre and a half years where only six, not even six months in, that we need to think a little bit more creatively about not just building back, but building back better and, and providing, you know, access to, to a prosperity in the American dream that my family was able to, embrace and and prosper because of.

All right, building back better.

That has a familiar ring to it.

It's a good term.

So I you know I haven't heard that in a while.

Okay.

Last, some quick questions.

Leadership.

What makes a great leader a great leader, in my view, would be somebody that is willing to do the harder You know, there there are plenty of times you might have to do things that are unpopular.

You should be able to make make the case as to why you'r taking those kinds of actions.

So I think that fundamentally, it's somebody that's also willing to learn from mistakes is reflective, listens to subordinates, and then is decisive, is able to act.

So I think that makes a good package for a leader who, in your opinion, are some great leaders who have to be historica any from anywhere, on the globe.

Who give me a couple examples and tell me why.

Sure.

I'll give you, you know, a name and there are two folks that come to mind Roosevelt.

So, it's Theodore Roosevelt, and his adage of, speak softly softly, but carry a big stick.

That's the idea of, peace through strength to a certain extent.

He also buil our national public park system, you know, thoughtful individual, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a superb leader that actually put in the social safety nets, the most popular programs that this country, this country has with regards to Social Security.

Inspirational leadership is important, too.

But you also need to, be able to be decisive and act.

So there are folks that you know that in certain regards may have fallen, fallen short, you know, inspirational leaders that that weren't able to to be able to act decisively into it, follow through on on the things that they thought they needed, such as, you know, if anyone particular comes to mind, that's that you're willing to look a name.

President Obama was a deeply inspirational leade and cast a beautiful image of.

Of where?

Of the US role in the world.

And you know what we should be striving for towards a more perfect union.

I think he ended up I apologize, Mr. President, I thought he was a little bit to, cautious, cautious with regards to, foreign policy and got us into some of the predicaments we're facing right now.

I think there was an opportunity, an ability and a necessity to act with regard to Russia and Ukraine, and, Russia and Georgia at the beginning of his term, Crimea, Crimea.

I think that there was I think that we want we patriotism to me also, you know, involve a, a component of, criticality.

So critical patriotism where we fell short, but, being able to follow through and move things.

So I think we could have, he' a good template to build off of.

How do you think leadership has changed in the past few decades?

How has the environment made leadership different or more challenging?

Yeah, well, I'll tell you, it's important to recognize that, yes, the leaders themselves have changed, but the our expectations of leaders have changed.

And that's really probabl one of the most awful components here is that, you know, we hold our leaders to a lower standard than we hold ourselves instead of the other way around.

We should be holding them to a higher standard.

So, I think the expectation that, you know, we, we accept that it's okay for a politician to be dirty, a corrupt or two faced is that's that's on us.

We shouldn't be accepting of that.

I think that there's also, We have the folks that go into public service.

I have the privilege of working to, through an organization called Vote Vets to hel get veterans elected to office.

So there, we have a lot of folks that served in national security roles.

I think this is a good group of, you know, values based folks.

I think, folks that come in and and do it for power squeaked through, and we need to do a better job of holding folks accountable.

We don't do that.

We don't hold enough people accountable.

Alex, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thanks.

That was retire Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman, Purple Heart recipient, former staff member o the National Security Council.

Make sure you watc all of our episodes with Alex.

I'm Aaron harbor.

Thanks for watching.

We'll see you next time.

I'm Aaron, host of the Aaron Harbor show.

With the explosion in scams in the billions of dollars people have been losing every year.

I want to remind everyone there are ways you can protect yourself.

Start with lookin at the websites on your screen.

Don't answer calls or text from anyone you don't know.

Governmen agencies will never call to ask for personal information or money.

Government payments you never need to be confirmed in advance.

Do not give out your Social Security or Medicare number, credit card or bank account information or password.

Anyone you don't know, a prize you supposedly won, which require any kind of payment is a scam.

Never send money or gift cards to someone you don't know.

Look carefully at email addresses so you aren't tricke into thinking it's legitimate.

And don't open emails from anyone you don't know.

Delete all emails which asks you to log into an account and protect yourself by visiting the websites you've seen on the screen.

For more information.

Hi, I'm Aaron Harbor host of the Aaron Harbor Show.

I want to tell you about a new number that's importan for you and everyone you know.

It's 988988 is the new National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

988 is the new number to call any time you feel suicidal or are in any other kind of crisis.

Nine, eight, eight is the fastest way to call or text for help.

988 is there for you to use right now to get help.

988 is the number to call or text to have your questions and your concerns addressed.

Nine, eight eight is always free to call or text from any phone in the United States.

Nine eight, eight connects yo any time with the help you need year round, 24 hours a day.

Nine, eight eight also can be reached online to chat with a counselor at 988 lifeline.org chat.

I hope you'll tell everyone about 988.