>> Our greatest national-security threat right now is really an insider threat, and it's backed up by a new acceptance that if you don't like the outcome of an election, violence is then, in some way, warranted.

♪♪ >> Hello and welcome to "GZERO World."

I'm Ian Bremmer.

And today, we are taking a deep dive into the national-security threats facing the United States.

From Russia's invasion of Ukraine to China's vision for a new global order, there is plenty keeping President Biden's national-security officials up at night.

Does this White House have its eye on the ball or is there more the U.S. government could be doing to protect its 330 million citizens?

There's always more.

Of course there is.

To break those threats down for you and to talk about what we may be missing, I'm joined by New York Times national-security correspondent David Sanger.

Later, what a red wave for Republicans at the midterms could mean for U.S. foreign policy.

And don't worry -- I've also got your "Puppet Regime."

>> Are you tired of elections that are confusing, meddled with, or disputed?

>> But, first, a word from the folks who help us keep the lights on.

>> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by... >> Do you feel safe?

Do you lock your door at night?

Check that all the windows are fastened?

Maybe you've installed a floodlight outside your garage to scare off robbers, the raccoons, public-television hosts.

You never know who's out there.

You assess potential threats to yourself and your family.

You act accordingly.

That's what adults do.

But when it comes to national security, every new presidential administration is required to do something not so different.

In mid-October, President Biden released his long-anticipated National Security Strategy.

It's a 45-page document evaluating the many threats and challenges facing the United States, foreign and domestic.

It's kind of like the new Taylor Swift album dropping, but for paranoid people.

And just like that album -- yes, just like it -- the report contains some surprises.

Take, for instance, the country it identifies as the biggest national-security threat facing the United States today.

Sure, Putin has waged an illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, killing tens of thousands in the process, destabilizing the global economy, not to mention he's threatened nuclear Armageddon with the nonchalance of a psychopath.

And, yet, it's China, not Russia, The White House sees as America's most formidable long-term threat.

Here's National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan speaking about the report and using the abbreviation PRC for the People's Republic of China.

They do that.

>> The PRC's assertiveness at home and abroad is advancing an illiberal vision across economic, political, security, and technological realms in competition with the West.

It is the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and the growing capacity to do it.

>> While Russia's invasion of Ukraine poses an immediate threat to global security, Sullivan argues that only China has the intent and, crucially, the ability to fundamentally alter the world order in its favor.

China and China alone can bring about a world where democracy is no longer the dominant form of government, where the West no longer holds the reins of the global economy and where Beijing can potentially set the terms on everything from trade to technology.

And human rights?

That's so 20th century.

The coming struggle between autocracies and democracies is a recurring theme throughout the report, as are the transnational threats posed by climate change, food insecurity, and future pandemics.

One critical distinction here from reports of past presidents, the notion that democracy at home must remain healthy for the United States to project strength abroad.

The U.S. midterms, now just days away, will be an important test of democratic resiliency.

But if the misinformation, discord, and violence following the 2020 election are any indication, we may be in for a bumpy ride.

Our adversaries and enemies will be watching closely, ready to exploit weakness.

And to discuss the security challenges facing the United States today and what threats the Biden administration might be missing, I'm joined by The New York Times' David Sanger.

David Sanger, welcome to "GZERO World."

>> Thanks so much, Ian.

Great to be back with you.

>> So, I want to start a pretty big picture.

A mutual friend of ours, former Defense Secretary Ash Carter, just passed away a week ago, and I've been thinking about his quote a lot.

>> I always tell people, the day when nuclear weapons are in the newspaper, we're in real trouble.

>> It's pretty safe to say that nuclear weapons are in the newspapers right now, given all of the saber rattling we've seen from the Kremlin and particularly from President Putin.

How much are you worried about nuclear war right now?

>> Well, Ian, first, a moment about our friend Ash.

I had lunch with him on the Monday that he passed away.

And we talked about this a little bit.

We talked about it in two contexts -- one, Putin's threats and, second, China's buildup.

And to think about this right, I think you have to sort of separate out two or three different issues.

The first is that at the beginning of the war in Ukraine, I think the fear of use of a nuclear weapon was pretty low.

I would say well under 1%, because, at the time, we thought that the Ukrainians would not be much of a match for the Russian military.

We've now discovered we had that completely wrong and that the Ukrainians were quite a match.

And at this point, Putin really only has the choice of using some of his extraordinary weapons if he is going to try to fulfill a larger victory, if you could call that a victory.

>> And, again, it's not just Ukraine, of course.

It turns out that Ukraine plus NATO's support is very much a match for the Russian military.

>> Without the NATO support, I don't think the Ukrainians would have held on.

With the NATO support, they're doing quite well.

I don't think they've got the capacity to win right now, but I don't think the Russians do either in the current standoff, which creates, Ian, what, in the Pentagon, they call the Ukraine paradox.

And the Ukraine paradox is that the more successful the Ukrainians are, the more likely it is that Putin will consider using cyber, chemical, biological, or nuclear.

Now, those are all very different, right?

And I don't think that chemical or biological is terribly useful in this conflict at all, and chemical doesn't spread out very far.

You can do more damage with those conventional missiles.

Biological is very hard to control, and he's right near the Russian border.

Cyber he has used extensively in Ukraine.

>> Against Ukraine.

>> But I think it is fair to say that Putin has been pretty cautious not to go over the boundaries of Ukraine.

He could have struck, physically, the incoming weapons flow from NATO out of Poland and Romania.

He has not.

He could have gone after Bank of America and Citigroup and others in retaliation for the the devastating economic sanctions on export controls on Russia.

He has not.

And, similarly, in cyber, we have not seen a big uptick.

So that takes us back to your question and to Ash's quote, which is, when nuclear weapons are suddenly in the headlines again, you have to be worried.

And I do think we have to be worried, because the people inside the U.S. government who I speak to, while they still think the chances of use are remote, they think they are far greater than they were when the war began in late February.

What the Pentagon has been looking at, what the intelligence agencies have been looking at are the use of small tactical weapons, which could still do a huge amount of damage.

Tactical weapons range from sub-kiloton to much larger than what the U.S. used at Hiroshima.

Just to scale this conversation, the Hiroshima bomb was a 15-kiloton bomb.

If the Russians want to use one, would they use it first in sort of a demonstration over the Black Sea?

If they did that, Ian, it's hard for me to understand exactly how NATO or the United States or the Ukrainians would respond, because there are nuclear tests that the North Koreans do.

We don't respond to those in a similar way.

They could hit a Ukrainian base, a military target.

They could hit a civilian location.

They could use a small weapon.

They could use a larger one.

The larger they use, the bigger the chance that the radiation cloud flows back, given the prevailing winds on Russia itself.

So there are a lot of considerations.

And I think the big debate inside the administration right now is, do you respond militarily?

Do you respond just with economic sanctions?

Do you try to use this to separate Russia from China and India, everyone else who's buying their oil right now?

>> So, what I am hearing both from you, as well as from the policy leaders, is that nuclear war, which has been, for most of my life, unthinkable is now something that policy leaders are actively thinking about.

>> That's right.

We're suddenly thinking the unthinkable again.

And part of the risk here is -- And this has always been the risk about tactical nuclear weapons.

Unlike the big strategic weapons that could fly intercontinentally and which are under control of treaties -- in this case, the New START Treaty between the U.S. and Russia -- the tactical weapons, of which the Russians have about 2,000, have no restrictions.

We don't know very much about them.

We don't inspect them.

We don't know whether they are small, medium, or large.

We don't really know their effects.

And the chances that we would see them being prepared are only sort of 50/50.

And I think the instability that you referred to comes from the fear that if the Russians use a tactical nuclear weapon in a conventional war and essentially get away with it, in other words, that they pay a price, but not too big a price, then, all of a sudden, the taboo about using nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict is gone.

We have not seen nuclear weapons used in anger since the United States dropped weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

And if that goes away and, suddenly, smaller nuclear weapons become a weapon of choice in a conventional conflict, we're in a whole different world.

>> Well, let's hope we don't find out, David.

But let me -- I want to move on, because you talk about global security issues, and there are many of them.

The other big one driving a lot of concerns, both of mine, of yours, and the headlines, of course, is China.

And I'm not going to ask you, directly, a Taiwan question.

I want to ask you a semiconductor question, because over the last few weeks, we've seen the United States changing the status quo of the relationship in a pretty significant way, through comprehensive and strategic export controls that are meant to contain China's ability to develop a core component of its advanced technology.

How surprised were you, are you that the Americans are engaging in that policy?

And what are the implications for the security balance between the two countries?

>> So, I was not surprised that they did it.

I was actually surprised it's taken the United States so long to do this.

One of the curious features of the competition with China has been that while the Chinese have made huge advances in many different arenas -- artificial intelligence, quantum computing, the biosciences, and so forth -- one area where they have been continually frustrated has been the ability to make the smallest-diameter chips, the kinds that we get from Taiwan Semiconductor -- and we'll get back to that -- and that the Chinese get from Taiwan Semiconductor, as well.

We're talking about chips that have dimensions that are narrower than 7 nanometers.

And that has been a barrier that the Chinese have not been able to break.

To get to those dimensions, we are highly dependent on some semiconductor equipment that is made by a company that's in the Netherlands.

And when you go into a big chip-manufacturing company, you frequently see these $100 million machines sitting right in the middle of a clean room.

And it's those machines that the U.S. is going out of its way to make sure that the Chinese cannot get access to.

And that's going to be a big task, because there are older versions of them.

They are out to steal the technology, to replicate the technology, to develop the technology themselves.

The U.S. effort right now is sort of fingers in the dike.

In other words, it is an effort to try to make sure that the Chinese have years more delay.

But sooner or later, China is going to figure this out.

And the question is, along the way, do we make them convinced that the U.S. is so out to contain Chinese technological power that they begin to make moves in other areas, including military arenas.

And that's critically related to Taiwan, because right now, in my view, Ian, the greatest defense we have against Taiwan being invaded is the existence of Taiwan Semiconductor.

>> So, but that also raises a question of American vulnerability.

I mean, if TSMC is not just critical to Chinese semiconductors, but also American semiconductors -- it's not like the U.S. is making these things at home -- how do the Americans relate to the fact that one of its most important national-security assets happens to be sitting 100 miles away from Mainland China?

>> You know, if there was ever a reason for sort of a commission on American vulnerabilities, one of the first things I would put on their agenda, Ian, would be a study of how we allowed the manufacturing of key semiconductors -- not the commodity semiconductors that go into your car or your microwave or whatever, but the real leading-edge semiconductors, which the U.S. invented, dominated the technology, and then came to the conclusion, in the era of globalization, that the supply chain around the world was reliable enough that it didn't make any difference where we manufactured them.

And, you know, this was a feature of the past two decades.

The Europeans did it with oil and gas, being dependent on the Russians.

We did it in the semiconductor arena, where we were dependent on Taiwan, but many other places.

And the vulnerability of Taiwan was never really considered to be a high-end concern until the past few years.

And that's remarkable to me.

Here's the challenge right now.

You can buy yourself some time by trying to prevent the Chinese from buying these high-end manufacturing machines and the lithography all around it, but that only works if you then turn around and build enough capacity back in the United States.

But the fact of the matter is that while Taiwan Semiconductor is building in the Southwest and Samsung is building in the Southwest, when those facilities are open, it will address under 5% of the problem.

>> Let me turn back to the United States, about domestic U.S. national-security challenges, too.

And I'm wondering, as we look forward to the midterm elections, as we see the violence, the attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi that led to the hospitalization of her husband, Paul, I mean, so many things that feel unprecedented inside the United States.

Talk about, just for a couple of moments, where you see the great vulnerabilities in domestic violence and instability in the context of U.S. national security.

>> So, it's a fascinating question, because our greatest national-security threat right now is really an insider threat, to a great degree.

You know, it's remarkable, Ian.

If you and I were sitting around in late 2016, as we began to understand the scope of the Russian interference in the 2016 election, and we said, "Where do we think this will be in six years?

", I think what we would have said is, greater Russian interference, more Chinese interference.

And we are seeing China try to figure out a little bit about our election system and disinformation.

Maybe more from Iran or North Korea.

But I don't think, Ian, that we would have thought that the number-one threat to the stability of our election system was going to be Americans who were trying to put in place the vote counters so that they could assure a victory for their favorite candidate or attempt to assure that.

And that really is the number-one problem, and it's backed up by a new acceptance that if you don't like the outcome of an election, violence is then, in some way, warranted.

We haven't seen that in this country in 125, 150 years, except for, you know, at sporadic moments.

And that's the big concern that comes out of the polling numbers that show that there's still a substantial minority of Americans who believe that Joe Biden was not legitimately elected president.

And that's pretty remarkable.

You would have thought that, over time, that would have dissipated, and, instead, it's held quite steady.

>> Sober analysis.

My friend David Sanger, really appreciate you joining today.

>> Thank you, Ian.

Great to be with you.

>> With the midterms just a few days away, how much could U.S. foreign policy actually change if Republicans take back control of Congress?

"GZERO's" Jon Lieber has some thoughts.

>> There are three major issues worth watching next year in Congress -- Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, and China.

Assuming Republicans control the House next year, the likely Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, has warned that Republicans won't give further blank checks for Ukraine.

This warning does not mean there won't be any checks for Ukraine, but it does mean that Republicans would be likely to create conditions for that aid that haven't existed so far.

On the opposite side of the issue is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who would take control of the Senate if the Republicans were to win.

McConnell has called for more aid as Russia steps up its offenses, worrying that isolationist impulses in the Republican Party will leave the Ukrainians on their own.

McConnell's view seems to be shared by a majority of Republicans, even those who are increasingly questioning how much value America is getting for its money.

There will be more Republicans next year who will question this blank-check approach, particularly as inflation continues to hit Americans hard, inflation that is, in part, caused by higher energy prices, which are exacerbated by the recent actions of one of America's most important allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia.

The relationship between the Saudis and the Biden administration started out frosty, as President Biden criticized Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for human-rights abuses when he first came into office.

That criticism turned into an effort at friendship, however, when U.S. energy prices started to rise with the Ukraine war, leading to the famous fist bump the two shared back in July.

Not long after, however, the Saudis cut oil production during a global energy-price crunch.

This was seen in Washington as a major rebuke for the United States and to President Biden.

There's been reporting that MBS, who's just 37, has mocked the president and prefers his predecessor, Donald Trump, with whom he had a much better relationship with, a relationship that started with Trump's first foreign trip to the Saudi kingdom, where he was greeted around an orb.

Biden and The White House are not happy with OPEC, which is contributing to rising gas prices just weeks ahead of the midterm election.

And gas prices are closely tied to a president's popularity.

Administration officials and Democrats are now wondering if it's time to reassess this incredibly important relationship, while Republicans continue to push for increased energy production at home, instead of continuing to rely on the increasingly unreliable Saudi partnership.

If there's one area that unites Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the Biden administration, it's the belief that the biggest threat to the country is also the U.S.'s largest trading partner, China.

The Biden administration has pushed hard to cut off China's ability to develop technologically by denying them access to U.S. semiconductor technologies, continuing a tech cold war that was started in the Trump administration.

Republicans have typically had a very hawkish view of the Chinese Communist Party and have joined Democrats in prioritizing bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

But this is probably still the area where you'll see the biggest divergence from this year to next year.

Democrats in the House have been far more cautious about provoking a new cold war with China, while Republicans have no such concerns, and they are already planning on investigating the origins of COVID and the economic and military threats posed by China and tiptoeing closer to Beijing's red line of recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign state.

No matter what happens during the midterms, the world will be watching.

For "GZERO World," I'm Jon Lieber.

>> And now to "Puppet Regime," where Vladimir Putin takes a break from warmongering to offer Americans some voting advice ahead of the midterms.

>> Dear Americans, are you tired of elections that are confusing, meddled with, or disputed?

Do post-election insurrections have you feeling blue?

Well, there is a better way.

It's Russian elections.

Let me explain.

In Russia, Election Day is on a Sunday, which makes it easy to vote.

You don't have to ask your jerk boss for time off just to cast ballot.

Second of all, there are no racist voting restrictions here.

In Russia, one of largest ethnic minorities is Ukrainians.

And in Ukraine, we are happy to help you vote.

We will even send soldiers to bring you your ballot.

[ Knock on door ] Third, ranked-choice voting in Russia is so easy.

You just vote five times for me.

I mean, why choose between the lesser of two evils when you can just choose evil?

Democracy is such a drag, so messy.

Who has time for all of that stress?

Just kickback -- I mean, kick back, relax.

When you always know outcome, you never have to worry about... >> That's our show this week.

Come back next week.

And if you like what you see or even if you don't, but you're just concerned, generally speaking, about the state of the planet, you know where to go.

Check us out at gzeromedia.com.

♪♪ >> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by...