Yeah.

Welcome to the Aaron Harber show.

My special guest, Ambassador John Bolton.

John, great to see you again.

Glad to be with you.

I want to talk about Ukraine.

And I don't know if you you probably did see the video I did three years ago.

I did actually.

You did?

They sent me a copy.

Oh, I watched it.

I wrote that in March of 2022.

We filmed it in September of that year.

And, not that President Biden would have done what I recommended or tha anyone would listen to me, but, why has, our policy, at least in my opinion, with you, with Ukraine, been such a failure wher certainly with President Biden, slow walking everything, essentially letting Ukraine expend its resources, its people, its treasure to weaken Russia, but our failing to give Ukraine enough to win the war when they actually had multiple opportunities, in my opinion.

Well, I think, there never was a strategic approach to the war in Ukraine by the Biden administration.

Nor was there a NATO as a whol just to come back to sanctions for a second.

The European Union has now imposed 17 sets of sanctions against Russia, one after the other.

Why not, shortly after the invasion imposed them all at once.

If you can think of all these different means of sanctions and you don't like unprovoked military aggression on the continent of Europe.

Why not lay it on top of the Russians hard?

But they didn't do that.

One of the reasons I think Biden never responded strategically in the in the distribution of aid is that while we failed to deter the Russians from attacking in the first place, the Kremlin succeeded in deterring us and U.S. and NATO, by constantly raising the fear of what Biden called the wider war.

I think it was a bluff all the way, both in conventional terms and in nuclear weapons terms.

If Putin had the capability to wage another war in conventional terms, he would have sent those force to Ukraine where his own forces were were getting chewed up by the Ukrainians with casualties at a phenomenal rate on both sides.

He didn't have the capacity.

And while I never dismiss the nuclear threat, lightly, you can't assume that every threat is real, because if you react that way, you're giving the Russians exactly what they want at no cost.

Yeah, I think I think that's what I said.

In fact, you know, my perspective is it's like a chess game, and our team is thinking about one move and nothing past that.

And no one's saying, well, I mean, if Putin were to use nuclear weapon and we had said we're going to we're going to respond in kind.

There's I mean, is he does he want given where he wants his place in history?

Does he want to be the Russia leader who had Russia destroyed?

Well, that's I think deterrence works.

And I think it was working on the nuclear side.

I never I never saw any hint.

In fact, our intelligence, community leaders testified several times in open congressional session that after nuclea saber rattling by Putin, there's no evidence any Russian nuclear forces had moved anywhere close to deployment.

I don't think there's any prospect of a truly lasting peace as long as Putin and people who think like him are in control, the Russian government.

This is not simply, a one off attack on Ukraine.

We know the Russians invaded first, obviously in 2014, reflecting what Putin had said going back as far as 2005.

In effect, he wants to recreate the Russian Empire.

And until we realize that finding a way to have stability between Ukraine and Russia really is a fool's errand.

I think it's a mistake fo Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire.

I think it's going to get nibbled to death.

They lost seven, eight, 9% of their country in 2014.

They've lost up to 20% in this war, admittedly at an extraordinary human cost to Russia.

But I don't think the Kremlin's going to stop, at least down to this regime, until that percentage comes close to 100.

All right.

Explain.

You know, President Biden at times and right before Russia invaded, said, I mean, his message, his strong words were, don't do that.

President Trump, and when after he took office told, Putin similarly, you know, stop, attacking civilians.

Putin ignored both.

What why do we have such weak, unimpressive messaging from presidents white House and a president say, don't do that.

And if you do, if you cros that border, we're going to help defend Ukraine based on, you know, prior agreements and that if you talk about that as well.

I mean, I felt that Russia, the UK and the US had a written commitment to respect Ukraine's sovereignty.

What happened to that?

Well, that was a treaty that, I thought from the moment I saw it was being signed, was a completely worthless piece of paper, there.

And it became clear over a period of time.

No, nobody should have been surprised by the Russian invasion, an taking over the Crimea in 2014.

And the only surprise about the second invasion was what day of the week it took place on.

So the, the, the Russians, particularly Putin, had signaled they're tryin to recreate the Russian Empire.

And we just we didn't take it seriously.

The irony and a point you made just a second ago is accurate.

Neither Trump nor Biden operated in a strategic way with respect to Russia.

Just just shows what what we lack in terms of presidential leadership.

Now, for for what coul what is going to be a strategy of about 12 years, right?

Well, certainly, our lack of response to Crimea set a tone where Putin looks at us and say well, I can take territory and and no one, no one seems to care.

How does Putin get away with the kind of casualties, the number of fatalities and, and entered troops that, Russia has suffered in this war, that it's over a million total casualties.

I think that, it's it' not necessarily getting through to the Russian people.

I'm not saying about people in Moscow, but in the rest of the country, they might not really have an appreciation of how bad it is.

Second, this is the way Russia wages war.

This looks like the Winter War with Finland.

It looks like World War one.

It looks like Stalingrad.

That's just the way they do it there.

Their calculus about the value of human life is different from ours.

And finally, I think Putin really has persuade much of the Russian population that he's he's waging a defensive war against Western read U.S. designs, not just to break up the Sovie Union, but to break up Russia.

So what should we do?

Should we take a position until, I mean, should we tell Putin, you know, game's over, you've won.

You've done that, survived Ukraine.

You can now leave.

And if you don't, here's what we're you know, we're going to deploy Swift at 100%.

We're going to create a no fly zone or what?

What do you think we should do?

Well, I would I would try to make up for the deficiencies of the three plus year when we haven't had a strategy.

That's not what Trump is going to do.

I mean, we're really talking about theory here, but I think the war is winnable.

I think people don't appreciate, that the Ukrainians have made considerable progress in drone technology, that we can take advantage of the Russian casualties are such that Lloyd Austin, Biden, the secretary of defense, described that as saying the Russians are feeding their army into a woodchipper a third of the Black Sea Fleet of Russia's Black Sea Fleet is no on the floor of the Black Sea.

That Ukraine, Ukrainian military is is doing our work force, an I think we could turn it around.

I see zero chance Trump will do it.

So I mean, you don't see Trump, for example, invoking the Defense Production Act and rallying the allies.

And I mean, the fact that h moved them from two, 2.5% to 5%, I actually thought of defense spending, GDP, proportion.

I actually give Trump a lot of credit for that.

Look, I think it's a plus, no doubt about it.

It's really 3.5%.

Without getting into the weeds and Trump's, defense request for our next fiscal year is not on track to get us to three.

And a half or 5%, which is where we should be.

Well, I be all for at this point, an all out effor where the allies are generating 100, 200,000 drones a month for Ukraine.

And I think that that alone would, would, change things.

How do we set those kinds of targets?

Or is anyone setting those, targets?

Is anyone saying, hey, here's what Ukraine needs to win the war.

How do we get there?

I think there are a number of people in the Pentagon and in the think tank community who could put together a strategy pretty quickly of what to do.

It would require a lot of effort on the part of our European friends, too.

But but what this shows, in part, is how inadequate our own defense supplies are.

The rate of expenditure of artillery shells in, for example, by both sides i the Ukraine war is phenomenal.

And that we're running through, we're not making them up quickl enough to, to get replacement, we need a major increase in our own capacity in case we ourselves find ourselves in difficulty.

And we need more strategic thinking about, for example, China, which is not only increasin its conventional air, naval and land forces, but is racing to become a nuclear power roughly equivalent to US and Russia.

All of our nuclear strategy in the Cold War, all of our deterrence theory rested on the fact we were basically in a bipolar nuclear world.

None of that has any relevance to a triple or nuclear world.

And we're not getting ready for it.

Has, China outmaneuvered u as far as Taiwan is concerned?

I don't think so.

I don't think it's, hopeless yet.

I don't thin China is going to invade Taiwan.

They want that island to fall into their lap like a piece of ripe fruit.

I don't know if you've ever been there.

It's an amazingly productive place.

They just feel the energy.

And they want the computer chip manufacturing facilities undamaged.

So I think they'll create a political crisis on some pretext, put a blockade around Taiwan and see how we respond.

And if we don't come to Taiwan's side and effectively break the blockade, they will have Taiwan in due course and our allies all across the world.

But certainly in the, Indo-Pacific area, are going to say the United States can't be counted on.

I used to have, a major, company in Taiwan is a source.

I used to run a small software company.

And so I had a major customer in Taiwan.

And you mentioned the productivity.

I mean, the the work ethic the productivity, the advanced technology is, of course, TSM and C, for example.

I mean, it just it's it's an extraordinary country.

Of course, if you say country, China isn't too happy about, about that.

What's the end game there?

Well, I think, we don't have a deterrence capability at this point.

Our credibility is pretty thin.

I think the Chinese are obviously watching very carefully what's happening in Ukraine.

And with respect to Iran and, Israel I think we need a big, big up.

This is one of the reasons we need a major increase in American defense spending.

We're we're behind in a lot of places were particularly behind in the Navy.

We've got roughly 285 naval warships, a bipartisan commission several years ag said it should be at around 330.

We're going backwards, not forwards.

You can't build these ships overnight, and they're expensive.

We need a lot more of them.

I think there are things we can do to help create the deterrent.

And, we don't have to convince the Chinese they're going to lose.

We have to convince them they don't kno what the outcome is going to be.

And I think since fusion, Peng likes being in charge, he's not going to roll the dice on his future.

Just for Taiwan.

You talk about shipbuilding.

I mean, that's a multi-decade process.

We're also not very good at it.

Well, over successive administrations, this is an area has nothing to do with trade.

It has to do with, with not understanding what you really need for national security.

I think you've got to be careful here, because when people hear the word national security, they say, well, you know, solar panels are necessary for national security.

No, they're not 95% of the toys that are sold in America are made in China.

That's a threat to Santa Claus.

It's not a national security threat.

But some areas we need capacities because we can't have a supply line that may be in the hands of our adversaries.

All right.

I want to wrap up on, at least Iran.

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

I think the only sure wa is to overthrow the ayatollahs, that this has been my view for decades now.

People have said, oh, the Islamic revolution will, will become more moderate.

They won't the fans won't be fired yet.

We'll ask the Israelis what happened on October the 7th, when the Ring of Fire strategy was played out first by Hamas, that the Iranians built all this up over a long period of time, not not for the benefit of Hamas and Hezbollah, but for their benefit.

This is a regime of religious, medieval fanatics buttressed by a fanatical military and the Revolutionary Guard.

When that regime changes, that's when the moment may come.

What can we do to support regime change?

Well, as I said earlier, I think dissatisfaction amon the people is very widespread.

And this is a national movement.

This is not upper middle clas people demonstrating in Tehran.

This is all across the country.

They don't have clear leadership, which is a plus and a minus because it can't be snuffed out by the regime.

But they don't they can't coordinate.

So we could supply the opposition communications capabilities.

We could supply them a limited amount of money so that they can do what they need to do.

There do not have to be boots on the ground that do not have to be, major American involvement at all.

This is something I think will come from the people if we give them a chance.

And I think to to show our continued interest, as we have demonstrated by attacking, the three major nuclear facilities in Iran, we've got to keep it up to make sure they don't refurbish it.

And that that is the signal to this educated sophisticated population in Iran that the rest of the world is there for them.

Now.

They need to do their job.

All right.

I don't want to leave Iraq although I think it's becoming a memory, a distant memory for the American people.

We lost almost 4500 lives in terms of troops.

We had over 32,000, casualty.

The other casualty injuries, we spent over $2 trillion.

What did we get for that?

And was it a mistake?

No, I don't think it was in stake.

What we wanted was to prevent Saddam Hussein's regime from getting nuclear biological and chemical weapons.

And he had kept the intellectual capabilit to rebuild the nuclear program.

3000 scientists and technicians, he called them his nuclear mujahideen.

If he had gotten rid of U.N. sanctions and, U.N. weapons inspectors he would have been back on it.

Our mistake, I think, was the nation building exercise.

I think that, what I said back at the time was we should give the Iraqis a copy of the Federalist Papers and say, let us know if you need any, and any further advice from us because you don't make political maturation by taking decisions for other people.

They they their political maturation comes from making their own decisions.

But I do think the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.

I just think that, we thought our capabilities were greater than they were.

Regime change gives the chance, gives the opportunity to the Iraqi people.

Let them make the mistakes.

Let them do what they can to get a better life.

Israel, what should our policy be and what should our end game be?

Well, I think with respect to Iran, there will never be lasting peace and stability in the Middle East until the ayatollahs are overthrown.

I'm not saying that there will be it's a IT, but it is a necessary, even if not a sufficient condition.

And I think we're very close to that point.

I also support Israel's efforts to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah as military and political capabilities.

I think there's no there's no future for the people of Libya or the people of Gaza, while these clouds hang over them.

So it's a it's a tough business.

But, you know, when you're attacked, you have the right of self-defense and the right of self-defense includes destroying your opponent.

That's what we did in World War two.

Unconditional surrender.

I don't see any reason to deny that to the Israelis.

Doesn't make sens to create a Palestinian state.

And in that vein, why not?

And this may sound crazy, but why not have some omnibus solutio where Israel actually gets Gaza, certainly militarily, to have Gaza on its border makes no sense at all to me.

Create a Palestinian state on the West Bank, which Israel would not be excited about, try to resettle, refugees, including maybe we take a quarter of a million or whatever, to set a model.

Why not do something kind of global like that, or is that just impossible?

Well, I think the two state solution is dead.

Even if it wasn't before October the 7th.

I think it's dead now.

But I do think we need more creative solutions.

And let's the best way to do this is split Gaza from the West Bank.

You know, in 1957, there was a UN plan to settle 200,000 refugees from Gaza, which was al there were at that time, 300,000 total, 100,000 local residents, 200,000 refugees put the refugees in farms along the east bank of the Sue Canal, vetoed by Gamal Nasser.

The Egyptian dictator, because he wanted the Palestinians up close to Israel to drive them into the sea.

That didn't going to happen.

Now there are 2 million peopl living in Gaza, but in the past a year and a half, Arab nations believe some 200,00 Palestinians have already left.

Now that's 10%.

That's not 100%.

I think we need to rethink the humanitarian solution for the guys and residents.

And I would start by eliminating, unwra.

The UN relief agency for the Palestinians.

I would replace it with the U High Commissioner for refugees, and I would, I would, I would I would commence recognition to the proposition that they're not going back into Israel.

They have to be resettled.

People say, well, that's that's forcible resettlement.

That's bad.

I just give you two facts.

The UN High Commission, has for refugees has handle every other refugee population in the world since 1945, with one exception other than the Palestinians.

The, the U High Commissioner for refugees has never forcibly resettled anybody.

And finally, the UN High Commissioner has no permanent refugee camps.

This can be done.

And now is the time to start thinking about it won't it won't happen to me.

Or it can be done.

And it's better than recreating a high rise refugee camp in Gaza, which could give us another October 7th.

All too quickly.

All right.

I know we have to wrap up, couple quick personal questions.

President Trump canceled, your access to intelligence, canceled the security protection that that you deserved and needed.

What was your reaction to that?

Well, on the security clearance, I don't think I had an active security clearance after I left the government in a few years.

Anyway, that that was just, Trump being Trump, cancelin the Secret Service protection.

I think was, a bad it' obviously affects me personally, but it's a bad sign for anybody working in the Trump administration or indeed any administration that when you're engaged in policymaking and face this threat of terrorism that we do from the Iranians, the government should stand beside you.

And, it shows to Tehran just how, unprepared for office Trump is.

If you look at your histor and the decisions you've made, what's the decision that if you could have, you change or one where you think you made a mistake?

Well, not not, I wouldn't call it a mistake but I would call it a failure.

I wish we had done better.

Was the the our inability to replace the Maduro regime in Venezuela with, Juan Guaido, whom we recognized as acting president.

I think the people in Venezuela overwhelmingly wanted that to happen.

But we didn't impose strong enough sanctions.

We didn't take other steps.

We didn't help the opposition.

And the country today, is still run by the Maduro dictatorship, supported by Russia, Cuba and China, which is not going to be good for u or the rest of the hemisphere.

Over an extended period of time.

So how would you describe great leadership?

Well I think, to be a great leader, the person has to have a clear vision of what they want.

It's not, being in a position of leadership just to exercise your prerogatives.

It's to achieve objectives.

And then I think they have to have persistence, and they have to hav the ability to persuade others to stay with them over what could be an extended period of time.

I thin we're a very impatient country, which has its virtues in some senses, but I think it makes real leadership much harder.

Who, in your opinion, are some great leaders?

Well, I think the country has been blessed with an incredible number of great leaders over time.

If you just look, since, World War two, I think people have come to recognize the Eisenhower presidency as, something that that really got us through incredibly difficult times.

Eisenhower was, was, a figure of leadership going in for the service members, like my father, who had fough in Europe under his leadership.

And, he got through the presidency with with no taint of scandal on him personally.

And, and that's something that's important.

I think Reagan was a great leader.

There was a Reagan revolution.

I think major changes were made in the direction of the country.

And I think, I think it's a testament to his ability to hold clear ideas, and move forward ove a pretty determined opposition.

If there's one thing, Americans could know, what would you like it to be?

Well, that there is American exceptionalism.

And despite criticisms that are valid, some more valid than others.

You know, one little secret about the United States is were filled with human beings who make mistakes.

But America's, example in the world, and the success of our experiment is going back as far as the founders, through Abraham Lincoln, right down to the present, is critical, not for us, really, but for the whole world.

John, thanks so much.

Thanks for having me.

That was Ambassador John Bolton, the former United State Ambassador to the United Nations and former national Security advisor.

I'm Aaron Harbor.

Thanks for watching.

Hi, I'm Erin Harbor.

The goa of my show is to inform viewers about a diverse range of topics, from our country's leadership to economic and tax policies to energy and environmental issues.

With the participation of the most significant stakeholders in each arena.

Our longform approach gives each guest the time to fully speak his or her mind, and gives the audience all of the facts, allowing everyon to draw their own conclusions.

Thank God you do your homework, and just doing what you do is enough to begin to let them know what's happening.

I strive to bring together guests with perspectives from across the entire political spectrum to promote problem resolution through civil discourse.

Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck and Rush Bay.

Frightening people and using emotion.

Fear, guilt and racism.

What a bunch from the right and the left.

I've personally experienced our democratic system from the inside, and I use my knowledge and expertise on the show to get clarification of major points and expand the discussion to ensure my audience gets the uncut truth.

What is this bigotr against a third party candidate?

Do the two parties ow all the voters and everyone else who shut up and stand in line?

We were on the campus together at Princeton University.

Her Majesty does not look any different than she did in those days, and I wish I could say the same about myself.

I'm an ardent supporte of transparency in government, and strive to play an active role in bringing out all the facts related to our nation's most challenging issues.

One of the things I've learned in life, and you certainly have learned from doing your show, is you got smart people.

But that tone apart, the polarized you get into a media environment where it's not things like your show, but the shout shows on talk radio or cable TV in which there's just this tendency to score political points and be polarized.

Since my days and national talk radio, I've upheld a tradition of being truly nonpartizan, something which seems rare on the airwaves today.

Depending on your point of view, a decision of the Supreme Court might be the wrong one.

I've also found my guests talk to others involved in our nation's leadership, and they have encouraged the to come on the program as well.

We are not final because we're infallible, but we are infallible because we're final.

Now.

No one knows what that means.

But, but but I know.

But what it means is we do not have the last word because we are so brilliant.

We are, of course, brilliant, but only only in the sense that somebody has to have the last word.

It's the focus on issues rather than personal attacks that makes guests comfortable and gives them the chance to tell their entire story.

I simply let guests explain their perspective completely, then dig deeper for the audience by drawing from my own knowledge and experience.

Democracy succeeds when you're giving more and more things to people.

But the years ahead, we're going to have to ask more of them in taxes and expect less from government.

There doesn't seem to be anyone in either party that has any kind of appetite for asking more of people tax wise.

Am I wrong about that?

No, you're probably right.

And that's a flaw in democracy.

Thanks for taking the time to check out the show.

I hope this has been helpful in illustrating the nation's need for a balanced, nonpartisan progra to shed light on today's issues.

For more information, please go to Harbor tv.com or email producer at Harbor TV.com.

And thanks for watching.

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

Right now everyone is stressed out and some people really need extra support.

This is the time to reach ou to family, friends, and others.

And if you or someone you know needs help or is in crisis, please contact any of these agencies.

There are many people waiting to assist you and anyone else who needs help in these difficult times.

Please don't hesitate t reach out now to help yourself and others.