>>> LET'S TURN NOW TO A DAY OF U.S.

DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO PUSH FOR PEACE IN GAZA, DEALT A BLOW BY THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL ONCE AGAIN WHO FAILED TO PASS A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN IMMEDIATE CEASE-FIRE.

IT WAS A SHIFT AFTER MONTHS OF VETOING OTHER RESOLUTIONS, SUGGESTING A DEPARTURE FROM PREVIOUS POLICY.

THE PROSPECT OF ANOTHER TRUMP PRESIDENCY CASTS A SHADOW ROVER UKRAINE'S FUTURE ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS JOINS WALTER ISAACSON TO DISCUSS HOW SHIFTING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IS RESONATING IN WASHINGTON AND BEYOND.

>> THANK YOU, BIANNA.

MICHAEL FROMAN, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> THIS WEEK, CONGRESS HAS STILL BEEN WRESTLING WITH UKRAINE AID.

NOW THERE'S AN IDEA THAT MAYBE IT SHOULD BE A LOAN THAT'S PERHAPS WAIVABLE.

HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU THAT THEY SETTLE IT, AND IS THIS IDEA OF DOING IT AS A LOAN -- DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> WELL, I THINK IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT THEY SETTLE.

THAT'S PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, THAT UKRAINE KNOWS THAT THE MONEY IS GOING TO BE THERE, THAT RUSSIA KNOWS THAT SUPPORT IS GOING TO BE THERE.

I THINK IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER FOR IT TO BE A GRANT AS IT HAS BEEN BEFORE, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS FOR CONGRESS TO ACT AND TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE U.S.

STANDS BEHIND UKRAINE AT THIS CRITICAL MOMENT.

>> EVEN IF THIS HAPPENS, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A FOREVER THING.

CERTAINLY IF DONALD TRUMP IS ELECTED, BUT EVEN NOW, IT LOOKS UNLIKELY THAT THEY'LL CONTINUE TO DO AID YEAR AFTER YEAR.

ISN'T IT TIME TO HAVE SOME PEACE PROCESS THAT WOULD TRY TO AT LEAST GET US TO A TRUCE OR A STANDSTILL, OR WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING?

>> I THINK ULTIMATELY EVERYBODY WANTS TO GET THERE.

I THINK THE QUESTION IS DO YOU GET THERE WITH UKRAINIANS COMING TO THE TABLE FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH OR FROM A POSITION OF WEAKNESS?

IF CONGRESS DOES NOT ACT, THEY'LL BE COMING TO THE TABLE FROM A POSITION OF WEAKNESS.

IF CONGRESS DOES ACT AND THEY HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO GET THROUGH THIS YEAR, TO TRY AND MAKE AS MANY GAINS AS THEY CAN ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND, VERY IMPORTANTLY, TO AVOID PROBLEMS ON THE BATTLEFIELD, PREVENT RUSSIA FROM MAKING GAINS ON THE BATTLEFIELD, THEN THERE'S AT LEAST SOME HOPE THAT WHEN THE PARTIES DECIDE THAT NEGOTIATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE, THAT THERE WILL BE A DECENT OUTCOME.

I THINK THE RISK RIGHT NOW IS WITHOUT SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS, UKRAINE WOULD BE FORCED TO THE TABLE IN A WAY THAT'S VERY MUCH DISADVANTAGEOUS.

>> IF YOU DO GET TO THE TABLE, WHAT DO YOU THINK AN OUTCOME COULD BE?

>> THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY HARD SET OF ISSUES.

THERE'S A WHOLE RANGE.

IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE RUSSIA GIVING UP TERRITORY THAT IT HAS GAINED, AND IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THE UKRAINIANS ACCEPTING THAT AS A LONG-TERM PROPOSITION.

I THINK ONE IDEA THAT HAS BEEN PUT OUT THERE IS SOMETHING NOT UNLIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE KOREAN PENINSULA AT THE END OF THE KOREAN WAR, WHERE THERE WAS A TRUCE BUT NOT A FINAL PEACE SETTLEMENT, AND THERE WAS A SERIES OF COMPROMISES AND SECURITY GUARANTEES THAT ALLOWED BOTH SIDES TO FIND IT ACCEPTABLE.

THE UKRAINIANS WILL NOT BE HAPPY ABOUT THAT.

GIVING UP BOTH EASTERN UKRAINE AND CRIMEA EVEN IN THE SHORT RUN IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE PREPARED TO DO.

BUT I THINK WHAT WILL BE DETERMINING THIS IS HOW MUCH PROGRESS THERE IS ON THE GROUND AND HOW MUCH THE RUSSIANS FEEL THE NEED TO MAKE A COMPROMISE.

ONE THING THAT COULD CHANGE THE DYNAMIC, WALTER, IS THAT IF -- I THINK PRESIDENT PUTIN BELIEVES THAT TIME IS ON HIS SIDE, BOTH BECAUSE RUSSIA HAS DUG IN SOME VERY STRONG DEFENSIVE POSITIONS IN EASTERN UKRAINE, AND BECAUSE FRANKLY HE'S WAITING TO SEE WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THE U.S. ELECTION IS AND WHETHER THE SUPPORT WILL BE THERE FROM CONGRESS IN THE MEANTIME.

I THINK ONE THING THAT COULD CHANGE THAT IS IF PRESIDENT PUTIN FELT HE WAS LOSING SOME CONTROL OVER CRIMEA, WHICH IS OF COURSE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO HIM AND TO RUSSIA AND HIS IMAGE OF RUSSIA.

AND IF THE WHEREWITHAL THAT WE PROVIDE UKRAINE GIVES HIM THE CAPABILITY OF SHAKING SOME OF THAT SECURITY AROUND CRIMEA, THEN THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BRING PARTIES TO THE TABLE EARLIER.

>> ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU HAS AGREED, AT THE REQUEST OF PRESIDENT BIDEN, TO SEND A DELEGATION TO WASHINGTON TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO DO A MILITARY OPERATION IN RAFAH AND HOW TO DO IT.

WHAT DO YOU HOPE COMES OUT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS?

>> I THINK HOPEFULLY IT WILL TURN THE TEMPERATURE DOWN A BIT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL.

THE U.S. IS NOW ISRAEL'S REALLY IF NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF SUPPORT, CERTAINLY THE STRONGEST REMAINING SOURCE OF SUPPORT.

AND WE'VE SEEN THAT FRAY WITH SENATOR SCHUMER'S SPEECH AND THE GENERAL TENSION BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU.

SO HOPEFULLY TURN DOWN THE TEMPERATURE.

I MEAN THAT HAS TO BE RELATED TO ACTUALLY SUBSTANTIVE PROGRESS ON THE UNDERLYING ISSUES, WHICH IS ON THE ONE HAND, OF COURSE, ISRAEL HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF.

ISRAEL HAS THE RIGHT TO TRY AND ELIMINATE HAMAS AS A SECURITY THREAT ON ITS BORDER.

THE QUESTION IS AT THIS POINT ON THE VERGE OF GOING INTO RAFAH, WILL THERE BE A STRONG HUMANITARIAN ELEMENT TO THAT OPERATION?

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MILLION OR SO GAZANS WHO ARE BEING ASKED TO GO BACK TO THE NORTH, WHO ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE.

BACK IN THE NORTH, 70% OF THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN DAMAGED, SO WHAT ARE THEY GOING BACK TO, AND WILL THERE BE A HOUSING COMPONENT TO THAT?

CAN WE GET HUMANITARIAN AID INTO GAZA IN A MEANINGFUL WAY?

THAT MEANS BEYOND AIR DROPS, BEYOND BUILDING A PORT INTO THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA.

REALLY OPENING UP THE ROADS BOTH FROM EGYPT AND POTENTIALLY FROM THE NORTH, FROM ISRAEL, FOR SIGNIFICANT TRUCK TRAFFIC TO BRING IN THE FOOD AND THE OTHER HUMANITARIAN SUPPLIES THAT ARE SO DESPERATELY NEEDED.

AND OF COURSE WE'RE NOT TALKING AS MUCH AS WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE HOSTAGES.

HOW DO WE GET THE 100 OR SO HOSTAGES THAT REMAIN IN GAZA UNDER HAMAS CONTROL OUT AND SAFELY HOME?

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT AIRPORT AID BECAUSE I DON'T GET IT.

I MEAN THERE'S A FAMINE.

THERE IS WIDESPREAD, DEEP HUNGER IN GAZA.

WHY WOULD THE U.S. AND ISRAEL NOT WANT TO TRY TO GET HUMANITARIAN AID IN AS FAST AS POSSIBLE?

>> IT'S VERY MUCH IN SOME OF THE U.S. INTEREST AND ISRAEL'S INTEREST TO DO SO.

I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT THE TRUCKS THAT HAVE COME TO THE BORDER, TO THE RAFAH CROSSING, HAVE BEEN TURNED AWAY SOMETIMES FOR HAVING -- THERE ARE REPORTS OF SURGICAL SCISSORS OR OTHER THINGS DEEMED TO BE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS.

PART OF THIS OPERATION, PART OF THE NEAR-TERM FOCUS NEEDS TO BE WORKING WITH EGYPT TO ENSURE THAT WHATEVER COMES INTO GAZA AT THIS POINT IS NOT STRENGTHENING HAMAS, NOT GIVING HAMAS TOOLS AND WEAPONS TO BE USED AGAINST THE ISRAELIS, NOT ALLOWING THEM TO REPLENISH THEIR STRENGTH.

AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A PROCESS FOR DOING THAT, BUT DOING EFFICIENTLY SO WE CAN GET HUMANITARIAN AID BACK INTO GAZA.

BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A REAL PLAN, WALTER.

I THINK ONE OF THE THING ISRAEL'S BEEN CRITICIZED FOR IS AS THEY'VE GONE INTO GAZA AND CERTAINLY AS THEY PREPARE TO GO INTO RAFAH SPECIFICALLY, THERE HASN'T BEEN ENOUGH ATTENTION FOR HOW TO ENSURE THAT THE PALESTINIANS THERE WILL BE CARED FOR AS THEY HAVE TO DISPLACE THEMSELVES AGAIN TO GET OUT OF HARM'S WAY.

AND MAKING THE HUMANITARIAN ELEMENT A KEY PART OF THE OVERALL OPERATION HAS GOT TO BE PART OF THIS.

>> WHAT DO YOU SEE AS AN EVENTUAL OUTCOME FOR GAZA?

>> LOOK, I THINK IT'S A REALLY DIFFICULT QUESTION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND, IT NEEDS TO BE A SITUATION WHERE ISRAEL IS SECURE.

ISRAEL IS NOT GOING TO LIVE WITH A GAZA THAT IS A SOURCE OF INSECURITY FOR IT GOING FORWARD.

THERE'S NO INTEREST IN ALLOWING OR ENCOURAGING THE PALESTINIANS IN GAZA TO MOVE ELSEWHERE.

SO THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ENORMOUS REBUILDING EFFORT THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, A SECURITY EFFORT THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, MAKING GAZA A LIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE PLACE OVER TIME.

THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE THE INVOLVEMENT OF NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL, BUT SAUDI ARABIA, OTHER ARAB NATIONS, EGYPT, WHO CAN PLAY A ROLE IN HELPING TO SECURE GAZA AND ENSURE THAT IT'S GOT THE INVESTMENT NECESSARY TO SURVIVE.

THE OTHER BIG ISSUE, WALTER, IS WHO'S GOING TO RULE GAZA?

WHAT'S THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN GAZA?

AND THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY HAS VERY LITTLE CREDIBILITY AMONG PALESTINIANS.

HAMAS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO GOVERN GAZA BY ISRAEL.

AND THERE'S NOT BEEN THE KIND OF INVESTMENT, PARTICULARLY BY THE ARAB NATIONS OVER THE YEARS, IN SUPPORTING AND CULTIVATING A STRONG PALESTINIAN ADMINISTRATIVE STATE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE CONTROL BOTH OF GAZA AND THE WEST BANK.

AND SO THAT IS THE NEXT STEP, I THINK, THAT IT MAY TAKE YEARS FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, BUT THERE'S NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT TO BEGIN TO INVEST IN THAT.

>> YOU'RE SITTING IN THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS BUILDING.

WOOD PANELED, IT'S BEEN THERE FOR A CENTURY OR SO.

ON THE WALLS OF THAT BUILDING IS SORT OF THE GREAT ELDER STATESMAN OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WHO WORK TOGETHER IN A NONPARTISAN WAY.

THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BROKEN DOWN IN THIS COUNTRY.

TELL ME WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THAT, AND WHAT DO YOU DO AT THE COUNCIL NOW THAT THIS NONPARTISAN CONSENSUS NO LONGER EXISTS?

>> I THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT.

I MEAN IT USED TO BE THERE WAS A PHRAS PHRASE, AND THERE WAS A BROAD CONSENSUS OF THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE WORLD, AROUND THE OPEN LIBERAL MARKET-BASED ECONOMIES, AROUND DEMOCRACY.

ALL OF THIS IS VERY MUCH AT RISK RIGHT NOW.

AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD OVERSTATE IT.

THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF REPUBLICANS AND A LOT OF DEMOCRATS WHO AGREE ON SOME FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THAT, OF INTERNATIONALISM, OF THE U.S.

PLAYING A CONSTRUCTIVE ROLE IN THE WORLD.

THEY MAY DISAGREE OVER SOME OF THE TACTICS AND HOW FAR TO GO, HOW LONG TO COMMIT.

BUT I THINK THE ROLE OF THE U.S. AS A VERY CRITICAL NATION AND ITS LEADERSHIP ON SO MANY ISSUES IS RECOGNIZED BY MANY.

HAVING SAID THAT, THERE'S BEEN A LONG TRADITION IN THE UNITED STATES OF ISOLATIONISM, AND WE NOW SEE IT IN ELEMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES, BUT PARTICULARLY IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

THE COUNCIL WAS FOUNDED OVER A CENTURY AGO PRECISELY TO ADDRESS THE RISK OF ISOLATIONISM AND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR INTERESTS AND THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SO CLOSELY TIED TO WHAT GOES ON AROUND THE WORLD THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE U.S. TO BE ENGAGED AND TO SHOW LEADERSHIP.

AND THOSE VERY SAME DYNAMICS ARE PRESENT TODAY, AND WE'RE VERY MUCH ACTIVE IN TRYING TO BRING TOGETHER REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, BROAD COALITIONS, TO TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE U.S. SHOULD EXERCISE THAT LEADERSHIP.

>> IS THERE SOMETHING WE GOT WRONG IN THAT GLOBALISM CONSENSUS, AND THERE'S SOME RATIONALE TO THE BACKLASH THAT'S HAPPENING NOT ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES BUT AROUND THE WORLD?

>> SO, LOOK, I THINK IF WE LOOK BACK OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES, THE OPENING UP OF ECONOMIES, THE INTEGRATION OF THEM HAS HAD ENORMOUS POSITIVE IMPACTS IN GENERAL.

IT'S LIFTED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, IF NOT BILLIONS OUT OF ABJECT POVERTY.

IT'S ALLOWED REALLY ALL THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS TO BE IMPROVED.

IT HAS BROUGHT NATIONS CLOSER TOGETHER IN A NUMBER OF RESPECTS.

I THINK WHAT WAS CLEAR, THOUGH, IS THAT THE BENEFITS OF THAT INTEGRATION HAVE NOT BEEN BROADLY AND EQUALLY SHARED.

AND SO THAT BETWEEN NATIONS AND WITHIN NATIONS, THERE WERE WINNERS AND LOSERS.

AND THE IMPACTS ON THOSE WHO WERE LEFT BEHIND WERE NOT FULLY ADDRESSED.

JUST TAKE THE UNITED STATES AS AN EXAMPLE.

I THINK THIS, BY THE WAY, CUTS ACROSS BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS.

WE NEVER PAIRED OUR FOCUS ON INTEGRATING THE GLOBAL ECONOMY WITH SUFFICIENT DOMESTIC POLICY TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE WHO WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED IN THE SHORT OR THE MEDIUM TERM.

AND WE SAW THE IMPACT OF THIS ON COMMUNITIES AS FACTORIES CLOSED, AS MANUFACTURING SHRUNK, AND AS THERE WERE NO -- THERE WASN'T SUFFICIENT SOCIAL SAFETY NET AND PROGRAMS TO HELP PEOPLE REALLY DEVELOP AND TRANSITION TO NEW INDUSTRIES, AND THOSE NEW INDUSTRIES TO BE INVESTED IN COMMUNITIES TO TAKE UP THE SLACK.

AND THAT, I THINK, HAS LED TO POPULISM AND PROTECTIONISM, SOME NATIVISM, NATIONALISM AS WELL.

AND WE SEE THAT NOT JUST IN THE UNITED STATES.

WE SEE IT IN SOME OTHER COUNTRIES AS WELL, BUT WE SEE IT PARTICULARLY IN OUR POLITICS.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP WOULD MEAN FOR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY?

>> WHEN I TRAVEL AROUND THE WORLD, THE CONCERNS I HEAR ARE ABOUT AMERICAN ISOLATIONISM AND ABOUT OUR POLITICAL DYSFUNCTIONALITY.

THOSE ARE THE TWO MAJOR RISKS THAT THE REST OF THE WORLD SEES WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE UNITED STATES.

WE HAVE DYSFUNCTIONALITY RIGHT NOW.

WITNESS CONGRESS NOT BEING ABLE TO ACT ON THE AID.

BUT I THINK WHEN THE WORLD LOOKS AT THE CHOICE IT WILL FACE IN NOVEMBER, THEY VIEW PRESIDENT TRUMP AS BEING MORE ISOLATIONIST, AND THAT VERY MUCH SCARES THEM.

SO, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT POLICY PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD PURSUE IN A SECOND TERM NOR FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IF HE WERE TO BE RE-ELECTED.

BUT I THINK THE BROAD CONSENSUS IS IT'S LIKELY TO BE MORE ISOLATIONIST, LESS FOCUSED ON ALLIANCES AND PARTNERSHIPS, AND THAT WILL HAVE RAMIFICATIONS MORE BROADLY FOR HOW OUR POLICY IS IMPLEMENTED AROUND THE WORLD.

>> CAN YOU UNDERSTAND, THOUGH, THE APPEAL THAT THAT HAS IN SOME PARTS OF AMERICA?

AND TO THE EXTENT YOU THINK IT'S WRONG, WHAT CAN YOU DO TO COUNTER IT?

>> SO I THINK -- I DO UNDERSTAND THE APPEAL.

AS I SAID, IT'S NOT NEW.

ISOLATIONISM HAS BEEN HERE REALLY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC.

IT WAS MENTIONED AT GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS ABOUT ENTANGLING ALLIANCES AND HIS WORDING ABOUT THAT.

WE CERTAINLY SAW IT EARLIER IN THE 20th CENTURY BETWEEN WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II.

BUT I THINK THE 20th CENTURY AND PRESIDENT BIDEN MADE REFERENCE TO THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE STATE OF THE UNION.

THE 20th CENTURY HOLDS OUT SOME VERY IMPORTANT LESSONS FOR US, WHICH IS BY WITHDRAWING FROM THE WORLD, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THINGS AREN'T GOING TO HAPPEN OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS THAT AFFECT US.

AND I THINK RIGHT NOW, LET'S JUST FOCUS ON UKRAINE.

THE UKRAINE WAR IS VERY IMPORTANT ABOUT THE UKRAINIANS AND THEIR NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS, BUT IT'S MUCH BIGGER AND BROADER THAN THAT.

IT'S ABOUT WHETHER COUNTRIES CAN CHALLENGE THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND STABILITY.

THAT IS, THE AGREEMENT NOT TO USE FORCE TO CHANGE BORDERS.

AND I THINK A LOT OF COUNTRIES ARE LOOKING AT UKRAINE, WHETHER IT'S CHINA AND ITS FOCUS ON TAIWAN, OR COUNTRIES ALL ACROSS OTHER REGIONS OF THE WORLD WHO SAY, WELL, LOOK, IF WE CAN REDRESS OUR GRIEVANCES AROUND WHERE BORDERS ARE DRAWN, THAT BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL, WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE AN OUTBREAK OF A LOT OF CONFLICTS AND A LOT OF WARS.

AND THAT HAS AN IMPLICATION FOR US HERE AT HOME.

THE SAME THING OBVIOUSLY ON THE ECONOMIC ISSUES.

I UNDERSTAND FREE TRADE IS NOT IN FASHION RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S BEEN A BIG REACTION AGAINST IT.

BUT WHEN PEOPLE BEGIN TO SEE WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF GOODS AND AFFORDABLE PRICE AND PARTICULARLY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE SPENDING A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME ON IMPORTS, WHICH TENDS TO BE PEOPLE AT THE LOWER LEVELS OF INCOME.

THEY'LL BEGIN TO SEE THEY DON'T LIKE INFLATION.

THEY DON'T LIKE HIGH COST OF LIVING.

HOW DO WE STRIKE THAT BALANCE?

HOW DO WE MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THESE ISSUES?

I THINK WE NEED TO DO A MUCH BETTER JOB.

BY WE, I MEAN PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE IN INSTITUTIONS, PEOPLE IN EDUCATION, OF JUST MAKING CLEAR WHAT'S AT STAKE.

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO SOMEBODY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COUNTRY?

AND IS IT BECAUSE IF WE'RE NOT SUPPORTING UKRAINIANS, WE MAY FIND OURSELVES SENDING OUR OWN SOLDIERS TO WAR IN ONE PLACE OR ANOTHER?

IS IT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO DISRUPT THE SUPPLY OF FOOD AND FERTILIZER AND OTHER GOODS IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT COULD HAVE AN IMPLICATION BACK HERE AT HOME, INCLUDING AT THE GROCERY STORE?

HOW DO WE MAKE THOSE ISSUES RELEVANT TO PEOPLE AT HOME AND THEN MAKING CLEAR, AS I SAID, WHAT THE TRADE-OFFS ARE OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US.

>> MICHAEL FROMAN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.