>>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & COMPANY."

HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

A SHOW OF FORCE IN BEIJING AND A CHALLENGE TO AMERICAN SUPREMACY.

TRUMP ACCUSES THESE LEADERS OF CONSPIRING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, BUT IS HE CEDING CONTROL?

THEN THE BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF ISRAEL.

HISTORIAN AND WRITER FANIA OZSALZBURGER ABOUT THE QUESTIONS FACING HER COUNTRY ABOUT THE WAR ON GAZA.

PLUS -- >> ALIENATING INDIA, THREATENING SANCTIONS RELATED TO UKRAINE, THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF PUTTING IDEALS AND VALUES ABOVE WHAT ARE ACTUALLY U.S.

INTERESTS.

>> THE CASE FOR A RELIST FOREIGN POLICY.

WALTER ISAACSON SPEAKS WITH EMMA ASHFORD ABOUT HER BOOK "FIRST AMONG EQUALS."

>>> "AMANPOUR AND COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT.

JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

CANDACE KING WEIR.

THE SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS.

MARK J. BLECHNER.

THE FILOMEN M. D'AGOSTINO FOUNDATION.

SETON J. MELVIN.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN, COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.

JEFFREY KATZ AND BETH ROGERS.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON.

PEACE OR WAR?

A WARNING FROM XI JINPING, AS HE PUT CHINA'S FULL MILITARY MIGHT ON DISPLAY IN BEIJING.

JOINED BY THE LEADERS OF RUSSIA AND NORTH KOREA, HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT CHINA'S RISE IS UNSTOPPABLE.

AND THOSE STRIKING IMAGES OF XI, PUTIN, AND KIM STANDING SIDE BY SIDE CERTAINLY CAUGHT THE ATTENTION OF THE U. S. PRESIDENT.

DONALD TRUMP SAYS THEY'RE CONSPIRING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

BUT AFTER MONTHS OF ALIENATING ALLIES, MANY ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT OF UNDERMINING AMERICA'S INFLUENCE AND UPENDING A WORLD ORDER THAT HAS ENSURED WESTERN PEACE AND PROSPERITY FOR THE PAST 80 YEARS, AN ORDER LED BY THE UNITED STATES.

SO HERE TO DISCUSS WHAT'S AHEAD, KURT CAMPBELL, WHO SERVED AS DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE AND ARCHITECT OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S CHINA AND INDO-PACIFIC POLICY, AND MATTHEW BARTLETT, WHO SERVED AS A SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL DURING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FIRST TERM.

WELCOME BOTH OF YOU TO THE PROGRAM.

I THINK I WANT TO GET A GUT REACTION OR A CONSIDERED GEOPOLITICAL REACTION FROM BOTH OF YOU ON THE DISPLAY THAT WE JUST SAW AND THAT I JUST DESCRIBED IN BEIJING.

IT WAS VERY POWERFUL.

MATTHEW BARTLETT, AS A FORMER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL IN HIS FIRST TERM, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT?

WHAT IS THE MESSAGE TO THE UNITED STATES?

>> I MEAN THE OPTICS OF THIS ARE -- ARE STRIKING.

THIS HAS BEEN CALLED THE NEW AXIS OF UPHEAVAL, A PLAYOFF OF MICHAEL GERSON'S OLD TERM FROM THE BUSH YEARS.

BUT IT CERTAINLY ILLUSTRATES TO THE WORLD, YOU KNOW, THIS POTENTIAL NEW DIVIDE, WHERE THESE FAULT LINES ARE, AND HOW AMERICA AND THE WEST, YOU KNOW, MUST CONFRONT THIS IN A MYRIAD OF DIFFERENT WAYS, FROM A SECURITY TO A TRADE, ECONOMIC, ENERGY, AND THAT THIS IS BECOMING MUCH MORE APPARENT, I THINK, AS WE DRIVE DEEPER INTO THE 21st CENTURY.

>> OKAY, I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU ON HOW TO CONFRONT IT, AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, KURT CAMPBELL, YOU KNOW, IT -- IT SEEMS THAT TRUMP IS CEDING CONTROL.

IS THAT A FAIR THING TO SAY?

HE HAD A SUMMIT WITH PUTIN IN ALASKA, WHICH WENT PRETTY MUCH NOWHERE EXCEPT IN PUTIN'S FAVOR.

HE'S GOT ALL THESE ISSUES AS I DESCRIBED OF ALIENATING SOME KEY ALLIES WHO HE NEEDS IF HE'S GOING TO SOMEHOW CONFRONT OR DEAL WITH THE CHINA CHALLENGE.

BUT IS HE DOING WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO TO KEEP THAT SECURITY FOR AMERICA?

>> WELL, FIRST, CHRISTIANE, IT'S GREAT TO BE WITH YOU, AND I APPRECIATE JOINING THE STAGE WITH MATTHEW AS WELL.

I WOULD SAY THE KEY TO AMERICAN STRENGTH ON THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE IS NOT JUST THE CAPACITY THAT THE UNITED STATES BRINGS MILITARILY, TECH LOGICALLY, OUR SOFT POWER, ET CETERA.

IT IS OUR ABILITY OVER DECADES TO WORK WITH FRIENDS AND PARTNERS TO CORRECT - -TO CREATE A KIND OF OPERATING SYSTEM, AND THOSE KEY PARTNERS IN EUROPE, IN JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA, AUSTRALIA OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WE'VE SOUGHT, CHRISTIANE, TO ADD TO THAT GROUP.

ONE OF THE KEY SWING STATES HAS BEEN INDIA.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE U.S. -INDIA RELATIONSHIP MIGHT BE THE MOST IMPORTANT BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP FOR THE UNITED STATES IN THE 21st CENTURY.

IN RECENT MONTHS, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY IS MORE FOCUSED ON TRYING TO BUILD BRIDGES AND CURRY FAVOR WITH PUTIN AND XI RATHER THAN WITH THESE PARTNERS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.

ALL THOSE CAPITALS IN THE WEST ARE DEEPLY WORRIED ABOUT THE TRAJECTORY OF THE U.S.

RELATIONSHIP WITH ALLIES AND PARTNERS AND ARE WONDERING ABOUT THE WAY AHEAD.

PROBABLY THE BIGGEST DISPLAY AND THE MOST CONCERNING ONE DESPITE THE INCREDIBLE MILITARY CAPABILITIES, WHICH WE'LL PROBABLY GET TO, BUT AT A POLITICAL LEVEL, CHRISTIANE, IT IS SEEING PRIME MINISTER MODI, WHO HAS WORKED SO CLOSELY WITH THE UNITED STATES IN SO MANY WAYS, HUGGING IT UP IN BEIJING WITH BOTH PUTIN AND XI.

THAT CONCERNS ME.

>> WELL, I WILL GET TO THAT BECAUSE IT'S BEING DESCRIBED AS HAVING ESSENTIALLY ABANDONED DECADES OF AMERICAN BIPARTISAN POLICY TO BRING INDIA INTO THE FOLD IN TERMS OF A BULWARK AGAINST CHINA.

BUT, MATTHEW BARTLETT, I WANT TO ASK YOU BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP AS WE ALL KNOW HAS POSTED OVERNIGHT REGARDING THIS SUMMIT IN CHINA, MAY XI AND THE WONDERFUL PEOPLE OF CHINA MAY HAVE A GREAT AND LASTING CELEBRATION.

PLEASE GIVE MY WARMEST REGARDS TO VLADIMIR PUTIN AND KIM JONG-UN AS YOU CONSPIRE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

SO THAT'S A BIT OF SARCASM WITH A STING IN ITS TAIL.

AND THEN HE SAID SOMETHING ELSE IN THE OVAL OFFICE JUST IN THE LAST FEW HOURS.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE WAY HE'S DESCRIBING AND REACTING TO THIS SHOW OF FORCE IN BEIJING?

>> I MEAN, CLEARLY HE BELIEVES THAT THIS IS A SUMMIT, A MEETING WHERE THE OPTICS ARE MAINLY MEANT FOR HIM, TO CONVEY A MESSAGE, AND HE IS JUST MIFFED ABOUT THAT.

BUT WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THIS SUMMIT, AS KURT SAYS AS THE DEPUTY SECRETARY WHO'S DONE SO MUCH WORK FOR OUR COUNTRY AND ADVANCING OUR STRATEGIC INTERESTS IN A NONPARTISAN WAY, BUT THIS IS THE BUSINESS AS USUAL CROWD.

THIS IS THE WE WANT TO BUY CHEAP RUSSIAN ENERGY AND GAS.

AND, YES, INDIA IS A CRITICAL RELATIONSHIP, ARGUABLY A CRITICAL ALLY.

WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT, YOU KNOW, THEIR GROWTH IS FUELED BY CHEAP RUSSIAN OIL, AND THAT GROWTH IS FUNDING, YOU KNOW, A WAR IN UKRAINE.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN SOME WAYS WHEN YOU TRY TO SQUEEZE PUTIN, WHICH ARGUABLY THE PRESIDENT IS DOING RIGHT NOW WITH THE SANCTIONS, ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS AND TARIFFS ON INDIA, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME RAMIFICATIONS, SOME WHICH MAY BE UNAVOIDABLE.

>> OKAY, SO THIS IS THEN THE INTERESTING POINT.

IS IT REALLY BY SLAPPING INDIA WITH A 50% TARIFF THAT'S GOING TO GET PUTIN TO CHANGE HIS ACTION IN UKRAINE?

I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, DO YOU THINK SO, MATTHEW BARTLETT?

AND THEN I'LL GET KURT'S TAKE.

>> YOU'RE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION.

SOMETIMES -- OFTENTIMES IN FOREIGN POLICY THERE IS NOT A RIGHT DECISION, THERE'S ONLY AN EFFECTIVE DECISION.

AND RIGHT NOW POST- SUMMIT IT SEEMS AS IF WHERE THE BALL WAS IN PUTIN'S CORNER, PUTIN IS WALKING AWAY.

THERE ARE REPORTS OPEN SOURCE THAT NOW WITH THE SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP UKRAINIANS HAVE STRUCK RUSSIA WHERE IT HURTS.

IN THEIR OIL PIPELINES AND NOW, AGAIN, SECONDARY SANCTIONS ON INDIA.

ARGUABLY CHINA, WHICH JUST ANNOUNCED A PIPELINE DEAL THIS WEEK WITH RUSSIA, THESE ARE CRITICAL.

THIS WAR UNDER THE GUISE OF A LAND GRAB, AGAIN, LOOKS TO BE A WAR AROUND ENERGY AND HOW ENERGY SECURITY IS NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE FUTURE.

>> KURT CAMPBELL, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

AND DESCRIBE FOR US A LITTLE BIT HOW YOUR ADMINISTRATION CERTAINLY, AND THEY ANNOUNCED IT WAS TRYING TO DRAW IN INDIA AND MODI DESPITE HIS, YOU KNOW, SOME WOULD SAYAH THORITARIAN TENDENCIES, DRAW HIM IN AS A BULWARK AGAINST CHINA.

WHAT DID THE UNITED STATES TRY TO DO?

AND HAS TRUMP PUT IT AT RISK?

>> LOOK, I THINK IT'S BEEN A BIPARTISAN PROJECT, CHRISTIANE, OVER DECADES RECOGNIZING THAT INDIA'S A GREAT POWER, THE LARGEST COUNTRY ON EARTH, THE LARGEST DEMOCRACY ON EARTH.

WE'VE WORKED WITH THEM CONSTRUCTIVELY IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

I WOULD TAKE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VIEW THAN MATTHEW.

I THINK OVER TIME INDIA HAS POSITIONED ITSELF SUDDENLY AWAY FROM RUSSIA FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.

MOST PROMINENTLY THE WEAPONS INDIA HAD DEPENDED ON FROM RUSSIA HAD PERFORMED VERY BADLY ON THE BATTLEFIELD IN UKRAINE, AND I THINK THAT'S CAUSED THE INDIANS TO SORT OF PIVOT AWAY.

IT IS TRUE THAT INDIA PURCHASES NATURAL GAS AND PETROLEUM FROM RUSSIA, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF THOSE IMPORTS BY FAR.

IT'S CHINA AND ALSO THE EU.

AND SO BY PICKING ON INDIA, I THINK IT MISSES THE LARGER PROBLEM HERE.

THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE WHETHER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION GOES AFTER THE REAL SUPPORTER OF RUSSIA, WHICH IS CHINA.

I THINK WHAT ANIMATES THE TRUMP STRATEGY IS THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN DRIVE A WEDGE BETWEEN CHINA AND RUSSIA.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IS POSSIBLE.

AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WHAT WE ARE SEEING, THE PEAK AND THE REALLY DEEPLY UNFORTUNATE RHETORIC BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES, I'M NOT SURE REALLY IS ANIMATED BY UKRAINE.

I THINK IT REALLY HAS MORE TO DO WITH THE RELUCTANCE OF INDIA FOR A VARIETY OF DOMESTIC REASONS TO ACCORD WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTS, WHICH IS SOME KIND OF CREDIT FOR THE ROLE HE PLAYED IN CONVERSATIONS AND ENGAGEMENTS BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN.

I WILL SAY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE IS ACTUALLY MUCH MORE ASTUTE ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS THAN HIS CRITICS GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR.

HE REALLY DOES UNDERSTAND HOW TO MANEUVER HERE, WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE.

WHAT WE'VE SEEN INCREASINGLY, HOWEVER, IS THAT HE DOESN'T CARE AND DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE DOMESTIC POLITICS OF OUR ALLIES AND PARTNERS.

HE'S PUT PRIME MINISTER MODI IN A REALLY TOUGH PLACE, AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAJECTORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP.

MY HOPE IS WE'LL BE ABLE TO OVERCOME COME OF THE CHALLENGES OF RECENT WEEKS AND RESUME A POSITIVE TRAJECTORY IN TECHNOLOGY AND MILITARY.

INDIAN STUDENTS ARE THE LARGEST GROUP IN THE UNITED STATES.

I THINK THAT'S GENERALLY QUITE POSITIVE.

>> WELL, EXCEPT THAT'S CHANGING.

>> THIS IS CRITICAL.

>> IT'S CHANGING.

JUST TO ADD, YOU KNOW, MODI IS RESPONDING TO U.S. TARIFFS WITH A CALL FOR INDIAN SELF-RELIANCE.

NOW, YOU WOULD SAY, YES, HE WOULD, WOULDN'T HE, ENCOURAGING SHOPS TO POST MADE IN INDIA, ALL OF THAT STUFF.

AND INDIAN STUDENTS WHICH MAKE UP SUCH A BIG AND IMPORTANT SECTOR OF, YOU KNOW, ALL SORTS OF PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY ARE --A LOT OF THEM AVOIDING AMERICA RIGHT NOW AND SEEKING UNIVERSITIES ELSEWHERE.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO ASK MATT BECAUSE HE WORKED FOR --MATTHEW BARTLETT FOR TRUMP.

YOU KNOW, KURT SAYS THAT TRUMP IS INCREDIBLY ASTUTE ABOUT U.S.

POLITICS.

ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S TAKE THAT AS A GIVEN, BUT IS HE ASTUTE ABOUT POLICY, HOW THESE POLITICS ACTUALLY AFFECT POLICY, AND HOW IT AFFECTS ALLIES WHEN YOU ALIENATE THEM OR MISTAKENLY THINK YOU CAN DIVIDE THE WORLD INTO SPHERES OF INFLUENCE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING ON POLICY-WISE?

>> I MEAN, YES AND NO.

IF YOU LOOK BACK TO THE FIRST ADMINISTRATION, WE BUILT ALLIES AROUND DEFEATING ISIS AND TERRORISM.

YOU LOOK AT EUROPE, YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE EARLIER CONVERSATIONS AROUND AND, GOSH, COULD NOT CONCUR WITH KURT MORE.

THE EU EVEN LAST YEAR BOUGHT A RECORD AMOUNT OF RUSSIAN LNG GAS.

JUST AN UNFATHOMABLE FACT IF YOU LOOK BACK FROM THE EARLIER NATO MEETINGS AND NOW THIS REALITY THAT WE ARE FLASH FORWARD THE BETTER PART OF THE DECADE.

SO THERE IS CRITICAL POLICY THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES ARTICULATE, YET, YES, THERE'S ALSO --YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A NOTION OF CARELESSNESS OF ATTITUDE, OF SWAGGER THAT HE CARRIES WITH HIM SOMETIMES ON A --ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, ON A PERSONALITY LEVEL, THAT CROSSES OVER INTO THE POLICY.

LAVROV HIMSELF APPLAUDED INDIA AND MODI FOR BUYING THAT RUSSIAN OIL.

THAT IS CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THIS RELATIONSHIP, OF THIS INFLECTION POINT RIGHT NOW.

BUT AS KURT SAID, IT GOES DEEPER THAN THAT.

IT GOES BACK TO TAKING CREDIT OVER WHO ENDED THE WAR.

IT GOES TO THE TARIFFS.

IT GOES TO THE PERSONALITY.

SO IT IS A SOMETIMES CONFUSING, COMPLEX MIX OF ALL OF THIS.

SOME WORRY IS RIGHT, AND OFTENTIMES WHERE HE MAY FALL SHORT.

>> SO WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHAT TRUMP IS GETTING OUT OF LET'S SAY COZYING UP TO PUTIN.

AND AS YOU KNOW HE SAYS ONE THING ONE DAY, AND ONE THING ANOTHER DAY, SOMETIMES MORE TARGETED AGAINST PUTIN, SOMETIMES MORE AMENABLE TO PUTIN.

AT THE ALASKA SUMMIT THERE WAS A LOT OF OUTRAGE AT THE RED CARPET TREATMENT, AT REFUSAL TO TAKE ANY CONNECTIONS AT ANY PRESS CONFERENCE, AT THE FINAL DECISION BY TRUMP TO GO AGAINST HIS ALLIES, GO AGAINST ZELENSKYY AND SORT OF DISMISS THE IDEA OF A CEASE-FIRE FIRST.

AND ALSO JUST SYMBOLICALLY SERGEY LOVE RAV ARRIVED, I'M TOLD, WEARING A SWEATSHIRT WITH THE LETTERS OOF THE SOVIET UNION IN THE UNITED STATES.

THAT'S A MIDDLE FINGER, I THINK.

AND THEN THEY GO TO CHINA AND THEY FLAUNT THEIR AXIS OF ANTI-AMERICANISM AND ANTI-WESTERNISM.

SO, MATTHEW, WHAT MORE DOES TRUMP NEED TO DO TO, I DON'T KNOW, BE THE SUPER POWER?

HAVE AMERICA BE THE SUPER POWER AND NOT JUST A SORT OF ISOLATIONIST AMERICA- ONLY POWER?

>> LET'S JUST BE CLEAR, PUTIN IS A DEVIL.

HE'S A MURDEROUS, INVADING DICTATOR.

THAT IS A FACT.

BUT SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE DEVIL, YOU HAVE TO COMPROMISE WITH THE DEVIL AND KNOW THE DEVIL IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY.

YOU HAVE TO SEE THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT TRY TO PUSH HIM AND PRESSURE HIM TO PEACE TALKS.

DIRECTIONALLY SPEAKING, WE HAD A MEETING WITH PUTIN AND THEN WE HAD AN AMAZING MEETING WITH SO MANY LEADERS IN THE WEST.

DIRECTIONALLY THIS MAY HAVE BEEN BETTER THAN THE WAR HAD GONE IN MANY, MANY YEARS.

YET WE SHOULD NOT MEASURE THIS ON DIRECTION BUT RATHER OUTCOMES.

AND SINCE THEN PUTIN HAS GROWN EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVE.

TREASURY SECRETARY BESSENT CALLED IT DESPICABLE HIS ACTIONS.

THE PRESIDENT, THE FIRST LADY HAVE SPOKEN OUT ON THIS.

YOU'VE SEEN THE SECONDARY TARIFFS ON INDIA.

YOU'VE SEEN A MASSIVE WEAPONS SALE TO NATO.

YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT SECURITY AGREEMENTS TO PREVENT THE WAR, NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIAL SECURITY AGREEMENTS TO END THIS WAR.

HOW DO YOU HAVE LEVERAGE OVER PUTIN TO BRING HIM TO THE TABLE, TO NEGOTIATE SOME SORT OF A DIPLOMATIC END TO THIS?

IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING.

YOU DON'T WANT TO ENHANCE, EXPAND THIS WAR.

YOU WANT TO EXTINGUISH IT.

>> LET ME ASK YOU, KURT CAMPBELL, I SPOKE TO ELDRIDGE COLBY SHORTLY AFTER TRUMP'S ELECTION THIS SECOND TIME.

HE'S NOW A SENIOR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL.

AND THIS IS WHAT HE SPOKE -- TOLD ME ABOUT WHAT HE EXPECTED A TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICY, FOREIGN POLICY TO BE IN CONTRAST WITH BIDEN AND THE DEMOCRATIC FOREIGN POLICY AGENDAS.

HERE'S WHAT HE TOLD ME.

>> WHAT I SEE FROM THE BIDEN- HARRIS ADMINISTRATION IS A WILD DISCONNECT BETWEEN RHETORIC AND REALITY.

I MEAN, ENDLESS HIGH FULUTING DISCUSSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL RULED BASED ORER AND THEN A DEFENSE BUDGET THAT ISN'T EVEN RISING AND ON A TRAJECTORY TO A POTENTIALLY MULTIFRONT WAR.

SO WE'RE HEADING TOWARDS THE ICEBERG, AND I THINK IF WE CONTINUE ON THE CURRENT TRAJECTORY, WE'RE GOING TO RAM RIGHT INTO IT.

I THINK IT OFFERS US A WAY OF AVOIDING WORLD WAR 3 IN A WAY THAT PROTECTS OUR INTERESTS.

>> OKAY, TO BE FAIR THAT WAS JUST AFTER THE ELECTION.

DO YOU CONCUR WITH WHAT ELDRIDGE COLBURY SAID?

>> IT'S HARD TO GET IT RIGHT FROM THE QUICK LITTLE SPLICE ON THE VIDEO.

I KNOW ELDRIDGE WELL AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE THINGS HE'S TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE PENTAGON.

I WILL SAY QUICKLY ON THE EARLIER POINT, I WOULD SAY WHAT MATTHEW SUGGESTS IS HAPPENING WITH THE PRESIDENT, WITH RESPECT TO RUSSIA.

THE HOPE IS THAT HE IS FINALLY STARTING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHALLENGE TO FINDING PEACE IS NOT WITH ZELENSKYY AND UKRAINE.

FUNDAMENTALLY IT IS WITH PUTIN.

AND THAT THE ONLY THING HE WILL UNDERSTAND IS MORE PRESSURE.

AND SO I THINK WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL ACTUALLY TAKE SOME STEPS AND SANCTIONS, ASKING FOR SOME OF THAT RUSSIAN MONEY IN EUROPEAN BANKS, CONTINUING TO PROVIDE ARMS TO UKRAINE.

THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION OF THAT.

BUT IF YOU LOOK THERE IS A CLEAR DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE RHETORIC OF DISAPPOINTMENT IN RUSSIA, AND ALSO SUGGESTING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SUPPORT UKRAINE MORE.

THERE HASN'T BEEN AS MUCH FOLLOW THROUGH AS WE'D LIKE TO SEE.

I THINK THE --THE INDICATORS ARE THAT THE DEFENSE BUDGET IN MANY RESPECTS HAS NOT INCREASED IN THE WAY THAT BRIDGE COLBY HAD SUGGESTED.

I THINK THE KEY TO THE BIDEN APPROACH, CHRISTIANE, WAS TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS WORKING CLOSELY WITH KEY ALLIES AND PARTNERS IN EUROPE AND IN ASIA.

AND I GIVE MATTHEW CREDIT.

THAT WAS REALLY THE BYLINE AND THE APPROACH IN THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

THIS TIME AROUND THERE IS A CLEAR INCLINATION, I THINK, TO APPROACH PROBLEMS BY OURSELVES.

THERE IS A DEGREE OF ALIENATION WITH OUR ALLIES AND PARTNERS, AND WE ARE NOW CONFRONTED BY A REMARKABLE AND DANGEROUS COMBINATION OF STATES THAT WERE ON DISPLAY IN CHINA OVER THE LAST DAY AND A HALF WITH CLEAR OVERSHADOWS OF 1939.

UNMISTAKABLE, CHRISTIANE, WITH YOU AND YOUR EXPERIENCE.

A 1939 FLAVOR WITH AN OVER-CONTEXT OF 21st CENTURY LASER AND HYPERSONIC WEAPONS.

DEEPLY DANGEROUS AND CONCERNING.

I DO NOT THINK THIS IS A DAY THAT WE SHOULD BE COMFORTED BY.

I THINK IT'S DEEPLY CONCERNING TO AMERICAN PURPOSE, AND I HOPE IT WILL LEAD QUIETLY TO A DEGREE OF REEXAMINATION ABOUT THE FUNDAMENTALS OF WHAT THE UNITED STATES IS ABOUT, WORKING WITH ALLIES AND PARTNERS ALONG THE CORRIDORS OF POWER IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

>> FINALLY TO YOU, MATTHEW BARTLETT, BECAUSE IN THE FIRST TERM TRUMP DID TRY TO REIN IN NORTH KOREA'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS.

HERE HE IS ON STAGE, KIM JONG-UN.

HE NEVER TRAVELS ABROAD BASICALLY, AND HE'S NOW A NUCLEAR POWER AND BEING ACCEPTED AS SUCH.

THAT MUST BE REALLY SCARY GIVEN WHAT KURT HAS JUST SAID.

>> AGAIN, COULD NOT AGREE MORE WITH KURT.

HE IS DEAD ON.

VERY UNFORTUNATELY LOOKING AT THE HORIZON HERE, YOU NOW HAVE A MEETING OF UNALIGNED COUNTRIES, OF THEOCRACIES, DICTATORS, AUTHORITARIAN LEADERS.

THIS IS A THREAT TO THE U.S.

THIS IS A THREAT TO THE WEST, A THREAT TO THE GLOBAL ORDER.

AND WHAT IS THIS?

THEY ARE NOT PRESSURING PUTIN TO END THE WAR.

THEY ARE PRESSURING PUTIN TO CONTINUE TO PUMP GAS AT THE EXPENSE OF UKRAINE.

UKRAINE IS ON THE MENU AT THAT SUMMIT, AND WHAT'S NEXT COULD POTENTIALLY BE TAIWAN AND OTHER HOT SPOTS AROUND THE WORLD.

SO, YES, THE OPTICS ARE HORRIFIC, BUT THE FOREBODING COULD BE EVEN WORSE.

>> WELL, WE'LL CONTINUE THE DISCUSSIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US, MATTHEW BARTLETT, AND KURT CAMPBELL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>>> IN ISRAEL RESERVISTS ARE BEING CALLED UP TO CONQUER GAZA CITY DESPITE INTERNAL AND INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION.

MEANWHILE THE UAE IS WARNING ISRAEL ANY MOVE TO ANNEX THE OCCUPIED WEST BANK WILL CONSTITUTE A RED LINE IN THEIR ABRAHAMS ACCORDS.

AND IN GAZA DOZENS MORE HAVE BEEN KILLED BY ISRAEL, AND EVERY DAY MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN CONTINUE TO DIE OF STARVATION.

AMID THESE HARROWING REPORTS FROM GAZA AND ISRAEL'S INCREASING ISOLATION ON THE WORLD STAGE AND THE HOSTAGES WHO STILL REMAIN IN CAPTIVITY, IN JERUSALEM PROTESTERS HAVE KICKED OFF A PLANNED FOUR DAYS OF DEMONSTRATIONS CALLING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO END THE WAR.

HISTORIAN FANIA OZ-SALZBERGER IS REFLECTING ON ISRAEL'S ACTIONS AND REPUTATION IN WHAT SHE CALLS THE BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF ISRAEL, AND SHE'S JOINING ME FROM TEL AVIV.

WELCOME BACK TO OUR PROGRAM.

AND I WAS STRUCK BY YOUR ARTICLE IN THIS WEEKEND'S FINANCIAL TIMES'S TITLE IS AS I JUST SAID.

AND AS WE SPEAK THERE HAVE BEEN HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS --I DON'T KNOW THE FULL NUMBER --DEMONSTRATORS NEAR YOUR PRIME MINISTER'S HOME.

WHERE DO YOU THINK THE POLITICS OF YOUR COUNTRY REGARDING THIS WAR STAND RIGHT NOW?

>> GOOD EVENING.

IT'S NICE TO BE HERE, CHRISTIANE.

THE POLITICS OF MY GOVERNMENT IS RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE PERSONAL INTERESTS OF PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, WHO WILL CONTINUE THE WAR AS LONG AS HE THINKS IT IS IN HIS POLITICAL FAVOR.

AND, UNFORTUNATELY, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF US NOW KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SO THE NOISE PEOPLE ARE MAKING ON THE STREET TONIGHT IN JERUSALEM, NORMALLY ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, IS GETTING LOUDER AND LOUDER.

WE CANNOT DEMOCRATICALLY UNDO THIS GOVERNMENT, BUT WE CAN SAY OUT LOUD THAT IT IS NO LONGER REPRESENTING US, THAT IT'S NOT IN OUR NAME.

>> SO TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN, THEN, BY THE BATTLE OF THE SOUL OF ISRAEL?

AND AS I MENTIONED EVEN THE SOLDIERS AND THE RESERVISTS ARE NOW BEGINNING TO QUESTION, AND SOME ARE WANTING TO REFUSE HEADING TO THEIR BASES TO TAKE PART IN THIS WAR AS IT CONTINUES.

TELL ME ABOUT HOW YOU SEE THE BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF ISRAEL GIVEN WHAT'S UNFOLDING AGAINST THE CIVILIANS IN GAZA AND ALSO IN THE WEST BANK.

>> YES.

IN GAZA AND THE WEST BANK AND WHAT IS ALSO UNFOLDING IN A DIFFERENT SORT OF WAY AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF ISRAEL ITSELF.

WE ARE SEEING DEMOCRACY SLIP AWAY UNDER THE UNKIND FINGERS OF THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT.

SO WE ARE HERE TO SAY, AND THERE IS A GROWING NUMBER OF US, THAT WE CAN NO LONGER SUPPORT EITHER THE WAR IN GAZA, WHICH IS CONTINUING AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF RETURNING THE HOSTAGES, WHICH IS CONTINUING AGAINST HUMANITARIAN INTERNATIONAL LAW.

AND PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO SAY OR HAVE BEGUN TO SAY WE ARE NO LONGER GOING TO STAND FOR IT.

I PERSONALLY KNOW SEVERAL RESERVE SOLDIERS WHO ARE NOW REFUSING TO REENTER GAZA, TO CONTINUE SERVING AS RESERVISTS IN THE ISRAELI ARMY.

AND I PERSONALLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO REFUSE BECAUSE THIS IS AN UNPRECEDENTALLY, ILLEGITIMATE AND NON-AGREED WAR FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ISRAEL'S OWN CITIZENS.

>> CAN I JUST SAY --?

>> AND SOLDIERS I ALSO CITIZENS AND PART OF THIS COUNTRY.

>> GIVEN WHAT YOU JUST SAID, I WANT TO PLAY A SHORT SOUND BITE FROM ONE OF THE RESERVIST, COMBAT MEDIC SERGEANT CRECHE.

HERE'S WHAT HE SAID RECENTLY.

>> WE'RE OVER 365 AND COUNTING SOLDIERS WHO SERVED DURING THE WAR AND HAVE DECLARED THAT WE WILL NOT REPORT FOR DUTY WHEN CALLED AGAIN.

WE REFUSE TO TAKE PART IN NETANYAHU'S ILLEGAL WAR, AND WE SEE IT AS A PATRIOTIC DUTY TO REFUSE AND TO DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FROM OUR LEADERS.

WE ARE THE SAME RESERVISTS AND SOLDIERS WHO DROPPED EVERYTHING ON OCTOBER 7th AND RUSHED TO THE FRONTS TO REPORT FOR DUTY TO PROTECT OUR PEOPLE.

IT IS PRECISELY FROM THAT SAME SENSE OF DUTY WHICH WE ARE DRIVEN TO REFUSE AND TO USE OUR VOICES LOUDLY TO RESIST NETANYAHU'S ATTEMPTS TO SACRIFICE EVERYTHING FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL SURVIVAL.

>> FANIA OZ-SALZBERGER, DO YOU THINK GIVEN THAT A GROUP OF RABBIS HAVE COME OUT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS TO ALSO SAY THIS HAS TO END AND NOT IN OUR NAME AND ET CETERA.

DO YOU THINK A VARIETY OF SECTORS LIKE THE SOLDIERS, LIKE THE RABBIS, LIKE OTHERS, LIKE ARTISTS WHO ARE CURRENTLY NOT BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY THE GOVERNMENT WHO SIGNED A PETITION AND OTHERS WHO HEARS THEM AND LISTENS TO THEM OR NOT?

>> THERE'S A HUGE NUMBER OF ISRAELIS TODAY A CLEAR MAJORITY WHO WANT A HOSTAGE DEAL AND TO RETURN THE LIVING HOSTAGE, THE DEAD HOSTAGES, ALL 48 OF THE REMAINING PEOPLE IN GAZA.

THERE IS ALSO A HUGE MAJORITY FOR ENDING THE WAR.

IT IS CLEAR NOW TO MANY ISRAELIS WHO ARE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROTEST CORE OR THE ORIGINAL LEFT CENTER VIEWPOINT.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR TO THEM NOW THAT THIS WAR IS NOT SERVING ANY PURPOSE EXCEPT FOR THE TWIN PURPOSES OF THIS GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS TO SAVE NETANYAHU'S SKIN AND FIND A WAY TO STOP HIS TRIAL, HIS INDICTMENT ON THREE CASES OF CHARGES OF CORRUPTION.

AND THE ULTRA MASIONIC RIGHT OF INTERESTS OF RECONQUERING AND RESETTING GAZA WITH JUICE NOT ONLY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ARAB-PALESTINIAN POPULATION THERE BUT ALSO AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LIVES OF ISRAELI SOLE SQURZ AND CIVILIANS IN THE FUTURE.

THEY DON'T MIND IT ANYMORE.

SO WHAT HAS BEEN A CONSENSUS AMONG ISRAELIS EVER SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE STATE IS NO LONGER A CONSENSUS.

WE CANNOT AGREE TO FIGHT A WAR USING OUR CITIZENS ARMY, OUR OWN CHILDREN AND THEIR FRIENDS.

WE CANNOT AGREE TO FIGHT A WAR WHICH IS SO HORRIFIC, SO DEVOID OF HUMANITY BOTH TOWARDS THE GAZANS AND TOWARDS THE MOST CITIZENS OF ISRAEL.

AND WE CAN NO LONGER SUPPORT A WAR WHICH IS INTENDED TO KEEP THE PRIME MINISTER ALIVE AND KICKING AND OUT OF COURT.

>> FANIA, I HEAR YOU, AND I HEAR ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO SAY THIS IS A POLITICAL AND PERSONAL PROJECT BY NETANYAHU AND A PROJECT BY THOSE WHO SEEM TO BE HOLDING THE STRINGS TO HIS POWER, AND THOSE ARE THE AS YOU CALL THEM THE ULTRA-MESIONIC MEMBERS OF HIS CABINET AND HIS GOVERNMENT.

I WANT TO ASK YOU THIS BECAUSE YOU POINT OUT THROUGHOUT YOUR ESSAY YOU TALK ABOUT A MODERATE MAJORITY.

YOU TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, NOW SO MANY PEOPLE COMING OUT AGAINST THIS WAR FOR THE REASONS YOU'VE JUST LAID OUT.

BUT YOU'VE PROBABLY ALSO SEEN PEOPLE LIKE MICHAEL SAFAD WHO'S A LEADING HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER SAYING ACTUALLY ALL ISRAELIS ARE IMPLICATED IN WHAT'S HAPPENING IN GAZA.

HE CALLED IT AN ALL-ISRAELI PROJECT.

AS UNCOMFORTABLE AS THAT PROBABLY DOES SOUND TO YOU AND OTHERS, HE SAYS THIS "IT'S EASIEST TO LOOK AT BEN GAVIR AND SMART HP RICH AND FEEL IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US.

BUT GAZA'S DESTRUCTION IS AN ALL ISRAELI PROJECT.

IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE COOPERATION WHETHER THROUGH ACTIVE CONTRIBUTION OR SILENCE OF ALL PARTS OF JEWISH ISRAELI SOCIETY.

THE GOVERNMENT SECURED LOYALTY TO THIS CRIME IN THE WAR'S VERY FIRST DAYS WHEN THE NATURE OF ISRAEL'S ATTACK ON GAZA WAS FORMED.

A TOTAL ASSAULT ON EVERYTHING GAUZEN WITH NO PRETENSE ON FOCUSING ONLY ON MILITARY TARGETS.

BACK THEN WHEN VOICES WARNING OF WAR CRIMES WERE DROWNED OUT BY WAR DRUMS, ALL SEGMENTS OF SOCIETY WERE CHAINED INTO COMPLICITY IN THE CRIME. "

THAT IS SO HARSH, AND I WONDER WHAT YOUR TAKE IS ON IT BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE.

>> CHRISTIANE, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR HIM.

HE'S A WONDERFUL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER AND FIGHTER.

BUT I HAVE TO SAY THERE WAS A SEGMENT FROM THE VERY START OF THE GAZA WAR WHO SAW AND FORESAW WHAT'S COMING, WHICH IS A TOTALLY UNWISE AND SHALL I SAY VILE AND CRUEL WAR, TAKING CIVILIANS ALONG WITH THE HAMAS MILITANTS AND VICTIMIZING SO MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE.

SO I RESPECT HIM, BUT HE HIMSELF AND SOME OF HIS FRIENDS WERE COURAGEOUS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF THE 7th OF OCTOBER AND THE BEGINNING OF THE ISRAELI INVASION OF GAZA, OTHERS INCLUDING MYSELF WERE A LITTLE LATER BUT WERE THERE ALREADY, EARLY IN 2024 AND NOW A GROWING NUMBER, AN INCREASING NUMBER.

NOW, THESE ARE NOT THE HUGE MAJORITIES THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE FOR A HOSTAGE DEAL AND AN END TO THE WAR.

THERE ARE SMALLER GROUPS AMONG THE ISRAELIS PROTESTING IN THE STREETS AND THE CITY SQUARE, AND THESE SMALLER GROUPS ARE STILL SIGNIFICANT THAT ARE SAYING ENOUGH ALREADY, SHOULD HAVE STOPPED A WHILE AGO.

WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW IS COMPLETELY OUT OF ORDER, IMMORAL, AND POSSIBLY EVEN OR QUITE EVIDENTLY EVEN CRIMINAL.

SO THIS IS A GROWING GROUP.

NOW, PEOPLE CAN ARGUE WITH ME AND SAY ON THIS YOU ARE ONLY A MINORITY.

I ALSO BELONG TO A MINORITY WHO WANTS A TWO-STATE SOLUTION, WHO WANTS A FREE AND SOVEREIGN PALESTINE NEXT DOOR WHO IS SAFE AND DEMOCRATIC ISRAEL, THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION WHICH IS CLASSIC AND GOT HIT ON THE 7th OF OCTOBER, BUT IT'S HERE TO STAY BECAUSE IT'S AMONG THE ONLY NONVIOLENT ENDINGS FOR THIS TERRIBLE STORY.

SO OF COURSE WE ARE STILL A MINORITY, BUT WE ARE A GROWING MINORITY.

THIS IS MY LIFE MISSION NOW TO TALK TO FELLOW ISRAELIS ABOUT A POLITICAL SOLUTION TO THE ISRAELI PALESTINIAN CONFLICT.

AND FRIENDS OF ISRAEL SHOULD REACH OUT TO US, TO THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE OTHERWISE WHAT WILL YOU DO?

IF THE WHOLE OF ISRAEL IS TOTALLY AND EQUALLY GUILTY AS PEOPLE LIKE HE SEEMS TO BE IMPLYING, THEN, OKAY, WHAT'S NEXT?

WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH 7.

1 MILLION JEWS, MANY OF THEM WHO CALL THEMSELVES LOYALISTS, I DO TOO IN A RIGHT WAY, WHO ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

THIS IS A NONSTARTER FOR ME TO SAY ALL ISRAELIS ARE EQUALLY VILE OR EQUALLY RACIST OR EQUALLY WANT GAZA DEMOLISHED.

MAYBE THE POLLS GIVE BIG NUMBERS AND PEOPLE ARE STILL IN A VERY, VERY MILITANT MOOD ABOUT HAMAS.

HAVING SAID THAT, WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE THE MODERATES AND NOT START COUNTING HOW MANY MODERATES THERE ARE.

THE GOOD NEWS, AS I SAID BEFORE, IT'S A GROWING NUMBER.

>> AND IT'S COMING MORE AND MORE TO THE FORE AS YOU'RE SAYING.

BUT THE GOOD -- AS YOU'VE SAID, YOU'VE SAID, YOU KNOW, NEITHER ISRAELI JEWS ARE GOING ANYWHERE NOR PALESTINIANS.

THEY HAVE TO SHARE THIS SPACE.

YOU ALSO SAID IT'S VERY LIKELY, WELL, WE KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE HOSTAGES IS CRIMINAL.

STILL WHEREVER THEY ARE UNDERGROUND, PROBABLY UNDERFED, TORTURED AND AWFUL.

AND WE KNOW ALSO THAT PALESTINIANS AND MANY, MANY HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN HAVE DIED OF STARVATION INCLUDING WOMEN AND OTHERS, AND THERE'S STILL A SIEGE ON THAT.

YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT IT AS POTENTIALLY BEING CRIMINAL.

SO I WONDER WHETHER YOU THINK THAT IS CRIMINAL, AND WHETHER YOU HAVE TO STRUGGLE TO TELL PEOPLE INSIDE ISRAEL AND YOUR ALLIES OUTSIDE WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN.

PEOPLE ACCUSING ISRAEL OF WAR CRIMES AGAINST INNOCENT GAZANS ARE NOT ANTI-SEMITES, THEY ARE SIMPLY HUMAN.

THAT'S WHAT YOU WROTE.

AND YET SO MANY ALLIES IN THE UNITED STATES, ALLIES IN EUROPE, ALL --YOU KNOW, JEWS, MANY ALLIES BELIEVE IT'S ANTI- SEMITIC, BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT.

>> IT'S CERTAINLY NOT ANTI-SEMITIC TO SAY ISRAELI IS VERY EVIDENTLY CONDUCTING WAR CRIMES.

NOT ALL OF ITS MILITARY ACTIONS ARE WAR CRIMES, BUT SOME OF IT EVIDENTLY ARE.

AND WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, AND WE NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF A REBUILDING GAZA PHYSICALLY AND POLITICALLY FINDING A DAY-AFTER SCENARIO FOR GAZA.

ISRAELIS WILL ALSO NEED TO REBUILD OURSELVES MORALLY, CONSTITUTIONALLY MAKE DEMOCRACY STRONGER AGAINST SUCH ASSAULTS AS WE ARE GETTING NOW, AND RE-CREATING THE HUMANIST STRAIN THAT WENT THROUGH THE EARLY HISTORICAL ZIONNISM AND IS STILL THERE AMONG HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF US.

HUMAN IS BELIEVING THAT LIVES ARE EQUAL JEW OR NON-JEW.

MEANINGLESS MEANING WE DON'T OWN THE WHOLE OF THE LAND BUT IT SHAZ TO BE SHARED SOMEHOW.

CALL IT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION.

AND HUMANNESS IN THE SENSE OF RECOGNIZING HUMANITY OF EVERY INNOCENT PALESTINIAN IN GAZA AND IN THE WEST BANK AND ELSEWHERE.

AND THIS IS MY JUDAISM, AND THESE ARE MY ISRAELI VALUES, AND WE'RE FIGHTING FOR THAT BOTH IN OUR OWN TRAUMATIZED, MILITARIZED SOCIETY.

AND WHEN TALKING TO ISRAEL'S FRIENDS ABROAD.

SO THERE ARE PROBABLY TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT ISRAELS, AND THE ONE I'M SPEAKING FOR IS NOT NETANYAHU'S ISRAEL.

IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE --ISRAEL.

IT IS AN ISRAEL THAT WANTS TO CONTINUE THE OLD DREAM OF BECOMING A LEGITIMATE MEMBER OF THE WHAT USED TO BE CALLED THE FAMILY OF NATIONS OF THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY.

>> WELL, WE THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> AND CREATE A COMPROMISE WITH THE PALESTINIANS AS LONG AS THE PALESTINIANS WILL HAVE LEADERS LEADING THEM TO A MODERATE SOLUTION THE WAY WE ARE TRYING TO PUSH FOR HERE IN ISRAEL.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT, FANIA OZ-SALZBERGER.

THAT'S FOR BEING WITH US.

AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER PRESIDENT TRUMP SEEMS TO HAVE WALKED INDIA INTO THE ARMS OF CHINA AND RUSSIA, SO HOW CAN THE U.S. NAVIGATE THIS NEW SHIFT?

IN HER NEW BOOK EMMA ASHFORD OFFERS SOME SUGGESTIONS AS SHE EXPLAINS NOW TO WALTER ISAACSON.

>> THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE, AND EMMA ASHFORD.

THANKS FOR COMING ON THE SHOW.

>> IT'S GREAT TO BE HERE.

>> YOUR NEW BOOK IT IS A CRY FOR REALIST FOREIGN POLICY.

EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY REALISTIC FOREIGN AND HOW THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'RE DOING.

>> YEAH, I THINK REALISM IS ONE OF THE TWO POLLS AROUND WHICH U.S. FOREIGN TENDS TO CLUSTER.

SOMETIMES WE'RE VERY IDEALISTIC WOOD ROW WILSON, FOR EXAMPLE, AND SOMETIMES WE ARE IDELISTS AND I THINK EISENHOWER ARE EXAMPLES OF THAT.

THE POINT I MAKE IN THE BOOK DURING THE POST COLD WAR PERIOD WE HAVE EFFECTIVELY ENGAGED IN A SERIES OF VERY TRANSFORMATIVE CRUSADING FOREIGN POLICY GOALS LIKE THE FREEDOM AGENDA UNDER BUSH AND THAT WE'VE FORGOTTEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO OPERATE IN THIS COMPETITION AND POLITICS AND WE NEED TO GET BACK TO THINKING A BIT MORE ABOUT INTERESTS AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO ACHIEVE THOSE.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT GREAT POWER COMPETITION AND THE BALANCES OF POWER THAT COME WITH THAT.

THERE WERE PICTURES THIS WEEK THAT WOULD JUST SEND SHUDDERS DOWN THE SPINE OF A REALIST, WOULD BE APPALLED.

AND THAT WAS PRIME MINISTER MODI MEETING WITH PRESIDENT XI OF CHINA AND PRESIDENT PUTIN OF RUSSIA.

AND I THINK BISMARCK AND MATTERNICK, KISSINGER FOR THAT MATTER WOULD SAY YOU NEVER WHEN YOU HAVE A REALISTIC FOREIGN POLICY ALLOW MORE THAN ONE OF YOUR POTENTIAL ADVERSARIES TO GET CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.

IN THIS CASE WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT TO ALL THREE.

IS THIS A REALLY BAD FUMBLE AND A RELIST FOREIGN POLICY?

>> I THINK SO.

AND, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS UNIQUE TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

IF ANYTHING IN MANY WAYS THEY'VE BEEN SLIGHTLY MORE RELIST THAN SAY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION OR SOME OF THE OTHERS IN THE RECENT PAST.

BUT, YES, ALIENATING INDIA, THREATENING SANCTIONS RELATED TO WAR IN UKRAINE, THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF PUTTING IDEALS AND VALUES ABOVE WHAT ARE ACTUALLY U. S. INTERESTS.

AND IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, WE RISK LOSING INDIA AS A PARTNER IN COMPETITION WITH CHINA IF WE SPEND SO MUCH TIME ON EUROPE AND UKRAINE, AND WE ELEVATE THAT OVER INDIA AND ITS ROLE IN THE ENDO PACIFIC.

AND SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF HARD CHOICES THAT POLITICIANS, RELIST POLITICIANS HAVE TO MAKE.

WHAT I SEE TOO OFTEN IS TO TALK ABOUT THIS WONDERFUL TALK ABOUT VALUES BUT TO IGNORE THOSE SORT OF CONCRETE INTERESTS WE MIGHT BE LEAVING BEHIND.

>> WELL, HAVE WE EVER HAD A TIME WHERE WE WERE SUDDENLY ABLE TO TAKE WHAT WAS AN ALLY, INDIA, IN MANY WAYS.

AN ALLY INDIA WHO WAS VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO CHINA AND LIKE WISE KISSINGER AND NIXON TAKE CHINA'S RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA AND PULL THEM APART.

THERE WAS PART OF THEIR REALISM.

HAVE WE EVER SEEN A TIME WHEN YOU HAVE THREE POTENTIAL ADVERSARIES THROWN TOGETHER LIKE WE'VE SEEN THIS WEEK?

>> I DON'T THINK I WOULD NECESSARILY DESCRIBE INDIA AS AN ADVERSARY, BUT I DO THINK THIS IS A LEFLEXION OF THE FACT THE WORLD IS BECOMING MORE MULTI-POLAR.

THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT PLAYERS, AGAIN, THAN THERE WERE FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS.

AND IN SOME WAYS WHAT I THINK THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO DO IS BECOME A LITTLE MORE LIKE THOSE COUNTRIES IN HOW THEY PURSUE FOREIGN POLICY.

THE INDIANS, THEY KNOW THEY HAVE AN INTEREST IN COOPERATING WITH THE UNITED STATES ON CHINA.

AT THE SAME TIME, THEY HAVE OTHER OPTIONS, AND THEY ARE GOING TO EXERCISE THOSE.

THEY'RE GOING TO TRY WITH CHINA.

THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BUY RUSSIAN OIL.

THEY HAVE THESE OPTIONS.

THE UNITED STATES, IF WE CONTINUE TO JUST LOCK OURSELVES INTO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A WESTERN ALLIANCE AND WE DON'T TALK TO OTHER STATES, RIGHT, THAT'S VERY RESTRICTIVE, AND WE ARE LOSING OUT WHEN WE COULD BE DOING SOMETHING LIKE THE INDIANS OR OTHERS ARE DOING.

>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER GREAT POWERS, ARE THERE ANY OF THEM THAT WE SHOULD BE BUILDING BETTER RELATIONSHIPS WITH?

AND I MEAN, SAY, INDIA OR PERHAPS CHINA?

THAT WE SHOULDN'T TRY TO FIGHT BOTH CHINA AND RUSSIA AT THE SAME TIME.

>> YOU KNOW, I TEND TO THINK, AND AGAIN THIS IS SORT OF A MAIN STREAM RELIST VIEW.

TEND TO THINK THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW IS CHINA AND ITS GROWING INFLUENCE IN ASIA.

FOR ME I WOULD PRIORITIZE THAT.

AND THAT DOES MEAN IMPROVING RELATIONS WITH INDIA.

A LITTLE MORE CONTROVERSIALLY IT PROBABLY MEANS IMPROVING RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA, AND I THINK WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN MANY THINGS, BUT I THINK THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE THEY ARE CORRECT.

REDUCING THE U.S.

RELATIONSHIP JUST TO UKRAINE AND IGNORING ALL THE OTHER AREAS, CHINA, THE ARCTIC, WHERE WE MIGHT NEED TO TALK TO THE RUSSIANS OR POTENTIALLY NOT HAVE THEM JUST A JUNIOR PARTNER TO CHINA, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE IN THE U.S. INTEREST.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I DON'T GET, THOUGH, IS WHY DO YOU THINK CHINA IS SUCH A BIG THREAT?

ISN'T IT MAINLY AN ECONOMIC COMPETITOR?

>> CHINA IS A MILITARY AND ECONOMIC COMPETITOR.

AND IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHICH STATES COULD CHALLENGE THE UNITED STATES MILITARILY IN ASIA, IN THE WORLD IT'S --IT'S CHINA, RIGHT?

THE RUSSIANS CANNOT CONQUER EASTERN UKRAINE.

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE OVER EUROPE.

IN THE MIDDLE EAST THERE IS NO COUNTRY THAT IS POISED TO CONQUER THE MIDDLE EAST, RIGHT?

SO THESE ARE IMPORTANT REGIONS.

IN ASIA CHINA HAS THAT POTENTIAL.

>>ATE, THE CHINESE POISED TO CONQUER ANYTHING?

PERHAPS TAIWAN, BUT THEY HAVEN'T MADE A MOVE THERE.

>> POTENTIALLY TAIWAN, BUT I THINK YOUR LAST POINT ABOUT ECONOMIC COMPETITOR IS ACTUALLY THE MORE IMPORTANT ONE.

SO IT'S NOT JUST A MILITARY THREAT.

IT IS AN ECONOMIC PROBLEM.

CHINA HAS THE ABILITY TO PUSH THE UNITED STATES OUT OF ASIA THROUGH DIPLOMACY, THROUGH ECONOMIC STATE CRAFT IN WAYS THAT WOULD LEAVE US POORER AND MORE ISOLATED.

AND TO ME THAT IS THE BIG THREAT OF GROWING CHINESE INFLUENCE, AND SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD FOCUS ON THAT RATHER THAN ON SOME OF THESE OTHER REGIONS.

>> YOU KEEP USING THE PHRASE IN THE BOOK "COERCIVE ECONOMIC STATE CRAFT," AND I GUESS ONE OF THE GREAT EXAMPLES OF IT WAS WHEN RUSSIA DID ITS LATEST GRAND ASSAULT ON UKRAINE, WE PUT WHAT WERE CALLED CRIPPLING SANCTIONS.

AND EVEN TRUMP DECIDED TO DO MORE, AND THE RESULT OF THAT IS THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY HASN'T COLLAPSED AND RUSSIA HAS NOW CREATED ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHINA AND WITH INDIA.

WAS THAT A MISTAKE TO TRY TO DEAL WITH IT THROUGH CRIPPLING SANCTIONS, OR DID WE NOT DO ENOUGH?

>> LOOK, I THINK THAT ONE THING THAT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM THE LAST 30 YEARS IS THAT NO MATTER HOW POWERFUL THE UNITED STATES, YOU KNOW, WE ARE FINANCIALLY CENTER OF THE WORLD.

WE HAVE THIS HUGE MILITARY.

THERE ARE STILL THINGS THAT ARE UNACHIEVABLE EVEN FOR THAT POWER, WHETHER THAT IS TRANSFORMING STATE INTO DEMOCRACIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST OR WHETHER THAT IS E RUSSIA, A COUNTRY THAT PROVIDES 10 TO 12% OIL SUPPLY TO STOP A WAR THAT IT REALLY WANTS TO FIGHT.

AND SO WE HAVE SEEN THE LIMITS OF OUR ABILITY TO FORCE OTHER COUNTRIES TO DO WHAT WE WANT TO DO, AND THAT WAS DURING THIS PERIOD OF EXTREME U. S. DOMINANCE.

SO, AGAIN, ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT I MAKE IN THE BOOK IS WE NEED TO THINK GOING FORWARD AS THAT PREPONDERANCE OF POWER DECLINES, IT'S GOING TO GET EVEN HARDER TO USE COERCION TO FORCE OTHER COUNTRIES.

WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT OTHER WAYS.

AND, AGAIN, I THINK IN THE CASE OF UKRAINE I UNDERSTAND WHY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WENT THE SANCTIONS ROUTE.

IT WAS SORT OF A MIDDLE ROAD BETWEEN DOING NOTHING AND STARTING A WAR WITH A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

BUT WE SHOULDN'T PRETEND THAT IT WAS EVER GOING TO ACTUALLY FORCE ANOTHER GREAT POWER TO COME TO, YOU KNOW --TO STOP ENTIRELY WHAT IT WAS DOING.

>> WELL, YOU TALKED IN THE BOOK ABOUT WE NEED TO HAVE SELECTABLE PARTNERSHIPS.

AND I THINK YOU CONTRAST IN THAT BOOK TO WHAT WE USED TO THINK OF OUR ALLIANCE AS SACRED OBLIGATIONS.

I MEAN, IT WAS ALMOST INVOKED AS IF IT WERE MORAL, NOT JUST REALISTIC.

NOW, I THINK YOU'RE SAYING IN THE BOOK WE HAVE TO GET AWAY FROM SACRED OBLIGATION TYPES OF ALLIANCES AND MOVE TOWARDS WHAT --I THINK YOU EVEN USE THE WORDS MUNDANE, MUNDANE AND FLEXIBLE PARTNERSHIPS.

LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THAT.

HOW WOULD THAT HAVE HELPED IN UKRAINE?

>> LOOK, ALLIANCES ARE TOOLS, AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BEEN FORGOTTEN IN MANY WAYS DURING THE UNI-POLAR MOMENT.

VALUES LIKE NATO HAD VALUEST TO THEM.

WE WORKED WITH DEMOCRACIES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME INTERESTS MATTERED A LOT DURING THAT PERIOD.

WE HAD AUTOCRACIES LIKE TURKEY THAT WERE WELCOMED INTO NATO BECAUSE THEY WERE STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT.

WHEN JOE BIDEN TALKED ABOUT ALLIANCE AS A SACRED OBLIGATIONS AND HE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT UKRAINE, WE SAW THINGS LIKE IN THE RUNUP TO THE WAR IN UKRAINE THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE OR EVEN CONSIDER THE NOTION THAT MAYBE UKRAINE WOULDN'T JOIN NATO, EVEN IF COULD PREVENT A WAR.

AND SO FOR ME THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE, RIGHT?

DOES UKRAINE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO JOIN A WESTERN ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRACIES?

THAT'S A VALUE JUDGMENT, RIGHT?

>> WELL, SO GIVE ME YOUR SOLUTION THERE?

WHAT SHOULD WE OFFER IN THIS WAR?

>> I THINK EARLIER ON BEFORE THE CONFLICT, I THINK POTENTIALLY THERE WERE NEGOTIATIONS THAT COULD HAVE CREATED SOME FORM OF NEUTRALITY FOR UKRAINE THE WAY FINLAND DID, FOR EXAMPLE.

>> WELL, THIS IS NOT FINLAND NOW.

>> EXACTLY.

THEY CHOSE TO JOIN SORT OF THE WESTERN COALITION HERE.

LOOK, THAT SHIP HAS SAILED TIPT.

I THINK FOR UKRAINE THE BEST AVAILABLE OPTION --IT IS A FORM OF NEUTRALITY BUT A FORM OF NEUTRALITY WHERE THEY LOST A LOT OF TERRITORY.

I THINK WHAT WE SAW IN THIS WAR IS THE U.S., THE WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA FOR UKRAINE.

TO ME THAT HIGHLIGHTS THESE VALUE DRIVEN STATEMENTS.

URSULA VANDERLINE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION SAYING WE'LL DO ANYTHING ELSE AND THE UNITED STATES ALLIANCE SAYING, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BITE FOR UKRAINE.

WE NEED HAVE DIPLOMACY THAT REFLECTS THE REALITY OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO NOT JUST THE SORT OF FREE-FLOATING VALUES STATEMENTS.

>> SO YOU WANT TO CHANGE A LOT OF WHAT WE WOULD CALL SACRED OBLIGATIONS AND SAY, NO, THEY SHOULD BE MORE MUNDANE OR I GUESS I'D JUST USE THE WORDS FLEXIBLE AND PRACTICAL PARTNERSHIPS.

DOES THAT INCLUDE ISRAEL?

>> ISRAEL IS A REALLY INTERESTING CASE.

IT HAS DISTINCT --SORT OF WE DON'T COMMIT TO IT THE WAY WE COMMIT TO NATO STATES BUT WE HAVE TREATIES THAT OBLIGATE US TO CERTAIN THINGS.

LOOK, I THINK THE ALLIANCE WITH ISRAEL SHOULD BE OPEN TO QUESTION THE SAME WAY THAT ANY OTHER ALLIANCE WOULD BE.

AND IN THE CURRENT MOMENT I WOULD SAY THAT OUR ALLIANCE WITH ISRAEL IS TING OUR ABILITY TO WORK WITH, NEGOTIATE WITH BASICALLY EVERY STATE IN THE ARAB WORLD AND FRANKLY SOME IN ASIA, OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH IND NEEGTSA, A VERY IMPORTANT STATE IN ASIA, HAS GOT WORSE BECAUSE OF THE WAR IN GAZA.

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO THINK, AGAIN, OF INTERESTS RATHER THAN SAYING THE ALLIANCE WITH ISRAEL IS A SACRED OBLIGATION AND WE MUST KEEP SUPPORTING THEM NO MATTER WHAT IT MEANS FOR US.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS YOU ARGUE FOR IS A PIVOT TO ASIA.

OF COURSE I REMEMBER BARACK OBAMA AND KURT CAMPBELL AND OTHERS IN THAT ADMINISTRATION SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO PIVOT TO ASIA.

I NEVER QUITE KNEW WHAT THAT MEANT.

DID THAT MEAN WE'RE GOING FOOGAUGE WITH CHINA MORE, HAVE BETTER ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM?

DID IT MEAN WE WERE GOING TO PUT MORE WARSHIPS THERE SO THAT WE COULD COUNTER CHINA?

WHAT DOES PIVOTING TO ASIA MEAN, AND WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP EUROPE TO DO IT?

>> I THINK PIVOTING TO ASIA, AGAIN, VERY CORNY PHRASE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE IT HASN'T HAPPENED, BUT I THINK WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT --WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS WE NEED TO FOCUS MORE OF OUR ATTENTION ON ASIA AND THE INDO-PACIFIC AS A REGION THAT IS THE WORLD'S MOST POPULOUS REGION, IT'S GROWING FAST AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT REGION, WE NEED TO FOCUS OUR ATTENTION THERE AND LESS ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND EUROPE.

AND SO THAT DOES TO SOME EXTENT MEAN MILITARY DEPLOYMENTS.

IF YOU LOOK AT RECENT DEBATES, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OVER SOME OF THE WEAPONS TO UKRAINE, THERE IS A CONCRETE TRADEOFF BETWEEN WEAPONS BEING SENT TO UKRAINE AND ONES THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED TO DEFEND U.S.

BASES IN THE INDO-PACIFIC IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT WITH CHINA.

SO THERE ARE TRADEOFFS THERE.

BUT THERE ARE ALSO OTHER PLACES WHERE WE NEED TO SIMPLY BUILD UP OUR CAPACITY.

I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE A COLLEAGUE OF MINE DOES A BUNCH OF WORK ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND DUG INTO THE DILL TAZ AND LOOKED AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S PIVOT TO ASIA.

WHAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND HE FOUND BASICALLY NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

NO MORE STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES WERE FOCUSED ON ISSUES RELATED TO ASIA.

THEY WERE MOSTLY STILL FOCUSED ON EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST, AND THEN ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES, ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WEREN'T AS RELEVANT FOR ASIA.

SO WE JUST NEED TO BUILD THESE CAPABILITIES UP.

>> YOU SAY IN A MULTIPOLAR WORLD WE REALLY HAVE TO BUILD UP THE CAPABILITIES OF OUR FRIENDS.

I'M WONDERING NOW IN THE PAST FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN YEARS WHO ARE THESE FRIENDS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

IF WE DECIDED WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD UP NATO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD UP EUROPE, WE'RE HAVING DISPUTES WITH MANY OF OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES AND WE PUSHED RUSSIA, CHINA, AND INDIA ALL TOGETHER IN BEING ADVERSARIES, WHO ARE THE FRIENDS WE HAVE NOW?

DO WE HAVE MORE FRIENDS THAN WE USED TO?

>> LOOK, I TALK ABOUT ENABLING U. S. ALLIES TO CARRY MORE OF THE WEIGHT.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE IS NOT A TRADEOFF, RIGHT?

BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET ALLIES IN NATO, FOR EXAMPLE, TO DO MORE FOR THEIR OWN SECURITY TO SPEND MORE ON DEFENSE, TO BUILD UP THOSE MILITARY CAPABILITIES SO THAT THE U. S. CAN DO LESS, YOU ARE GOING TO NEED A LITTLE TOUGH LOVE.

AGAIN, I THINK THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS GONE PERHAPS A LITTLE TOO FAR IN THAT DIRECTION.

BUT WHEN I TALK ABOUT ENABLING OUR FRIENDS TO DO MORE, WHAT I MEAN IS FINDING THESE ALLIANCES WHERE THE U.S. HAS CARRIED MOST OR ALL OF THE WEIGHT FOR A COUPLE OF DECADES NOW, RIGHT?

EUROPEAN STATES JUST DON'T SPEND ENOUGH ON DEFENSE.

THEY'RE NOT CAPABLE OF DEFENDING THEMSELVES.

THEY RELY ON THE UNITED STATES.

WE SHOULD BE DOING LESS, THEY SHOULD BE DOING MORE.

>> DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD BE PULLING ALL OF OUR TROOPS OUT OF EUROPE WITHIN THE NEXT TEN YEARS?

>> I THINK OVER THE NEXT 110 TO 15 YEARS, YES, THE U. S. SHOULD ENGAGE IN A SAFE WITHDRAWAL FROM EUROPE.

I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY WAY YOU SUCCESSFULLY TRANSFER.

>> WHY?

>> BECAUSE IF WE DON'T PULL BACK, THEY WON'T DO IT.

I THINK WE'VE SEEN THIS FROM HISTORY BASICALLY THE ONLY TIMES THE EUROPEAN -- >> WAIT, YOU DON'T SEE THEM DOING IT IN UKRAINE NOW?

>> I DO SEE THEM STARTING TO STEP UP AND I THINK IN MANY WAYS NOW IT'S BECAUSE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS PULLED BACK.

WE SAW YOUR PAN STATES START TO DO MORE.

WE SAW THAT SPENDING PLEDGE AT THE SUMMIT IN THE HAGUE, WHICH MAY OR MAY THOUGHT BE REFLECTED IN CAPABILITIES, BUT THAT IS THE MOST FORWARD THINKING VERSION OF BURDEN SHIFTING WE HAVE SEEN.

THE MOST OBVIOUS EXAMPLE WHERE WE'VE SEEN EUROPEAN STATES ACTUALLY START TO STEP UP.

AND SO I THINK THAT A PROPERLY COMMUNICATED, PROPERLY PHASED U.S. WITHDRAWAL FROM EUROPE OVER TIME THAT LETS EUROPEAN STATES BUILD THE CAPABILITIES AND STEP UP, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR BOTH SIDES.

I THINK IT WOULD RESULT IN A MUCH MORE BALANCED ALLIANCE, WHERE COUNTRIES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, POPULIST, ECONOMICALLY ADVANCED JUST LIKE US, THEY CAN DO MORE FOR THEMSELVES AND WE HAVE TO DO LESS AND CAN FOCUS OUR SCARCE RESOURCES ELSEWHERE.

>> NEAR THE END OF THIS BOOK, YOU TALK ABOUT PRESIDENT XI AND PRESIDENT PUTIN HAVING A MEETING A WHILE BACK.

AND THEY SAID WE'RE GOING INTO THE MULTIPOLAR WORLD, AND THEY SAID THAT THAT WOULD INEVITABLY BE A HARBINGER OF THE DECLINE OF THE UNITED STATES.

ARE THEY RIGHT?

>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE.

I USE THE PHRASE RELATIVE DECLINE EARLIER, AND THAT IS TO SAY THAT THE U.S. IS SEEING OTHER COUNTRIES RISE TO MEET IT, RIGHT?

OUR PREDOMINANCE OF POWER, THE AMOUNT WE'RE OUT AHEAD OF EVERYBODY ELSE.

THAT'S SHRINKING.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE IN DECLINE, AND I THINK THE UNITED STATES IS VERY CAPABLE OF PIVOTING ITS, YOU KNOW, SCARCE RESOURCES TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF THIS MULTIPOLAR WORLD.

MY CONCERN IS THAT WE DON'T SHIFT IN TIME, WE CONTINUE TO PURSUE, YOU KNOW, AN EXTREMELY AMBITIOUS GLOBAL STRATEGY THAT OVERSTRETCHES US, THAT ADDS TO THE DEBT, THAT MEANS THAT WE CAN'T REALLY ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING ANYWHERE, WE'RE SO STRETCHED THIN.

IF WE DON'T ADAPT, I THINK THEN WE MIGHT BE IN MUCH MORE TROUBLE.

BUT I THINK THE OPPORTUNITY IS THERE FOR US TO ADAPT TO THIS EMERGING WORLD AND TO BUILD A VERY GOOD PLACE IN IT.

>> EMMA ASHFORD, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> AND THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

GOOD-BYE FROM LONDON.

> >> "AMANPOUR AND COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY --THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT.

JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

CANDACE KING WEIR.

THE SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS.

MARK J. BLECHNER.

THE FILOMEN M. D'AGOSTINO FOUNDATION.

SETON J. MELVIN.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN, COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.

JEFFREY KATZ AND BETH ROGERS.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.