A Sprawling Web of War and Peace

On the cusp of the 2024 US presidential election, only one thing looks certain: the next US president is going to inherit two major ongoing wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. And right now, these wars appear to be expanding, not shrinking.

Join Jack and Julia for a thoughtful discussion about these ongoing conflicts and what their outcome might mean for the future of global security. On this episode, we’ll consider:

• The latest status of the fight between Russia and Ukraine
• How the politics of regional states and global alliances are evolving and impacting the battle
• The role of diplomacy and what it might take to have an upcoming period of peace in both Ukraine and the Middle East

Transcript

Episode Six: A Sprawling Web of War and Peace

Julia:

Over the past several episodes, we've heard about the history of hostage taking and disinformation and the impact of betrayal in intelligence agencies. But today, we're going to be getting back to the world we live in right now. And, Jack, you and I are going to try to make some sense about all of these constant and disturbing headlines. I don't know about you, Jack, but I've been having some pretty intense nightmares lately. I need to make sure to turn my phone off way earlier in the evening- except for checking messages from you, of course. But the headlines are terrifying, right? It's hard to believe that almost three years after Russia invaded Ukraine and a year after the Middle East has erupted again, these conflicts seem to be getting bigger, not smaller. Do you have any explanation for why? 

Jack:

Well, the day after Halloween, when everyone tries to scare everyone to death, this theme is quite appropriate. I've been, we've been, talking frankly about the change in the world order over many months. And I think the world has been looking at one problem at a time, and even our policies have to be directed. We need a ceasefire in Israel. We need a victory in Ukraine, and now we have the North Koreans, you know, in that battle. So I think the world has gotten much more volatile and much more frightening using the Halloween theme here. And I think everyone is looking at it and the tensions are huge. So I think we ought to pick them apart a little bit. I mean, you picked on two themes right up front, which maybe we can have 12 podcasts about each of them.

Julia: 

Ok, let's start with Russia. I saw that Russia had recently claimed more territory in eastern Ukraine, I think over October than in the past two years, you know, on any month in the last two years, something like that. They seem to be doing pretty well right now on the military front. So what happened there? 

Jack:

Well. Yeah. How about Kursk? How does this space match up? I mean, I don't have a map with me, but I hear every day they take a town, and then I look it up, and it's a town the size of Ocean City, New Jersey or something. So- and some of them are important, and I don't mean to make light of it, but for the big Russian army, for us to be sitting here three years later. And so they took two more towns. They have 400m in this place and the other, but they have to bring North Koreans 10,000 into Kursk. This is not a victory song. And the number of losses. I was looking at a commentator today racking off the amounts of troops that have been lost. October, the month you're referring to the highest loss in the history of the war for the Russians in terms of deaths. I mean, it's frightening to see it. So I'm back where I've been for a long time, and that is there's no big offensive other than what the Ukrainians are now doing, is they're penetrating and taking the war to Mother Russia. I mean, this is a big deal. You know, Kyiv is still pretty much sitting in place. So I'm where I've been for a long time. And that is we need to have a stalemate. And once you have this stalemate and Putin is viewed as a perpetual loser on this, that this is going to go on forever, then I think he's at risk.

Julia:

This sort of goes against what Russia is sort of accomplishing in Georgia and is threatening to accomplish in Moldova in terms of winning hearts and minds or, you know, manipulating political parties to the degree that they can get an ally there again. A democracy leaning country, you know, Moldova, and yet they're under real risk of being under Russian influence. 

Jack:

Yeah. But I think it's bigger than that. Much bigger than that. We're I'm talking about the war on the ground in Russia. Russia has stretched out, but it hasn't stretched out alone it’s stretching out with enriched friendships with China, North Korea and Iran. I mean, now let me just go back because the Russians aren't winning the minds of hearts of anybody. Right? Are they manipulating and are they using strong arm tactics? Yeah. But you know, you can look at, you know, if you want to go to little places like Nicaragua where you go to Venezuela, you go all through Africa, you know, you find all through Latin America the expansion, the growth of this axis of evil that I just ticked off. They're making great headway. So I don't want to confuse the two subjects. One is battlefield and the other is what's going on in this world. 

Julia:

But aren't they related what happens on the battlefield? Oh, they sure are in China watching. I mean, are they going to lose respect for Russia based on the way this war's been conducted? 

Jack:

No, no, but I've been, you and I talked about it, we actually talked about it at some length, two weeks after Putin invaded Ukraine. I said he sowed the seeds of his own demise. Why is that so important? It's not about just Ukraine. He is the catalyst behind this. His adventure in Ukraine is what rocked the boat. So if you follow with my reasoning, then if he is pushed out by his own colleagues - because it won't be an election or anything like it – it weakens the alliance. In other words, without Russia, the China, Iran, North Korea axis looks a little hollow to me. So I think that's how I would that's the way I’m looking at this.

Julia:

You and I disagree on that - I see Antonio Guterres, you know, the head of the entire United Nations show up to Kazan, show up to Russia and kneel to Putin. Essentially, I see those things still happening. I see that they haven't lost any, you know, seat on the Security Council. I see that they've found other people to transact with. I see that they're doubling down on their relationship with Iran. I don't see it as a direct line to demise. 

Jack:

We haven't gotten there yet. I think there's a point which I was trying to make anyway, that they're very strong internationally. They're not so hot on the battlefield. Okay. And the two are related, but that Russia is still making inroads around the world. But once I mean, if this goes on for another year, at the rate they're going, I suspect - I actually believe there will be some sort of deal this year, because I think both sides are facing the point where the cost are really huge, and we could spend time on how that might unfold, but we have a problem after it's over, and that is we are in something that it's not the Cold War, but it has an awful lot of similarities. And one of those similarities was both sides were fighting all around the world trying to contain influence. And the type that you're describing. Everybody's placing bets, right? They're sitting there right with the election, which will be resolved in a minute. Everybody's trying to decide who's going to actually win in this or is it going to go on for another 75 years, like the Cold War? So the point is, yeah, people are still paying attention to it. But he's shrunk. He's a much smaller player than he was before he went into Ukraine. He was at the G7. People looked at him, he was a player, but he's been exposed

Julia:

Even the BRICs bank won't transact with him because of sanctions, you know? And so on the one hand, you have him as this this leader that still has his reputation as a force to be reckoned with, and then the institution he's leading or he’s hosting isn't going to deal with him financially. And he's got to go to North Korea. So it's this weird position. I feel that it could go either way actually. Maybe depending on the battlefield, but something that you touched on, Jack, this US election, I know we're not going to talk about it right now, because by the time this episode gets published, we might know, but China, Iran and Russia might actually want a different US president from one another. It might be in Iran's favor to have perhaps a Democratic leader or in Russia's favor to have a Trump. This is just, you know, superficial analysis. 

Jack:

But let's do part two after the election. Okay? Let's report to some of these things that you're rolling out. I don't quite see playing out that way.

Julia: 

But they're indicative that there's tensions among this axis is what I’m saying. 

Jack:

There is, this is. Well, let's this footnote because I wanted to make another point, but the footnote is, you know, you put 10,000 North Koreans into the combat with Russia. And any of the cold warriors will say, wow, I wonder how Xi feels today. This is really making him happy, right? Because this is his sphere of influence. He's always felt - I decide what North Korea does. Not that they're a puppet, but you know, between Russia and China, that was their domain. So did Xi say, oh, that's a good idea. Put 10,000. 

Julia:

He must've approved it?

Jack:

Well, approve it? It's a good question. I'm hoping the intelligence community gives us an answer soon about that. But my point is knowing my experience with the Chinese and there's so many more experts listening to us about China, they're not thrilled with this. Now, they may have made an accommodation that's a different story. They are making accommodations among themselves. North Korea, Iran, China. It's not a monolith, right. But it has a feeling of that cold war aspect of it. So this could be a Prigozhin is his closest right hand man - almost had a revolt - who knows how successful…

Julia:

Let’s remind the listeners about Prigozhin. So Prigozhin was one of Putin's most beloved soldiers. He ran the Wagner Group, which was essentially a mercenary force, and wound up attempting a sort of coup against Putin. That was also, some argue, that it was just for the purposes of trying to have Putin agree with Prigozhin on sort of the trajectory of the battle in Ukraine. But the fact that he was able to march and to get all of those soldiers to go along with him and almost reached Moscow… 

Jack:

I don't think he I don't think he knew what he was doing other than protesting. And then he realized everyone's getting out of the way. I'm on my way to Moscow. I better stop. I don't know what to do. But what I'm saying is, you put that beside the North Korea and you say, well, look, he took four villages. Oh, he's on a roll. And then I would say. Yeah. He's lost more troops in the month of October than in the history of the war. And why do you, how, he looks awfully weak to me. Okay. Suppose this thing doesn't turn out well with the North Koreans now. North Korea hasn't had a gunfight in a long time. And who are these troops? And are they going to be gung ho right? Or are they special forces and they really have their heart in this? Or are they going to be in the meat grinder like the prisoners that Putin lets out and puts them in the front line and uses dozens of them so that one person could move one foot in closer to a village. 

Julia:

I would argue that they're being used in a simulation for what North Korea might want to do somewhere else. Right? Like this is, this is live- what we're all watching right now are these live streams of how weapons and modern warfare sort of playing out in real time. I think that lots of lessons are being learned, lots of mistakes that others might avoid. But if North Korea gets that kind of experience, you know, how does that translate - what’s South Korea going to do about that? 

Jack:

Well, so this is why everyone's getting a headache. And that's why all the goblins and ghosts of Halloween are upon it. And that is when you look at what does this mean for North Korea. I mean, what does this say about the role they're going to play, how South Korea feel, in other words. I you know, we spend a lot of time in this space. But I also spent a lot of time in the business community. They have to make bets around the world about, you know, what's going on and what I'm hearing from them. We've always considered geopolitical things, and we've always, uh, that factored in. But today there's so much uncertainty, there's so much complexity. You know, even if you're an expert on Russia, doesn't do the job, if you're an expert on Iran, it doesn't do to job. I think we want to be saying and what I thought you were saying at the beginning. This is so complex, so multifaceted around the world that, you know, we need a strategy. We need a core strategy. We need an understanding of this problem. But the best way to go about it: two things. It's great to have human sources on the ground, if I can appeal to my regular audience. And then the second point is how do you address each of them individually? I was talking about North Korea. We talk and then you have to put it in a bigger mosaic. But I think for today we took on Russia. We never got to the Middle East, which is bubbling with all types of possibilities for further escalation and complication. So this is a fun show where you just get totally depressed. 

Jack:

Well, Jack, what happened? What happened to the role of diplomacy? Why are there no diplomatic solutions anymore? Or at least it feels that there are not diplomatic solutions anymore? Is it because it's multivariable or way too multivariable? All of these cases aren't just two parties anymore, or were they ever two parties? And what's the role of diplomacy right now? 

Jack:

Well, my experience is war represents a failure of diplomacy. In other words, war is a part of statecraft, as is intelligence, as is covert action, which our audience is well aware of- my feelings, strong feelings about the proper use of it. So I would say, once you start the war, diplomacy is what we get into game when we're wrapping it up. Right. The ceasefire. So diplomacy is an art form that's been getting pushed in the background because we've got a number of bare-knuckled fighters up against us. So you can say to them, look, uh, we'd like to talk and they're throwing a punch at you. I love boxing analogies, by the way. They're so graphic. So I think diplomacy. But here you go to the ceasefire and in Israel, right, and the same thing is going to happen in the complexity of, of Ukraine. As I said, there's going to be some cease fire, that's where diplomacy kicks in. But look at the troubles that diplomacy we've had are, you know, our top diplomats in State Department and the agency going out trying- it has to be either the eighth or ninth time the delegations have gone out to try and find out, to find a solution. But the problem rests in in both cases, you have irreconcilable differences. The Iranians want Israel destroyed and they want us out of there. And Israel wants to remain an independent and free state, and we want them as a democratic ally in a region that's very complex. It's hard for diplomacy. In other words, I'm saying I'm not picking on the diplomats. I'm picking out the core of the problem. And this is where Richelieu and Metternich come to play. And that is where Kissinger, who liked to talk about realism, but that is sometimes you really do have to go to combat. You actually do have to fight the enemy so you can make peace possible. And that's the frightening part about today. It's the boo, you know, that of the person jumping behind the door is the scary part. You know, you have to do this. You have to you have to do. Israel has to do what it's doing. 

Julia:

If you, the Ukrainians have to do, and we have to be there with them when is the end? Because we are seeing this seemingly infinite tit for tat with Iran, for example. And some would argue that's going to drive Iran straight to procuring a nuclear weapon as quickly as they can. Other people will say, oh no, that's going to, you know, reduce weaken them. They're going to be desperate for integration with other countries. You know, there's different things we can argue in the next episode. But how does a war that's based on conflict like this, when does it end? 

Jack:

It began with Cain and Abel, to give you a timeline. War is a confrontation, is always there. So you try and minimize it. You try to make it a safer, more stable world. You try to build alliances, you try to find consensus. And I think we're having a big trouble today on that. And I think this is why, coming back to it, the axis, we have to push back so we can open opportunities. Iran has to be defeated with its allies Hezbollah, Hamas, before you can get to peace. So this is a sustainable fight. The land war in Europe has more possibilities, right? Because it doesn't have an ideological basis. It's just raw power and Putin loses it. Then you can negotiate. The Middle East is so much more long-lasting and that it has at its core, an ideological foundation to it. And unfortunately, one of the problems with Cold War, we were facing an ideological competition for much of the early phase. And then later it was just raw power. And that's why we prevailed in the end. 

Julia:

Well, the whole thing is extremely tragic. And I appreciate your somber but realistic take on what war is and how we exist among it and how it comes in these sort of waves. But I'm hoping next time, Jack, we can speak more about what these wars are looking like. Also, the role of how asymmetrical warfare is playing out in both Ukraine and throughout the Middle East, actually. And get your take on that and hear a little bit about your experience, you know, transferring weapons and kind of how this happens and how that's happening today. 

Jack:

Remember Halloween is the celebration of All Souls Day, the souls in purgatory. But it's followed by All Saints Day. So let's look forward to a more inspiring, uplifting next podcast. But I do think you have to face the realities of life, and I’m just kidding here, I'm seized by the intensity of the problems today.