22 korrents from this recording
Every claim below is a statement made in this recording, quoted word for word and linked to the second it was said, so you can hear it rather than take our word for it. The wording comes from the transcript published alongside the recording; the sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording.
0:01:39 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsI believe that power is the currency of international relations, and by that I mean that states are deeply interested in the balance of power and they're interested in maximizing how much power they control.
0:02:39 · watch on youtube.com↗
Our reading
A state's power rests on two material foundations only: the size of its population and its wealth.
Their wordsThe two key building blocks of power are population size and wealth. You want to have a lot of people and you want to be really wealthy.
0:06:43 · watch on youtube.com↗
Our reading
States are not inherently aggressive; anarchy leaves them no choice but to behave aggressively.
Their wordsSo it's very important to understand that I'm not arguing that states are inherently aggressive. My point is that as long as states are in anarchy, they have no choice but to behave in an aggressive fashion.
0:15:36 · watch on youtube.com↗
Our reading
Whether a state is a democracy or an autocracy makes no difference to how it behaves abroad.
Their wordsA realist like me would say that it doesn't matter whether a state is a democracy or not, all states behave the same way because the structure of the system, getting back to our earlier discussion about international anarchy, the structure of the system leaves those states no choice, whether they're democracies or autocracies.
0:20:19 · watch on youtube.com↗
Our reading
Economic interdependence does not prevent war, because survival always trumps prosperity.
Their wordsThe point is that economic interdependence at its root has prosperity as the core variable. In the realest story, the core variable is survival, and survival always trumps prosperity.
0:23:17 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsI'm not a defensive realist, I'm an offensive realist. And my argument is that states look for opportunities to gain more power, and every time they see, or almost every time they see an opportunity to gain more power, and they think the likelihood of success is high and the cost will not be great, they'll jump at that opportunity.
0:25:04 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsAnd I believe that there is a good chance you would've had World War II in the absence of Hitler. I believe that Germany was very powerful, it was deeply worried about the balance of power in Europe, and it had strong incentives to behave aggressively in the late 1930s, early 1940s.
0:43:36 · watch on youtube.com↗
Our reading
There is no evidence Putin intended to conquer Ukraine, and the army he sent could not have done it.
Their wordsThere's no evidence he was interested in conquering all of Ukraine. There was no evidence beforehand that he was interested in conquering any of Ukraine. And there's no way that an army that had 190,000 troops, at the most, could have conquered all of Ukraine, it's just impossible.
0:45:22 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsAnd of course, what they were negotiating about was NATO expansion into Ukraine, which was the principal cause of the war. People in the West don't want to hear that argument because if it is true, which it is, then the West is principally responsible for this bloodbath that's now taking place.
0:47:45 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsWell, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And if we don't like great powers coming into our neighborhood, it's hardly surprising that the Russians did not want NATO on their doorstep.
1:03:04 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsI don't think there's any real prospect of a meaningful peace agreement. I think it's almost impossible. I think the best you can hope for at this point is, at some point the shooting stops, you have a ceasefire, and then you have a frozen conflict. And that frozen conflict will not be highly stable.
1:17:58 · watch on youtube.com↗
Our reading
Removing Putin would not end the war, because whoever replaced him would be more hawkish than he is.
Their wordsMy second point is if he doesn't remain in power and he's replaced, I would bet a lot of money that his replacement will be more hawkish and more hard line than Putin is.
1:24:47 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsSo that's why I argued in '93 that if Ukraine kept its nuclear weapons that made war down the road much less likely. And I believe I was correct.
1:27:22 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsThe way you use nuclear weapons in that world is you use them for manipulation of risk purposes, demonstration effect. You put both sides out on the slippery slope.
1:39:45 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsI think the main driving force is that the Palestinians feel oppressed as they should, and that this was a resistance move. They were resisting the Israeli occupation.
1:50:48 · watch on youtube.com↗
Our reading
There is no military solution for Israel, because the Palestinians cannot be beaten into submission.
Their wordsThe Palestinians want a state of their own. They don't want to live under occupation. And there's no military solution for Israel here. There has to be a political solution.
1:55:17 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsThat's why I've sort of taken to saying, and I hope I'm wrong here, that on the two-state solution, that boat has sailed. It's no longer possible.
1:58:15 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsSo our argument is that the lobby is not doing anything that's illegal, or illicit, or immoral, or unethical. It's just a good old-fashioned American interest group. And it just happens to be extremely powerful.
2:21:01 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsI think what the Israelis are doing in Gaza represents a massacre. I would use that term given the number of civilians that they've killed and the fact that they've been indiscriminate in terms of how they've been bombing Gaza. But I would not use the word genocide.
2:46:51 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsA lot of people think that to make deterrence work, you have to be able to beat the Chinese and therefore, you need a much bigger military. And I don't think over time that's possible. I think it's probably not even possible now to beat the Chinese in a war over Taiwan or in a war in the South China Sea.
2:56:29 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsThe Chinese are my kind of people. They're realists, right? They speak my language. It's the United States that is not very realist. American leaders have a very powerful liberal bent and tend not to see the world in realist terms.
3:13:59 · watch on youtube.com↗
Their wordsAll the evidence is that Hispanics are integrating into the American mainstream more quickly and more effectively than the European immigrant groups that came starting around 1835.