Will the U.S. Stay Ahead of China and Russia?

Text the ATB Team! We'd love to hear from you!

The future of U.S. global relations hangs in the balance as shifting alliances, rising threats, and strategic competition reshape the world stage. Former Ambassador Barbara Stevenson and General (Ret) Frank McKenzie offer powerful insights on the intersection of diplomacy, military strategy, and national security, exploring America's global standing amid tensions with Russia and China.

Hosted by the Global and National Security Institute and USF World, this episode of “At the Boundary” examines the critical role of alliances, economic security, and military positioning in safeguarding U.S. strength in an era of uncertainty.

Also Available on Apple Podcasts & Spotify

At the Boundary from the Global and National Security Institute at the University of South Florida, features global and national security issues we’ve found to be insightful, intriguing, fascinating, maybe controversial, but overall just worth talking about.

A "boundary" is a place, either literal or figurative, where two forces exist in close proximity to each other. Sometimes that boundary is in a state of harmony. More often than not, that boundary has a bit of chaos baked in. The Global and National Security Institute will live on the boundary of security policy and technology and that's where this podcast will focus.

The mission of GNSI is to provide actionable solutions to 21st-century security challenges for decision-makers at the local, state, national and global levels. We hope you enjoy At the Boundary.

Look for our other publications and products on our website publications page.

Episode Transcript

Jim Cardoso (00:12):
Hello everyone, welcome to another episode of At
the Boundary, the podcast fromthe Global and National Security
Institute at the University ofSouth Florida.
I'm Jim Cardoso, seniorDirector for GenaSci and your
host for At the Boundary.
Before we get started, we dowant to acknowledge the terrible

(00:33):
mishap in Washington DC lastweek.
As a career military pilot,mostly in helicopters, I
personally feel for the loss ofthe passengers and aviators.
I'm also keenly interested inwhat the investigation reveals.
While the NTSB experts conductthe investigation, gnsi will

(00:54):
continue focusing on our area ofexpertise global and national
security issues that impact ournation.
Therefore, on the show todaywe'll drop in on a conversation
between former AmbassadorBarbara Stevenson and retired
Marine Corps General FrankMcKenzie.
The two of them got togetherrecently at an event we
co-hosted with our colleagues atUSF World.

(01:15):
They approached nationalsecurity from different
backgrounds and perspectives,offering a broad analysis on the
future for US relations aroundthe world over the next four
years.
A couple quick notes first.
This summer, gnsi will send aUSF student to the United
Kingdom to participate in astudy in the International

(01:35):
Security and IntelligenceProgram presented at one of the
world's oldest and mostprestigious universities
Cambridge.
This is an opportunity to learnfrom some of the world's
leading national securitypractitioners and we are raising
funds to foot the bill for theselected student.
The application window is open.
So if you're a USF studentinterested in national security

(01:55):
or no one who is, hit them upand send them our way.
We'll drop a link in the shownotes for more information.
Our agenda for Tampa Summit 5continues to improve as we
refine and add speakers.
We've already told you aboutJohn Kirby, a key member of the
Biden administration's nationalsecurity team.
Joining him in March will beDavid Kramer, the executive

(02:16):
director of the George W BushInstitute, as well as Peter
Pomerantsev, senior fellow atthe SNF Agora Institute at Johns
Hopkins University.
It will be a terrific two-dayevent, so reserve your space
today.
We'll drop a link for moreinformation in the show notes.
Okay, on to today's dialogue.
Barbara Stevenson spent most ofher career in diplomatic service

(02:39):
.
She served as an advisor toSecretary of State Condoleezza
Rice and was appointed the USAmbassador to Panama in 2008.
Later, she became the firstwoman to serve as Deputy
Ambassador and Acting Ambassadorat the US Embassy in London.
She's now the Vice Provost forGlobal Affairs at the University
of North Carolina, chapel Hill,where she's led the

(03:01):
university's global strategysince 2019.
Where she's led theuniversity's global strategy
since 2019.
She shared the stage recentlywith General McKenzie, gsi's
executive director and formercommander of US Central Command,
for a fireside chat at an eventwe co-hosted with USF World.
They lead the university'sinvolvement in the international
arena, working to promote aglobal culture at USF by

(03:23):
enhancing student success andinitiatives and deepening
engagement, all at the globallevel.
Usf World Vice President, drKiki Karusin, was host for the
Fireside Chat.
Let's listen in.

Kiki Caruson (03:42):
Good evening.
Thank you so much for joiningus for tonight's event.
It's an honor to have you here.
My name is Kiki Karusin and I'mthe vice president for USF
World, and we are the officethat's responsible for global
learning and engagement here atthe university, and we're
thrilled to co-host this eventwith the USF Global and National

(04:02):
Security Institute, and weappreciate the support of the
President and Provost Office forthis endeavor.
We're looking forward to anenlightening conversation this
evening with our guestAmbassador, barbara Stevenson,
and our very own USF Bull,general Frank McKenzie.
I'd like to acknowledge someindividuals who are in the
audience with us today who'vejoined us.

(04:23):
I see right here our Dean ofthe Morsani College of Medicine,
charlie Lockwood, so thank youfor joining us.
Is Mayor Ross here?
I'm not sure he is there.
You are, so thank you forjoining Mayor Temple Terrace.
Thank you for coming out andbeing here tonight, I believe,
and so I've been in the greenroom, but I think Chuck Adams

(04:45):
from our Honors College will behere.
He could be on the very slowelevator that's coming up.
We also have several members ofour advisory council, the USF
World Advisory Council, here,and we appreciate you and the
service that you provide for usin terms of your feedback and
guidance.
And then our Fulbright scholars.

(05:06):
We have some Fulbright scholarsDee Garcia, a member of our
foundation board, facultystudents, folks who support USF
World and GNSI.
Thank you so much for joiningus.
So I'm going to go through someshort introductions, which will
give a few more people some timeto write up on the elevator,
and then what we have is aseries of questions to get us

(05:29):
started.
And then we have some cards andpencils.
So if you would like to writedown a question to pose to our
panels, we would invite you todo so.
So I think those have beenpassed out, but if you would
like one, you can raise yourhand now or during my comments
and someone will get one ofthose to you.

(05:50):
And then, bessie, if you wouldraise your hand, and Catherine
in the back, we'll come aroundand collect those cards and
we'll see how many of thosequestions that we can get to
this evening.
So it's my.
I have to say I'm a little bitstarstruck to be on stage with
these two notable individuals.
I'm going to start with ourguest, barbara Stevenson.

(06:10):
She is the inaugural viceprovost for global affairs and
chief global officer at theUniversity of North Carolina,
chapel Hill.
She's a distinguished diplomat,former US ambassador I almost
said USF ambassador, but maybeyou'll be that too International
leader and prior dean of theLeadership and Management School
at the Foreign ServiceInstitute.

(06:32):
Dr Stevenson has spent 34 yearsas an American diplomat.
In 2008, she was appointed USambassador to Panama and later
became the first woman to serveas deputy ambassador and then
acting ambassador at the USEmbassy in London, america's
largest embassy in Europe.
She has served as an advisor tothe Secretary of State on Iraq

(06:54):
during the height of USengagement in the Iraq War, as
the American Consul General inBelfast, as the Consul General
and Chief of Mission in Curacao,desk officer for the UK
political military Mission inCuracao, Desk Officer for the UK
Political Military Officer inSouth Africa and Political
Officer in the Hague, elSalvador and Panama.
She is the recipient of theState Department Distinguished

(07:15):
Honor Award for her work insupport of American efforts in
Iraq from 2006 to 2008 to buildgovernance capacity at the
provincial level.
Ambassador Stevenson served asthe President of the American
Foreign Service Association from2015 to 2019, and she is a
member of the American Academyof Diplomacy and the American

(07:35):
College of National SecurityLeaders, a board, member of the
World Affairs Councils ofAmerica and a member of the
Advisory Board of Global Ties US.
She's a frequent public speakerand was featured in last year's
St Pete Conference of WorldAffairs, which will be back in
production next month, and weencourage you to join GNSI and

(07:55):
just a little bit of USF Worldat the St Pete Conference on
World Affairs, and Lynn Platt,here will speak to you about the
conference on the St PeteConference on World Affairs if
you would like to, and weappreciate your service on USF
World Council.
Ambassador Stevens was appointedUNC Chapel Hill's first vice

(08:17):
provost for global affairs in2019.
And she leads the global, theuniversity's global strategy in
support of its core mission ofteaching, research and service
to the state of North Carolina,our country and the world.
Much like the University ofSouth Florida, she's dedicated
to ensuring that all studentshave access to a global
education, to strengtheningglobal partnerships and to

(08:38):
articulating the value andimportance of global engagement.
Global engagement she and Iserved together on the
Association of Public andLand-Grant Universities.
Executive Barbara was remindingme Executive Commission on
International Initiatives and ithas been a true pleasure
getting to know her in thiscapacity.
She also holds a PhD, ma and BAin English Literature from the

(08:58):
University of Florida, which wesaid we wouldn't hold against
you I was banned from gatorchomping we taught her the
appropriate hand gestures.

Jim Cardoso (09:10):
So please give a warm round of applause.

Kiki Caruson (09:13):
Welcome for Ambassador Kee, thank you.
So I know there's some.
I didn't look.
I saw some chomping.
So now it gives me greatpleasure to introduce a
gentleman who most of youalready know, but I'd like to
take a moment to talk about abit about General McKenzie.

(09:35):
He is the Executive Director ofboth the Global and National
Security Institute and theFlorida Center for Cybersecurity
, known as Cyber Florida, and healso leads the USF Institute
for Applied Engineering.
Under his leadership, theGlobal and National Security
Institute is organized toaddress issues at the nexus of
science and technology,including cybersecurity, and

(09:56):
human and social behavior.
The Institute produces a seriesof well-known events, including
the Great Powers CompetitionConference, policy dialogues,
research and a podcast, which weare recording now that's why I
have two mics, so thisconversation will be available
as part of the GNSI podcastseries and learning

(10:19):
opportunities that benefit ourstudents, such as the Future
Strategist Program for studentsinterested in careers in global
public service and I know wehave some here tonight.
So if you are a student in theFuture Global Strategist Program
, I know you're here.
I saw some of you earlier.
Okay, there you are.
So these are the nextgeneration of public service

(10:40):
leaders in the global arena.
In 2022, general McKenzieretired as the 14th Commander of
US Central Command, completinga 42-year career as a US Marine.
Over four decades, generalMcKenzie has held command
positions at every level, inpeacetime and in combat, as an
infantry officer.
Our general's assignments haveincluded command of the 22nd

(11:03):
Marine Expeditionary Unit, whichhe led on deployments to both
Iraq and Afghanistan, and Irecently learned that the 22nd
is the most decorated of the USMarine Corps' seven such units.
So that was fun for me, and ifyou don't know what a Marine
Expeditionary Unit is, youshould check that out because

(11:24):
it's quite impressive.
In 2008, he was selected by theChairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to serve as Director ofthe Transition of Military
Forces from the BushAdministration to the Obama
Administration.
He returned to Afghanistan asDeputy Chief of Staff for
Stability under theInternational Security
Assistance Force.
Following his promotion toLieutenant General, he was

(11:45):
appointed Commanding General ofthe Marine Forces at Central
Command and in 2017, he assumedcommand command of CENTCOM as a
four-star general, from which heretired in 2022.
He is currently a DistinguishedSenior Fellow on National
Security at the Middle EastInstitute, a member of the
International Advisory Committeeof the National Councils of

(12:05):
US-Arab Relations and a memberof the National Security
Advisory Council with the USGlobal Leadership Coalition.
He's a founding board member ofthe Advisory Committee for the
Iran Strategy Project, aninitiative created in 2022 by
the Atlantic Council.
He's a graduate of the Citadeland he received his master's
degree in history from theNational Defense University.

(12:26):
If you don't already know, hismemoir titled the Melting Point,
high Command and War in the21st Century was recently
published by the US NavalInstitute Press.
We're very proud to be able tocall you a USF Bull.
And a round of applause forGeneral McCabe.
Thank you, and a round ofapplause for General McCabe.

(12:53):
All right, would anyone like acard for writing down a question
at this time?
If you would just raise yourhand.
I see one here, a couple.
So Catherine will make her wayaround and make sure she, if
you'll just be patient and keepyour hand raised and I'm going
to kick off, and I'm going tostart with Ambassador Stevenson
and then General McKenzie, andthen I encourage you, since
we're sharing a mic.

(13:13):
We have an unusual micsituation here.
If there is dialogue or youwant to go back and forth in the
conversation, all the better.
So, on the eve of a newpresidential administration.
How would you assess America'sstanding in the world?
What sources of strengthencourage you and what worries
you?
What keeps you up at night?

Barbara Stephenson (13:36):
So thanks for that, kiki, and you know
it's great to get thesequestions and to have a chance
to reflect, because it's a topicI've been speaking about for a
number of years at World AffairsCouncil's America's Place in
the World, and that questionabout whether the unipolar
moment is over and the East isrising and the West is declining
, as Xi Jinping so famously saidabout 10 years ago and

(13:58):
continues to say and I will say,as I've worked on this over the
last few years, where I see usis surprisingly standing very,
very tall and looking quitestrong.
So let me run through some ofthose sources of strength.
A few years ago it looked likeChina's economy might surpass
ours and in the short term itnow looks like the gap.

(14:18):
In fact, it is true that thegap between the size of our
economy and China's is growingas China's actually loses ground
on us.
They reached 76% of our GDPthree years ago and then they
fell to 66.
And the last IMF and World Bankfigures have them about 63%.
So the idea that China'seconomy will overtake ours in
the short term, that's no longerthe consensus.

(14:40):
It looks like the US economywill remain the world's
strongest really for theforeseeable future, and I would
put that to the end of mylifespan.
So that is a huge development.
The US military continues to bethe world's strongest.
We spend more on the militarythan the next 10 countries
combined, and at least five ofthose are allies.
So we've got we still havemilitary strength, which is not

(15:04):
to say we shouldn't be worriedabout China and the general will
speak more about this as amilitary man but China now has
more ships than we do and theyreally have to protect the South
China Sea or to advance theirinterests there, whereas we have
really the whole world to worryabout.
So China has gained on us andit's it's a close competition.
It's something I worry about,but our military is still strong

(15:24):
and has remarkable on us, andit's a close competition.
It's something I worry about,but our military is still strong
and has remarkable globalcapacity.
Something else we bring to thisgame and it's so much stronger
now than it has been and that Iexpected it to be is the world's
unrivaled network of alliances.
Nato at 75 is stronger and moreunited than I think any of us
expected it to be five years ago.

(15:46):
That's thanks to Vladimir Putininvading Ukraine and reminding
us of why NATO matters, but itnow is beefed up by Finland and
Sweden, strong democracies withstrong military capability.
So I have to say NATO comesinto this in remarkably good
shape, with 23 of the 32 membersnow actually pitching in 2% of

(16:07):
gross domestic product for theirmilitary capability.
So it's really a transformedNATO.
The piece that's gotten lessattention is the and I think is
really important and I'm lookingforward to a conversation about
this it is the strengthening ofour network of alliances in the
Pacific.
We've always had a hub andspoke with relationships, treaty

(16:27):
alliances with Korea, thePhilippines, japan, australia.
But now there are three way inmany instances Japan, korea, the
US, japan, the Philippines, theUS and there was even talk of
the AUKUS relationship Australia, uk, us bringing Japan in.
So there's been a latticeworkof alliances and relationships

(16:49):
built across the Indo-Pacific.
These really seriously boxedChina in.
They have been really reallyeffective.
Rahm Emanuel, our outgoingambassador there, writes about
these.
Look it up, look at it.
But this thing, I think, hasreally strengthened our position
.
So, strongest economy,strongest military, unrivaled
network of alliances.
And I'm going to throw in numberfour no, not the world's

(17:11):
biggest producer of oil and gas,although it doesn't hurt the
lion's share of the greatresearch universities in the
world.
We're about four and a halfpercent of the world's
population.
We have 20 of the top researchuniversities and then so many of
them as you go through the next100.
That is a defining strength forus.

(17:31):
I just heard Admiral GaryRoughead call it the secret
sauce of American success at theUSIP's Passing the Baton event.
Passing the baton event.
I don't think we should everunderestimate what a competitive
advantage it is for us to havethese great research
universities, not only for thetechnological edge and the
economic dynamism, but becausewe are attracting the world's

(17:56):
best talent to our shores withthose universities, and we
really need to be smart aboutthat.
So what do I worry about?
We're doing too much deficitspending.
It really is high when you lookat it.
It's time to start worryingabout that.
China is catching up on some ofthis technological stuff.
They beat us on 5G.
I've been watching Eric Schmidt,who's my favorite commentator

(18:17):
on AI.
He led that National SecurityCommission on Artificial
Intelligence.
He just said on Fareed Zakariatwo years ago I came and said we
were two years ahead of China.
I think that gap is closed.
That is a critical gap.
It is crucial that the USremain ahead in AI and I think
that when really I am worriedabout that and we have to keep

(18:39):
in the university strong, Ithink is a really key part of
that, and I do sometimes worryabout the loss of America's
standing when our democracy wassuch a beacon for the world and
a powerful moral example.
Polling shows that has declinedso dramatically and that
worries me, and that's a big jobof work we have to do at home.

(19:02):
So that's what I'm thinkingabout Strengths, weaknesses, as
we start off with a newpresident.

General (Ret) Frank McKen (19:08):
Thank you, thanks, barbara, and first
of all I largely agree witheverything you said.
So I'm just going to hit on twopoints.
And the point I would make is Ithink the great strength of the
United States is the alliancestructure that Barbara outlined,
whether it's NATO and Europe,whether it's our web of
relationships across the Pacific, whether it's what we do in the

(19:29):
Middle East.
That is truly the hidden secretof the United States.
China does not have that,russia does not have that, none
of our opponents have it.
For those who say that it'sdifficult working with allies,
as Churchill said, it's the mostdifficult thing possible except
not having allies.
And that really is somethingthat we've built up from the

(19:50):
Second World War forward to now,and I would argue that that is
the unique, asymmetric advantageof the United States.
Our military is certainly verystrong, very capable, but our
military is even stronger andmore capable when it's paired
with partner nations.
Look, I am an internationalist.
I'm an unapologeticinternationalist.
That's my approach.

(20:10):
It may place me out of favorsometimes, but you can't be the
central command commander andnot depend on the nations on the
other side of the world.
We are stronger when we alignwith other nations, whether it's
in a formal alliance structure,in a community of interest or,
however you choose, a coalitionof the willing, if you will.
However you choose to describeit, we are better when we do

(20:33):
that.
We are better in terms of goals, we are better in terms of
capability and we offer thenadvantages that our opponents
and when I say opponents, I'mreally talking China, I'm
talking Russia, I'm talking Iran, I'm talking North Korea
advantages that they cannot havebecause they do not have that

(20:54):
structure.
I think that's a very importantthing to consider.
So what worries me?
What worries me is the historyof the United States says
sometimes we turn our back oninternational engagement.
We did it at the end of theFirst World War, when Woodrow
Wilson came back from Versailleswith a workable, bumpy, sort of
rough-edged plan for aninternational series of

(21:16):
agreements that mirrored theUnited Nations of several
decades later.
We turned our back on that.
We looked inward.
As a result.
Decades later, we turned ourback on that.
We looked inward.
As a result, fascism rose andwe ended up having to fight a
second world war as a result ofthat.
It worries me.
What worries me is the factthat we sometimes turn inward.
We reject the leadership rolethat we have.

(21:39):
I do not believe the defense ofthe United States begins on the
North Carolina coast or thecoast of California or in Hawaii
.
It actually begins much furtherafield and you have to be
engaged in the world.
The resources that this nationhas, the geographic position
that we occupy, make it verydifficult for us to turn our

(21:59):
back on the world, and if we dothat, then we lose that
advantage of the alliancestructure that we've talked
about, because here's do that,then we lose that advantage of
the alliance structure thatwe've talked about, because
here's the thing the ambassadoreloquently described NATO.
It's a remarkable organization,I would say.
However, nato is nothingwithout the United States.
If we exit NATO, nato will notbe able to stand.

(22:21):
That's my opinion.
There are others who might havea different opinion on that,
but we are the indispensablenation when it comes to
organizations such as NATO andalso the countries that we're
aligned and allied with in thePacific.
So I worry, when we turn ourabout the possibility of us
turning our backs on that.
That's, of all the things thatconcern me, that's actually the

(22:43):
thing that concerns me the most,because if we maintain our
friendships, we maintain ouralliance structure, we again
possess profound advantages thatno potential opponent can have.
So those are the.
Those are the two things that Ithink about the most, both in
terms of advantage and theobverse side of it, the risk of
turning our back on it.

Kiki Caruson (23:02):
Thank you, General, could I ask you to
maybe continue our conversationand then we'll come back to the
ambassador and talking about thevalue of global alliances and
your perspective on the futureof NATO.

General (Ret) Frank McKenz (23:15):
Sure .
So the ambassador alreadytouched on it, but the single
person who gave rebirth toNATO's existence is Vladimir
Putin.
He, by his ill-advised invasionof Ukraine, has given the
alliance a remarkable, aremarkable fresh breath and has
launched it forward.
It is difficult to overstatethe importance of Finland and

(23:43):
Sweden joining NATO.
If you had asked me five yearsago, or asked anybody, about the
possibility of that happening,you would have been laughed out.
No one would have thought thatwas possible.
But what has happened is thathas remarkably added to Russia's
strategic problem.
And it has added remarkablybecause both those countries

(24:04):
have very good militaries,particularly Sweden, but Finland
as well.
They have added great strengthto NATO and they have really
increased the problems thatVladimir Putin has to face.
Look, I believe NATO is the mostsuccessful defensive
organization really in recordedhistory.
I am unable to find anotherorganization that has done as
much as NATO has to keep thepeace for such a long period of

(24:25):
time.
And look, it's been bumpy.
We talk about the 2% goal.
Yes, nations need to spend more, and they are actually
beginning to do that.
But what has really changed isthe threat is now very real and
very manifest.
I mean, people look at Russiaand what Russia has done when it
invaded Ukraine.
Nothing sharpens the mind ofcountries more than facing

(24:48):
somebody, an expansionist Russia, and they know, perhaps better
than we do, that security forRussia and its near abroad has
always meant insecurity foreverybody that occupies that
space.
Whether they're bumping upagainst Ukraine, whether they're
bumping up against Poland orthe Baltic states, it's always
involved.

(25:09):
That predates the communists.
That's an ancient facet ofRussian expansionism and a
uniquely Russian view of theirown security.
And the only way to combat thatreally is to combine, and
that's what we have done, and asa result, we gave birth to NATO
after the Second World War,following in many of the lessons
that we learned in the SecondWorld War.

(25:30):
Profoundly successful.
And right now I believe it isPutin's worst nightmare as he
tries to find a way to get outof the invasion of Ukraine.
He won't say out, and we'lltalk a little bit more about
that here in a couple of minutes.
But what he hates the most andwhat he spends a lot of time
trying to work at is ways tobreak NATO apart, and he has

(25:51):
been remarkably unsuccessful indoing it.
In fact, two new states havejoined NATO, which is remarkable
.
So I think really the threat.
The threat's very real and whenthe threat is very real,
nations tend to focus on it, andthat's where we are with NATO
today.
It really is a renaissance forNATO and I hope and I believe

(26:13):
that we will stay in NATObecause, as I said in my earlier
comments, we remainindispensable to NATO.
The United States is the gluethat holds it together
militarily and also politically,militarily.
The fact of the matter is, it'sour capabilities that actually
provide, that, give NATO itsability to fight and be

(26:34):
successful on the battlefield,and it's our political will that
gives strength to the othernations of NATO.
We are at a very, a, very ahinge moment, if you will, for
Europe going forward, and we'llsee what happens in Ukraine and,
like I said, we'll talk aboutthat in just a few minutes.
But NATO is a good news story.
It's a remarkably good newsstory, ambassador.

Barbara Stephenson (26:58):
I think it's so much more powerful when
it comes from a general than anambassador.
Of course I believe inalliances, but let's let
somebody who has to do thefighting tell you the only thing
worse is the Estonianambassador said when he came to
University of North Carolina theonly thing worse than fighting
with allies is fighting withoutthem.
So I think it's a good point.
So I'm really I'm very positiveabout NATO.

(27:19):
I'm delighted.
On the upside, there are acouple of negatives that I think
we should put out here.
I mean, one is the uncertaintyon our side about where we will
be, and I think that's justlurking in the room.
I think the second thing andthe general may want to come
about this from the expertise ofa military man we really have
found with, you know, the firstround of Ukraine.

(27:39):
Everybody sent all theirsurplus and it wasn't really all
that heavy of a lift and we gotUkraine equipped.
But we're done with all thesurplus and now we're really
having to produce new stuff tokeep them armed and it is really
costing.
And I think we've seen theerosion of our defense
industrial base, not only in theUS but in the European

(27:59):
countries, and I think that issomething we don't really have
the capacity to rearm quicklynow.
I think that's one July whenthe NATO summit was going on and

(28:26):
the European heads of statescame in and did panels and the
Danish prime minister presidentin particular, was articulate
about the need for us torecognize that we are facing a
sustained disinformationcampaign and that it really has
now reached the level of hybridwarfare.
And it's so interesting to seeit come not from the big old
United States, the big lumberinggiant with the biggest military
, but from the neighbors who'velived in that space with Russia

(28:48):
all these years and they saidthese are not random things,
they're not one-offs.
When this blows up in thewarehouse, when we have this
disinformation, these aresustained hybrid campaigns and
there are things that make usgreat that we're beginning to
doubt.
We doubt our democracy, wedoubt higher education, we doubt
the value of all this foreigntalent flowing to our shores.

(29:09):
I was just reading Gallup andPew polling on this and watching
the really dramatic declineover the last seven or eight
years.
So maybe this is all real.
Part of this is things we havedoubted as a people, but I will
say the Russians have got anextraordinary capacity to see
where we have doubts and to gointo those and make the
cleavages so much deeper Evenbeing aware of it doesn't make

(29:32):
you immune.
But I think it's my first startof a where do we begin to deal
with this kind of hybridcampaign?
Because we're not fighting inthe open field, we're fighting
in the shadows and in cyberspace, et cetera, and this is a new
one and NATO has struggled withit.
It wasn't built to do this and,as the Danish president said,

(29:53):
we've spent enough time tryingto decide what to call this and
where this belongs.
We need to actually recognizeit's a sustained campaign that's
going on and we're going tohave to really worry that we
don't end up being torn apart.
Russia wants nothing more thanto tear apart NATO, to get the
UK to leave the EU, to getScotland to leave UK.

(30:13):
There goes continuous.
That's the nuclear deterrent.
This part about getting us tosplit apart and emphasize our
differences.
It's something that's new and Idon't think we have a really
good approach for addressing it,but I just want to name it to
start that conversation.

General (Ret) Frank McKenzie (30:32):
I will jump on the industrial base
issue, because I think it'svery important.
The fact of the matter is thatreally since around 1991, 1992,
the United States hassystematically disassembled our
defense industrial base.
So today we have a very tissuethin industrial base that is not
actually able to keep up withthe demands that we're seeing
today, and their demands areresupplying Ukraine and other

(30:55):
places and demands of thecampaigns that we have fought,
and it's not just sophisticatedstuff, it's what we would call
dumb bombs, artilleryprojectiles, things like that.
We no longer have thecapability to manufacture them
at scale.
We were once the arsenal ofdemocracy.
We are not today.
We're a long way from beingthat, and so here's the problem,
though If you're going toconvince someone in business to

(31:18):
build a plant that's going tomake artillery projectiles, you
got to let them know you'regoing to do this for 20 or 25
years.
You can't say well, we want tocut it on for six months.
Then we're going to cut thespigot off because we don't see
the need anymore.
So that requires politicalaction at the highest levels of
the United States and investmentif you want to revitalize your

(31:39):
industrial base.
I'll give you an example theJavelin, which is an anti-tank
missile that you hear a lotabout.
The Ukrainians shot a lot of it.
They make it in a small town inOzark, alabama, and they don't
make a lot of them.
We probably ought to thinkabout building more Javelins.
It's one of the best anti-tankmissiles in the world, but
that's going to requireinvestment and it's going to

(32:00):
require those people who makethat investment to have
confidence that we're going todo it for a while and we're not
going to suddenly stop, and wehave a very bad track record in
terms of industrial policy ofdoing just those types of things
.
You can't build a tank in theUnited States today.
We don't have a tank factoryanymore.
The M1A2 tank and its successoris the best tank in the world

(32:20):
Can't build any more of thembecause we did away with that.
It's hard for us to build ships.
The Navy has a shipbuildingplan, but they can't get the
workers to man the shipyards.
This is a crisis.
It's a quiet crisis untilsuddenly it's not.
You know, it's like F ScottFitzgerald said how'd you go
broke?
Gradually, then suddenly, andthat's the way it's going to be
here.
This is going to be a gradualthing until suddenly there's a

(32:43):
major crisis and we're not goingto have.
We call it our locker, yourammunition locker.
The ammunition locker is badlydepleted.
It's not a sexy thing, it's notan exciting thing, but it is a
very.
It's at the very core of whatyou do.
If you're going to plan tofight People and by people I
mean our opponents look at ourammunition locker.
They know and understandprobably better than most

(33:04):
Americans do where we are inexpenditure of these items.
We're going to be in a crisishere.
I hope it's a crisis that wecan avert and that we can deal
with it by making theseinvestments that I've talked
about.
But sooner or later that billis going to come due.
You would prefer it not to comedue in wartime.

Kiki Caruson (33:23):
Thank you.
In keeping with the theme ofthe evening, opportunities and
challenges, Ambassador Stevenson, what does the next
administration face in terms ofidentifying a resolution to the
war in Ukraine?

Barbara Stephenson (33:49):
So I think we can see where this ends.
I think richard haas, thepresident emeritus of the
council on foreign relations,has been telling us for eight
months and I have had briefingswith state department officials
in november and they can seethis.
That's the biden administration.
And then I hear the Trumpadministration officials in the
passing of the baton, say thesame thing Ukraine will not get
the Donbass and Crimea back.

(34:10):
The deal will be to cede thoseto Russia, at least on some kind
of a temporary ceasefire basis.
Nobody likes that.
We kind of had an agreementthat you wouldn't take territory
by force.
It sticks in the craw to haveto do it.
I'm not sure the Europeans aregoing to buy this, but this is
kind of where the Americans areand I think it's both

(34:33):
administrations.
They do not see a reasonablepath to taking back the Donbass
and Crimea.
And I will say what's left ofUkraine then when you take off
that Russian speaking componentthat borders, russia is a pretty
stable, very pro-WesternUkraine.

(34:54):
That's left.
So can they join NATO?
I don't think so.
Can they join the EU?
There probably is a path toaccession with that and then
with a whole lot of bilateralsecurity guarantees for Ukraine,
say I think one of the mostimportant things that the new
administration can do is providethe weaponry and the assistance

(35:15):
that Ukraine needs to keep upthe fight as long as Ukraine
wants to.
The idea that we would forceUkraine to fold is so
unthinkable to me, and there'sgoing to be a lesson drawn about

(35:39):
whether invading your neighborand taking territory by force
was a smart move.
It's looked kind of smart forRussia for the last year.
They've done pretty well.
They haven't done that badly onthe sanctions.
It's turning now it's turningand they're really feeling the
pressure.
Gazprom is laying off a verysignificant portion of its

(36:00):
workforce.
The ruble is under stress.
Russia is losing something like320 barrels a month in combat.
It can replace 20.
Do the math.
How much longer can you do that?
Reduce our adversary?
But if Ukraine is insisting onkeeping up this fight, it is not

(36:23):
to America's strategicdisadvantage for that to go on.
When Assad needed Russia tocome in and save his bacon,
russia was too busy with Ukraineto do so.
The picture of the Middle Eastlooks fundamentally different
when Israel took out Tehran'sS-300 anti.
What are they called Airdefense?

General (Ret) Frank McKen (36:45):
S-300 , the air defense system S-300
air defense batteries.

Barbara Stephenson (36:48):
They are without them now.
They need to go to Russia toget them replaced.
Russia's otherwise occupied.
There are some real strategicbenefits to having Russia tied
down in this long war, and ifthe lesson for China and every
other would-be invader is thatwhen you go in and you take your
neighbor's territory, you comeout with 600,000 casualties, 150

(37:13):
to 200,000 of them dead youngmen, and your ruble wrecked,
your economy wrecked and egg allover your face, this is a
pretty good message to come outof an atrocious action like that
.
So I'm usually the first one asto how to stop the fighting.
I'm not quite there yet.
I think it is really importantin this case that we stand by

(37:34):
Ukraine.
I think that's how we keepfaith with our allies in Europe.
I think they are looking to usnot to abandon Ukraine and to
reward this really egregiousbehavior.

General (Ret) Frank McKe (37:45):
Thanks , ambassador.
Again, I find myself veryconsistent with what you're
saying.
I would just say, if we look athow we got here and I would
grade the Biden team like thisPutin drew strength from our
withdrawal from Afghanistan thatwe would perhaps not respond
forcefully if he invaded Ukraine.
That's probably something thatwe wish we had a different way

(38:07):
to interpret.
I believe the Biden team did avery good job trying to convince
Russia not to actually launchthe invasion.
We knew about it, theintelligence was compelling and,
I think, very, very smartly, wedowngraded some highly
sensitive intelligence to sharewith the world and with the
Russians to say look, we seewhat you're doing and we're
going to expose it.
And we did.
It did not deter Vladimir Putin.

(38:27):
So, while unsuccessful, Ithought that was a very good.
I thought there's a very good,robust response from this
administration.
Where I fault the Biden team,though, is they've sought to
manage the war, not back Ukraineenough to win a more
significant victory, and thetime is now past when that can

(38:49):
happen.
There was a time period in thefirst six months nine months.
Had we actually given Ukrainesignificant capability, we might
be in a very different placetoday, but that's a fork we
didn't take.
We went this way, and we're nolonger in a situation where we
can do that.
We've given them longer rangemissiles, atacms that can range
deep into Russia.

(39:09):
We've given them F-16s, whichis probably not as big a thing
as it might seem.
It's a pretty airplane, but theairplane sitting on the ramp is
not what makes the airplaneeffective.
It's the human being sitting inthe airplane and all the
command and control, thelogistics, the other stuff that
goes on that only the UnitedStates can do.
Ukraine will never be able todo that, even if the F-16 is an

(39:32):
attractive airplane on the ramp.
So we're in a place now wherewe had chances to materially
change the trajectory of theconflict.
Those chances are behind us.
Now it's an ugly, bloodydeadlock, and I agree completely
that it is slowly turningagainst Putin.
Putin is unable to dismount,though there are no guardrails

(39:53):
in Russia for Vladimir Putin.
In the Cuban Missile Crisis,when Nikita Khrushchev undertook
a very adventuristic movementand moved missiles into Cuba, he
actually had a politburo aroundhim that graded him and
ultimately restrained him.
There is nobody around VladimirPutin.
If you give him advice, hedoesn't want to hear.
You check into the ninth floorof a Moscow hospital and you

(40:16):
decide to jump out the window.
So there's not.
There's just not.
There's nobody around him togive him advice.
He planned the operationwithout consulting his military.
I know General Gerasimov, thechief of general staff.
He was not in it.
The FSB what we would call theorgans of state security planned
the operation, not the Russianmilitary, and it's been a

(40:37):
disaster.
But the Russians have vastresources to throw in it and
they are continuing to do that,although they're now back to
much earlier, simpler tanks thanthe ones that started the
campaign, because they can'treplace their losses.
So what does that mean?
That means there is going to bea negotiated settlement to this
conflict, like it or not, itmay be one that we find
unpalatable.
I would certainly find itunpalatable if I had to give up

(40:59):
Donbass and Crimea.
I don't see another way aroundit.
I wish I did, and so you know.
The question is going to bewhat form of economic and
security guarantees are we goingto give Ukraine, and what's it
going to mean to Vladimir Putin?
And the one variable here isthis, and this is an interesting
thing.

(41:20):
The one variable here is this,and this is an interesting thing
Putin is very unpredictable,and that's been their ace.
The United States has been verypredictable, but here in a week
, the leader of the UnitedStates is going to be an
unpredictable guy and that'sactually going to change the
equation a little bit, I think,in this particular case maybe
not necessarily in a bad way, inthis particular case.

(41:42):
The last thing I would just saythe most concerning thing of all
to me and we haven't talkedabout it is Russia is a
declining state with a terribleeconomy, bad demographics, a
very small rentier economy, butthey have a vast and capable set
of nuclear weapons.
In fact, they're the onlycountry in the world that could
kill all of us in this room inabout 45 minutes if they chose

(42:04):
to do it.
No other country can do that.
So therefore, you have torespect that capability and
that's why, when I am criticalof the Biden team and I am
critical of them I also rememberthey have to balance the fact
that Putin rattles the nuclearsword a little bit, because he
knows he gets our attention whenhe does that.
So we have to know, understandand respect that capability.

(42:28):
I don't think he's on the vergeof dropping a nuclear weapon on
Warsaw or Kiev, but I think it'spossible that he could do a
demonstration shot.
He could do a variety of thingswith a tactical nuclear weapon
that would say, hey, look at me,I'm crazy.
And the next one might beagainst Warsaw or run another
European capital.
So that's something that wejust have to think about as we
try to find an end to this war.

(42:49):
It is not going to be asolution Ukraine is going to
like, probably not going to be asolution the Europeans are
going to like, but when it's allsaid and done, the United
States remains the indispensablenation, and the way we want to
go is probably the way theEuropeans are going to go, and
probably the way that Zelenskyis going to go, as ugly as that
might seem.
I would just hope that key tothat are going to be security

(43:12):
guarantees and economicassistance to ensure that
Ukraine is not a rump state butis a viable economic platform
and is able to flourish.
As the ambassador noted, I seeno other way this is going to
end.
Ukraine's not going to pullsome kind of dazzling victory
here at the end, and theRussians are not going to be
able to do it either, unlessthey do something dramatic that

(43:34):
probably involves a nuclearweapon.

Kiki Caruson (43:39):
In terms of conflict.
We're hearing some potentiallypositive news out of the Middle
East about a possible peace plan.
What advice would you providethe next administration about
addressing America's interestsin that region of the world?
Hand it off to you, ambassadorStevenson.

Barbara Stephenson (43:59):
Well, this is perhaps the biggest change
really from when we startedthinking about these questions
to where we are now.
It's really been a remarkableevolution.
As you know, iran struck Israeldirectly for the first time
ever, and then it did it twice.
But it turns out that ouraerial defense was so effective
with us and Israel and I thinkthe UK pitched in that only a

(44:22):
couple of missiles came throughat all and had Russia's.
Iran's capability really didn'tleave a dent.
There was one casualty and I'msorry about this, it was a
Palestinian on the West Bank,that's who died in that.
So Iran's strike was, you know,it didn't have the impact.
And then the walkie-talkies andthe pagers probably the most

(44:43):
brilliant intelligence operationI can ever remember in my life.
And Hezbollah, which is such aforce to reckon with, just
toppled and weakened, and thenthe leader killed and collapsed.
And then you see a potentialfor Lebanon maybe to rebuild its
state, which has now left Hamasready to sign a peace agreement

(45:05):
, because it wasn't going tobefore.
So it's a dramatic change.
I would give we were debatingthis and not everybody loves
this thing, but it's taking me awhile to come around to this
and I won't bring everybody withme, but there's a moment here.
I mean, iran is weak, hezbollahis not functioning, hamas is

(45:27):
much weaker.
There is a really good day afterplan for Gaza.
Jim Jeffrey and Tom Warrickwrote it.
You can find it on the AtlanticCouncil's website.
It's really good.
It doesn't have the Israelidefense forces or Hamas running
Gaza for a while.
It has a multinational forcethat goes in and you get aid

(45:48):
provided and you get the placestabilized.
And then you do need to figureout at some point what the hell
is the political solution tothis.
We can't go on just doing thistactically.
So I think that piece I've seena plan.
It's a good plan.
Here's the part you're notgoing to like.
It's a good plan.
Here's the part you're notgoing to like.
I think we should just move onexpanding the Abraham Accords

(46:16):
and sign a defensiverelationship with Saudi Arabia
and take advantage of thismoment to rewrite the kind of
structure of the Middle East andreally see that Iran's ring of
fire doesn't get reestablished.

General (Ret) Frank McKenzie (46:21):
So that's kind of where I come out
on that and I'm going to passthe mic to the general of where
I come out on that and I'm goingto pass the mic to the general.
Thanks very much, a lot there.
So if we look at it from a veryhigh level, what do we want in
the Middle East?
I think we want Iran to be aresponsible member of the family
of nations.
We don't want them to exportterror.
We don't want them to have anuclear weapon capability.
We don't want them to have as afundamental part of their
statecraft the explicitstatement that they're going to

(46:44):
destroy Israel.
A couple other things, butlargely that's what we want with
Iran.
I don't think you can solve theIsraeli-Palestinian crisis
without some form of sovereigntyfor Palestinians.
My friends from Israel laugh atme when I say that I've got a
lot of time in the region.
I don't understate.

(47:06):
I don't underestimate thecomplexity of that task.
But unless you can come up witha realistic plan for the day
after and Jim Jeffrey is abrilliant American diplomat I
would urge you to take a look atwhat he wrote for the Atlantic
Council You've got to come upwith some way for people in the
West Bank and in Gaza to have ahope of living.
Otherwise, you're going tofight them forever, and I don't
think anybody except Hamasultimately wants that to be the

(47:27):
outcome.
So Hamas can't be part of thesolution, but there are Arab
states that can fund thissolution and there are Arab
states that can provide troopsfor this solution and they are
not necessarily the same statesthat would do that, but there is
.
I can see a path forward hereNow.

(47:47):
I understand the politicalcomplexity of life in Israel
right now with a prime minister,and that may be something
that's going to make it veryhard to do, but there's no way
forward that doesn't involvethat solution.
You've got to find a way.
You've got to find a workablesolution to this, even as you
find a way to contain andultimately to modify Iranian
behavior, and Iranian behavioris capable of being modified.

(48:12):
There's a famous episode from1987 in the Iran-Iraq war, a war
very few people know anythingabout, but millions of people
died in that war.
It's a long, bloody war betweenIran and Iraq.
In 1987, things were goingagainst Iran and the Supreme
Leader, khomeini, then said hesigned a truce with Iraq under

(48:36):
unfavorable terms in order toprevent the destruction of the
Iranian regime.
And he called that drinkingfrom the poisoned chalice and he
said I would rather what hesaid was roughly.
I would rather I'm drinkingfrom a poisoned chalice.
I would rather do anything inthe world than do this, but he
did drink from the poisonedchalice and he did accept a

(48:58):
truce.
Iran will behave rationallywhen the regime is directly
threatened.
And today the regime, as theambassador noted, they don't
have effective.
They had four S-300 systems.
Those are gone.
They can't defend Tehran.
They can't defend what we knowand I know is the Tehran Esfahan
Corridor, where all the Iraniannuclear capabilities are.

(49:19):
They can't defend that fromIsrael.
If the Israelis wanted to goback tonight, nothing's going to
stop the Israelis from goingback tonight.
So Iran is weak.
Their hedge against Israel wasalways Lebanese Hezbollah.
Lebanese Hezbollah is not in aposition to threaten Israel
today, not saying where they'llbe two or three years from now,
but they're not in a position todo it.
And in fact, lebanon this may bean opportunity for Lebanon.

(49:41):
They just named a president,general Aoun, who I know
personally.
I've been to his home severaltimes.
He's going to be the nextpresident.
I think that's a step forwardfor Lebanon.
Maybe they can end theconfessional gridlock that has
really choked governmentdevelopment in Lebanon and move
forward.
So there are opportunities hereopportunities against Iran and

(50:02):
opportunities with thePalestinians to perhaps try to
find a way forward.
No one's going to be completelyhappy with this, but I don't
see a way to go forward thatdoesn't involve this and that's
what our interests in the regionare.
If I'm looking at itstrategically, those are the
things that we want.
Those are the things that makeit possible for the United
States ultimately to reduce ourfootprint in the region.

(50:23):
To look to China, we want toreduce our footprint in the
Middle East.
We do the things we're talkingabout, which may mean not
reducing the footprint for awhile, but ultimately, in the
long term, this is the path tobeing able to focus more
directly on China.

Kiki Caruson (50:39):
Thank you.
So I want to be aware of thetime and I do want to be able to
address some of the questionsfrom the audience.
We've talked about Russia,we've talked about Iran.
We haven't yet talked aboutChina.
I'm sure one of our questionsasked about China.
I'd like to pose that and thenI'll, if you will give us your
blessing, for just a few moreminutes.

(50:59):
We'll look at a few audiencequestions.
So the national securitystrategy articulated during
Trump's first administrationflagged the return of a great
power competition with China asthe greatest national security
threat.
Ambassador Stevenson, did theTrump administration get that
right?

Barbara Stephenson (51:17):
Yeah, thanks for asking that one,
general Mattis, another greatMarine general gave us that
national security strategyduring the Trump administration.
When I look back on it, I justmarvel at the years I think we
squandered with a single-mindedfocus on the global war on
terror, which had, by this point, become lone wolf terrorists

(51:41):
you know how much damage a lonewolf terrorist really does.
It ain't existential.
And meanwhile we were notlooking at Russia and China
particularly.
And this return of great powercompetition and that 2018
national security strategy wassuch an important wake-up call
and it really caused us torealign at the CIA, the State

(52:03):
Department, through the wholenational security apparatus, to
get ourselves to look at wherethis challenge was really rising
.
So Russia is a declining power,as the general has said.
Their top-ranked universityranks 350, something like
two-thirds of theirintelligentsia have fled in the
last 20 years.
So remember Sputnik?
I do, you don't, but it was.

(52:24):
You know they were really agreat science power, but they
really aren't anymore.
They ran their intelligentsiaoff.
They wrecked their universities.
They don't really have thiscapacity to regenerate.
Once they pump the oil, they'rekind of done.
They can do a hell of a lot ofdamage on the way down.
So that's one of the things Iwould just remind us.
They're not technologicallythat great, but they know how to

(52:44):
play our scenes and to amplifyour social cleavages, not just
ours in America, but across thewhole the West, nato, et cetera.
But China was the other bigpiece of this.
And China it is really a forceto be reckoned with, and even
though it's hit serious economicheadwinds, its growth has

(53:05):
slowed from 10% a year for yearssustained in which they lifted
800 million people out ofpoverty the biggest achievement
like that in the history of theworld.
It's not going like thatanymore.
It's fallen to at least halfthat, maybe below that, and it's
got a declining population.
So we're not talking aboutslowing growth, we're talking
about a population that issmaller each year than it was,

(53:29):
and it's smaller fast.
It is remarkable how smallChina looks at the end of this,
at the end of 100 years from now.
It's remarkable.
So they've got a decliningpopulation and they have to then
compensate for this.
They must bring productivity upor they will continue.
The gap between the US economyand China's will continue to

(53:49):
fall.
The thing is they're a commandeconomy.
They have invested a lot ofmoney in sending students to the
United States.
A bunch of them have gone home.
They're really well educated.
They have now got TsinghuaUniversity moved this year into
the top 20 for US News and WorldReport, and there are a couple
of other universities that arestarting to come up there.

(54:09):
They've got real capability inthis technology space, and
they've been making things allthese years, while we've been
not making things and that cycleof trying to do this innovation
with some of this.
You really need to make thingsin order to do the whole thing
right.
This is a rising challenge.
We've been restricting thesales of the most advanced

(54:32):
computer chips to China.
I'm not saying that was a badmove.
It sure ain't.
Sufficient, though it will notbe enough to keep China from
gaining on us.
Sufficient though, it will notbe enough to keep China from
gaining on us, and if there'sone thing I would urge us not to
do, is be smug that our cultureof innovation and that whole
ecosystem we've built is goingto be enough.

(54:52):
I think China has reallyrecreated a lot of this, and
they are really putting a wholelot of people and money into
developing a superiority in AIand machine learning and quantum
computing, and, by somemeasures, they're really closing
on us.
Eric Schmidt, who headed theNational Security Commission on

(55:14):
AI, says China won the 5Gcompetition.
We need to get in front of thisso that they never win it again
.
That was his call to us on AI,and his verdict just two or
three weeks ago was that they'velargely closed that gap.
Who controls AI and shapes it?
More than half of all the moneythat China has invested in

(55:35):
artificial intelligence has beeninvested in improving
surveillance capability.
Now, is that what you want AIto be used for?
I was really hoping it mighthelp citizens and democracies
thrive, that it might help usmake more sense out of
healthcare records and improveour health, but that is the
direction it will go in if Chinadominates this, because the

(55:56):
technology will be optimized forsurveillance.
That's not what I'd like to haveit happen.
And as this divide growsbetween the US and Europe about
how to use these technologies,with the Europeans being more
conservative, wanting someprivacy, constraints on it and
to know some things likeexplainability, which did not

(56:17):
survive in the EU but was verycarefully considered we won't be
going together on this if we'renot careful.
If we don't go together, natodoesn't function as well,
because all the information isgoing up into the cloud, we need
to be able to access it on thesame kind of terms.
So a divide between the US andEurope on these technologies

(56:37):
weakens us in a whole series ofways, including weakening NATO.
So I think China is the bigthreat.
It's multifaceted and there arethings that we're certain about
like we're going toout-innovate them that I used to
be sure about and I'm not sureabout at all anymore.

General (Ret) Frank McKen (56:54):
Great comments.
China is the pacing threat.
It's who we need to bear inmind as we design the military
forces of the United States.
But at the same time, we needto bear in mind as we design the
military forces of the UnitedStates.
But at the same time, we needto recognize that you need to
think beyond the Western Pacific, you need to think globally.
When you think about China, itis a global problem.
They're in the Middle East,they're in other places.

(57:22):
52% of China's hydrocarbons comethrough the Strait of Hormuz,
so if we find ourselves in aconflict in China, might we not
want to prevent that movingthrough the Strait of Hormuz,
rather than fighting in theStrait of Malacca or even
further, even closer to mainlandChina?
We need to think globally.
We don't do a very good job ofdoing that.
When we tend to think aboutmilitary competition with China,
we tend to think about theWestern Pacific, and that is, in

(57:43):
fact, very important.
But we have advantages that wecan apply globally.
As they try to expand globally,they're beginning to encroach
on areas that we're veryfamiliar with operating in, and
we have tremendous advantagesand we should not give that up.
But again, I would just say youdon't want to be fixated on the
geography of it in the Pacific,because it's a global problem

(58:07):
and we need to think as a globalpower and we are uniquely a
global power and a sea power andan air power and those are our
inherent advantages and we needto apply those as we think about
how we're going to compete withChina.
I'll go back to one thing on theindustrial base.
That is a problem.
The Chinese are turning outsubmarines remarkably quickly.
Now the submarines are verynoisy.

(58:27):
We joke and say you can hearthem from Hawaii, but they'll
get better because you alwaysget better when you build stuff
like that.
And they got a lot moresubmarines.
They can build far moresubmarines than we can.
We would be hard pressed toreplace existing submarines if
we got into a major war withChina, and submarines will be
the coin of the realm in theWestern Pacific if you're going
to fight the Chinese.
That's the platform that givesus our unique powerful advantage

(58:50):
.
So it's concerning, it's veryconcerning.
But I'll just share one otherstory with you.
A friend of mine, the chief ofnaval operations, but when he
did this he was an admiral Backwhen we were visiting Chinese
ships.
We don't do that anymore for alot of reasons, but used to go
spend a day or two on a Chinesecruiser or destroyer somewhere.

(59:11):
They'd send a couple officersover, and so he's on a cruiser
and they're on the bridge whichwe steer the ship, and there's a
up in the middle of the bridge.
There's a black ball, one ofthese security balls I don't see
one in here, but you all knowwhat I'm talking about where
there's a camera in it andthey're talking about, yes, a
skipper, what's that?
He said?
Well, that's where they monitorus.
The Chinese Communist Party hasthese security balls on the

(59:33):
bridge in combat, main damagecontrol, central wardroom, chow
hall, across the ship.
They're being monitored andthat stream goes off the ship.
They don't see it on the ship,it goes off the ship.
So the CCP can keep an eye onit.
Additionally, of course,there's a political commissar on
the ship and you have almost adual key system.
Here's the one point I'd leavethis with.

(59:53):
I want to fight that Navy.
That's the Navy I want to fight.
Just remember that becausethey're always going to be
looking over their shoulder.
They're always going to besecond guests.
They've always got another guyon the ship who's got an opinion
.
You want to fight those guys.
So whenever we think about howgood the Chinese are and they
are pretty good we shouldremember that they are not

(01:00:16):
perfect and they have profoundlimitations.
I want to fight them.
That's the Navy I want to go upagainst nations.

Kiki Caruson (01:00:24):
I want to fight them.
That's the Navy I want to go upagainst.
Excellent Thank you.
So we're at 730, but if youwould give me the generosity of
posing a question from ouraudience, that would be
wonderful.
So President Trump has had alot to say about Panama, and we
have a former ambassador toPanama here.
A lot to say about Panama, andwe have a former ambassador to

(01:00:46):
Panama here.
So I'm rephrasing the questionjust a little bit.
But are there legitimate USconcerns involving Panama?
We spoke about China, China'srole in the Panama Canal and
sort of what should we be payingattention to in Panama, if
anything?
And I'll add that we havewonderful students from Panama.

Barbara Stephenson (01:01:09):
So I will say when I was ambassador to
Panama, so 2008 to 10 range,when members of Congress would
come down and they would seethis Chinese business on the
Atlantic side and the Chinesebusiness on a port on the
Pacific side, and then you know,they would see this growing
commercial presence of China andI will say that our talking

(01:01:29):
points, which are kind of thecorner of the realm for a
diplomat, were oh, don't worryabout that, those are just
commercial.
They won those withinternational bids and they have
no security consequences.
If there's one thing that Ithink is screamingly naive, from
where I sit today withhindsight, are those talking
points.
Of course, all of thiscommercial and trade dominance
has security implications.

(01:01:50):
So let me first of allacknowledge that that no importa
como lo mida, no importantdoesn't matter how you measure
it.
The Panamanians have made acomplete success of running the
canal.
It was whether it was thesafety record, the number of

(01:02:12):
passages through it was accidentfree, all of these things.
Every single metric was thatthey had done a damn good job.
And when I was there the firsttime, we endlessly talked down
to them about how they wouldnever be able to even maintain
such an engineering marvelwithout us.
Well, they did quite well,thank you.
And then that expansion ofadding those different, those

(01:02:35):
larger locks that handle thepost-Panamaxes, which are
significantly larger, 100%Panamanian financed, run and
overseen.
So they did this themselves.
Those bigger locks they built.
So I want to give thePanamanians all credit on that.
I was, I would say the rainsfailed really for kind of the
first time anybody can remember,they had just a serious drought

(01:02:57):
in Panama and the way that thecanal works is that the
freshwater that comes in theChagras River is used to lock
the ships through and it flowsout to the ocean.
So when the water levels fellso much they really couldn't
lock as many ships throughcreated a real choke point there
.
And so what do you do?
They auctioned off.
You know the spots.

(01:03:17):
We ran it as a utility for theyears we ran it until 1999 break
even.
The Panamanians did not.
The Panamanians have run it assomething that's an important
contributor to their economy bysome measures.
Things related to the canal are34% of the Panamanian economy.
They were when I was there.
So we went through a periodwhere the Panama Canal was a
choke point and some of thoseauction prices for those ships

(01:03:40):
to go through the canal duringthe drought were eye-popping.
Now this only works while therereally is a drought, because
it's in the Panamanians'entrance to run as many ships
through as normal.
So I'm not sure that this everreally happens again.
I was surprised to see becausewhen I was ambassador, we were
not, as the US, really overlyreliant on the Panama Canal for

(01:04:01):
trade.
It wasn't really that big of adeal for us.
But I just saw a chart and weare the overwhelming user of the
canal.
A lot of it is LNG shipmentsthat are going through and as
this LNG thing came online, weuse the canal a lot more.
So I think you probably havesome LNG shippers complaining
about how much it costs to gothrough during the drought.

(01:04:22):
So should we take it back over?
Absolutely not.
I'm kind of thinking about, youknow, I think, one of the things
when you threaten to dosomething like this and there's
just nothing that the US coulddo that would more upset
Panamanians than to suggest this.

(01:04:43):
There is just no moreneurologic point than the idea
that we're taking this back fromyou.
I mean it just.
It is the core of Panamanianidentity to have taken the canal
, regained the sovereignty oftheir country and to have done a
really good job and to havemade Panama an upper middle
income country in the course ofit.

(01:05:04):
So this pains me to have themdo this.
So why is he doing it?
I don't know, but I bet youthat President Molino is more
compliant on policing up theflow of immigrants to the dairy
inn than he might have beenotherwise.
And I don't know.
I just think this kind ofbehavior is very upsetting to me
.
I think it's reckless and Ithink it stirs up some very old

(01:05:27):
memories in Latin America.
That won't be a good thing, butI don't think we're really
harmed by this.
I do think that once the rainshave come back, people are
passing through the canal.
They're just paying the tolls.
I don't really think that thereis a real problem there, but I
do know that it is.
I've been listening toPanamanian radio and it is all

(01:05:48):
over the radio and my friend,the foreign minister and vice
president at the time, samuelLuis Navarro, was arguing for
cabeza fria.
We have to keep cool heads andjust breathe through this.
We can talk this through.
So I hope that that's whathappens.
That's certainly what Greenlandis saying as well.
Let's talk this through.

General (Ret) Frank McKenzie (01:06:08):
So I can't add to that.
I would just say there's really, the further we stay away from
military as an option as we talkabout this problem, the smarter
we'll be in the long run.
I think there's nothing for meto add to that.

Kiki Caruson (01:06:19):
Thank you so much .
So we have come to the end ofthe time.
We've actually run a bit over.
I want to thank our twospeakers for such an interesting
conversation and thank you foryour expertise and
thoughtfulness and for spendingsome time with us this evening,
and for you all for joining usand sharing your thoughts and
part of your evening with us.
So thank you very much for.

Jim Cardoso (01:06:51):
We hope you enjoyed a great conversation between
GNSI Executive Director, retiredMarine Corps General Frank
McKenzie, and Barbara Stevenson,former Ambassador to Panama and
currently the vice provost ofglobal affairs at the University
of North Carolina, chapel Hill.
Next week, on At the Boundary,we're going to start exploring a
topic that is important to meand everyone who has served the

(01:07:12):
United States military therecruiting crisis that is
plaguing every service branch.
Gnsi research fellow, dr GuidoRossi, recently wrote an article
for Real Clear Defenseexploring the crisis and
explaining a simple suggestionfor improvement, prioritizing
the appointment of a newUndersecretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness.

(01:07:32):
He'll be joined by Dr AliciaGill Rossiter, a retired US Air
Force Lieutenant Colonel andcurrently the Chief Officer of
Military and Veterans Affairs inthe College of Nursing at USF
Health.
She's done some inspirationalresearch on a similar topic the
impact of parental militaryservice on military-connected
children.
I think you'll be surprised bysome of the numbers we'll talk

(01:07:54):
about and I'm really lookingforward to it.
Thanks for listening today.
If you like the podcast, pleaseshare with your colleagues and
network.
You can follow Genesi on ourLinkedIn and X accounts.
At USF, underscore Genesi andcheck out our website as well at

(01:08:16):
USFedu slash Genesi, where youcan also subscribe to our
monthly newsletter.
That's going to wrap up thisepisode of At the Boundary.
Each new episode will featureglobal and national security
issues we found to be insightful, intriguing, fascinating, maybe
controversial, but overall justworth talking about.
I'm Jim Cardoso and we'll seeyou at the boundary.