Anita has been traveling all month, and there are a lot of big stories that have happened in the meantime. We begin with China and the surprising passage of a ban on TikTok. We also discuss a provocative article arguing that we need to change our policy to win the war with China.

In the also surprising, but welcome category, an aide to Ukraine bill finally passed. What was behind Speaker Johnson’s change in position, and how will the aid change the situation on the ground?

Israel and Iran traded military hostilities and the war in Gaza still rages. What is the significance of the recent events? And what is happening on US campuses, where waves of protests and arrests have been occurring?

Topics Discussed in this Episode

Anita’s Trip to Norway and Sweden
07:15 - TikTok Bill and the New Cold War with China
48:30 - Ukraine Aide Bill Passes, but What Next?
1:06:00 Israel-Iran Exchange Blows and Protests on US Campuses

Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode

TikTok Bill and New Cold War with China

Ukraine Aide Bill Passes, but What Next?

Israel-Iran Exchange Blows and Protests on US Campuses

Follow Us

Show Website: www.kelloggsglobalpolitics.com
Show Twitter: @GlobalKellogg
Anita’s Twitter: @arkellogg
Show YouTube

Listen on

Apple Podcasts Spotify Amazon Music Podcast Index Overcast Stitcher +

Share Episode

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn

Topics Discussed in this Episode

Anita’s Trip to Norway and Sweden
07:15 - TikTok Bill and the New Cold War with China
48:30 - Ukraine Aide Bill Passes, but What Next?
1:06:00 Israel-Iran Exchange Blows and Protests on US Campuses

Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode

TikTok Bill and New Cold War with China

Ukraine Aide Bill Passes, but What Next?

Israel-Iran Exchange Blows and Protests on US Campuses

Follow Us

Show Website: www.kelloggsglobalpolitics.com
Show Twitter: @GlobalKellogg
Anita’s Twitter: @arkellogg
Show YouTube

Anita Kellogg: [00:00:00] Welcome to Kellogg's Global Politics, a podcast on current events in U. S. foreign policy and international affairs. My name is Dr. Anita Kellogg, an international relations scholar specializing in the relationship between economics and national security. I'm here with my co host, Ryan Kellogg, an expert in energy investment and policy.

Ryan Kellogg: Thanks. I'm glad to be here. So this is episode 45, and we're recording this on April 28th, [00:00:30] 2024.

Anita Kellogg: I have been traveling all month, and there are a lot of big stories that have happened in the meantime. We begin with China and the surprising passage of a ban on TikTok. We also discuss a provocative article arguing that we need to change our policy to win the war with China.

In the also surprising but welcome category, an aid to Ukraine bill finally passed. What was behind Speaker Johnson's change in position? And how will the aid change the situation on the ground? Israel and [00:01:00] Iran traded military hostilities and the war in Gaza still rages. What is the significance of the recent events?

And what is happening on U. S. campuses where waves of protests and arrests have been occurring. So we have been, well, I have been traveling for a month. It's been crazy.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. That's a crazy, and you survived.

Anita Kellogg: I did survive it. Barely, but I managed. Man, by the time I got to Stockholm, I think all of us were just tired because it had been [00:01:30] two straight weeks on the road.

Ryan Kellogg: And can you recount exactly where you visited and?

Anita Kellogg: So, obviously it began with when we went to London, which we prefaced in our last episode that we were doing that for a week. That seems like months ago now, which was a great trip. And the weather was mostly decent except for the day we went to Stonehenge where it was awful, absolutely awful in the middle of a storm.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, 50 mile hour winds and [00:02:00] rain and just kind of cold and miserable. Not a good day to be on a big, big flat open plane.

Anita Kellogg: Nope. It was terrible. But the rest of the time, it was pretty nice.

Ryan Kellogg: It was pretty good. Yeah. As much as

Anita Kellogg: you can expect weather to be decent in London, which is a low bar, but then I went to a conference, international relations conference in San Francisco.

And so I went to a lot of China panels and heard some interesting research on China and [00:02:30] I don't know a lot about the domestic politics in China. So it was kind of interesting to hear people, their research on that. Okay. Yeah.

Ryan Kellogg: There's more focus on that. Yeah.

Anita Kellogg: The panels I went to.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah.

Anita Kellogg: I just thought it was interesting.

And then we had a work trip. where one of the neat things that I think the Eisenhower School does at the National Defense University is in the spring, students choose an industry to study out of like one out of 19 industries. And the industry I'm associated with was energy. [00:03:00] And so part of it, you have a week long domestic trip and a week long overseas trip.

And this year they decided to combine those all into two weeks consecutively. So we went to Oklahoma city and we saw big wind farm. And training oil rig and learned about some of the technology that's coming out about that. And like, just kind of getting an idea of what are the issues in the industry.

We talked with the electrical [00:03:30] utility. One of the difficulties with renewables is getting enough transmission lines. So students asked a lot of questions about why it's so hard to build new transition line, transmission lines to allow more renewables on the grid. And then. We, for our international, we went to Oslo in Stockholm and we actually had some time to see Oslo as we were recovering from jet lag.

And that was really neat to just walk around there. Both of those were new cities to me. [00:04:00] And in Stockholm, I got to see a friend of ours from Korea who I hadn't seen since Korea, and we were like really good friends. And so that was really nice because we just got together and talked for a long time, just like we had, like no time had gone by.

So that was really cool. And in those countries, we talked to the Norway, Norwegian oil company, state oil company, and they talked about their need to plan away from eventually moving past [00:04:30] oil because the fields are having to hit max capacity and so the need to. They're thinking about how the whole economy was just so based on oil transitions away from that to green energy.

And we talked to like the energy ministries, particularly in Sweden. And so it was just, it was very interesting.

Ryan Kellogg: And so what was, I mean, what was it from those two weeks that kind of really stood out the most to you? Where you found the most interesting or you got the most [00:05:00] feedback or enthusiasm from the students who went?

What, what kind of stood out? Yeah.

Anita Kellogg: Well, one thing that was nice about the Ecuador visit is it was very strategic oriented that kind of coincided with government policy as well, because they're a state owned oil company. Right. And then the 30 percent of its private investment and what role private investment has.

And just overall, I think Norway's economy, one thing that I hadn't realized is it was a very [00:05:30] poor country into the 1950s and they still have that, that That sentiment, and one way you can see that is in Oslo, everything is really new. The downtown area we stayed in was all built after 2000. You don't have a lot of these picturesque old buildings where when you go to Stockholm, but one of the main areas is this area that was built in the middle ages and is still there today.

Yeah, still some of the same roads and everything is closed off to cars and this is a really [00:06:00] neat area. So you see a lot of history in Stockholm that you don't see in Oslo and part of that is reflected in just how provincial Norway was seen. Sweden actually ruled over Norway for a long time and Norway is always seen as this provincial backwards kind of country.

Ryan Kellogg: So it's just the, the size of the places are so small and they didn't have the historic buildings or? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, they just didn't, they knocked down the historic buildings, .

Anita Kellogg: Well, I mean they may have knocked down some of them, but it seemed like they didn't have, like [00:06:30] they didn't have

Ryan Kellogg: also, it wasn't a big enough city.

Anita Kellogg: Right.

Ryan Kellogg: Oh wow, okay. Yeah.

Anita Kellogg: To have a lot of medieval buildings. So, yeah, so that was interesting. I mean, I think it was cool to see the wind farm. It's like cool to like just not to study things about like. How wind energy works and things like that, but seeing it, I liked seeing the drill rig since that's an industry you've been involved in this whole time and studying it from a high level, the [00:07:00] politics of oil, but just seeing some of the ground things and stuff.

Some of the new technology and I don't know. So I, I found a lot of the trip very interesting. All right. So on to China while I was gone, all these, well, I don't know. Yeah. TikTok happened right before I came back along with the Ukraine aid bill. So a lot of people were surprised that the ban on TikTok got through the Senate as well.

And this is [00:07:30] kind of. A huge milestone of a country like the U. S. starting to implement a possible ban on TikTok. Why would you ban TikTok? Well, the two main complaints is that they could, China could gain access to sensitive user data like location. And then one that I see most often is the content recommendations may be spreading misinformation such as around the presidential election and censors sensitive topics like the forced labor of the Uyghurs.[00:08:00]

So, who else is banned TikTok? Well, the country of India is the most notable market that Tiktok lost. And then you have U. S. states, universities, other countries banning Tiktok on official devices, but that's not seen as that effective. But there'll be a lot of legal challenges before this ban can take into place.

Some of them are quite technical. One is just a First Amendment right. You have a lot of newspapers that also have stories on TikTok. [00:08:30] So people think that that might be a case that delays or prevents the sale. Will TikTok sell to a U. S. entity? So the idea is that they have to divest from China and it'd be U.

S. controlled. It's unlikely. I mean, they don't seem really. Like they want to sell or will sell, but if they do sell, it'll be without their algorithm or content recommendation. Now this is seen as a really big deal and seeing where the whole worth of TikTok is. [00:09:00] I personally wonder though, how crucial this is, since we seem to have pretty addictive algorithms on our own.

Would that really be something that altered TikTok so fundamentally? And how is it being implemented? Well, app stores like Google and Apple wouldn't be able to sell or allow users to download TikTok. And possibly, but no one's sure if they would go this far. Might be able to actually prevent the technology, the app from [00:09:30] working for existing users.

So what do you think about all this?

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I mean, I was a little surprised that it passed. I thought they did a, I mean, I think it, it ultimately comes down to. Something we've said on previous podcasts that the one unifying element is Politically within congress is you can't be anti china anti ccp enough So I think the that they were able to pretty [00:10:00] cleverly Because it did seem like it was going to get bogged down in the senate that this wasn't necessarily something that Was going to be necessarily politically popular, especially in a political election cycle.

The fact that Trump came out against it, that it seemed to be that a certain subset of Republicans had positioned this and see political advantage of it by saying, Hey, to young people [00:10:30] where they have been able to significantly erode margins based on polling. So seeing it get this support, seeing essentially.

Going down to Mar a Lago and, and having Trump at least tone down the rhetoric around it and get behind it has been, has been surprising. That being said, yeah, it's going to be real interesting. I think this It's going to be a major legal battle going forward, and just, yeah, [00:11:00] the technical complexities, I think, involved in it, the precedent set by the Montana case, which I know the federal government has attempted to distance itself from, but essentially, it comes down to this argument of TikTok's going to argue First Amendment rights that somehow this is, you know, It's pressing the American citizens and it's 170 million users in America from expressing themselves or getting information [00:11:30] versus national security concerns.

And I think that the biggest thing is You mentioned kind of the algorithm and the fact that it's been accused, we'll talk a little bit later about the foreign affairs article that Mike Gallagher, the congressman, former congressman from Wisconsin helped pen, but essentially alleging that the Chinese are able at will to push propaganda via this via tick tock, but have no evidence.[00:12:00]

And they're going to be pressed to present that evidence or TikTok is going to actually use this rhetoric against the U. S. government, showing that was unnecessarily biased and that it's making up hypotheticals on situations that that can't be proved. That being said, I think there is a long history where national security concerns take precedence over.

Even things like the First Amendment.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, it's interesting because I wonder sometimes too, like, how much this is [00:12:30] overblown or how much of a security risk this really is. I think I've commented on that before, how I don't personally like TikTok, but I'm not sure how strong the case is against TikTok.

Like I said about the algorithm, they're unlikely to sell. I don't know. I mean, like, look at Instagram. Like, it's a very powerful algorithm. I think we've managed to have. A company that developed their own and still maintain TikTok if TikTok sells, which I think is actually kind of [00:13:00] unlikely. God, 170 million users, really?

That's like half the country.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, well, yeah, at least people that have, have accounts of some, some sort. Yeah,

Anita Kellogg: well, then there's all the people who don't have accounts. Like myself, who occasionally watches some TikTok videos on, like, of my niece, mostly.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah.

Anita Kellogg: But, yeah, so you can watch videos without even having an account.

So that sounds like everybody except for super old people.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, [00:13:30] it's, it's very pervasive. Obviously, the, the things that really swung Congress from being on the fence to it was, to being firmly against it, was, uh, Two different things. One was what Gallagher cited was the fact that it seemed to be that pro Palestinians, pro Gaza, pro Hamas videos are being promoted on TikTok.

And then the second thing was TikToks, when this, uh, [00:14:00] Bill was originally going through the house back when it was separate from the aid bill. And we saw it here in DC. Cause we get like all the lobbyists ads on, on television and tick tock. Yeah. And it was running that campaigns. It was always. Farmers and small business owners and veterans and it was to make TikTok seem as American as, as apple pie and that there's lobbying efforts really blew up in TikTok's face because what you had is you [00:14:30] had a lot of underage non voters essentially contacting congressional offices and that just absolutely enraged.

Particularly Republican Congress representatives, because it was, it was seen as clear indication that the Chinese government can willingly manipulate young people to do their bidding and harass Congress people. So they went from a mid. Well, maybe we'll vote for this to a very hard Yes. That absolutely this has to be banned

Anita Kellogg: [00:15:00] if it goes through the courts.

It's definitely a huge precedence and I think one of the things that'll be so notable about the court case is then how can Congress like does this, if it went through and they didn't win the challenge. How would this affect Congress's ability to regulate other social media platforms?

Ryan Kellogg: Well, I think it's separate because it is, it's being framed around national security.

The fact that, Ultimately, ByteDance, the parent company within [00:15:30] China, is subject to CCP control, that it's framed strictly as a national security, and because China represents, as Gallagher and many others argue, an existential threat to the United States and its national security, that, uh, That takes precedence over all others.

So I don't think it necessarily creates precedent for other social media companies, even other foreign owned social media companies, because those entities in other countries don't represent an existential threat to the national security of the United States. [00:16:00]

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, but I still think that they can broaden those arguments if they win this case.

I mean, they may not win future cases, but I think they may certainly try to broaden those arguments to other issues.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I think everybody agrees that it's completely hypocritical to go after them on concerns about privacy around data when the fact that you let Google and Meta and all these [00:16:30] other American social media companies hoover up all of this information without, without any real issues.

Anita Kellogg: I think it's controversial, and I think what happens does have an impact on the rest of the tech industry.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it'll be, it'll definitely be interesting. It's, I mean, one of the compromises that was made in the final bill to move forward and, and is designed to help the case the federal government has in [00:17:00] court is giving them a longer time for the sales process because I think when we talked about this last I mentioned six months for a company that's Apparently worth up to a hundred billion dollars, way too short of a runway to execute a sale like this.

So they are giving them nine months or the potential extension of additional three months. And that supposedly will help in terms of the argument that they're getting sufficient due process or due [00:17:30] consideration. I can't remember the legal term that they're not being under a lot of duress. I don't know.

Because they're given a sufficient time to sell the entity. That being said, Chinese government has come out and said that they will absolutely not approve the sale of the entity.

Anita Kellogg: Right. So, I mean, I think then you have the legal challenges. So what if they lose the legal challenge? How long do they still have, like, will there be an extension and trying to sell the company after that?

If there's ever agreement [00:18:00] to sell the company, I have a lot of questions about the timeline.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And then the. The idea of can, can enforcement actually be effective? Yeah, it doesn't seem to be with with VPNs, right? I mean, you can just users can download VPN, act like they're in Canada and still be on TikTok, right?

Anita Kellogg: That's

Ryan Kellogg: true.

Anita Kellogg: That's absolutely true. Unless there is some way for Apple and Google and those companies to [00:18:30] disable it from working on your phone if you are in the region of the U. S. or something.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, but even, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when you traveled to Shanghai, you got a little bit of experience with like VPN and the ability to access, Outside networks, how the great, I mean, because the great firewall of China is vaunted and thought to be impenetrable, but it seemed like it was common practice to download these VPNs and to get around that.[00:19:00]

Anita Kellogg: Wow, that was so long ago now. Pre COVID. Anything pre COVID feels like 100 years ago. Yeah, I mean, that's certainly true to a certain extent. I don't know that it works so easily, like, for social media or something like that.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, that's why I was curious, is if you try, what, What was the extent if you played around with like, what could you access and what couldn't you access?

Anita Kellogg: I was there for a very short amount of time, so I did not play around with it. I have no idea. I know I [00:19:30] couldn't play Pokemon.

Ryan Kellogg: That would have been something I would have done along with the grocery stores.

Anita Kellogg: So you would've been spending your very short amount of free time at Of

Ryan Kellogg: time. Played, played with the phone, seeing every controversial thing I could possibly access

The bbn bbn, and go the grocery store.

Anita Kellogg: I didn't either. I don't remember having a lot of free time, although I guess I did take out that time in the last days. Yeah. [00:20:00] Yeah. So it's interesting. It's really interesting news and to see how it would work in a country like the U. S.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. Because it's the first time this has been done at a scale of, this is a media platform that 170 million people at least have access to.

And that probably is accurate in terms of like, if you include watching TikTok videos, it probably is about, about that size over half the population. Yeah.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I think definitely [00:20:30] over half the population, definitely interesting to see how this develops and what a historic precedent it would be if they are successful and kind of what that says about this discussion on, are we waging a war against China or are we, are we Managing competition.

So while I was away, there was this article that was going around that I heard a lot about that I just actually had a chance to read in Foreign Affairs called [00:21:00] No Substitute for Victory by Matt Pottinger and Mike Gallagher. Um, we talked about Mike Gallagher, how he was until very recently. Where he was signed by a representative from Wisconsin and Matt Pottinger was, I cannot remember exactly what he did, but he was somehow doing something with national security during the Trump administration.

So their premise of this article is that. Right now, Biden is focused on managed competition [00:21:30] and prioritizing short term thoughts in the relationship. We can see this as from recent Janet Yellen trip. And then I believe it was this week, Blinken was in China. And instead, US should be focused on winning the competition.

This is because of China, essentially. being an existential threat to the United States by pursuing a raft of global initiatives designed to disintegrate the West and usher in an [00:22:00] anti democratic order, fundamentally changing national security. So they also argue that China's not pursuing a stalemate.

They're increasing their military capabilities, their economic leverage. But America is just content with the stalemate. So the U S needs to step up their actions to win. Here's like a crucial part of the article. What does winning look like? China's communist rulers would give up trying to prevail in a hot or cold war [00:22:30] with the United States and its friends.

I honestly don't know how you get to that point. Like no matter what you do, I don't know how you get to the point where China is just like, okay, we can't compete with the U S we're not even going to try.

Ryan Kellogg: Well, yeah, I mean, I don't think you're going to get that effectively, admittedly, but through their actions that they're so constrained that they can't effectively compete with the United States or reshape the order that is [00:23:00] more amicable to their regime and anti liberalism.

Anita Kellogg: I can't imagine that happening. Certainly, we're going to go more detail about the steps that they recommend, but I just don't see how you get there. We can argue more about that. The biggest thing about this premise is that you have to accept that Chinese leaders are already waging a cold war against the United States.

And that, that leads to more confrontational policy and greater [00:23:30] friction in the relationship. So instead of trying to find issues where we can cooperate on, like climate change and other similar issues, that you just take all that off the table and you go full on, we're in a cold war with China and we're going to act like it.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, I think that was the, I mean, I, I, I sympathize with the idea that Xi Jinping is a leader who clearly has taken a much more aggressive turn in terms [00:24:00] of forcing the CCP vision upon the world, upon the region, upon expanding. Chinese power with the goal of Asian hegemony. I mean, all of these are pretty much stated by the regime, so I get that.

So I do accept that Chinese leaders are waging a cold war against the United States. I accept that, and this is Xi Jinping specifically. I don't necessarily think this is true under Hu Jintao or some of the earlier Chinese leaders. In the early 2000s, [00:24:30] but I think there has been a major step change with the Xi regime.

And they do make the point within the article that a lot of this is about outlasting it and finding for China to produce again, maybe not realistically, but producing the Mikhail Gorbachev equivalent that you can actually do business with.

Anita Kellogg: Not

Ryan Kellogg: realistic. Not realistic. I think a lot of it, the parallels.

Between the Soviet Union and China are very different and they, they acknowledge, but they don't really go into the [00:25:00] details on why they're different. And of course, the biggest being the economic integration and the size of the Chinese state and economy compared to the Soviet Union, which was a non existent entity and an impression on the global economy.

Anita Kellogg: And I think that you have to accept too that in the world, like, it's not just China, like, imposing this worldview that a lot of countries are, don't want to be democratic and are really welcoming China [00:25:30] almost as a champion of democracy. Creating an alternative world order and

Ryan Kellogg: well, this is no where that part then is true that it is parallel to the soviet empire And that you had this same period of of groups of non committing countries and then countries that were essentially were allied Around it now the soviets offered more of a coherent ideological appeal to it as opposed to China, which definitely offers an appeal to the elites within these [00:26:00] countries, that you can continue your undemocratic practices, basically absorb all of your country's wealth, and you won't be shamed by us as long as you strike.

Reasonable trade deals with us and our companies and allow us to deploy our excess capital and labor to

Anita Kellogg: see how any of these actions, which, of course, we're going to talk about, and we can discuss this more, but how any of this keeps the appeal, the global appeal from happening. If you're focused on military [00:26:30] competition, more confrontational economic policies, this is nothing to get at to China's global.

aims and how it's spreading its ideology.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I, I, I agree. It is focused and maybe it's the, the scope of the article itself, but it does not go, how do you compete against what China's offering these countries in the world, which is a, Core component of the cold war not always effectively done but there was [00:27:00] the idea that it's not just a military competition or even a Value competition which they do elude at and I actually like a lot the idea I don't again.

I don't know how effective or how effective the parallels are but the fact that they're calling for Okay, we're accusing China of disrupting our political processes, of attempting to propagandize our people. Why aren't we doing the same? Why aren't we trying to penetrate the Great Wall of China? Why aren't we trying to [00:27:30] disrupt them in the cyberspace?

Veer as much as they're attempting to disrupt us and basically go on the offensive there. I support that. I support hitting just as hard as we're accusing them of hitting us, which of course they still need to produce evidence that they are hitting us, but if they are doing half of the things that they and their ally Russia are doing, I think Russia, the evidence is much stronger.

Then yeah, we should go on the offensive. But yeah, I agree. They do not address the appeal, particularly [00:28:00] to the elites within the global South that the Chinese system and world order appeals to.

Anita Kellogg: Right. And my issue is that's the whole challenge of China that they present is it's alliances, it's spreading message globally.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I would, I would agree. I mean, I think its alliances are very limited compared to U. S. and its allies alliances, but I do think there is a real, and maybe there is something about [00:28:30] not, that was the other thing the article went into, is we readily call out the Russia, Iran, North Korea axis. I think that's stronger because Both Iran and North Korea are directly supplying arms to Russia and it's war against Ukraine I think that is a very clear you can make the case that that is an axis China.

They they talk about it's like Oh, we're providing Components for these like semiconductors. We're buying the oil. [00:29:00] I'm like what India's buying the oil to write that part was much weaker I think China has been extraordinarily constrained In terms of the arms and the support for Russia that they're providing around Ukraine.

So I found that part of the article pretty weak.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. I'm just saying, if you say the global security threat is, in the Cold War, is about this global disintegration of the West and anti democratic order. Yeah, your steps need to, I [00:29:30] only see like, again, we'll talk, I keep referencing so we really need to get to this part, but I only see maybe one suggestion that really addresses that at all.

And it's 1 of the things that's not going to ever happen. We're unlikely to happen. So I'm going to get into those steps real quick and then we can talk about. So these aren't all of them. There were some technical economic ones that I left out, but here are some of the more notable ones, basically more money to the U S military.

Not really a surprise there. [00:30:00] They want, instead of the current 3 percent of GDP, they think it should be at 4 to 5%, which they argue is at the lower end of the Cold War. I don't really see how that happens, because that requires higher taxes, or really reshuffling money, or more debt. I mean, I guess you can always do it at the expense of debt, which is essentially what Reagan did.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, but unfortunately, because of The inflation and our current debt low, that's not really sustainable. But yeah, I [00:30:30] had the same sentiment on like, we can't do this. Not with our current Congress.

Anita Kellogg: So there's that issue. There's also like a more fundamental. The military doesn't just need more money, but part of it, you can get very technical into supply chains and the fact that you don't have a consistent budget.

You have all these continuing resolutions, which makes it very difficult to have long term contracts that could have better supply chains and be able to produce more armaments. [00:31:00] The reason, addressing the reasons why we can't build submarines and ships anymore. There's a lot of complexity there that can't just be solved with more money.

It has to restructure even just how the military is funded.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I found that. Yeah. Just based on conversations with you. I mean, some of the, the things that they criticize, it's like, Oh, we went from a, the ports and Norfolk. We went from like a goal of building like two submarines a year to one submarine a year.

I think that [00:31:30] probably had more to do with that's all that we could build period. That is

Anita Kellogg: the answer is we found that we just changed the

Ryan Kellogg: goal to one cause that's, we had the goal of two, but this is all we could do is build one a year. It's just not good. It's bad.

Anita Kellogg: I agree with

Ryan Kellogg: that.

Anita Kellogg: But yeah, it wasn't, it wasn't some of these goals that they talked about that the U S change wasn't because, Oh, the goals changed, but it was a matter of capacity, right?

Yeah. Here's one that I could go on all the reasons why this doesn't work, but they [00:32:00] argue that we should revoke China's permanent normal trading relations status and move China to a new tariff column that features gradually increasing rates. on products critical to U. S. national security and economic competitiveness.

The revenue raised from increased tariffs could be spent on offsetting the cost that U. S. exportage will incur as a result of China's inevitable retaliatory measures and on bolstering U. S. supply chains for strategically important products. All right, this has a lot of problems. One, China is a part of the [00:32:30] WTO.

And if for every member of the WTO has permanent normal trading relations status, to revoke that would mean that we'd have to step out of the WTO, which means we no longer have, Permanent normal trading relations like other countries wouldn't have that with us. It's really untenable, it's impossible, but this hasn't stopped us from raising tariffs.

So I think we just scrapped that. What can we do about tariffs? Well, you know, increasing rates on products [00:33:00] critical to U. S. national security and economic competitiveness. I mean, what does that mean? Who identifies them? Is that, I mean, you actually can argue like up to 60 or 70 percent of all goods.

Possibly 100 percent if it's economic competitiveness. I mean, so I don't understand what that means. Two, increased spend on offsetting the cost of the U. S. exporters. So who really is paying the tariffs? It's really actually U. S. consumers. Because [00:33:30] if you have a tariff of 30%, then they're paying 30 percent higher.

Cost when they buy that item. So the extra 30 percent is actually coming out of taxpayers pockets. If you then want to reduce the amount that's being imported because of higher prices, it's also hard to understand where you get the money to counter China's inevitable retaliatory measures and supply chains, [00:34:00] bolstering your supply chain.

So basically you're more like trying to prevent people from importing Because it's so expensive. Not that this actually becomes like a pot of money for the U. S. government to use.

Ryan Kellogg: Right. Yeah. Yeah. I agree that that's unrealistic source of revenue.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. I mean, it's just not how tariffs work. They just don't work that way.

Yeah. Which is from the nation's founding. Like that was the first sort of tax the U. S. had as a government, [00:34:30] right. It was tariffs. And they found that you really don't raise money through tariffs. Right. So here's one that. It's an idea that I fundamentally agree with, but don't, we're not positioned to do it.

So as China doubles down on economic self reliance and phases out imports of industrial goods from the West, the U. S. needs to recruit a coalition of friendly partners to deepen mutual trade. For example, Washington should strike a bilateral trade agreement with the United Kingdom. So, I mean, [00:35:00] I am skeptical to the extent to which there's actual decoupling between the China and the U.

S., but there is some, and I think deepening coalition of friendly partners and mutual trade is not a bad idea. However, anything that requires new trade agreements is not going to happen.

Ryan Kellogg: You know, I know we talked about this before, but definitely not under a isolation list. Trump dominated administration or Congress, but I [00:35:30] think there is a window if it is framed, if you really, truly embrace this idea of a cold war against China, like Gallagher and Pollinger are arguing in this article, then that implies a cold war mentality too.

And that means that you can frame any issue, including bilateral trade. Around the anti china lens, where definitely a deal with the United Kingdom, I think becomes at least valid, but you can, I think you get a trade deal with the UK done. [00:36:00] Can you get it done with a Philippines or other country? That's not, it has a historic long term historical ties with the United States, probably more challenging, but I think, yeah, if there's one, I don't know if we have one currently with Australia, but any, any country like that.

I think you can get done under the anti China lens. I think that's doable.

Anita Kellogg: But are people that committed to this idea of a Cold War?

Ryan Kellogg: [00:36:30] Yeah, I mean, I think that's, that's an interesting question. I think you have to have what China has not produced is a Sputnik moment, or even a moment akin to the Iron Curtain falling across Eastern Europe or the communists taking over China.

It's all of these things helped the fervor and honestly overreaction, particularly in the 1950s at the start of the Cold [00:37:00] War. And China has not done that measure yet. I mean, they're accusing a lot of things and maybe they are building up for some action in Taiwan, but that has been What's lacking, I think, to really push people over into this full embrace of a, of a Cold War.

Anita Kellogg: And people are still really addicted to Chinese cheap goods as well. I mean, so one thing you didn't have in the initial Cold War is you're not having to raise the [00:37:30] prices of tons of goods. Yeah, and

Ryan Kellogg: that's, that's where I've, I've, I think I've come to a realization and I haven't told you, I did order some stuff on T Move.

Anita Kellogg: Oh my gosh! I know,

Ryan Kellogg: it's really bad. So what I've come to the conclusion is that I know China is trying to move up the economic ladder. And they want to, in the areas where we've targeted, the smart tariff targeting, the semiconductors, I support also the blocking the EVs from the United States, even though for the U.

S. consumer, That's not a good thing. [00:38:00] Be fantastic to have these cheap, cheap. I mean, that's one of the biggest pressures people are feeling around these goods. Yeah.

There's enough incentives to encourage us manufacturing to EVs. So I'm not, I'm not concerned about that, but yeah, it's these higher end goods and these higher end industries that we need to protect. Cause that's where we have a competitive advantage. That's where the good paying middle class union.

Wages and jobs are at where they're [00:38:30] not at is cheap crap that fills up walmart place mats Clothing all of the all of the millions of Just stuff that that you can buy United States is never going to compete on that. It never should compete on that Should you argue that? Yeah, this stuff should be manufactured in the Philippines or Malaysia or or Vietnam?

places that we want to increasingly At least bring out of the Chinese sphere of influence and into a kind of [00:39:00] informal alliance. Yeah, maybe I don't think that should be included in part of the tear. I mean, that's ridiculous. Nobody can quite just because of China's size and because of rightly or wrongly, the huge amount of investment that was made over the last 20 years can compete at the scale for making those cheap goods.

And given the inflationary environment, given the pressure on the American middle class. You got to allow that to continue because I, and honestly, I think marginally it's, it's not [00:39:30] that valuable to China. What's valuable to China is what they've set for Vision 2025 AI, semiconductors, all the high end sort of stuff that they're, they're attempting to push into.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, a couple comments on that one. You bought something from Timu. Like I'm just still sitting here in shock. Although maybe I shouldn't it's

Ryan Kellogg: it's much cheaper than Amazon and it honestly when you recognize it's like Amazon has the same Chinese stuff, but they mark it up like 50%.

Anita Kellogg: [00:40:00] I'm just fascinated. I don't know, truly fascinated.

If you want to know more about Timu, there's a great Planet Money podcast episode that you should check out. My other comment is I don't know that I agree with you on the EV cars. It's kind of a different subject. One interesting thing that we, we talked about, because that was a subject that definitely came up a lot on this trip, the adoption of electrical vehicles in particularly in Norway was [00:40:30] really high and quite surprising to us.

And it was also interesting. Our taxi driver kept mentioning that his car. Which was like, I want to say a Mercedes, but I could be wrong, like a large electric vehicles, some high name brand, which was built in Alabama of all places, cost them 150, 000. Oof.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah,

Anita Kellogg: like, oh, wow, okay.

Ryan Kellogg: That, that was just for the vehicle?

Anita Kellogg: That was for the vehicle.

Ryan Kellogg: Okay. [00:41:00] Anyway. That's crazy. Okay.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Crazy. But, so adoption is really high, but you know, one thing like bans could keep us like bans on batteries, right? That's where Chinese, Chinese competitive advantage really is, is in the EV batteries. We ban that, then we keep the U. S.

manufacturers from being able to build cost effective EVs themselves. I mean, what we should be wanting is more competition, not just banning. Well, they're still going to have

Ryan Kellogg: to compete. On overseas markets [00:41:30] against these Chinese EVs. So there's still that competition and it's not just us I mean the eu fully is is protecting their markets against chinese

Anita Kellogg: They're considering

Ryan Kellogg: well germany.

It's an existential threat to germany in its future Industrial base is already suffering because energy prices,

Anita Kellogg: but they haven't made actual policies. They're definitely going

Ryan Kellogg: to block If china can produce because it's so heavily subsidized a ten thousand dollar You Pretty nice EV that could wipe out.

[00:42:00] That's a existential threat to all Western and Japanese automakers.

Anita Kellogg: I'm not sure the best way to go about it. I mean, you can do things like you did with the Japanese industry, which was only import so many of them.

Ryan Kellogg: Well, yeah, they forced domestic and domestic. I mean, that's why Japan moved to Alabama

Anita Kellogg: and

Ryan Kellogg: to places to manufacture.

And there was nothing to

Anita Kellogg: keep China from doing that to Mexico or to other countries where we have trade agreements.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, they've already moved to Mexico, [00:42:30] but, and I think that is the challenge. You're right, because of the free trade agreement, how to keep these Mexican made Chinese EVs out of the U. S.

market. Yeah. That's the challenge.

Anita Kellogg: So, I don't know, I feel more mixed on that.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, no, no, it's definitely one of the protected industries.

Anita Kellogg: So I agree, on most goods you just increase inflationary pressures without having any strategic industry being bolstered in the United States. Kind of building on one of the, uh, [00:43:00] A couple points.

One, the U. S. also needs to recruit the next generation of cold warriors to apply their talents in the contest with China, and it shouldn't start by reversing the crisis of military recruitment, not by lowering standards or promising easy pay or infusing the force of diversity. Oh my gosh, heaven forbid we have diversity, equality, and inclusion, but by unapologetically touting the virtues of elite, colorblind, all volunteer force.

Ryan Kellogg: I think that was [00:43:30] Matt, Matt Pottinger, which he said he was U. S. Deputy National Security Advisor, 2019 to 2021. So yeah, he was under, under Trump. Cause I was definitely getting an A.

Anita Kellogg: Like, oh my gosh. One, I'm sure the military would love to know what the solution is. I mean,

Ryan Kellogg: Oh, yeah. Yeah. All of that. All of that advice was ridiculous.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Anita Kellogg: But for the larger, and I think this is the point that you were just talking about, and I wanted to conclude the story on is you need to recruit [00:44:00] everyday Americans to contribute to the fight. And basically, can you get Americans in general with the Without something like happening in Taiwan, will you ever get Americans to feel like we need to fight against this war with China?

And one way they talk about it is if you mobilize them to think in terms of a cold war, then they can use that to guide their own decisions. Such as a company's choice, whether to set up a sensitive research and [00:44:30] development center in China or an individual's choice, whether to download TikTok. I mean, you're, you're asking companies to place this patriotism over profits and how do you get there?

And I don't think you just say, well, we adopt a rhetoric of the cold war.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I think they, it's a historical view. It was the, the rhetoric came after the provocative actions of the Soviet Union. Soviet Union was inherently expansionist. Communism is an expansionist revolutionary [00:45:00] ideology.

Anita Kellogg: And nuclear weapons pointed at us too.

Ryan Kellogg: And yeah, sure. The nuclear weapon, you had so many different provocations after World War around the Soviet Union, which really. I don't know what the culminate, I mean, definitely the, the Iron Curtain, the loss of China, the explosion of the fact that Soviets then had the nuclear weapon, the Korean War. You had all of these, these actions kind of [00:45:30] supporting this.

Expansionist threat to the U. S. and its democratic allies. And you don't have anything that quite reaches that existential threat. That moment hasn't happened yet. And trying to provoke a reaction just through words. Right. I don't think can be effective, but you, I understand the sentiment and not wanting to have it to get there where you have a [00:46:00] Sputnik moment where China accomplishes something that is just technologically beyond the capacities of the United States or China could easily just push through Russian victory by directly supplying it with unlimited arms.

Anita Kellogg: Right.

Ryan Kellogg: It's not doing that.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah.

Ryan Kellogg: If it was doing that, then yeah, I totally get, we're in a cold war. Right. And this is existential. And then there doesn't need to be any, you can have the rhetoric, [00:46:30] sure. But then I think people naturally will see it for what it is. But you haven't reached that point. I get wanting to have all the benefits and the unification within the country without reaching that point.

Because that's how you best prevent that point from ever happening. But it's a chicken and egg sort of thing. I don't, yeah.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. I think you're exactly right. If China really was engaging in a cold war against the United States, then yeah, it would be supplying Russia with weapons.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, that's what, that's what the Soviet Union [00:47:00] did to North Korea.

It, Russian, Soviet pilots regularly flew to at least a limited extent in support at the beginning of, of that war. And, and then obviously, I mean, China fully intervened together with, with Soviet support in terms of equipment in the Korean War. So you had all of these things that helped establish what we think of as the Cold War and Cold War rhetoric, particularly in the 1950s.

Anita Kellogg: And so I don't, I disagree with some of their premise that China is going [00:47:30] all out in this cold war and the U. S. is being like a wimp and just thinking of managed competition and to look at actual Chinese actions and there, I think China is trying to avoid a direct confrontation and. Their economic, their economics is entwined with us as well.

It's just, it's not just one way. So I think some of the suggestions I, I do agree with, and I think we have to maybe have more controls on transfer of technology in certain areas. [00:48:00] But I think we should, like I said, there's one study that for this critical industries and economic competitiveness identified, like, 50 percent of all goods that are being traded with China.

I think to have such a broad definition is way too high. So I think we have to find what the scope is that we want. Anyway, as I said before, it was a very provocative article and had some interesting ideas in it. And I think it's part of the national conversation. [00:48:30] So also, while they were passing the TikTok ban, Congress passed a 95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Tehran.

So 61 billion of that is dedicated to Ukraine. And do you want to go into more detail?

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, so this was a really remarkable turnaround to where we were even from the last episode. In March, where it seemed like a package was stalled out, they're looking for alternative ways of trying to [00:49:00] get this to the floor.

But really what it seemed to come down to is a dramatic change in heart and, you know, maybe a little bit of a change in the political calculus for the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. So, There have been a number of different articles kind of focused on how did this change so dramatically because if we recall back in October after Mike Johnson's a representative from Louisiana, frankly, a [00:49:30] backbencher that nobody knew about.

It was kind of the compromise between the hard right and the establishment Republicans to take over the speakership and in late October, and he essentially came in vowing he was not going to bring the Ukraine aid to a four vote without Republicans demands on border security being met. That's what he came in with, but then what he's left with is this focus on.

And here's a quote, [00:50:00] history judges us for what we do. This is a critical time right now. I could make a selfish decision and do something that's different, but I'm doing here what I believe to be the right thing. I think providing lethal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important. So how did he come about to this process?

It was really a focus of a bunch of different things people cited. The intelligence briefings that he received in the Oval Office at the CIA and with the DOD, basically saying [00:50:30] that as we've seen with a number of different reports leading up to this vote, Ukraine is in a very, very desperate situation in terms of running out.

And ammunition essentially being outgunned from an artillery perspective of 17 to one. And the Russians have been making steady advancements on, on the Eastern front. So it was kind of the focus on that, the focus that Putin, if he is victorious within the Ukraine would easily turn his attention towards [00:51:00] NATO countries, first in the Baltics and then potentially Poland.

And. I think some of this got through. I don't understand why this wasn't immediately evident. As soon as he was Speaker of the House, he had been getting these briefings. So I don't buy, like, how the intelligence situation, other than he let this go on so long, that the situation became so dire that everybody essentially was, was shouting at him that this truly is a [00:51:30] desperate situation.

This is not a political game. The other component, which Some people have put great emphasis on and maybe as a, as a devout evangelical. Mm-Hmm. , you know, this was a big swing, but just this appeal, the, the suffering of the Ukrainian people. There was actually an active campaign that the Financial Times detailed by Ukrainian evangelical community.

They put a, a billboard outside his Louisiana home. He had a number of meetings. with [00:52:00] persecuted Ukrainian Christian groups. All of this seemed to really appeal to his faith. He talked about getting down at one point and praying and asking for, for God's guidance. So some amount of. Maybe it was this, you know, good, good job by the Ukrainian evangelical community on meeting him where he's at and making an appeal along lines of faith, but that that seemed to make a difference.

But I think the other [00:52:30] component was just institutional pressure really began to build by design because. Don't know if we mentioned how the vote went, but these are our big majorities the House bill passed 311 to 112 And then the Senate bill passed 79 to 18 So these are very big especially for our Congress big majorities big bipartisan support.

These always existed. This always existed Yeah, and it was new that it would pass with big majorities, but it was really came [00:53:00] down to Mike Johnson then Change of heart and preventing this from reaching the floor. So you had the passage of the Senate bill back in March, and that definitely put pressure on the fact that he's getting pressure, even though Mitch McConnell's and in a weekend political state for sure that.

Being in the Oval Office, essentially having every other major leader within the legislative and executive branch putting pressure on you begins to have a toll. Swing [00:53:30] District Republicans want to support this bill, so they were essentially advocating and saying that if you don't bring this to the floor, that we'll support the Democrats efforts with the discharge petition, which we talked about previously as a way to circumvent.

You know, the, the speaker's ability and what goes on and off the floor. And then I think critically, he was able to get, go down to Mar a Lago. This is after all of these meetings and went down April 12th and essentially got Trump's acquiescence, not [00:54:00] necessarily like his support, but essentially that he wouldn't make a big deal out of it.

So I think all of these things combined help to, to get it through. And even though you still had a very hard right. And men did mention 112 Republicans voted against this bill. Definitely Marjorie Taylor green made kind of a big show out of it was threatening Mike Johnson. We'll see if that goes anywhere.

It's not clear that that will, but part of the deal is also the Democrats would support Mike Johnson's [00:54:30] speakership in that case. So it was really just a, an extraordinary turnaround. It kind of goes back to the quote, which I've just found out is not actually tied to Churchill, but the quote that Americans will do the right thing after every other option is exhausted.

This doesn't come from Churchill, I found out recently. I thought that was Churchill. It's still good. It's a good sentiment because essentially we did. This is the absolute last minute that we could [00:55:00] pass this aid. So, so yeah, I don't know. Did you, did you have any thoughts? Are you surprised by it and how quickly it kind of came together?

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I was definitely surprised because I'd felt so much disillusionment about it and after it not going through sort of the end of the year or the beginning of the year. And it did seem to shift very suddenly, but it's something that was just really welcome and a relief. And, but it was interesting because I was hanging out, [00:55:30] everybody in my group is, even though the school of the mix of military and civil, the civil agencies, people with 15 to 20 years in the career, but in energy, it was all military.

It's all military, except for me on the strip. I'm the deputy. And so the person who's actually leading the class this year, Tim Wyatt. He influenced me some too, cause he's like, okay, well, the aid is good. It's an important step, but like what, we don't have a strategy. What is, what does it mean for Ukraine to [00:56:00] win if we just give them money, but no strategy, maybe we prevent some of these losses, but, But what does that mean?

Are we just contributing to a stalemate or do we actually have a plan where Ukraine can win? Yeah,

Ryan Kellogg: no, I think that's that's a great sentiment. That's actually I think one of the good things compared to the senate bill that the house did negotiate was now Within 45 days, we have to produce a strategy of what, what exactly [00:56:30] are these funds meant to accomplish?

And I think that really is an open question. I think really what this does is it, it stanches the, the bleeding and helps prevent the coming because everybody is expecting beginning within the next month or two, a Russian offensive. I think the consensus is. The aid's going to arrive just in the nick of time.

So what you're most likely going to see, as you saw with the Ukrainian [00:57:00] counteroffensive, the Russian offensive back last summer is that it's going to peter out, they'll come at great manpower loss to, to Russia. But essentially, it's not going to accomplish what its goals are, which is to push on the Eastern Front, to retake all of the challenge provinces that they essentially annexed in the Donbass region, to retake Kharkiv, which is the major city in the east, and in the south to take Odessa, which would be a devastating loss because of the loss [00:57:30] of port access and Ukraine's ability, essentially, To block out the Black Sea fleet and keep wheat shipments going through, through the Black Sea.

So I think you, you prevent that disastrous situation that everybody was, was saying was possible now, just because they don't have the ammunition, don't have the air defense to defend their system. But yeah, in terms of what can Ukraine actually reasonably accomplish and what does, does victory [00:58:00] look like?

And I think the other main component. That is being emphasized as the manpower Ukraine at a certain point they're struggling with with recruiting now they went from having too many people like volunteer at the beginning of the war for them to integrate effectively to They lowered, which I was surprised by, I was surprised by how different this is from the U.

S., but their draft age, they just now lowered from [00:58:30] 27 to 25. The average age of the person on the front lines is 43. That's nuts. Which is crazy, it's like somebody our age, that's the average age. That's nuts. And the fact that, It doesn't go down to 18. You don't have

Anita Kellogg: because it's kind of opposite our military.

We want to be primarily young

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah

Anita Kellogg: and that's why usually like after 20 years people retire because They don't have any further path to promotions and if you're not promoted you're encouraged to retire essentially after [00:59:00] 20 years So, I mean, it's incredibly shocking to hear the average age is 43 and that the draft doesn't go to 18.

I think this is different than almost any conflict, different than war two. I mean, from my knowledge of military battles, this is.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, so in there and they're reluctant to make any additional changes just because politically It's not feasible. And then My understanding from the [00:59:30] articles i've read is that because ukraine has an eye on eu membership That they want to be careful in terms of how strict they do like and because you have a lot of draft dodgers now So people that are either Fleeing the country, which over 650, 000 military age men have left Ukraine, which was illegal, that was the beginning of the war, they said that, that you cannot leave the country.

So you have a huge population that's abroad. And then you have a, their enforcement, it's essentially kind of at [01:00:00] metro stations and things that they do checks, but they're not going to people's houses and they had a bill in front of their parliament that would actually seize assets. So seize property or seize bank accounts of people who dodged the draft, and they weren't willing to pass that either because essentially it would be in violation of EU human rights.

So I don't know, it is sort of like you're, you're facing an autocratic. Enemy who basically pulls [01:00:30] prisoners and one

Anita Kellogg: has a large country and a gigantic

Ryan Kellogg: country that can pull from a big pool of people that is also has little value to human lives is willing to sacrifice those people. And full frontal assaults against a country that really is, you know, in a lot of ways, especially it seems like around this embracing EU values, which may not even be realistic for a country that's facing existential [01:01:00] threat to this extent.

But it is all of it is kind of raising this question of guys are on the front line. For a tremendous amount of time. They're not getting the relief they're facing waves of a renewed Russian army that essentially is larger now than it was at the beginning of the war. They've been able to, maybe the capacity or capability of the army isn't fully installed and how well trained these new troops are, but nonetheless, they've been able to take very heavy losses, 300, [01:01:30] 000 plus casualties, and they're just able to fill.

Yeah. And we talked

Anita Kellogg: about how the Ukrainian front line people are, you know, have like two weeks of training or something like that. So yeah. And just being there and being seen the ammunition just 17 to one and you're on that front line. I mean, he wants to be there.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And that's, that's, what's hurting to recruitment and the hope is that, well, at least for another year, cause that's essentially what the 61 billion does is it supplies them with artillery and the munitions and air defense equipment for [01:02:00] another year of combat.

But that's it. And then there's still the open question of, well, if the new Trump administration comes in, you have a new Congress,

Anita Kellogg: is there any

Ryan Kellogg: support left then for it?

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. I mean, so the problem with this stalemate, a war of attrition has always been Russian population versus the Ukrainian population.

And if we don't have a strategy to actually win, Ukraine's in big trouble. [01:02:30]

Ryan Kellogg: Yes. I think that's, what is it we, we want to accomplish? I don't think, I think Ukraine, if it's supplied, I think it can probably, from what I read, manage it's, it's manpower and they need to get a little tougher in terms of it's, it's draft age and, and kind of who serves, but maybe it becomes easier if they're well supplied and equipped.

The other thing is economists detailed and buying them time. If you can, again, you need to have the time to train. Get them off of the front [01:03:00] lines and train these troops. If you can have the combined arms training, which is necessary in order to exploit like small breaches in the front line. That's the only way that Ukraine on its terms can.

Possibly envision victory because in a war of attrition. Yeah, you're right. There's at most you can eventually negotiate where the lines are at now and in a cold war. And maybe maybe that's the best that they can do. But, yeah, it has to [01:03:30] be it'll be interesting to see what the US articulates under this current administration.

And maybe that can set the guidepost for what can realistically be accomplished.

Anita Kellogg: I hope they come up with something. I mean, otherwise Russia is like, well, let's wait out the year and see what happens.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I mean, it's the EU is stepping up. The artillery capacity is increasing. We'll be about enough to match Russian capacity.

There's a lot of stuff saying, [01:04:00] well, we're Russia's reached its maximum capacity. I'm not convinced of that, but yeah, they, you have to have us support. Oh,

Anita Kellogg: unquestionably. I mean, and it has, I think the uncertainty of future support, I think there's been a real damage and that it took so long to get a bill passed and how long US support will be, I think definitely affects like Putin's plans and the war effort altogether.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. So I'd say the one thing wrapping up [01:04:30] on this, this topic and it goes back to former podcast guest. Yeah. Alexander Venman, and I think the more time passes, I think the more that he's proven right in terms of the arguments that he made about getting them the advanced weapon systems early in the conflict that that was the critical mistake.

And a lot of the articles. There was an interview anonymously with a Ukrainian high ranking officer, and essentially the Russians have been [01:05:00] very adept. So as soon as a new weapon system is introduced, Ukrainians will have an advantage that Russians can't adapt to, and they can make, like, major gains, like in the offensives in late 2022.

But they never have, like, enough of these weapon systems. And you remember there was this huge debate on the F 16s. F 16s now, essentially, They'll eventually are going to come online this summer, like a handful of them, 20. But this, the Russians have already adopted [01:05:30] and they've seen them testing their air defense systems and moving these in place essentially to neutralize the impact of the F 16s.

So it's the, it's this, the, the long delay and the reluctance to provide.

Anita Kellogg: I mean, I hate to say I was wrong, but I agree. So I remember normally you have a lot of, well, I did have a lot of jet lag when you're traveling from the U S to [01:06:00] Europe, you know, it's never sleep on the planes. You're traveling overnight, but I found it really hard to go to sleep that night. We got in Norway because I turned on the TV, To the one English news station, which was Sky News, which irritated the heck out of me because that's like the European box.

I do not know why they didn't have the BBC. But anyway, because that was the night that Iran had sent those missiles to Israel, [01:06:30] responding to the Israel strike on a Iranian embassy in Syria, which is considered national territory. So seeing that happen and wondering, was this going, how. You know, Israel is going to respond and was this going to lead to a broader war definitely kept me up at night.

So maybe you want to get into the details of that as well.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, so it was, I mean, it all played out over this last month, [01:07:00] beginning with that April 1st strike that you mentioned on the Iranian compound in Syria. Iran. Responded essentially a week later with that launch of 300 missiles and drones at Israel.

I think the immediate thing I thought was after the death of, was it Soleimani, the general in Iran during the Trump administration, and the fact that Either Iran either through [01:07:30] incompetence or my interpretation is on purpose. Essentially, it's when it attacked the U. S. base in Iraq, that it purposely, like, scaled back the attack.

That it fell short of, like, directly hitting the compound. You still had a number of soldiers that had, you know, had concussions and pretty serious injuries, but no, no casualties as a result. This reminded me a lot of it. I've seen it framed like both ways of, Oh, this is just how ineffective empathetic Iran is and how [01:08:00] amazing the iron dome.

And well, I mean, the fact that it was the U S ended up shooting down the vast majority of these munitions, which I think is encouraging. To see that you can intercept it, because 300 missiles and drones is quite a large number of targets to track and, and, and knock down. But that, that action alone, the fact that it didn't do any damage, that seemed de escalatory alone.

So then there was this concern on, how is Israel going to respond? The U. S. was pushing very hard against Any [01:08:30] sort of response because it did no damage. It was completely ineffective, but Israel did respond on April 19th. And that was the night that I kind of stood up where stayed up a little because it happened late at night.

There was no broadcast news yet on it. Just ABC was covering some of it. And it was just like X or Twitter. And that used to be like the go to news source. I mean, you get like legitimate Stuff, but now it's just like absolute garbage and propaganda and just [01:09:00] speculation and then you It's good, it was good for breaking news, but now it was basically just kind of a combination of Pro Hamas sort of propaganda and just like pro Israel This is the start of World War three sort of stuff as well.

So there's no clear indication yet Of that Israel while they did launch these strikes that they were very limited and they were meant just to [01:09:30] also kind of in a deescalatory sort of way.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I think by that point, because Israel had had meant to respond within 2 days reporting went and the fact that they were dissuade from.

And because I was watching the BBC, the UK was also putting heavily pressure on them to have all this international pressure to delay it by so many days. By then, I was pretty sure it was going to be de escalatory, that it wasn't going to be this major strike. Because it would take, [01:10:00] why would you wait so long if you were not?

Really kind of giving into pressure by the United States and making some sort of token response.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I didn't. Well, I think the thing that struck me was the fact that they struck the city of Ishfahan and that's where The major nuclear facilities of Iran are located at the beginning of it. It wasn't clear that these facilities were not struck.

So when you heard that targets are being struck [01:10:30] in this city, they were emphasizing the nuclear weapons research. If they had indeed targeted that that essentially would be a full act of war and around would be forced to respond because I mean, you're striking there. Their only hope of like long term regime security is to get a nuclear weapon.

So you strike in the heart of that, which Israel is intended to do. And we always saw as like the cause for, well, when the Iran war starts, it's going to be because Israel is striking these nuclear facilities. They [01:11:00] did not do that. They sent the message that they struck the air base around it, specifically the air defense network, and they were able to do it without penetrating having Risk Israeli pilots and knocked out this air defense system.

And it was basically to send the message of, we can strike you willingly at the core of your strategic importance. So I think it's still sent the message, but it was still deescalatory enough. And Iran, again, showing that they have no interest in [01:11:30] going to war with Israel and with the United States immediately downplayed it.

And even the economists got an exclusive showing that they subbed in another air defense system that's not compatible. It wasn't meaning that the system was operational as soon as it was knocked out, but so you could see it on satellite and it wasn't even for Western audiences, which are more sophisticated and immediately know, but more for domestic audiences to say, Israel did no damage to us and we're completely, you know, this had no effect on [01:12:00] us.

So it's just the, again. Everything is like screaming that Ron absolutely does not want war. Yeah, absolutely. That would be the end. They see that as, I think, the end of their regime. I think they know that.

Anita Kellogg: I do too. So overall, it was, I feel like a lot of people found this whole thing more encouraging than discouraging because Iran sending those clear signals that they do not want war.

So there's a lot going on in [01:12:30] Gaza. This has already been a pretty long episode. So I thought maybe we would go to the campus protests and kind of end on there. This past week has seen protests on campuses completely explode. One of the first incidents of this was a hundred arrests at Columbia University on April 18th, but they've been spreading to campuses all over the country where you've seen a lot of arrests of mostly peaceful protesters.

And so this [01:13:00] has, I think. In my opinion, helped spread these protests to different campuses because they're so outraged by what's happening and campuses are cracking down very early. You mentioned, and I read an article about how UT Austin, the campus was met almost immediately with overwhelming protests.

Police presence and 57 arrests. I mean, the importance of this is being here's a totally peaceful, no, no issue had come up at all. [01:13:30] They barely had time to organize a protest and they already called the police on them. So I follow a lot of academics on Twitter and people are pretty outraged at what's going on going around.

There was this. tape of this Emory professor seeing kind of a violent arrest of one of the students protesting and asked like, what are you doing? And then herself was thrown to the ground by the police and arrested. So faculty [01:14:00] are definitely being affected by this. And so you have a lot of academics going like, we're supposed to be able to be this liberal institution and allow peaceful protest.

And what kind of message are we signaling by? Quickly arresting students and faculty by this harsh crackdown. And so there's a lot of debate happening on campuses among academics. And then you talk about like, so you can go into more detail about how Republicans are using this, this [01:14:30] issue.

Ryan Kellogg: Yes, I think that's, I mean, New York Times had an excellent article explaining why have these protests spread so quickly and why does it seem to be a U.

S. only phenomenon, because you're not seeing, you're seeing maybe some limited, um, On foreign campuses, but you're after the beginning of the conflict. You're not seeing these mass protests in support of a Palestine or Gaza.

Anita Kellogg: I forgot to mention what they're actually calling for. So, right. [01:15:00] So what they're asking for is for, um.

Universities to be more transparent and the investments that they're making and divest from companies that are seen supportive of Israel or contributing to the conflict. The interesting thing to note about this is this is the identical to the demands that were being made about apartheid with. South Africa, right?

Right. That were eventually effective.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, we're effective because there was nothing really [01:15:30] controversial particularly on campus. I think what Republicans have succeeded in doing, they began this with the hearings in December when they famously brought forth the presidents from Harvard, Penn, and I think one other Ivy League institution, maybe Yale and kind of ritualistically humiliated them basically because these presidents were too, I think, Enmeshed in academia and its unique culture and weren't capable of handling a outside public audience in terms of [01:16:00] how they approach questions.

So they were absolutely skewered. Two of them lost their jobs. Eventually the Columbia president where these protests began was brought forth before Congress again about the complaints of antisemitism on campus. And to be honest. I don't think this is the majority of the protests, and it's definitely not the protests that are largely now in response to the crackdown and the arrests that are occurring.

But you do have a radical element within this [01:16:30] protest movement that calls for the end of the state of Israel completely. It's not advocating for a two state solution. It's not advocating. It's just for humanitarian, for God, it's for the end of the state of Israel. Republicans have kind of picked up on that, that sentiment.

Anyway, they, they called before the Columbia president, I think a day or a week before the arrest that occurred. And obviously, having seen what the example that they made and the reaction from other Ivy [01:17:00] League universities, the Ivy League president, Shafik immediately ordered after getting back from Washington, ordered police on the campus where they made the hundred arrest.

And that's really what, what led to this wave of reaction is because you're in the center of the media establishment in New York. So it's getting massive coverage. You have a large Jewish population. Attending campus on [01:17:30] Columbia, but it was yeah, the fact that this this crackdown was so harsh and it seemed like Republicans in Congress are very effective that they have complete control and they can put pressure on these universities and crackdowns.

And now I think it's a competition, particularly within red states to see who can be the toughest on these liberal campuses and make an example of them. Because that's definitely A big part of the culture war is the out of control Marxist institutions on these campuses. And if Republican governors [01:18:00] can be shown to crack down like they did at the UT campus Then that's major bonus points for them.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, and I think some things to note too about how They aren't for the most part occupying buildings for the most part. These are completely peaceful Yeah, these

Ryan Kellogg: are nowhere near in their vox did a comparison against The Vietnam protest. Vietnam protest. Yeah, they occupied buildings. They violently engaged and attacked police [01:18:30] officers.

It was much more intrusive and disrupting of the university environment than what these protesters are doing. So

Anita Kellogg: I think that's really important to note. And thank you. The more disruptive elements I understand, like coming from outside the university. So a lot of the more violent rhetoric has come from groups that are not students.

And I understand then wanting to maybe arrest them and get them out. And so there were some reports that [01:19:00] if you could show, like, at least in one case, if you could show your student ID, then they would let you go. Or not arrest you. But in other cases, you had students being withdrawn from classes, being kicked out of the university, faculty being threatened with their jobs.

And I think going that far for peaceful protesters is a real problem.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it seems like a major erosion of First Amendment rights [01:19:30] on campus. And it honestly, it's, it's. It all stems from administrators are running scared now. Mm hmm. They're afraid of Donors, which really was what led to the, the president's being fired.

It wasn't just like the humiliation in front of Congress that did not help the public sentiment, but it was also, you had enough influential financial backers. They were like, this isn't, you shouldn't tolerate this. And so now administrators want, it's better to overreact [01:20:00] than to underreact for job security.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. So it's a huge problem. You can say what you want about young people, but they're not, As burdened by just seeing things that never change, and they do want to participate in change, and if they are willing to do that peacefully, I mean, you know, been involved in a couple of peaceful protests. I mean, as long as they're completely peaceful, then I think you.

We need an outlet for people to be able to protest what they see are [01:20:30] wrong things in policies and wanting to change policies and essentially make change.

Ryan Kellogg: Yes, I think this is a major overreaction. I mean, Jewish students definitely have the right to feel safe on campus. And I think certain rhetoric. That is true.

Anti Semitic shouldn't be tolerated. But my understanding is that is the minority of of the protesters on campus. And maybe, like you say, like the university I. D. And things like that will help crack down. But just these [01:21:00] mass arrest and breaking up encampments and

Anita Kellogg: and a lot of these protests have Israel's Jewish,

Ryan Kellogg: Israeli, yeah, Jewish supporters.

Because there's a

Anita Kellogg: lot of them that also do not support this. We talked about within Israeli

Ryan Kellogg: society. It's definitely a major split and there's a lot to criticize about the Netanyahu administration a lot.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. So I think those elements have to be noticed too. And I [01:21:30] definitely support the peaceful protest.

I understand that some elements have to be cracked down on, but I think the majority of these do not have those elements. And we should be critical of suppressing this for First Amendment rights.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah, so be interesting to see where it goes. If it continues to grow on a lot of campuses, there's only maybe like 3 weeks left before the end of the spring semester and graduation.

I know a lot of [01:22:00] graduation surveys potentially could be disrupted. Maybe the crackdowns part to prevent any of that happening. Because that's something that would piss off donors

Anita Kellogg: when university in California, Humboldt University did close down campus for the rest of the year.

Ryan Kellogg: Oh, okay.

Anita Kellogg: But that has more extreme protests.

They occupied like two buildings still, but that was one of the more extreme cases. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think this has been pretty jam packed.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, we cover a lot of good [01:22:30] stuff. There's a lot of ground to cover.

Anita Kellogg: And I think this brings us to the end of this episode of Kellogg's Global Politics. You can visit our website at www.

kelloggsglobalpolitics. com and follow us on Twitter slash X at Global Kellogg or me, AR Kellogg.

Ryan Kellogg: You can reach us by email. So need at Kellogg's global politics. com and myself, Ryan at Kellogg's global politics. com as always, please see the show notes for all the articles we [01:23:00] discussed in this episode.

And if you like the show, please take the time, tell your friends, share it on your social sites. It's a simple, quick, and free way to support the show.

Anita Kellogg: Thanks, everyone. [01:23:30] Thanks.

Kellogg's Global Politics

Is TikTok Dead? Ukraine Aide and Iran-Israel Exchange Blows

Listen to this podcast on