Carolyn Quinn
[Pause] Hello, everyone. Welcome to this lovely discussion, and really nice to see a good turnout in the audience, and we have got people joining us online, as well, as you know, who are watching this as we livestream. Welcome to the audience here and also, to those joining us virtually, as we discuss US foreign policy under a new Congress, and of course, with a number of pressing international issues.
Last year’s State of the Union Address by President Biden, of course, was days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and he used that speech to outline Washington’s response to it. This time, of course, President Biden will be preparing to make his first State of the Union Address since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, but Ukraine, of course, remains uppermost in the administration’s mind.
Now, we’re going to be talking about Ukraine, about Biden, about Trump, hopefully move on to China and Iran, during this discussion, but let me first of all introduce the panel here with me. I’m sure you know them all, they all have long and distinguished biographies. Lord Kim Darroch is here, he was British Ambassador to the United States from 2016 to 2019. Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator for the Financial Times, and Dr Leslie Vinjamuri, who is Director of the US and the Americas Programme here at Chatham House.
So, welcome to the panel, first of all, and I’d like to make the most of our time together, because we’ve got an hour together, but let’s start with that most pressing of foreign policy priorities at the moment, which is Ukraine. Congress, as I said, divided now, preoccupied of late, tensions really remaining and President Biden no longer has single party control. So, Kim Darroch, if I could start with you, how do you feel that the US administration has handled the Ukraine issue so far? I mean, we’re coming up to the one-year anniversary. Do you think there might be a change of approach, given that Biden no longer enjoys single-party control of Congress?
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
Carolyn, I’m not a, kind of, unqualified enthusiast for Biden foreign policy. I think, for example, that the withdrawal from Afghanistan was both a strategic mistake and was badly handled, but I think on Ukraine, he’s done okay, probably better than okay. He called out the Russian invasion plans before that happened, which helped, I think, to mobilise public and government opinion across the West. There will have been some difficult discussions inside the US Government about the intelligence material that was used for that, but I think it was the right thing to do. He has played his role in keeping NATO together.
US military support for Ukraine, which I think is somewhere around $27 billion to date, is far, far greater than anyone else. I think we’re next in line at about four billion, so they’ve provided the bulk of support, which has been an absolutely central factor in the Ukrainian military – comparative military success to date, over 2022. And, you know, I think that as of now, it looks as if he’s – there is a reasonable amount of unity around the West and with NATO, and that support has been crucial to Ukraine being where it is, and alongside all of this, we’ve avoided NATO direct conflict with Russia so far. We’ve avoided World War Three, so, overall, I think he’s done, you know, better than okay.
As for whether it’s going to be more difficult in 2023, it is, for a number of reasons. I think the lack of – I mean, Democrats having lost the House is part of it, but it’s also going to get more difficult in 2023 because if the Ukrainians are going to achieve their objective of actually driving the Russians out of the country, the support that they’ve been given by the West in 2022 is going to need to be increased, and need more. It’s much harder and more expensive to fight an offensive campaign than a defensive one, and the Russians are reinforcing and they’re digging lots of trenches, and, you know, they’re digging in, and it’s just going to be more difficult and more expensive.
And there will be pressures in the West for, you know, a deal to be done, any deal, just because combination of the cost to the Ukrainian refugees, the cost of supplying the Ukrainian military, and high food and oil prices will just make people think we can’t put up with this for much longer. And, you know, the chances are it’s going to run at least through 2023 and maybe beyond, on present trajectory, so it’s going to get harder.
Carolyn Quinn
Gideon, do you think the American public will wear continued funding of the war effort if it is going to go on for this extended period?
Gideon Rachman
Well, I think probably, but you can’t be certain about it. I mean, forgive me if I just give you some poll numbers, ‘cause they’re more accurate than anything I would like to say. So, at the moment, you’ve got 65% supports the continued military aid, 66% of continued economic support, so that sounds pretty solid, and 40% say continue support at the current level, as opposed to 29% curtail, so that’s not too bad. This is the Chicago…
Carolyn Quinn
So he’s got it so far then, he’s got the support so far.
Gideon Rachman
…Council on Foreign Relations poll, which was last month, so it’s a – relatively, you know, recent. I think the one thing that is possibly concerning for them is that support varies depending on whether they think the Ukrainians are winning. So, as long as people think there’s progress, they will continue to back it, but I think if you get this sense that the thing is getting bogged down, and the expense is endless and the human expense is endless, then the kind of pressures that Kim refers to may increase.
As for the change in Congress, I mean, obviously, you’ve got this, I don’t mind calling them lunatic fringe, who made such trouble for Kevin McCarthy, and a lot of them are associated with a much more hostile attitude to aiding Ukraine, some of them actually quite pro-Putin. But they’re – they are a minority, and if you look at the key committees, Repub – chaired by Republicans, pre-Mike’s chair, the Intelligence, Defense, and Foreign Affairs Committee, in fact, there are more men called Mike chairing committees than women chairing any committee. But anyway the…
Carolyn Quinn
That might be the fact of the evening, folks, for the…
Gideon Rachman
…three Mikes are all pretty hawkish, and so more inclined to go with what the Biden administration policy is than the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party. So, you know, I don’t think that the Ukrainians can be complacent about it, but I think they’ve got probably a few more months, and I think that they’re aware of the narrative. It’s quite interesting, there’s a, sort of, tension in the way the Ukrainians talk about the war. I’ve met a bunch of them recently. So, they will say, “We’re going to win,” and I think they know they need to say that for their own morale but also keep up Western support, but, simultaneously, they also have to say, “But if you don’t give us tanks, we might lose.” So, they’ve got this, sort of, dual message that they’re trying to balance.
Carolyn Quinn
And this – the backing for sending the Abrams tanks now, after the Germans said that they would only send their Leopard 2s if there was a similar commitment from the Americans, but, of course, the timeline slips a little bit as we go with that, doesn’t it?
Gideon Rachman
Yeah, and it’s interesting how reluctant the administration seem to be to do that. So, the…
Carolyn Quinn
Yeah.
Gideon Rachman
…people I know who were talking to them as little as three days before the decision was announced, said, “You know, they’re really reluctant to do this,” and I think it was, in the end, the decision by Biden saying, “If this is what it takes to keep the alliance together and to get the Germans to do it, we’ll do it.”
Carolyn Quinn
Yeah.
Gideon Rachman
But you know – and each escalation has had to be slightly dragged out of the administration, I think for understandable reasons, the fear of escalation that Kim referred to, but they’re not – I don’t think they’re completely gung-ho for just chucking anything at this conflict, that’s never been the case.
Carolyn Quinn
And, Leslie, do you think his handling of Ukraine has strengthened or weakened President Biden’s position, with elections two years away?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s super interesting and important question, and one that I think, you know, we can kind of take a snapshot of where it is now, but I would also, sort of, underscore the point that we all know all too well, which is that this is a very dynamic period in US politics, and it’s going to get more and more and more dynamic as we get closer to the primaries and then closer to a Presidential election.
I mean, one thing I would add on your numbers, Gideon, which I also looked at today, is that you’re right about the aggregate number, but it – there’s a very significant – if we believe the polling, which is, you know, as good as it gets, but still deeply flawed, as we all certainly know in the UK. The – when you break it down, there is a big divide between Republicans and Democrats now, and 52% of Republicans polled in that same poll opposed more aid being given to Ukraine.
Now there are a number of different questions asked, but still, what we’re seeing across a few different polls is that the percentage of Republicans who support giving aid has diminished quite significantly over the last two or three months. They still are strong on sanctions, but they’re much more reluctant on aid. So, the question for me is, to go back to the Mikes, and also Mark, right? Mark – there’s a Mark – and so, the – yeah, and the Mark who runs House – Homeland Security, who was actually here two weeks ago today and spoke to us. And you do get a sense of the leadership in the House Committees that are relevant to this topic being very hawkish on Ukraine, extremely hawkish on China, but there does seem to be a gap, and this is what’s a little bit hard to understand and why it’s so dynamic. There’s a dyn – there’s a gap between what the public polls are showing us and what the leadership – the new leadership in the house are showing us.
So, Biden has done well, he certainly looks stronger because of his response to Ukraine, he’s had bipartisan support up until now. As we know, he’s passed that 45 billion, which gives him a degree of a free hand in terms of spending through this current calendar year, but it’s going to get very difficult and the fractures are now going to show domestically, the politics are going to get phenomenally intense in the United States. And it seems likely that Ukraine, the domestic debate over Ukraine, will get pulled into that, and that this will certainly affect President Biden, whose approval ratings are still relatively low, I think at around 44% right now.
Carolyn Quinn
I wonder about the State of the Union, because that is often seen as the kickstart to the next Presidential campaign, and it certainly will be the start of the season for him. How do you think he will approach that and do you think he will be stressing the sorts of things that you’ve just been talking about, the commitment, the funding, the need for a coalition, or will he realise that he has to recalibrate a little bit and something more for the domestic audience, too?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I mean, if it’s about Ukraine, I think that we will see a determination, a conviction, a commitment, a, sort of, a recounting of the successes of the first year of not only US support, but very much of America’s working together with its transatlantic partners. But I really think the State of the Union is going to be deeply focused, in terms of foreign policy on China, on technology competition, on the bipartisan support that he clearly has for that, on export controls, on domestic, what I guess many of us would call industrial policy, the investment in semiconductor chips, the investment in climate, but the investment, really, on things that are designed to shore up US competitiveness. I think that’s where a lot of the – and so I, you know, I guess the shorthand is that I think that this President is going to use China – not just instrumentally, but because he deeply believes in it, China as the number one foreign policy issue to unite at home. It potentially causes more problems for unity across the transatlantic partnership.
Carolyn Quinn
Let’s talk more about China in just a moment, but, Kim, you wanted to come in on that point.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
Just to say I had the pleasure of going to three State of the Union Addresses while I was there and they’re very strange events. We Diplomats are sitting on deckchairs, you know, around the fringes of the chamber, and what you notice from where you’re sitting is that half of the audience leaps up and applauds roughly every 30 seconds, the other half sit there on their hands, looking stony-faced and occasionally shouting at the speaker. And then you look behind the President, it’s the – is the leader of the House and the Vice-President, and one is applauding, the other one is sitting on their hands, if, as in the time I was there, you had a Democrat on that platform. So, it’s very odd.
Most Presidents use them for their greatest hits, for a list of all the accomplishments in the previous 12 months, and Biden actually hasn’t had an inconsequential start. He spent a lot of money, something around $4½ trillion worth of spending bills, on healthcare, and on infrastructure and on climate change objectives. He will be able to parade what he’s achieved so far on Ukraine. And of course, midterms were, for him, a bigger – I mean, the biggest triumph for a serving President in his first term for a long time, for decades. He did much better in the midterms than Clinton did in 1990-wherever and that Obama did in 2010 and 2014, I think, whenever. But Biden, no-one really puts him as up in that category, as a Democrat President, but he will be very buoyed by those midterms, and very confident.
Now, having lost the House, getting domestic legislation through for the next two years will be almost impossible, lest there are massive concessions to the Republicans, but he has quite a lot to, as it were, to go on for his speech on what he’s achieved so far and on Ukraine. And, you know, foreign policy usually plays quite a small part in these speeches ‘cause it’s mostly about talking to the domestic audience about what are you going to deliver for them, but I think he’ll think this is a good moment for him.
Carolyn Quinn
And, Gideon, is he going to stand?
Gideon Rachman
Yeah, it looks like it. I mean, I know even his most, sort of, ardent…
Carolyn Quinn
He wants – he will stand, yeah, no doubt, no doubt.
Gideon Rachman
Yeah, I mean, he’ll be 82, but he looks like he’s standing.
Carolyn Quinn
And what about Mr Trump? The midterm elections in November were a bit of a disaster for him and his supporters. He promoted candidates, didn’t he, for the Senate and various governorships, based largely on their loyalty to his false claim that he was cheated out of victory? Do you think he is planning his comeback now? We know he wants to stand, but there are other people presumably in his way.
Gideon Rachman
Yeah, I mean, I actually take him very seriously as a candidate. I mean, I’ve learnt not to write off Trump and I think, as Kim said, the midterms were such a surprise that a lot of people said it’s over for him, and not all his candidates lost, J. D. Vance won in Ohio. And actually, if you look at the opinion polls, I know Kim could cite New Hampshire polls, where DeSantis is ahead, who’s seen as the main rival for the nomination, but there’ve been, in the last three weeks, polls by YouGov, by Emerson, and one other, all of them showing Trump well ahead of DeSantis amongst Republican voters, and now people say, “Oh, it’s very early,” you know.
But, you know, again, this brings back horrible memories. I remember being in Washington in December 2015 and Trump was way ahead of the field. He was an – you know, and everyone said, “Oh, this is a joke, this guy’s never going to win. He’s not even a Politician.” And I remember saying, “Yeah, but if this was anybody else, we would say you’d have to at least take it seriously that he’s ahead,” and indeed, you know, he won. He won the nomination, he won the presidency, so I wouldn’t write off these polls that show him well ahead to get the nomination.
And DeSantis is an untested quantity. I mean, everyone says he’s super effective, he’s popular in Florida, but we just don’t know how he’d work out nationally, he may flop. We’ve seen it happen plenty of times that candidates who are spoken up very highly in the press as very strong, don’t fly. Trump – so I think Trump has a good shot at getting the nomination, and if he gets the nomination, then he’s got a good shot of winning, because every recent Presidential election has been really, really close.
Carolyn Quinn
And, Leslie, I mean, presumably, he’s buoyed by the fact that classified documents have also been found in President Biden’s garage, alongside his car.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It is true that, again, we keep going to the polling, which is, kind of, shocking that we do, because it’s been so poor in terms of actually anticipating outcomes when it matters most, and yet, as Gideon said, it’s, sort of, the best that we have. It – the polling shows that Americans care equally about the documents that were found at the University of Pennsylvania, in Biden’s garage and other places, as they do about Donald Trump’s documents.
But I do disagree very vehemently, very strongly, in terms of my estimation of where Donald Trump’s future is likely to turn out. It’s certainly possible that he ends up with the nomination if Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence and Chris Sununu, and, you know, a number – and obviously DeSantis and others, all turn out as candidates and divide the field, then maybe we end up with Donald Trump. But I see a man whose steam is coming out of his support, who, if he actually got to a general election, would fail and would not be re-elected, because I don’t think the next Presidential election can be compared to the past one for the simple reason that now Americans know a lot more that – about Donald Trump, and have experienced January 6th. And I don’t think you should discount January 6th or the impact of the in – of the hearings and that committee.
And so, I think that we would see a very different outcome than we would see, you know, were it to be a Trump and Biden than we had seen back in 2016. So, I think that the likelihood of ending up with Trump as President, for so many reasons, in my estimation, is extremely small, but the primaries are going to be very, very complicated, ‘cause it’s not clear who emerges.
Carolyn Quinn
Thank you, and Kim?
Gideon Rachman
That’s point one, and what I think is certainly true is that Biden would prefer to run against Trump than any other Republican. He’s – you know, it’s a, kind of, Faustian bargain, because, of course, the consequences if he loses to Trump are pretty appalling. But I think – all I think is that, yeah, as you say, a divided field, Trump can get the nomination and any Presidential election is close, and, you know – so, I wouldn’t write him off.
Carolyn Quinn
And what – yeah, just…
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
Just very quickly. So, first of all, I mean, there are so many classified documents, apparently now, littered around America, whether in Trump’s hotel, or in Biden’s garage, or now, it seems, in Mike Pence’s house, it’s a wonder there are any left to the White House, frankly.
Gideon Rachman
Do you have any?
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
But – probably. So, I’m a kind of, pathway between Gideon and Leslie on Trump, because I very much share Gideon’s view, you cannot write this guy off. So many times he was written off, including during the 2016 campaign, including after the famous tapes appeared, and people – he was being told by his staff, “Just give up, you know, you’re finished now,” and he still came through. And it’s right, there are some opinion polls that show DeSantis ahead, there are opinion polls showing Trump ahead, but you can’t write off.
But, last point, I promise, he’s a three-time loser. He won in 2016, but he did badly in the 2018 midterms, when he lost the House of Representatives, he lost the 2020 election, though he denounced that, and his candidates, with the exception of J. D. Vance, did really badly in 2022. So, if you’re a Repub – a thoughtful Republican, you should think, there’s a track record here which doesn’t look good for us.
Carolyn Quinn
Okay. I do want to move on to your point…
Gideon Rachman
Sorry, that reminds me…
Carolyn Quinn
…about China.
Gideon Rachman
…of the Adlai Stevenson joke, when he said – somebody said, “You have the backing of all thinking Americans,” and he said, “That’s not enough, I need a majority.”
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
You certainly do.
Carolyn Quinn
Before – look, before we move on to China, Leslie, just a quick one. We’re talking now as if it is going to be President Biden versus question mark. What if it isn’t Biden?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I mean, it’s – it is…
Carolyn Quinn
It’s possible.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s certainly – it’s possible for any number of reasons, right? Any one of us might not be here in two years’ time, God forbid, but there – you know, there are any number of reasons why things will change. It’s a high – and this is the thing why – you know, it’s such a hard thing to predict where we’ll be in two years. It is dynamic politics or dynamic people are going to be influencing, using the media, doing any number of things, and there will be events and we don’t know what the events are.
So, you know, Trump might not come anywhere close to getting the nomination or he might pull out, and for any number of reasons, Biden, you know, might not be, although it certainly looks right now like he will be, and so then there is a big question mark. And I know I – it is the, sort of, $100 million question, who would the Democratic candidate be if it wasn’t Trump? And I guess it looks like right now, today, it would be Buttigieg or Gretchen Whitmer, but who knows? And if I had to be – put money on whether America will – and I, you know, I hate to say this on the record, and I don’t know – you know, who knows? This is like looking in a fishbowl. I – if it was going to be Buttigieg or Gretchen Whitmer, I would anticipate the former, because I think it’s a long time before Americans are really going to be ready to elect a female President, but politics are dynamic, and any number of things could turn out.
Carolyn Quinn
Can we pivot now to China? And you mentioned it as the – probably the most pressing, longer term strategic issue, Leslie. I don’t know if you saw, this weekend, reports that a Senior Airforce General, General Mike Minihan, predicted that the US and China will probably go to war in 2025 over Taiwan. General Mike Minihan said that “The two military powers were likely to end up at war because of a series of circumstances that would embolden the Chinese President, including America being distracted by the 2024 Presidential election.” Anyone on the panel want to say, however doom-laden that seems, that they agree with Mike Minihan?
Gideon Rachman
You know, it reminds me that the last time I was in Washington and I went to see people, you know, in the White House, and as I was leaving, I said to one of the high-ups, you know, that somebody in the Navy had said something very similar. You know, “Did you see Admiral X said there’s going to be a war over Taiwan?” and the guy I was talking to said, “Did he say that? The military say a lot of crazy things.” You know, so they, kind of, were playing it down, but it’s not the first time that people have made this prediction, and it – and, you know, talking to other people in this world, you know, just this morning, yeah, I mean, nobody can be sure, but there is concern about 2024/2025, the combination of a Presidential election in America, als…
Carolyn Quinn
Taking your eye off the ball.
Gideon Rachman
Yeah, and also the Presidential election in Taiwan, because Tsai Ing-wen is relatively restrained, actually, and the candidates who are coming up, somebody said to me that, you know, “They all see themselves as Zelenskyy. They’re going to be more, kind of, independence-minded and perhaps less tactful.” So – and then if Xi has a, sort of, timeline, so a lot of things could come together. But, I mean, this sounds dangerously like the kind of things people said before Putin actually did invade Ukraine, but one feels it would be such a crazy gamble for Xi, particularly a leader who prides of stability. Well, the one way he could really blow himself out of the water would be a losing war over Taiwan.
Carolyn Quinn
But, Kim, what about the longstanding policy? I mean, strategic ambiguity is supposed…
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
Yeah.
Carolyn Quinn
…to be in place, isn’t it? Washington not saying whether the US military would intervene over Taiwan.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
Yeah, that’s always been the position, until Biden became President, ‘cause I think, if I recall this correctly, the last two times he’s been asked, in press conferences or whatever, about whether would – America would intervene on the side of Taiwan militarily if China invaded, he has said more or less yes, he would.
Gideon Rachman
He’s said it four times now.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
Four times now, thank you, Gideon, and his Officials have brushed that off and said, “No, no, policy hasn’t changed,” and then he keeps saying it.
Gideon Rachman
Yeah.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
So he seems to be in a different place from, at least from the State Department, who’ve entered a brief, “No, no, no, there’s nothing new here.” So that does introduce a bit of doubt into my mind, and I can only assume Biden is doing this deliberately to introduce doubt into Chinese minds, as well.
Second point, I do think how Ukraine goes, and whether Western support for Ukraine enables them to prevail, to an extent, I don’t think they’re going to drive the Russians out of Crimea and out of every square foot, square metre of Eastern Ukraine, but something that looks close to a comprehensive victory for Ukraine, I think ought to make – should make Xi think even more carefully about how he’s going to play Taiwan. Because I think that would be a message of Western resolve that he would pay some attention to.
Carolyn Quinn
That’s interesting.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
So, I think that goes…
Carolyn Quinn
You’ve just answered one of the questions from one of our online joiners here, Michael Dunn, who asked, “Is it realistic to think that the war in Ukraine will end with Ukraine’s borders as they were in February 2022?” You’re saying probably not.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
That’s, kind of, what I think. Also, because I don’t actually think Ukraine is going to get a complete military victory in 2023, I think the pressure is on Ukraine to do a deal which accepts that Crimea stays in Russian hands and maybe it succeeds. There’ll be more and more pressure for that, not least from European countries struggling under the weight of Ukrainian refugees and under the costs of food and energy, I’m afraid. I wish it were otherwise, but that’s – that would be my prediction if I had to make one.
Carolyn Quinn
Alright. Sorry, I hopped back to Ukraine there, folks, but let me just get…
Gideon Rachman
Sorry.
Carolyn Quinn
No, no, no, it was my fault, too. Leslie, just on China, then, is there now need for a tougher, clearer line, a – some guidance on whether foreign policy is now going to be changed towards China?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I mean, I think it seems to me, just paying attention and reading and listening to those in the – who are making policy, that the line on China is getting tougher, that the, you know, the collapse of that distinction between national security and economics seems to be pretty near complete. It feels like everything is seen through the lens, ever – whether it’s investment, or technology exchange or trade, that it’s seen through the lens of the national security implications for the US and its allies and partners. That makes, you know, the likelihood of conflict stronger, and the big question is whether or not the Biden administration will be able to really double down on its ambition, which is strong, but so far, is, I think, underrealized, which is to really push for a diplomacy.
And, you know, I don’t think – my own view is that neither party wants war. I think we have two very large countries that have a huge amount invested in stability, but we could still end up there through miscalculation, misinformation, misperception, all the things that frequently cause us, as a world, to be in places that we didn’t anticipate or didn’t intend to get to. And diplomacy becomes the key mechanism for trying not to arrive in the wrong place, but right now, it feels like there isn’t enough of it.
I think the Biden administration know this very clearly. Will they – and, you know, we have some very distinguished former Diplomats on the stage that can tell us, maybe more than we would know, is it there? Are we – you know, are we, sort of – are we leading towards a direction where there’s going to be a lot more diplomacy, not only by the United States but by European partners to the United States to really build out those diplomatic relationships so that we don’t end up in a very – but – and if you just look at the – you know, at the decoupling that – what feels like what could be a radical decoupling, bigger than would potentially be wise. Hank Paulson wrote a very interesting piece in Foreign Affairs just a few days, on this, sort of, warning against taking in the decoupling too far. That feels like it could push towards some pretty heated tension, which might have some varying of public impacts.
Carolyn Quinn
Okay. Do you want to add to that?
Gideon Rachman
Yeah, I mean, I just think that the – I do think that America is in a more, sort of, radical place than the Europeans at the moment on this, and I think that the decoupling is, kind of, a bipartisan policy now. There’s a question about how far you can go and how fast, and some of this is driven by an assessment of where China is. I think the Americans, the administration has decided that China has essentially decided to displace the United States as the world’s pre-eminent power and they’re not going to allow that, particularly because China is an authoritarian country and – etc., etc.
I think that there is a slight danger for them that the politics run away with them, and the – and take them into an even more radical place. I mean, talking to people in Congress, they say, “The one thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on is bashing China, and it’s not going to stop,” as one of them put it, “because the politics is too good.” They – so they – they’re all there and that can, kind of, radicalise the way – the situation in a way that the administration may not want.
And a last thing just on Ukraine parallels, I mean, listening to what Kim was saying. I think that another thing that’s a variable is that – us trying to get into the Chinese heads, which is kind of impossible, because Xi runs that place, and in the end, it’s his decision in the way that Putin’s – it was Putin’s decision to go into Ukraine. But one variable is that they may think that, you know, America’s depleted a lot of its weaponry, actually, supplying to Ukraine, that they may not actually have the wherewithal to support…
Carolyn Quinn
Well, that…
Gideon Rachman
…as an…
Carolyn Quinn
…answers, in a way, one of our questioners here, Brogan Roberts, who says, “Is the US still capable of the two-war standard if supporting both Ukraine and Taiwan?”
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
I mean, it’s totally – sorry, just to illustrate the problems that are coming up this year in Ukraine. On one of the bigger fighting days over the – over 2022, Ukraine would use something like 5,000 artillery shells. The Russians would use about 20,000 artillery shells, by the way. US production, commercial production artillery shells, runs, I am told by military experts, at about 15,000 shells a month, so if you’re going to fight an offensive in Ukraine, you will use a lot of artillery, probably more than 5,000 shells. And unless the West is going to – because most of the stock cupboards in the West are empty now, or almost empty. So, unless we’re going to actually co-ordinate and up production, you know, double shifts, whatever, and by the way pay for it all, pay the companies and then just ship the stuff straight off to Ukraine, there’s going to be a serious shortage of what Ukraine will need to achieve its military objectives in the course of 2023, that’s just around.
Now the Russians are running short, as well, but, you know, if our objective is, as we say, Russia must be defeated in Ukraine, this sets some really difficult questions for the West, and very expensive questions about how we’re actually going to supply them with what they need to win.
Carolyn Quinn
Okay, I am going to ask some audience questions. May I just ask one quick question of the panel, though, on Iran? Because, obviously, there has been a certain amount of consensual agreement on approach to Iran in the light of those protests against the government there, in support of calls for women’s rights from protestors. Leslie, do you think that consensus can hold, or do you think the pressure’s now going to be on for taking a firmer stance on Iran, as well, in the middle of everything else?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I mean, I think taking a firmer stance on Iran is certainly something – there is certainly pressure in the US for that. I think that it feels like, right now, the chance of, you know, any sort of engagement on the nuclear deal is very, very remote. My colleague, Sanam Vakil, can tell us a whole lot about this and I recommend you to read all of her writings. And I guess the question with Republicans having more voice, if not necessarily more direct influence over policy, ‘cause they still have committee assignments but not control of all of Congress, is that that means a pressure for – much harder lying on Iran. And, you know, I think there’s always a question in the back of one’s minds as Republican voices rise, and as more influence comes to the fore, and as Iran isn’t moving in a direction that the US supports, is, does that military option become one that is debated more? And I think that’s a real concern.
Gideon Rachman
Yeah, I mean, I don’t know how it’s going to turn out, but I’ll just point out that there are a lot of different issues coming together at the same time. So, you have the whole diplomacy, JCPOA, issue, what do you do about that? You have now more consensus that Iran has the fissile material it would need to develop a bomb, although that would still take a while, plus you’ve got massive demonstrations which are not being effectively stamped out in Iran, plus you have Iran as a major military supplier to Russia, and that’s a very, kind of – a lot of, kind of, unstable elements all together. So, you know, something happened, I think, in the last couple of days, attacks on Iranian facilities, and you – there could be three or four likely suspects on that.
Carolyn Quinn
Kim, did you want to…?
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
I agree with all of that.
Carolyn Quinn
Yeah.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
I think Leslie’s…
Carolyn Quinn
Okay.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
…right that the negotiations have gone very badly recently. Don’t underestimate how annoyed the Americans are about the supply of Iranian drones and how that has – how much damage that is doing to Ukrainian infrastructure, so that’s not helped.
Carolyn Quinn
Okay, questions. Lady in the front here who has had her hand up, and I will come to a few others. Let’s just hear one question first. Could you say your name and…
Member
Of course.
Carolyn Quinn
…what – your organisation?
Member
Yeah, thank you so much. I am [inaudible – 40:10]. I am a – I am doing my PhD at King’s College for Studies Department. My question is about, I think we all agree this war is not about Russia’s needs more territories, they don’t have enough and so, they need more and more. We know it’s war, totalitarian regime and democracy. I think it’s more or less clear, and so West, it’s – I mean, societies need to realise it. My question is not about – from realist’s view, but it’s about, we know, after the Cold War, Russia was at side which lose a war, the West wins at war, yeah? When you allowed, after that, Russia grow as a totalitarian state, state which has a nuclear power, do you think it’s not a Western responsibility? Do you think what we have faced today, it’s not the West responsibility in Ukraine and do you think this war, 21st of February 2022, will be as a World War Three in the future?
Carolyn Quinn
Alright, thank you. Who would like to answer that one question?
Gideon Rachman
Kim.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
Oh.
Gideon Rachman
The Western responsibility.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
Thank you very much for that, sir. I think two things about this, quickly. Number one, there was a moment when end of the 20th century, about 1998/1999, when Russia was on its knees, when they had a chronic drunkard as their President and when the economy was collapsing, when we started to build some structures with Russia. Remember there was a thing in NATO called the NATO-Russia Council, but other things, too, and where Russia was in an extremely weak position, where with hindsight, I think we could have pushed for a new generation of those strategic arm deals that we did. Remember SALT, remember START, remember the deal on intermediate nuclear weapons in Europe, and there was also a deal on conventional forces in Europe. We could have got a new generation then, I think, where Russia might have been in such a weak position that it made some serious concessions, and built things that would have made it much, much more difficult for Russia to do what it’s done recently, so I think that was a missed opportunity back then.
Contrast that, we were far too weak in how we responded in 2008 to what the Russians did in Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, and also far too weak in 2014, when the Russians both took Crimea, they took it in a morning and there was very little military action, almost no casualties, so we, kind of, introduced sanctions, but there wasn’t the outrage that you saw in 2022. And where Russian forces were not in uniform but they were certainly in the Donbas, supporting the separatists there and we were, I think, too weak in our response at that time, as well. So, that’s a – yeah, you can add Syria and lots of other mistakes, too.
Carolyn Quinn
Thank you. Let’s move on. We’ve got another question here, this lady here and after that, could you get a mic over to the gentleman there, who’s also had his hand up for a while, and you’ll be the next question, sir. Go ahead.
Terri Paddock
Hi, my name is Terri Paddock, I’m a Chatham House member. I was tempted to ask a question about why the panel thinks so many in the American public seem unable to connect the dots between the revelations in the Mueller report, the first impeachment of Trump, and the Ukraine war, but I think Gideon already answered it in terms of his Adlai Stevenson reference.
But – so, instead, I’ll say, what does it do for the cause of democracy globally that we now have a US House of Representatives with a party in the majority of whom the members – majority of members have voted either to decertify the last Presidential election, or deny the results in other ways, and what do you think House Republicans will do come the 24 elections?
Carolyn Quinn
And who would you like to answer your question?
Terri Paddock
I think Gideon or Leslie, or whomever thinks they are best equipped to do so.
Carolyn Quinn
Go for it, one of you.
Gideon Rachman
I’ll have a crack at that one, and we’ll let Leslie do the next, but – so, I think that Biden has conceived his, kind of, historic mission, if you want to put it that way, very clearly, which is a defensive democracy at home and a defensive democracy abroad, and understands the connections between the two, and he’s laid it out very clearly in his inaugural address. And I think two years in, he’s not doing badly. That, you know, he’s – we’ve talked about the midterms and so on, and Ukraine has gone reasonably well, but it’s not over, of – you know, you can tell from my remarks on Trump, I don’t think that you can dismiss the threat.
But it’s also – yeah, I guess that’s it. I mean, I think that the anxiety you heard about the state of American democracy, verging on panic in Europe after January the 6th, and even after Afghanistan, I think that was really, kind of, a low point. You could see Biden slumping in the polls, this sense of Trump was on his way back, that subsided a little bit, because Biden has recovered a bit and Trump has his issues.
But these things are cyclical, and as you say, there are – the Republican Party has not freed itself from Trump. There’s a new, kind of, wave of the Marjorie Taylor Greene types, who are crackers, frankly, and anti-democratic, and I don’t know how, you know, how you get out of that quickly. One would hope that they have a relatively mainstream nominee and then, they – that, sort of, poison and drains away, but I wouldn’t entirely bet on it.
Carolyn Quinn
Do you want to?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Yeah, what you could add to that is, you know, over the long durée of America’s, you know, hegemony, which perhaps is over, but, you know, it was there for a very long time, US hypocrisy has been constant, as has US promotion of democracy, both symbolically and actively, and I don’t only – I mean, primarily with non-military instruments, but also, at times, with military instruments. And the cry of US hypocrisy has been very, very strong, even when the US has frequently had very significant influence in positive ways.
So, I think these things, which isn’t to in any way diminish what it means to have the most fundamental norm of democracy, a peaceful recognition of an electoral result and peaceful transition, be denied by people in positions of significant power and authority. But if you were African American in the 1950s or 1960s, you also felt like American hypocrisy, when it went before the United Nations to talk about many liberal values, was significant and robust, and if you were African in Africa, you probably had a sense of that.
So, it’s not to draw equivalents, but it – also, I always am puzzled, and I’m deeply interested in the hypocrisy question. I ask – I teach graduate students every year and I always ask them, “What matters more to you, what America does at home when it’s full of hypocrisy on the democracy question, or what America does abroad?” And I’m always surprised because they say it matters more to them what America does abroad, which maybe seems what you would expect, but they said that even through the January 6th moment, so I don’t think it’s obvious. It seems obvious, right, if things are bad at home, how – that must undercut America’s influence, but I think it’s actually very, very complex.
Carolyn Quinn
Thank you. Gentleman in the middle here, you’ve got the microphone already.
Stefan Ocurioni
I’m Stefan Ocurioni, I’m a Chatham House member. I have a question for Lord Darroch. So, I think you – I’m asking a question about the strategic interest of America, you know, why America is supporting the War in Ukraine when the main problem, the main threat, is China. So, if you support the war in Ukraine, which I don’t believe is for democracies, they’re over the control of Europe, why you are giving Russia on the hands of China? So, when they will fight for Taiwan, because they will, they cannot – they will have their – the resources of Russia, they’re much stronger. So, as America did in 1972, they’re two enemies, they played the weaker one, China, against the stronger, Russia. Why they are not doing this now?
Carolyn Quinn
Okay, thank you.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
Well, I think that what we’ve seen in Ukraine, I mean, war in Ukraine, you could argue, started back in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea, but the invasion in February 2022 was something we’ve not seen in Europe for half a century, and I don’t think you – there is any argument but that it had to be condemned and it had to be opposed. If you had let the Russians, you know, get to – just accepted what they had done and not helped Ukraine – and by the way, if we hadn’t helped Ukraine, Russia would have been in a different position by now. Who tried to negotiate? Well, I think – I don’t think Putin had any interest in negotiation, he was interested in conquest, and you know, he was interested in taking as much of Ukraine as he could, and remember, he was going for Kiev as well as the East and the rest of it. So, I don’t think there’s any option for the West but to do what we’ve done in Ukraine.
As for China, I mean, we’ll see what happens if – I’m not someone who thinks that China is poised to invade Taiwan, but, you know, relations with China are pretty tense and pretty difficult, and you know, there’s – there is quite a lot going – quite a lot of messaging from the West in terms of warning China about its policies and about what it might do in the future. Let’s see how that unfolds, but I’m not cer – I’m not despairing about China.
Carolyn Quinn
Now, who’s got the mic next? We’ve got – here we are, gentleman in the front, and then there’s two more this side and then, I’m going to move my focus over this side. So brief questions…
Nick Ryker
Okay.
Carolyn Quinn
…please.
Nick Ryker
Nick Ryker, here in a personal capacity. I think there’s two issues that starkly divide Americans in how they think and how they vote, which you haven’t really talked about across the panel, one is race and the other is religion. Now, there’s been the odd hint towards these issues, but given the extent to which they divide Americans and drive voting patterns, how significant do you think they are and do they in any way influence American foreign policy?
Carolyn Quinn
Thank you. Who…?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Gosh, those are big, important questions.
Gideon Rachman
Well, have we got another…?
Carolyn Quinn
Have we got another half hour? Can we extend this for another half an hour?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
No, no, no, I don’t mean to be dismissive. They’re really – you’ve just asked, you know, two of the biggest ques – and it’s a really – it’s oft – obviously been a tough, you know, weekend. It’s a tough period right now in the US on the race question, as I’m sure many of you know.
They do divide America. Race became that much more divisive under Donald Trump’s administration, because he used it to divide people, and there was an ongoing debate about whether people were divided because they were rich or poor, in other words, was it social class or was it identity? It was obviously both, but there’s no doubt that – in my view, that the Trump admin – that Trump had a white nationalist undertone, which was all but explicit in many of his policies. And so, the race question, you know, became significant under President Obama, it’s been there throughout the history, but it’s become more and more and more problematic and divisive and politicised, and we saw it in the summer, of the brutal and violent murder of George Floyd, which came during the moment of COVID.
So, you’re right that these things are on their table, but I guess one of the interesting things to note is that polarisation in the US suggests that these things are, kind of, lining up and they divide along, and they line up with political parties. So – and that, I – you know, that also is true in the case of religion, to an extent. I mean, right now, if you poll Americans, they used to be most worried about their child marrying somebody from another religion and they’re now more worried about their child marrying somebody from the other political party. And that might sound like it – people usually laugh – people – but people usually laugh at that, and it is – you, sort of, laugh ‘cause it’s very worrying, ‘cause that’s, you know, half of the popula – I mean, that’s a very large part of the population, but actually it’s true. I was at a dinner table with people I know well, and – that were talking about a couple that split up and it – you know, it was a significant factor. It was not a married couple, it was a before a marriage relationship.
Gideon Rachman
I mean, I think that…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But these are – you know, the dividing lines are complex, which isn’t to say that those two factors aren’t very significant, still.
Gideon Rachman
Yeah, just a quick one, I mean, but I – one of the oddities of that last election was Trump actually increased his share of Black votes in the last election and did quite well among Hispanics, and I think – yeah.
Carolyn Quinn
It’s – right, the – it’s the gentleman there, had your hand up for a long time. Thank you.
Member
Thank you very much for all your comments. We’ve seen in the polls that support for Ukraine aid is significantly lower among Republican voters than Democratic voters, as you said, yet a lot of those GOP voters seem to be increasingly hawkish regarding China. We saw Senator Josh Hawley recently introduce a nationwide TikTok ban. So, my question is, why do you think that is, and why is the Republican Party increasingly ambivalent towards more Ukraine aid, but willing to take a harder line regarding China? Thank you.
Carolyn Quinn
Who’d like to take that one then?
Member
Thank you.
Gideon Rachman
I’ll do that. So, I think that, you know, it’s interesting, John Bolton passed through the FT recently, and I mean, I don’t think he’d mind me saying I asked him about that kind of trade-off, and he’d said the number of Rep – there is a Republican position represented by Hawley and there’s a book by a guy called Elbridge Colby, which argues precisely that China’s the real enemy, forget Russia. But according to Bolton, that’s, kind of, a minority position among the Republicans, or it was two or three months ago.
I mean, the logic behind it is a combination of the things we’ve been talking about this evening, which is that China’s the main enemy, it’s the only really plausible rival to the US as a superpower, you know, as the dominant power of the 21st century, Russia declining power. Second thing is that America, they don’t believe, has the capacity to take on two major enemies at once. Then there’s also the – sort of, some of the stuff you heard over there, let’s split Russia off from China. And I think there’s, among some Republicans, some ideological sympathy with Putin, that you see that among, sort of, Tucker Carlson types, because he’s strong on the war on woke. You know, he shares their views on – or claims to on transgender issues, and that may sound like a joke, but it actually really resonates with a proportion of the Republican electorate.
But I think that, you know, coming back to that question that you raised about why are there frittering resources on opposing Russia when China’s the main enemy? I think the more mainstream view at the moment is that actually, these are linked threats. Russia and China announced a no limits partnership on February the 2nd that if Putin had rolled over Ukraine in a week, that would have put Taiwan in immense danger. And so, that there’s a kind of, joint revisionist alliance Russia-China, and that you can’t, sort of, say, “Well, we’re going to ignore one and take on the other.” They – I think that the view is that if Russia’s defeated in Ukraine, or humiliated in some way, that’s actually bad for China, not good for them.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Can I just add one quick thing to that?
Carolyn Quinn
You can. I’ve promised about three…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Okay.
Carolyn Quinn
…people now.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I’ll be super, super quick.
Carolyn Quinn
…questions, but super – very quick.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
COVID meant that American attitudes towards China worsened significantly, and Donald Trump liked Putin and he really, really doubled down on the extent to which China was taking our jobs and making us poor and had been stealing from Americans for a very long time. And those messages were resonant with many Americans and are very powerful, and I think many Americans can see that China has the ability to be an existential threat to their daily way of life. It’s a much easier message to sell, and there are good reasons for that. Then I think the – you know, the Russia’s about sovereignty and many other things, but it is…
Gideon Rachman
Yeah, it’s the economic threats, really.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…different message. The economic threat’s really important.
Carolyn Quinn
Alright, we’ve only got a few minutes left. I’m going to do that annoying thing of taking three questions at once and then each of you can answer one of them, alright? So, your que – no, your question – sorry, this gentleman with the mic, I do apologise.
Member
The West seems to be hedging bets on India, but then, India is becoming increasingly circumspect about getting caught in the great power rivalry between India and China, so how do you see the future relationship between the West and India?
Carolyn Quinn
Okay, thank you very much. Gentleman here in the front and then, it’ll be the girl over there, sort of, second row from the front. Okay.
Member
Well, the question is going to be very short, whether Russia is declining in power, or China the power of the 21st century. What’s going to happen in the middle space now that occupied Palestine blood is spilling every single day, what is the policy of United States?
Carolyn Quinn
Thank you, that’s another half hour to an hour discussion, isn’t it? And there – the girl there, you’ve got the mic. Well done.
Member
Hi, my question’s…
Carolyn Quinn
Go for it.
Member
…for Lord Darroch regarding – sorry, there’s been increasing – sorry, it’s regarding leaks. So, given your experience in 2019 with leaks, what impact does this have on diplomatic relations, particularly given the current climate where we have tension in Taiwan, and the conflict in Ukraine between Western alliances which are so central, given current events?
Carolyn Quinn
Thank you. Did you want to take that one first, Kim?
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
Yeah. Well, it certainly had an impact on me, but I’m not sure it impacted that massively on UK-US relations, or Europe-US relations. Look, leaks, first of all, as an Official, I should say we always say there shouldn’t be leaks and they’re wrong, and all the rest of it. You do occasionally see leaks, which are clearly people who think there is something wrong, or corrupt, or, you know, untoward going on inside government, and they may have raised it inside the system, and nothing’s happened, and so they leak. But, you know, most leaks shouldn’t happen, especially not the leak of my reporting on the Trump administration.
But do I think these things – I think there’s more important things in terms of relations between countries than individual reports and individual leaks. They damage governments, but whether they damage international relations or not. No doubt you could think of an example with one house, but I can’t instantly think of one where it’s happened.
Carolyn Quinn
Alright, and we have a question about future relationship with India, and what about the Middle East? In two minutes, how can we do this? Which…?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I’ll do India, but not nearly as well as the questioner, I’m sure, would, I happen to know, ‘cause I know you. Yeah, I mean, I think that there – that the US, certainly, but the West more generally, will continue to lean in on its relationship with India to the extent that India wishes to participate at a high and deep level, is, I think, the – in some ways, the bigger question mark, ‘cause India is, you know, going to be the most populous country this year. It’s growing at 5%, it’s – you know, there’s a lot that India – there’s a lot to play for if you’re the leader of India. And I think that the US will continue to be willing to turn a blind eye to some of the domestic concerns that it has, because India’s so incredibly important when it comes to the overall balance in the Indo-Pacific.
Carolyn Quinn
And Gideon, the Middle East?
Gideon Rachman
Yeah.
Carolyn Quinn
Do you see…?
Gideon Rachman
Well, I mean, and specifically Palestine. I mean, I think…
Carolyn Quinn
Yeah.
Gideon Rachman
…that one interesting thing, if you’ve been watching for, like, a long time, is how that issue has been relegated down the, sort of, lead table of issues that people were concerned about. So, if you think back to the Clinton years, the drive for a Middle East peace settlement was really central to what the US was trying to do, and then, you have 9/11, and in a funny way, that also led people like Tony Blair to say, “Well, actually, we also have to settle the Palestinian issue.” And it’s gone down and down in salience. I’m not sure that that is permanent, because it’s not a stable situation, as you said, there’s a lot of bloodshed, and the Israeli Government is increasingly hard right, so if you have another intifada, I think it will come up again.
I think, given all the other issues we’re talking about, though, the rivalry with China, the rivalry with Russia, I doubt it will ever become quite as central again, although it will depend partly on what’s happening on the ground. But I think the real problem for the Palestinians is only partly the diminishing Western interest. It’s also what’s happening in the Gulf. I mean, the Abraham Accords were a massive breakthrough for Israel. The fact that they have normal relationships with Dubai, with Abu Dhabi, with Bahrain, sends a signal that a large – that the richest part of the Arab world is losing interest in the Palestinians, or is – has other priorities, Iran, or commercial relations. And if I were Palestinian, that would be, I think, the biggest thing that would be worrying me, because without that support from the Arab world, I think they are in quite a bleak situation.
Lord Kim Darroch KCMG
Very quickly, to illustrate Gideon’s point, remember when I was National Security Advisor, one of the last meetings I had, so we must be talking late 2015, was with the Arab Ambassadors in London, and they’re a very educated, interesting bunch. And the most striking thing for me about maybe an hour and a half/two hours’ discussion was it was almost all about the threat from Iran, and the Palestinian issue wasn’t mentioned ‘til the last five minutes. It was the perfect illustration of the point you’re making, that’s as long ago as 2015.
The other point I make is that in my first half of my career, maybe two thirds of my career, in the Foreign Office, one of the most sought after and most interesting and busiest desks was the desk in what was then called News – the North African Department, which dealt with the Palestinian issue. And people would write papers about different forms of the two-state solution all the time, and Foreign Secretaries would always go off and visit the West Bank, as well as Israel, and it was a really big issue for every Foreign – every successive Foreign Secretary, two-state solution. I don’t think the two-state solution exists anymore. I mean, maybe a few people still think there is a chance. I don’t think there’s any chance of a two-state solution now, which leaves that part of the world in a deeply unstable place, I fear.
Carolyn Quinn
Have you got a concluding thought, Leslie?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I agree. I mean, on each – I’ve gone many times to try and understand through the lens of our dear friend, Charlie Kupchan, and his – and others, who are very invested in helping people understand, and I, sort of, arrive every – return every time understanding that Iran’s the number one focus, not the Palestinians, and the two-state solution seems impossible to achieve. Oh, that’s not a good way to end.
Carolyn Quinn
We’ve got to stop. We’ve had a…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But no, and we really do need good Diplomats.
Carolyn Quinn
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And thank God we’ve had so many good Diplomats in the country that we currently are all seated in.
Carolyn Quinn
Well, we have, unfortunately, run out of time, and I know that other people had questions. I’m so sorry I couldn’t get to you all, but I think you will agree that we got through quite a few very interesting topics. We haven’t had all the answers, we never will, but very, very interesting. Can I ask you to show your thanks for our panel?
