Transcription
The loser, if they have a nuclear
weapon, is going to fling it before they
lose and that'll be the end of all of
us. You won't be worried about global
warming. It'll be climate change, but
it'll be called nuclear winner.
>> So, would you say that we are at the
precipice of the First World War
>> in an era of precision nuclear strike?
The United States is never going to be
given 3 years to get its act together.
The nuclear weapons will fly long before
then. Europe needs to uh be prepared for
that eventuality and what they're going
to do. And there may be a silver lining
in this cloud [music] for Europe, not
for the United States. It's all
negative.
Professor Payne, should we prepare for a
US military takeover of Greenland?
>> Uh if the United States does that,
what a mess.
uh it would take Greenland very rapidly
and then it would destroy its alliance
system forever.
Uh I think you would want to make that a
as costly an event as possible for the
United States uh to do that. It is so
profoundly against US interests to do
this. Uh it's horrifying that we're even
thinking about it and that I blame I
place squarely on the current
administration that is irresponsibly
uh jeopardizing US national security by
blowing the alliance system that has
protected us so well. In World War II,
the United States took a long time to
get its act together. It wasn't until
1943
that all the production came on board so
that there's actually enough equipment
to do things. Uh in the era of precision
nuclear strike, the United States is
never going to be given three years to
get its act together. Uh the nuclear
weapons will fly long before then. And
you can go great, we'll do nukes on
other people. Okay. Um, as the Tom Lara
song goes, we'll all go down together
when we go all safus and in and in
incandescent glow. Uh, yeah, great.
That's not call good strategy. So, yeah,
Europe needs to uh be prepared for that
eventuality and what they're going to
do.
>> But be before the nuclear weapons go,
hopefully they do not. Um,
>> uh um, as I have taught for many years
in strategy, hope is not a strategy. So,
let's put hope right aside.
>> Taking hope aside, uh, how would the
military take over play out?
>> Is it just like
>> I have no idea type of situation?
>> Greenland doesn't even have an army.
>> But the French have sent like what dozen
soldiers, right? There is some
posturing.
>> That'd be like a a welcome party here.
Have donuts. I mean, or have, I don't
know, a medland, whatever. Uh
if the United States with its Navy want
what it want to do get into a hot war
over Greenland, uh what a mess. What a
mess. Who's even contemplating doing
this? And the fact that Republicans
across the House and Senate are doing
nothing to stop it is uh it is beyond
irresponsible.
>> Is there a discord within at least some
there must be some within the Republican
party over Greenland or is it just like
all people swearing filty to Trump?
>> I don't know the answer. Well, in the
previous segment of this interview, I
discussed looking at things from the
tactical, operational and strategic
level. Strategically, taking over uh
Greenland will do the following things.
It will blow NATO, the American
participation in NATO. It will make
every country with a US military base
reconsider and figure out how to get the
US the hell out of their countries as
soon as possible. In addition to what
we've done in Venezuela, it will unify
countries across the third world to
minimize the US presence. Fourthly, it
will incentivize people across the globe
to boycott American products and that
doesn't require any government action
whatsoever. That is consumers buying
stuff. That is the minimum of what will
happen. That is beyond stupid. Why do
that? Uh uh Greenland is cooperating on
all manner of defense issues. Why would
you do this? It is one of the it would
be absolutely pivotal error. There would
be no going back for the United States.
It would have incinerated absolutely
last bit of every bit of soft power and
a good deal of its hard power. And in
addition to trying to wipe out its uh
scientific expertise right now by uh
just indiscriminately con uh cancelling
grants without thinking about it more
carefully. Uh this is all about slash
and burn about destroying things. For
instance, it is really important to
understand the the uh the ease at which
you can destroy things versus the
difficulty of creating things. So if you
ever have children, they'll spend hours
making a sand castle and then some angry
kid will kick it and in one moment the
sand castle is gone. So there's that
asymmetry. So currently the current min
administration is busy destroying
things. So people think at the tactical
level. Look, they've destroyed things.
They've done it so fast. Yeah, they
have. How about building anything back
that's better to replace it? That's
going to be the work of generations.
That's the strategic problem with what's
going on. So, we have a Republican party
and I'm going to pin it on them because
they own the judiciary, they own the
legislature, and they own the president,
right? The Republican party. Um, this
strategy of Greenland is going to
fundamentally undermine US national
security for themselves and their
children, and they're going to have to
live with it. It's it may be a little
bit of a kremlinologist type of question
except applied to the US uh because
there seems to be
>> at least or this is an outsider's view
but there is Rubio and maybe he's still
having this neocon type of heart within
him and there is Steven Miller and those
seem to be at least on some kind of a
spectrum maybe there is still somebody
>> the autism spectrum uh I I don't know if
Rubio's ever I mean Steven Miller. Yes.
I mean I don't know but I mean the
appearance is I don't know the details.
>> No the foreign policy spectrum of
whether to
>> Oh no. Oh there's the autism spectrum as
well.
>> No no no not this kind of
>> Okay.
>> Some kind of foreign policy spectrum.
Maybe
there is still some desire to
>> they're operational. It's about me in
power. Look at Rubio. He said one thing
about Trump a few years ago, another
thing about Trump today. Do you suppose
uh Rubio doesn't have an IQ to know what
he's doing? He has an absolutely has an
IQ. It's operational. It's me in power
and he's willing to take down the
country in order to be in power. And he
has children. He should care about their
fate. What's going on now is ruinous.
>> And Steven Miller,
uh, does he even have a wife?
>> I think he does. And the wife tweeted
about Greenland and it's great to take
it over.
>> Oh, good. Does he have children?
>> I don't know. I don't either. Okay.
Maybe the less the better.
>> Anyways, there is this anecdote about
Soviet foreign minister Andre Gomeco.
How he started his day staring at a map
for 10 minutes straight thinking about
what's the next move. Maybe Trump did
the same thing looking at the map.
Mercator projection. Greenland is so
massive compared to anything else.
>> He's he's a realtor, right? And he sees
pieces of property around the world. Uh
I have no idea. No one's ever accused
him of spending a lot of time thinking
about anything, right? I mean, this is
not me. This is others saying the man
doesn't spend a lot of time working. He
emphasizes he likes golfing. His history
is a of bankrupting a bunch of casinos,
right? And in casinos, I believe you the
house um controls the odds, right?
>> So that it's apparently a little harder
to bankrupt a casino than some other
things. So, okay. All right. And so now
he's in the process of drawing
destroying the United States.
>> But then again, if you read headlines
and like foreign policy, Politico, New
York Times, whatever, there are so many
analysts trying to make a post hawk
explanation of it all that you know
there is some deeper strategy than that.
Maybe the US is trying to consolidate
its position or whatever. Is there a
deeper strategy to it or is it just you
know impulse based? I'm not on any. You
think I'm on any of those um
discussions? Give me a break. I'm a
retired professor. All I can do is I
have a knowledge over how All right.
Well, here's the only advantage of an
old person from from you, a younger
person. Uh you you have a higher IQ
because I've got all these brain cells
that have died from it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just
>> But I simply have a longer period as an
adult. So your first memories probably
like all of us goes back to age five,
but then you have at memories as an
adolescent that aren't fully adult
memories. So whenever you decide your
full analytical capabilities kicked in,
I have a longer period of that where I
can look back and go, how did things
play out? And so that's the only thing I
offer. And then I've studied history
where you're trying to learn vicariously
from what other people have done. So my
conclusions are based on that
background. doesn't mean I'm right. But
I've given you the reasons why I think
what we're doing the United States right
now is ruinous for all of us. And
another thing about human beings and
this I'll emphasize to you as a young
person and me as a antique is don't be
afraid of changing your mind. And uh
people seem to have great difficulty
doing this. And I'll give you uh for
instance, if you go and buy a really
lousy pizza or something better at the
supermarket, I'm sure you're not going
to go tell your friends uh go buy the
awful pizza that I just bought, right?
You'd be telling them don't ever buy the
pizza again. But then if you make some
really and that's a low value thing, one
bad meal and it didn't cost that much
anyway. You're talking about these high
stakes things where you realize you've
made a mistake and you're not going to
reassess. Always reassess. And also
admit you're wrong. I mean I when
students uh tell me I'm they get me on
factual errors because I make them. It's
not on purpose. I make them in seminar
in real time. I'll go you're absolutely
right. And then I'll make the next point
and say look I've made a mistake.
Reassess in real time. Tell people that
you've made a mistake. Uh you look like
an ass otherwise. And then uh that is
not the current Republican party. It's
just double downing doubling down on
we're right about everything and then
demonizing the other side. It's crazy.
>> So would you say that we are at a at a
precipice of the third world war?
Yeah, I I think we're barreling our way
towards one. And that's why I have
there's this hysterical tone to
[laughter] my answers to your questions
because I think these are really high
stake things that once we've gotten into
it, it's all over because, as I said
repeatedly, but it's worth repeating.
The loser, if they have a nuclear
weapon, is going to fling it before they
lose. And that'll be the end of all of
us as we start uh you won't be worried
about global warming. it'll be climate
change but it'll be called nuclear
winter right if if this is what happens
so it's really important that this
doesn't happen
and uh so that's my I hope I'm wrong
>> looking at it from a European
perspective the other party is doubling
down on the current continental strategy
it if if there is like a deeper strategy
>> well it's it's all this real estate I
want more real estate needs operational
if I get it that means I won except
here's the story in wars. Wars are only
won at the strategic level. And give you
an example. The United States won every
battle in the Vietnam War. Where on
earth is the South Vietnamese
government?
It's gone. Right? The United States
seemed to win the battles in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Oh, okay. Tell me about
that one. So, it's the operational one,
which is back to my point of what the
strategic win. It's making things better
for your children and for the next
generation. That is what both parties
used to focus on uh um until very
recently. And both parties need to get
back on the program and focus on that
and instead of demonizing the other,
figure out some win-win solutions to
craft a way forward. And oh by the way
in strategy in foreign policy zero
someum solutions yield negative someum
outcomes because there going to be a lot
of fighting win-win solutions. And
that's what the greatest generation did.
All these win-wins like the Marshall
pan. The United States pours a ton of
money into Europe which then circulates
right back to the United States and
everybody makes a ton of money. It's a
win-win. And guess what? People join
those. That's why the maritime order is
inherently strong because it's win-win
and people will join and little
countries realize their only security
comes from joining up with each other.
And this is why I have great faith that
there are plenty of smart people in
Europe to understand that the United
States has gone rogue. Uh they need to
uh ramp up their own security and take
care of it. So, how do you even do reli
reliable posturing against like this
kind of semisuccessful
winner take all real successful? Where's
you think Putin succeeding? Where's it
succeeding? So, we got Maduro. I mean,
we're stuck with that man. We're going
to be paying hundred thou hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year trying to
keep him on prison food and all the
lawyers. I mean, it's just And how much
did it cost to get him? And he's such a
reprehensible person. Who wants him?
>> Okay. Okay. So taking away
semi-successful to unsuccessful,
>> how can you do posturing against
>> against such a such a positioning like
what does Europe what should Europe do
like send
>> hundreds of soldiers instead of dozens?
>> Well, no, Europe has been trying to talk
sense to legislators on both sides uh of
the aisle. continue and then organize
yourselves. And Americans need to get
out and vote and they need to dial it
back and start hearing each other out
and understand that they're being used.
Well, Europe tried kind of it's like it
will be like a 1930s uh analogy, but
Europe tried appeasement in terms of the
first tariff uh standoff. Um so
>> didn't work.
>> Didn't work right. Yeah. Yeah. So
>> that's so
>> so should we escalate to the
>> yes you're stuck you're stuck and this
is the problem. So uh if other people
are going to do terrible things to you
and you go this is so wealth depressing
why are we doing this um you have no
choice if they're going to do awful
stuff. So the United States should stop
doing the awful stuff. We should talk to
each other as much as possible at every
single level um of government. And um if
uh the Russians are deep inside uh US
elections and Europeans know about this,
put it out there, right? Start sharing
some of the information about what exact
if there are deep tentacles of what
Putin's game is and it's in everybody's
politics.
uh that ought to be out there because to
quote Samuel Huntington who was one of
the finest American political scientists
of the 20th century when I was taking an
undergraduate course in government where
he's one of the teachers um one of his
lines was power recognized is power
diminished the moment you put it out
there what's truly going on you're
diminishing it so this is where uh
putting things out there like I think
about uh pre President Biden who shared
intelligence in unprecedented ways on
Putin's buildup to Ukraine. And there
were many reasons why the Ukrainians
survived that thing. One of them was
this sharing of intelligence that took
away the whole false flag stuff and made
it clear that it was naked Russian
aggression.
>> Should we share intelligence about that?
We we we do get it. We we get daily NATO
briefings. Everybody gets daily NATO
briefings. Yeah, I don't I've never seen
any of this stuff, but um if you find
people are uh interfering with each
other's elections in in ways that are
detrimental
well in any way, right? Um now would be
a time when you would think that
starting to place some of those cards on
the table.
>> How about the information about US
military buildup on Greenland? That
should also be published.
I have no idea what's going on uh there
and I think uh uh that will be evident
from satellite imagery which everybody
will know
>> right but to to to that point even
satellite imagery is shared I mean
intelligence is shared like it's it's
all shared within NATO obviously not to
the fullest extent but
>> the United States may be in a timeout
from NATO if it does that you will find
that no one in NATO will share
intelligence with the United States and
the United States won't share it with
NATO Great. That's going to make us
stronger. No, but it'll you may not have
a choice if you're put in that position.
>> But there doesn't even seem to be a
procedure for for kicking a country out
like like the NATO treaties didn't
provide for for for scenario.
>> I got it. You got loads of smart lawyers
in in Europe. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you can
you can do the instant parallel
organization where you just take the
existing documents, you amend paragraph
one and then uh everybody can seamlessly
move move over and maybe you dump
Hungary while you're doing that seamless
move over. Well, [laughter] so so to the
seamless moveover and and this is also a
question that we are asking ourselves in
in Poland because if you look at the
national security strategy, uh it is
pretty clear that the administration's
play for Europe is to divide and conquer
or at least um try to get countries like
Poland, Hungary, Italy.
>> Is it working?
>> Well, in in in some ways Do people
really like Americans?
>> The Polish people do.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I get that.
No, I get that. But do they like this
particular aspect of US foreign policy?
>> And that's the thing like Poland seems
to be hedging a little bit. The
president is more pro-American, if you
will. The prime minister more pro
European. So like the Meloney is not
sending troops to Greenland. Like
>> to some extent it seems to be working.
>> Yeah. But she's all about doesn't want
Russia and Ukraine.
>> Correct. Right. So that would be the
important thing, right? That would be
the important thing. Uh Italy is not
going to be doing much about Greenland
one way or the other. So um
uh
I I think existential threats are
clarifying
and if the United States is going to try
to pose an existential threat to Europe,
why do that? I mean, it's hilarious
going Vance doesn't like uh European
um lifestyles. Yeah. Where does he go
for vacation?
>> Europe.
>> It's like guy, if you don't like it, why
are you vacationing there?
>> I mean, tell me about odd. [snorts]
Yeah, it it does seem odd. But
nonetheless, like we seem to be heading
towards a scenario where you know JD
Vance was really trying to get US
military out of Europe and now all of a
sudden it's the Europeans who will ask
or expel if thing if
>> well you know tell me you're on buddy
here take them back. Uh
and the United States thinks this makes
us stronger. Okay. And the French will
celebrate. I mean, right? I mean,
they've been sick of this Atlantis
Atlantic thing forever and they'll go,
"I told you so." [laughter]
>> Um, okay. So, say the the impossible
happens and uh there is a military
takeover of of
>> I have no idea. You're way into
speculation. What do I know about
Greenland? I am an
>> But that that will be a Russia question.
What would be Russia's move then?
>> What can Putin do? His his navy can't
even get out of the Black Sea. It can't
get out of the Baltic. What's going to
do? It's going to come, I guess, up and
around. You better do it in summertime
when there's less ice.
>> I'm not thinking that we are going to
have like a second Tsushima battle.
>> The guy is already overextended exactly
where he is. So, um when uh the strate
and he wants to open a second front,
that would be a gift uh because he can't
can't even deal with the the current
first front. So, oh yeah, if he wants to
overextend that way, have fun with it,
Vlad the Bad. It won't go well for you.
Uh because Russia, uh Russia has all
these narrow seas. It's navy's terrible
and whatever.
>> So,
so if if the Russians want to open a
second front, it will end up disaster.
>> Yeah. They can't handle front number
one. And front number one is endless by
the way, right? It's not your normal
front. It goes on how many kilometers
>> over a thousand.
>> Yeah, that would be a large number,
right? So, um he can't even handle the
one.
>> But
even if it's not like a full-blown
second front, like there is a range of
operations that the Russians
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They could go into the
Baltic states and make their lives more
miserable that way. Uh and
>> sabotage energy infrastructure.
>> They're already doing all of that.
They're already they're in a sense they
already are at war with Europe. It's
just Europe's chosen not to recognize
these as acts of war uh requiring them
to get into kinetic operations that uh
part of European strategy is clearly
let's not do that. Uh and there must be
all kinds of ways to counter the cyber
attacks and the sabotage and probably
also clever ways to pay back Russians in
Russia that you and I would never know
about, right? So, who knows what goes on
there, but I'm sure there are clever
minds to think of clever things.
>> If if uh
if Greenland becomes a US territory of
some sort,
there seems to be nothing holding China
um away from taking over Taiwan.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They can
definitely go for Taiwan. And uh the
Taiwanese will blow their chip foundry
if they have any brains and that'll be
the end of that. So great, you you've
just expanded your territory by a 250th.
Uh okay. Uh the Japanese will be
apoplelectic. As will the Indians who
regard that if it's I believe my
understanding is that if Taiwan's done
that India's next. So the Indians will
not like it either nor will uh the
Japanese. So what to do about all this?
It's organize the like-minded places and
also uh you're already doing it in
Europe with Merkosur with this trade
agreement. It's
>> the biggest one in history.
>> Yeah. It's happening really fast.
Americans don't see this. The world is
organizing around us
>> and what is it? Isn't aren't the
Canadians um they're doing some Arctic
initiative that has nothing to do with
the United States. They were hosting
something. I thought u my understanding
is that Europe has reconsidered what
kind of fighter planes they intend to
buy and they shall not be American.
Great. Lost all those jobs doing that
one. But but even then at least speaking
for Poland that like half of our
military equipment is coming from the US
and there is and then there is a a real
worry that Bush comes to shove uh there
will be some kind of ribbon drop mode of
kind type of deal with Russia and we
don't get access codes when we try to
when we try to get our fighters from
airfields.
>> Oh yeah yeah no I get it. I get it. So,
um, this would be why you need to build
up your defense industry and get, uh,
these changes for Europe reorganizing
itself. I'm making it up. I think it's a
10-year event of, uh, and you will,
it'll take time, but then you're going
to have a really big in defense
industry. Uh, maybe you'll wind up
getting cutting edge on uh, all this AI
and other things as a result of all of
this spending. And there may be a silver
lining in this cloud for Europe, not for
the United States. It's all negative.
>> So you see a way out from Europe even
though we are
>> deeply imshed into US defense industry.
You know, UK has the Trident program
like their nukes depend on on the US.
The the French are sovereign for one,
but the Germans have military bases.
>> It's profoundly dangerous. It's insane
what's going on. It makes no sense.
uh what is going on but um because it's
existential I have great faith that
human beings in when their existence is
at stake organized and isn't a UK
Ukraine an example of that
>> it does seem to be
>> it's not a seem to be it just is or you
can go back in World War II when the
Nazis came the the Ukrainians are the
are the backbone of the Red Army, a lot
of it, not all of it. Uh they fight uh
for Stalin's army is because the Germans
are worse.
But then again, it like at least maybe
it's uh maybe it's a parochial vantage
point that we have. But you know, at
least in European media, we hear all the
time, oh, German hegemony or say the
Spanish 20 yearear-olds won't die for
Estonia. Like there there does seem to
be lots of parochialism and not so much
eur assured European identity.
>> I got it. Uh yeah, I got it. But compare
Europe to 100 years ago. Uh it's just a
massive change. Compare Europe to five
years ago. really rapid change actually.
So it's not uh static. It depends on
what other people do and uh was the
saying Rome wasn't made in a day. It'll
it'll take you take you time but you
will organize around it. And then uh
Americans I hope will come to their
senses because none of this makes sense.
Like why do all of this? What's the
point? There is no point
>> even
so even in a scenario where say the
midterms are won by the democrats we
have the new president say will also be
a democrat
if if I look at Russia and even the
Russia's late preeminent liberal Alexi
Navali even he was supportive of Crimea
as an liberal quote unquote
>> he's not liberal he's just u
>> for Russian standards
>> I got it I got he's a great Russian
imperialist was my my understanding of
him. I'm I'm no expert on he um did
tremendously entertaining um
>> videos
>> videos. Yeah. And he's a brave man. uh
>> but he was supportive of of Crimea's
annexation which comes to shove and I
got it I can imagine that
>> so soulja would be too
>> that the paradigm in the US shifts so
much that even the democrats won't be
able to give Greenland back
>> haven't gotten it yet we're going to see
uh how this all plays out I don't know
the answer I tell you I've hit the
lecture circuit to do what little I can.
>> Uh there are other people who are doing
across the globe are doing what little
they can because it's all of our futures
and uh and also trying to talk across
political divides to see where other
people are coming from and what you
often realize is there some truth uh to
what they're talking about.
>> Do you see any historical analoges like
Suez crisis? Is there even an a series
at the very beginning.
>> But to the but to the specific
Greenland standoff
>> Greenland? No, it just uh
uh yeah, I don't uh seems you would have
to probably go back to when you have
monarchs coming across with some really
dumbass plan and then uh everyone has to
go along with it because the only way
you have power is through your monarch.
So it's like, okay, boss, what do you
want to do? All right. Isn't Is there
any
>> Yeah. Well, this we're back to
operational. If the golfer and chief uh
wants Greenland, everyone's going to go,
"Okay."
Um I don't know the answer. It What is
it? Aams razor. The simplest explanation
is the law. I mean, it doesn't make it
true, but that's the idea. The simplest
explanation to me is operational is that
um people are using uh this guy who's
losing his mental capacities judging
from just insane comments in that you
can compare other president in fact I've
listened to many presidential speeches
because I need to do my exercise and so
as historian just listening to them um
they used to be really serious
endeavors. I think of Roosevelt's
speeches when Americans were far less
well educated talking about when he came
o to office about how he was going to
close down banks and how it would affect
rural areas this way and it was really
detailed
>> before freedoms.
>> Yeah. Well, but he was very detailed
about why he was doing what he was doing
and not talking down to people. And now
we got Mr. reality stuff where it's uh
yeah it's a sign of a if if this is what
Americans are are is the bar they've set
for their leaders it's a sign of massive
decline we used to hire pe have people
who had more extensive accomplishments
has institutional takeover
been so expansive that there is nobody
to say no like even US military can they
say no to the order of like
>> well isn't that I um um um um um oh
gosh, what's his name? Senator in
Arizona is in trouble and others for
saying there are things that are called
illegal orders and uh
uh
uh
who knows how that will all uh all play
out. But you can destroy things very
rapidly. There's this asymmetry between
like you could some terrorist person
could detonate this building probably
very rapidly. You put a certain number
of things in a certain number of places,
you light them off, kaboom, building's
gone. And then you go, well to rebuild
the building takes a good deal of
effort,
right? So what's going on right now with
the golfer there is he's doing a lot of
destruction because then everyone thinks
he's so powerful and then the cleanup,
it's like all of his bankruptcies.
Everyone else is left with the Bills. He
keeps he just goes off, fades into the
sunset, which at 79 he will definitely
fade into the sunset.
>> Is there still such a thing as the West
or the West?
>> I think it should be re renamed. So it's
the West starts in the West, but when
I'm thinking about it, I'm thinking
about it used to be with the United
States in there, but who knows now? But
it's definitely Europe. And then I would
include South Korea, Japan,
uh Taiwan, Singapore. I'm just going
around the map. New Zealand, Australia,
uh and you go, well, these countries
aren't all Western, right? What
presumption? And it's what I would call
the democratic core. And there's much
variation among them as there should be.
For instance, if you think about um a
continuum with total equality in one end
and total liberty on the other end, if
you have total equality, you have no
liberty. If you have total liberty, you
don't have equality. But where you're
going to be on this continuum is a
matter for debate. So Americans
when they were into democracy were way
on the liberty side of things, but now
we seem to be shutting down civil
liberties, but we used to be uh states
right, liberty, states rights and
things. Um and other people like
Australians are much more towards
equality of making sure that everybody
and Europe more towards equality and but
there's great tolerance for that e where
you sit on those things and that is what
I would call the the core the maritime
core and I think that's a we got to get
off the um the west because it doesn't
really describe
uh what the rulebased order is.
And so and um it also um there may be
others that eventually join
>> hopefully.
>> Yeah. So
>> wouldn't that be it? But it has to be
win-win for them. Otherwise, why should
they join?