RICHARD HAASS returns to the podcast to talk about the US FOREIGN POLICY implications of Trump's Tariffs and other initiatives. We take another tour of the world's hotspots after the recent UN conference here in New York. Finally, we weave in an analogy of the recent crowd misbehavior at the Ryder Cup as a symptom of America's current mood.

https://youtu.be/z4FlnrXl8tE

US FOREIGN POLICY: INTRO

Frazer Rice (00:01.277)

Welcome aboard, Richard. We are past our technology glitch, I think. The next big thing here is to try to figure out what the US looks like. We're on the heels of the UN week and also the Ryder Cup. I'm not sure which one was more chaotic, but as you look at the US's standing after the UN, what do you take from the events that took place last week?

Richard Haass (00:02.744) on US FOREIGN POLICY

Great to be back.

THE US MOOD (AND THE RYDER CUP)

Richard Haass (00:28.172)

It was not a great week for what Joe and I, may he rest in peace, called soft power. What happened at Beth Page, the terrible manners, the coarseness, vulgarity, choose your word, the lack of sportsmanship, we could go on, but you get the point, was really poorly received in Europe, as it should have been. And I thought the PGA here just showed a blind spot would be generous. So it was not good. I felt somewhat between embarrassed and ashamed and also just overshadowed some unbelievable golf on both sides.

Frazer Rice (01:11.069)Kind of where I came out on it. And it just felt bad watching some really good players doing their thing and then all of a sudden, again, overshadowed by pretty boorish behavior.

Richard Haass (01:22.51)

Particularly golf, because golf's a game of rules and norms. I think it was Rory Mclroy who used the word etiquette, and what we saw was anything but. I really wondered at times whether some of those people ever played golf. And then the UN. Look, it didn't happen in isolation. The President's US Foreign Policy speech was…at times just, it was seen, it was taken badly by Europeans. It was for understandable reasons, seen by them as something of an attack on them. The comments like about Sharia law in London were over the top. The criticism of immigration policy, some of which, for the record, deserve some criticism, I would say. The total denial of climate change was badly received.

So it was not good, even though, and I think the president detracted for some of his legitimate criticisms of the UN. My own sense, though, is the UN's got bigger problems than Donald Trump's speech. The UN has basically made itself increasingly irrelevant. It's no longer a place for serious diplomacy. At most, it's a venue for side meetings. And since then, you've had the announcement of a "peace" plan for Gaza and so forth.

So the world's moved on. quite honestly, what matters is not what happened during a few days of traffic in New York, but rather what happens more broadly. So we'll see what, if anything, comes of this Middle East announcement. We'll see what happens next, if anything, diplomatically with Ukraine. President Trump's about to meet his Chinese counterpart in less than a month in South Korea. So there's a lot going on.

And not to mention domestically, there's a lot going on we can discuss. So the fact that the Ryder Cup or the UN were not great in and of themselves, they're more data points. And I think what matters is more the larger story for better and for worse.

US Foreign Policy: Russia and the Ukraine

Frazer Rice (03:32.339)As we just a couple of quick points to hit back on Ukraine Russia. What's the state of play in there right now?

Richard Haass (03:41.71)

Well, we're reaching the end of what you might call the third fighting season of this phase of the war, the one that started just over, mean, just under three years ago, in February of 22, if I have my dates right. My sense is things will dial down militarily somewhat during the winter, and then they'll dial up again early next year for a fourth fighting season.

I don't believe diplomacy will gain traction until the United States does probably two things, puts much more economic pressure on Russia and gives Ukraine much more military wherewithal, both to withstand Russia and to take the war to Russia. Ultimately, diplomacy will only happen in a context where Vladimir Putin comes to the conclusion, however reluctantly, that time is not on his side. Right now, he believes time is on his side. He has no reason to compromise or settle. Only if we convince him.

The time is not his friend, I believe. Will he agree to something like a ceasefire? I don't think we should be pushing for peace for any number of reasons. We can go into it if you want, but I don't think we need to. So at the moment, diplomacy is dependent on the calculations of the two sides, and I think the Ukrainian leadership is willing to accept a ceasefire in place, but the Russian leadership isn't. We've gotta change that calculation, and that's more than anything, I think, a function of whether we give Ukraine greater military help, which persuades Putin that more war will not give him more results.

Frazer Rice (05:15.571)Any inside baseball and any potential weaknesses in Russia that we don't hear about over here, as opposed to sort of the general posturing we get from Putin?

Richard Haass (05:25.389)

There's been a lot of talk about it recently. The president mused on true social, about Russia's economy and so forth. Look, Russia's paid an enormous price for the war in terms of manpower, in terms of its economy. But China continues to buy oil, India continues to buy oil, Turkey continues to buy oil. So think the Russian economy limps along. Militarily, they've got a pretty good wartime economy. Putin still controls the narrative within Russia.

I don't sense, I'd love to be wrong, but I don't sense that Russia's on any brink where it can't sustain a version of what it is doing. So no, no, could we reach a point, phrase it like that, is no longer true, and Russia, literally and figuratively, begins to run out of gas? Yeah.

But I don't think we're there yet, but time, the medium to long term is not in Russia's favor, only because their productive capabilities are getting diminished and so forth. again, I still think what we want to do is help Ukraine more. don't know if we will. I don't know if we're going to impose sanctions. can't explain why this reluctance to pressure Russia directly and indirectly.

It gets into places I don't have any evidence on. But I would simply say…President Trump is right to want to bring peace. I think he's sabotaging or undermining his own US Foreign Policy efforts by not creating a context in which diplomacy is more likely to succeed. But I don't see any signs at the moment that either side is ready to essentially shout uncle.

US FOREIGN POLICY: ISRAEL AND GAZA

Frazer Rice (07:10.163)Trump just came out with his 10 or 20 point plan for Israel and Gaza to

Richard Haass (07:15.373)It was to inflationary times. It was 20.

Frazer Rice (07:18.951)It's power of compounding. Hopefully, maybe that'll help. What do you make of that? We've just had all sorts of different iterations of from the invasion to the counter invasion to all the fighting. on one hand, I'm happy to see that there's an attempt to try to stake out some peace plans here, but I'm not confident that it will come to pass. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Richard Haass (07:44.258)

I pretty much agree with what you said. Look, it's the shortest 20-point plan in history. And by that, I mean there's 20 points to it, but none of them is fleshed out. So the immediate question is whether Hamas agrees to it, the Israeli government did. But even if Hamas does any number of implementation questions. Certain preconditions have to be met and so forth.

When I used to teach at Harvard, we used to say that 90 % of life is implementation. Well, this plan is the 10%. It's a design. It includes all the things a peace plan would need to include, at least it mentions them. But they're not developed. And so all sorts of things to tall for a technocratic that could run Gaza, a stabilization force, full humanitarian aid, all sorts of things about political and diplomatic processes.

The plan is more, I guess I'd say it's more aspirational than operational. So the good news is the Israeli government agreed to it. We'll see what Hamas does. My own guess is at some point,

There'll be all sorts of hiccups in implementation. And probably early next year, in the spring or so, I expect Bibi Netanyahu will call for new elections. He's got to do it within the next 12, 13 months. He'll choose an opportune moment. The fact that he's gotten this plan put forward, which is quite sensitive, shall we say, to Israeli interests, and he's agreed to it, puts him in a very good position.

So either Hamas…capitulates or Israel's given a green light to continue the war from the United States. So I think, my own view is this plan in its current form will not reach fruition to say the least. And at some point sooner rather than later, we'll probably have Israeli elections, possibly as soon as six, seven, eight months from now.

CHINA AND INDA

Frazer Rice (09:48.392)Got it. So it would be geopolitically crazy not to talk about the two most populous nations in China and India. I know they got together with Russia in the room as well to maybe to broadcast their sort of emergent standing in the world. Is there anything we should be watching on that front besides sort of the obvious in terms of how they deal with themselves and how they deal with US Foreign Policy, especially in a tariff environment?

US FOREIGN POLICY: INDIA

Richard Haass (10:16.279)

Couple things come to mind, in terms of India.

I think it's fair to accuse the administration of diplomatic malpractice. The U.S.