Andrew Ross Sorkin

That has been India's philosophy. They've had good relations with Russia for a long time, even going back to the Cold War. That is what makes sense for their security standpoint. By the way, the exact same thing is true of the United States. We just haven't realized the strategic reality. China is the peer competitor. I mean, Mearsheimer made this point at our all-in summit.

That has been India's philosophy. They've had good relations with Russia for a long time, even going back to the Cold War. That is what makes sense for their security standpoint. By the way, the exact same thing is true of the United States. We just haven't realized the strategic reality. China is the peer competitor. I mean, Mearsheimer made this point at our all-in summit.

China is the peer competitor. It's the only country in the world that is a peer of the United States. It's the only country that's really capable of threatening our security. Russia is a distant number three in terms of the great power rankings. What you want to do if you're in a sort of heads-up competition where there's two superpowers is you want to make an alliance with that number three.

China is the peer competitor. It's the only country in the world that is a peer of the United States. It's the only country that's really capable of threatening our security. Russia is a distant number three in terms of the great power rankings. What you want to do if you're in a sort of heads-up competition where there's two superpowers is you want to make an alliance with that number three.

And what we've done is we've pushed Russia into the arms of China. What we ought to have been doing is the reverse Kissinger. We did this during the Cold War, by the way. We had the Soviet Union and we had China. And in that case, the Soviet Union was the big threat to American security. So what did we do? We had Nixon and Kissinger go to China and make a deal with Mao.

And what we've done is we've pushed Russia into the arms of China. What we ought to have been doing is the reverse Kissinger. We did this during the Cold War, by the way. We had the Soviet Union and we had China. And in that case, the Soviet Union was the big threat to American security. So what did we do? We had Nixon and Kissinger go to China and make a deal with Mao.

China was just as communist as the Soviet Union. Mao had blood on his hands to a degree that is much greater than someone like Putin has. And yet we were willing to shake hands with him and make an alliance because that was real polity. And I think in a similar way, this is what our strategy should have been with Russia for the last two decades.

China was just as communist as the Soviet Union. Mao had blood on his hands to a degree that is much greater than someone like Putin has. And yet we were willing to shake hands with him and make an alliance because that was real polity. And I think in a similar way, this is what our strategy should have been with Russia for the last two decades.

And instead, we've been foolishly pushing them into the arms of China.

And instead, we've been foolishly pushing them into the arms of China.

Andrew, I mean, what do you think about this sort of what I would call balance of powers logic 101?

Andrew, I mean, what do you think about this sort of what I would call balance of powers logic 101?

No, the enemy's enemy is your friend or whatever it is.

No, the enemy's enemy is your friend or whatever it is.

Right? I think it's dangerous to look at foreign policy from a position of extreme moralism because ultimately the purpose of our foreign policy is to ensure American security. And we can't rectify every injustice in the world. And over the past 25 years, we've become hyper-interventionist.

Right? I think it's dangerous to look at foreign policy from a position of extreme moralism because ultimately the purpose of our foreign policy is to ensure American security. And we can't rectify every injustice in the world. And over the past 25 years, we've become hyper-interventionist.

know in an attempt so we've claimed to do that right we keep saying that we we've gotten involved in all these places because we want to promote our values and spread democracy and by the way we did the opposite i mean you look at the forever wars the middle east we had interventions and occupations in iraq afghanistan libya syria how did all those things work out they did not promote our values or spread democracy so my point is just i don't think we should look at foreign policy from a position of extreme moralism

know in an attempt so we've claimed to do that right we keep saying that we we've gotten involved in all these places because we want to promote our values and spread democracy and by the way we did the opposite i mean you look at the forever wars the middle east we had interventions and occupations in iraq afghanistan libya syria how did all those things work out they did not promote our values or spread democracy so my point is just i don't think we should look at foreign policy from a position of extreme moralism

I prefer to think of neither of those countries as quote-unquote evil, and I would prefer to think of them as countries which have their own interests. I think that with respect to China, the real issue is that it is a revisionist great power. It has made clear that it wants to basically annex Taiwan. It wants to turn the South China Sea into effectively a Chinese lake.

I prefer to think of neither of those countries as quote-unquote evil, and I would prefer to think of them as countries which have their own interests. I think that with respect to China, the real issue is that it is a revisionist great power. It has made clear that it wants to basically annex Taiwan. It wants to turn the South China Sea into effectively a Chinese lake.