Richard Haass

So that's possible too. The problem is any one of those worlds has far more conflict to it, far less prosperity, and far less freedom. So I just don't understand why we would trade in an approach to the world that has worked for 80 years for something that's far more risky and potentially far more costly.

So that's possible too. The problem is any one of those worlds has far more conflict to it, far less prosperity, and far less freedom. So I just don't understand why we would trade in an approach to the world that has worked for 80 years for something that's far more risky and potentially far more costly.

It's not a question I ever expected to get, but here we are. No, I think one of the things that's happened is that allies have lost, under this administration, their special place. The fact that they are dependent on us for security, the fact that they trade with us, has actually become sources of leverage on the part of the United States. So being an ally

It's not a question I ever expected to get, but here we are. No, I think one of the things that's happened is that allies have lost, under this administration, their special place. The fact that they are dependent on us for security, the fact that they trade with us, has actually become sources of leverage on the part of the United States. So being an ally

It's not a question I ever expected to get, but here we are. No, I think one of the things that's happened is that allies have lost, under this administration, their special place. The fact that they are dependent on us for security, the fact that they trade with us, has actually become sources of leverage on the part of the United States. So being an ally

in many ways, has become something of a liability. That's why, again, you'll see certain allies trying to become more self-sufficient. Some may actually think they need nuclear weapons to become really safe. Others may say, wow, we have to appease China or Russia because we can't count on the United States anymore. But no, I think you're right. The basic point is that allies of the United States

in many ways, has become something of a liability. That's why, again, you'll see certain allies trying to become more self-sufficient. Some may actually think they need nuclear weapons to become really safe. Others may say, wow, we have to appease China or Russia because we can't count on the United States anymore. But no, I think you're right. The basic point is that allies of the United States

in many ways, has become something of a liability. That's why, again, you'll see certain allies trying to become more self-sufficient. Some may actually think they need nuclear weapons to become really safe. Others may say, wow, we have to appease China or Russia because we can't count on the United States anymore. But no, I think you're right. The basic point is that allies of the United States

no longer feel they are in an advantage position and they are going to be casting about for alternatives.

no longer feel they are in an advantage position and they are going to be casting about for alternatives.

no longer feel they are in an advantage position and they are going to be casting about for alternatives.

In a word, I'm very surprised by what I'm seeing. I followed closely President Trump's first term, which, while something of a departure, was still on the playing field. Trump 2.0 is qualitatively different. It's far more radical. I would never use the word conservative. It's the opposite of conservative because rather than conserving, it is disrupting.

In a word, I'm very surprised by what I'm seeing. I followed closely President Trump's first term, which, while something of a departure, was still on the playing field. Trump 2.0 is qualitatively different. It's far more radical. I would never use the word conservative. It's the opposite of conservative because rather than conserving, it is disrupting.

In a word, I'm very surprised by what I'm seeing. I followed closely President Trump's first term, which, while something of a departure, was still on the playing field. Trump 2.0 is qualitatively different. It's far more radical. I would never use the word conservative. It's the opposite of conservative because rather than conserving, it is disrupting.

And we see all these alliance relationships being disrupted. We see in some times now an unconditional reaching out to adversaries like Trump like Russia. And what we don't see is what the president proposes to put in place of the existing order. It seems to be a world, if you will, without structure, without permanent relationships.

And we see all these alliance relationships being disrupted. We see in some times now an unconditional reaching out to adversaries like Trump like Russia. And what we don't see is what the president proposes to put in place of the existing order. It seems to be a world, if you will, without structure, without permanent relationships.

And we see all these alliance relationships being disrupted. We see in some times now an unconditional reaching out to adversaries like Trump like Russia. And what we don't see is what the president proposes to put in place of the existing order. It seems to be a world, if you will, without structure, without permanent relationships.

And it's not something that was talked about during the campaign. And I think when people went to the polls, this is not what they voted for. It's not what they bargained for, but it is what they're getting.

And it's not something that was talked about during the campaign. And I think when people went to the polls, this is not what they voted for. It's not what they bargained for, but it is what they're getting.

And it's not something that was talked about during the campaign. And I think when people went to the polls, this is not what they voted for. It's not what they bargained for, but it is what they're getting.