Christiane Amanpour on Hot Wars, Trade Wars & Potential Wars
46:36 Share

Cara, listen, I hate to do this, but I've only got 45 minutes. That's fine. Don't worry. You just have to talk fast. It's on. It's on.

Hi, everyone, from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. My guest today needs little introduction. Christiane Amanpour, CNN's chief international anchor, has won 16 Emmy Awards, four Peabody Awards, and three DuPont Columbia Awards, just to name a few. She understands geopolitics as well, or better than anyone, and I just love Christiane.

She has become a friend, and she actually asked my advice on going into podcasting, which she has just started to do. She's just one of these people who is so substantive and so smart, and she's willing to think around things and change her mind, too. And we're living in uncertain times with multiple wars raging around the world and more potential ones bubbling up. So Christiane is the perfect person to talk about all that turmoil and instability, especially since she's about to launch this new international affairs podcast called X-Files.

It's a very fun concept, and we'll talk about that too. I really like the way she's approaching this, especially because it's hard to get people to listen to international affairs information, even though it's critically important. Our expert question comes from Micah Bramowitz, the head of the embattled Voice of America. So stick around.

Support for this show comes from Smartsheet. Your team is innovative. Your team is ready to achieve the impossible. Innovative teams use Smartsheet to defy expectations, spur growth, and make the impossible possible. Smartsheet is the work management platform that allows teams to automate workflows and seamlessly adapt as their work evolves. Whether you're managing projects or scaling operations, Smartsheet gives you the tools to cut through chaos and reach your team's full potential.

With Smartsheet, the extraordinary is just another day at work. Smartsheet, work with flow. See how Smartsheet can transform the way you work at Smartsheet.com. That's Smartsheet.com.

Hi, folks. Logan here. And Tulsi. We're from the Google DeepMind team. Quick update for developers out there. Our most intelligent AI model is here, Gemini 2.5. You can try Gemini 2.5 Pro now in Google AI Studio. It's state-of-the-art across many benchmarks, and it can tackle increasingly complex tasks, strong reasoning, and code capabilities. It also builds on the best of Gemini with native multimodality and a long context window. Try it out today by going to aistudio.google.com and let us know what you build.

As marketing channels have multiplied, the demand for content has skyrocketed. But everyone can make content that's on brand and stands out with Adobe Express. You don't have to be a designer to generate images, rewrite text, and create effects. That's the beauty of generative AI that's commercially safe.

Teams all across your business will be psyched to collaborate and create amazing presentations, videos, social posts, flyers, and more. Meet Adobe Express, the quick and easy app to create on-brand content. Learn more at adobe.com slash express slash business.

Christiane, thank you for coming on on. I am thrilled to be here with you, Cara. It's always great talking to you. So you're now a podcaster. Are you stalking me, Christiane? No, I'm kidding. We talked about this. Stalking, no, but inspired by, yes. I mean, we talked about it a lot.

At dinner in London. Yes, this time last year in London. I have a pretty full day job. And I just thought that it would be really interesting to try this, that clearly you have set the tone and the standards on. Obviously a completely different subject to yours. But I think that it's an interesting...

more sort of personal space to be in. And of course, it matches the time that we're in right now. Right. We're going to talk specifically about it, but we can't, we've got to stick with the news to start with. We're going to discuss geopolitics, in particular, conflicts, wars, and potential wars happening right now. And we'll also talk a little bit about journalism. But let's talk about what's happening right now. The whole backdrop to this conversation is President Trump's global trade war and the economic uncertainty. American allies don't trust it anymore. The dollar is weakening. There's general sense of global instability.

How would you describe the moment we're living in right now? The way I sort of see it and coined it, and maybe I'm not the one who coined it, but I claim it, you know, it's not a new world order. It's almost no world order, a world order that is being essentially started from scratch. You know, in Trump's image, he wanted to do that. He essentially laid it out in his campaign. But I think it's true to say that neither people abroad nor in the United States realized how quick

and how huge it would be and what effects it would have. So, Cara, obviously that means everybody is trying to figure it out. And we speak, Cara,

Around the time of the celebration of VE Day, in other words, 80 years since the end of war in Europe, victory in Europe, where the whole U.S. world order began to unfold after that victory. And this whole U.S. world order, as you know, has brought the world a rules of the road and rules of the game, but also uncertainty.

an amount of peace and prosperity and trust and certainty. And now it's all being thrown, as Elon Musk says, in the wood chipper. And we need to figure out...

Where it's going to come out, who's going to put those splinters back together, and is it going to be better, worse, indifferent? Who knows? And what would you say the mood is when you talk to so many world leaders? What is the overall mood besides uncertainty or chaos, I guess? So I was at the Munich Security Conference in the middle of February. That is where, essentially, Vice President Vance came and laid out this new Trump world order. And what he did...

Yeah, and what he did was basically tell allies of 80 years, 75 years, that...

it's different now. You know, overnight, you have to figure out how to defend yourselves. You have to figure out how to cope with us and our protectionism. We call it, you know, unfair and being taken advantage of. And you need to figure out how to make up the deficit that we believe that we've been victimized all these years. So let's take a lot of those things and say, well, maybe there are places around the edges of all of those things that need to be

reformed, adjusted. It happens all the time. But the problem is, as world leaders see it and we journalists see it because we have to cope with reporting it, is that it's all happening everywhere all at once and it's manifesting as destruction rather than reform.

So, world leaders are trying to figure out how to fill that gap and how to fill the vacuum and how to make maybe other alliances and figure out at home what sort of cost-cutting they're going to make in maybe the, you know, welfare and well-being of people, more towards defense, figuring out how to do trade deals. And, Cara, you know that the president has said he wants to make, I don't know how many, but a lot of trade deals within— Yeah, 200. We're at day, like, 30 now. Yeah. If not more. Yeah.

Right, right. Practically more than 30. And it takes forever to make a trade deal. Yes, exactly. But because this post-war peace and prosperity was built around trade, and it really was, you know, away from all the guns and everything else and protection, and that was to be able to trade freely, how does America's retrenchment affect that from your perspective right now? Well, I think it affects it a lot. But I would also say that

Obviously, globalization is in the crosshairs. But the idea was to try to enhance peace and prosperity through interconnectedness. And all I can tell you is, you know, I live in Brexit Britain. And Brexit Britain is materially less well off than pre-Brexit Britain. Obviously, we had COVID. Obviously, we had a number of things. But...

in general, the investment, the, you know. No, you did not come roaring back. No, no, we didn't. So one of the things you're doing, I'm going to first talk about your podcast, then I want to get to some other world affairs. This new podcast that premieres on May 13th is called The X-Files, spelled E-X, because your co-host, Jamie Rubin, is a former diplomat and assistant secretary of state, is also your ex-husband.

The stated goal of the podcast is to make sense of the new no world order, as you said. How did you come up with talking with your ex? Well, look, actually, it was after the election. And then my ex, who used to be in the Biden administration before that in the Clinton administration, was out of a job. So and we were starting to I was trying to figure out how to, you know, navigate this this new sort of international world.

road that we're all on. And I thought, you know what? The real crux of what I wanted to do was go back, use our 35-year history, not millennia of history, not even decades and decades of history, but our shared

35 odd years of history, him from the Clinton administration, me from starting as a foreign correspondent for CNN back in 1990, and going back, finding issues and wars and crises and actual negotiations and successes and failures and, you know, all of the rest of it. Do the comparisons, right? Yes, the comparison. And if we could,

also reveal what people forget, and that is there have been successful peace... Let's just take the Oslo Accords. You might be... People might piss all over that today between Israel and the Palestinians, given what's happening today. But that was actually...

material change in that region for the first time, you know, in decades. And it could have led to something else. And it also highlighted, you know, how the hard work of diplomacy and leadership could actually, over a long period of time, it wasn't an overnight thing. It wasn't I'm going to bring peace in 24 hours or I'm going to fix that in, you know, in a month or whatever it is. It was a long, consistent, serious look at these people

issues and trying to figure out how they could be resolved. I mean, let's just take the Northern Ireland peace process, right? Let's just take ending apartheid in South Africa and the election of Nelson Mandela. You know, so many things. And then there was on the other side, you know, there was...

Yeah, so how we can learn from that. So you're bringing history here, how you can learn from that. A little history, personal stories. Personal stories, yeah. Yeah. It makes you accessible. But your journalistic motto is truthful, not neutral. And with that in mind, let's hear this episode's expert question. It comes from Mike Abramowitz, the director of The Voice of America.

who is currently in limbo while he fights the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle Voice of America and essentially replace it with One America News Network, which Carrie Lake just announced today. Let's listen to the question. So much data exists to show a huge decline in trust in the media over the last 30 years. And many Americans in particular believe most news organizations are biased. How do you explain this?

this state of affairs? And what is the one thing that you would suggest news organizations do to restore the

a sense of credibility with the American public? Well, listen, thanks for the question. It's not just the American public. But look, it's true that if you look at the Trustometer, those figures go down. It really does break my heart because I strongly believe, whether it's Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Liberty, et cetera, CNN, The New York Times, you know, the FT, Kara Swisher, whoever it might be, PBS, there are really important figures

Legacy, media, whatever the terminology is, it really annoys me. But historic...

you know, journalistic enterprises that have spent all their time doing the right thing, not being partisan, not being biased, trying to bring the objective truth, trying to hold power accountable, doing what we do, trying to reveal the stories of the people who would never be able to be heard if it wasn't for us. I think that it's sad that people view us now through a political lens. I'm not surprised because of the complete explosion

of the media and the new media is in direct conflict with whatever you wanna call us, old media, legacy media. I call it the actual media, actual journalism. And I do draw a line between, and it's not negative or positive, but there is a line between social media and indeed some podcasts, some tabloids, some cable channels who are distinctly, overtly and proudly partisan.

And others. Which drags the rest of us in, in many ways. Which drags, but we should drag ourselves out and stand up and say, no, we're not part of that. We want to tell the truth and tell the stories. And I will say, Cara, one of the things that potentially, potentially...

you know, can perhaps erode some trust, is if we stop doing our job the way we're meant to be doing it, whether you're in a radio station or a newspaper or one podcast, only if it's a news one, TV, whatever it is, you have to go into the field and tell the real and actual stories. The more you sit around and opine from a panel or an armchair,

the less actual real news is getting in. And so I would say that, you know, I reject this idea of us being partisan. I think we're doing our best to tell the truth and just to keep doing our investigative.

other kinds of journalism and do it really well. Which is the truthful, not neutral part. How has that lasted? That's really stuck with you. Well, it has because I... When you say not neutral, what is that? I say it means you find the truth and you've come to an assessment and you can say that assessment. It's called reporting is what I tell people.

I call it reporting as well. And I think people just got a bit worried because people sometimes in this highly partisan world that we're in feel that in order to be objective, you have to do both siderism. So let me be very clear. There are huge, huge stories where you have to be

really knowledgeable about what you're seeing and how you describe them. It's not every story. It's not necessarily the, I don't know, the local librarian election or whatever it is, but it is genocide. It is violations of international humanitarian law. It is, you know, besieging populations, men, women, and children, denying them food and water.

all of which I witnessed in Bosnia in the early 1990s and which have formed my worldview and my journalism and where I know the truth to be. So I was being pressured by the people

the outside public and world leaders who did not want to get involved, to tell the story that all sides were equally guilty. Instead, there was one clear side, just like Russia against Ukraine today. In the 1990s, it was Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs who wanted to create an ethnically pure society

greater Serbia and carve bits of territory out of Bosnia, which meant moving civilians, which meant killing civilians, starving civilians. That's where I learned, because I was there the whole time reporting the truth, that I had to tell the truth and that the truth was not that all sides were equally guilty. It was not, you know, centuries of ethnic hatred. It was a political...

that one side was trying to implement. Yeah, I think it's a big mistake, including at CNN, to do this both sides thing, especially with people who aren't credible. And I'm not going to name names, but I think you know what I'm talking about. Anyway, you don't have to respond because you still work there. I do too, but not like you. We'll be back in a minute.

Support for this podcast and the following message is brought to you by E-Trade from Morgan Stanley. With E-Trade, you can dive into the market with easy-to-use tools, zero-dollar commissions, and a wide range of investments. And now there's even more to love. You can get access to industry-leading research and insights from Morgan Stanley to help guide your decisions.

Open an account and get up to $1,000 or more with a qualifying deposit. Get started today at E-Trade.com. Terms and other fees apply. Investing involves risks. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC member SIPC. E-Trade is a business of Morgan Stanley.

Support for this show comes from Square. We all know the kinds of small businesses you see in a thriving neighborhood. Restaurants, small boutiques, coffee shops, maybe even a yoga studio or two. Places where you get to know the owners because they're working the register. Places where you meet your friends on the weekends. These businesses are the heart and soul of any community.

Well, a lot of those businesses use Square. That's because Square is easy for business owners to use and convenient for customers. Business owners love Square because the software is straightforward and intuitive while still providing powerful tools that let you track sales, stay on top of inventory, and get a better understanding of your customers. And customers love Square because it takes all major credit cards and payment methods, including contactless payment options like Apple Pay and Google Pay.

I have been using Square since the beginning. I'm one of the most early users, along with Apple Pay and the others. And I always find Square, especially when I take taxis and other things. And I've used it for so long. I just recently used it at a farmer's market. But I honestly, there's not anywhere I don't use Square, a Square product.

Square keeps up so you don't have to slow down. Get everything you need to run and grow your business without any long-term commitments. And why wait? Right now, you can get up to $200 off Square hardware at square.com slash go slash on with Kara. That's S-Q-U-A-R-E dot com slash G-O slash on with Kara, K-A-R-A. Run your business smarter with Square. Get started today.

So we're recording this on Wednesday, May 7th. And last night, India fired missiles at multiple sites in Pakistan. This was in response to a terrorist attack in Kashmir that targeted Indian civilians, which India blames on Pakistan without providing much evidence. India said it had struck terror camps and that strikes were designated as non-escalatory. Pakistan called it an unprovoked and blatant act of war and said it had shot down five Indian aircraft in response. Also has not been verified yet. How do you

How do you see this playing out? Obviously, we're talking about two nuclear powers who fought multiple wars. So there's a potential for serious bloodshed or not. Well, look, you know, nobody wants to pour fuel on the fire of such a risky and dangerous and volatile neighborhood. But this is a total failure of diplomacy.

and a failure of leadership that these two countries for so long have not been able to resolve this crucial issue. And it also begs the question of they are both American allies, and it's possible that in the previous administrations you would have had the Secretary of State or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the Defense Secretary or National Security Advisor

flying over there, being in touch, trying to figure out whether they could and whether they must tamp down any possible further escalation. So again, this is the kind of thing that is really serious and

It could develop into something even more serious. Nobody wants to even envision that. They are two nuclear powers and it's very, very dangerous. But again, both are allies of the United States and this needs serious diplomacy. Does it have to be the U.S. that does it? Well, the U.S. has the most influence.

Yeah. The U.S. has the most influence. And Trump is transactional. You know, you don't know. Maybe there's a transaction to be, you know, held over them both. But he is transactional. And, you know, who knows? So it's got to be the U.S. involved. All right. Yeah.

and others. Yeah. But it's very difficult. Look, who are the neighbors? You know, you've got Iran, you've got Afghanistan, you know, you've got China. China has also spoken out against it and has told, you know, everybody to, you know, calm down. It can't be in China or Russia or anybody's interest this. I mean, you know, India imports a lot of, uh,

Russian oil, Russia's very, very integrated with India, Pakistan, very integrated with China. And this is actually also an interesting question because I'm just thinking out loud. But if the U.S. cedes

influence and management, right? Into every vacuum, something else drops. So after this famous Munich situation with J.D. Vance reading his allies the riot act and appearing to turn on a dime from allies to adversaries,

The former British Prime Minister, Sir John Major, came out and he said, you know, I never come out because governments have a hard enough time talking without ex-Prime Ministers coming in and telling them what to do. But maybe this time an ex is better talking about the ex, the ex-files, better than a current Prime Minister. And he said, look...

President Xi, President Putin will be dancing a jig of joy, those were his words, watching President Trump voluntarily cede global influence, power, and domination, the whole America first thing, right? Right. And into that vacuum will Trump, China for sure, Russia if it can, and whoever else. So now we're faced with

okay, well, in India, Pakistan, if the U.S. doesn't pursue it and if others can't, well, will these other very strong trading and diplomatic partners jump in? And what will be the conclusion? And what will be the terms? China will move right on in there. Everything's been a gift to China, tariffs, everything else, even if it's hurting their economy. All right, let's keep moving. I

Gaza and Israel. I interviewed you for this podcast in October of 2023, less than two weeks after the October 7th Hamas attack. In Israel, since then, Israel has killed over 50,000 Gazans, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. Israel disputes that. On March 2nd, Israel began a total blockade of Gaza and residents there are at the risk of starvation. How

How and when does this war end? Do you see a permanent Israeli reoccupation as a likely outcome? The cabinet, just for people who don't know, approved a plan to resume, quote unquote, intensive ground operations that would involve moving Gazan to the south of the Strip, expanding its buffer zone and having private companies distribute aid.

I think it's Yair Lapid, the leader of the Israeli opposition, has said that Benjamin Netanyahu isn't doing everything he can to bring the Israeli hostages back because that would mean the end of his term. So talk about both those things. Well, unfortunately, this crisis, and it's another one we want to talk about in the podcast because it doesn't have to be like this.

This crisis is so heavily politicized and partisan, whether it's unfolding, you know, on the streets and campuses of the United States or, you know, or around the world and most certainly in the region. I mean, the latest is that, you know, President Trump is apparently—well, President Trump is coming to the region now, as we're speaking—

And they have said, the Israelis, that they're going to start this much expanded military operation after he leaves the region. So what they're saying is that they want to pretty much reoccupy almost all of Gaza. They want to create huge areas of what they call buffer zones and military security zones. They want to push...

I mean, it's about two million Gazans into a piece of territory that amounts to about a third to a quarter of the enclave. They're currently, according to overhead satellite imagery, creating some 20 acres or so of a so-called aid depot in the south near Rafah. And they believe that they...

you know, are unobstructed to take this very, very radical new measure. The very radicals who prop up Benjamin Netanyahu, people who, you know, who you hear, the finance minister Smotrich, the national security minister Ben-Gavir, whose entire, from the very beginning, their mission has been reoccupy Gaza, you know, not only get rid of Hamas, but get, you know,

get rid of the Garzens, and it's a lot happening similar in the West Bank as well. This is their project. And unfortunately, it is happening

At a time when Prime Minister Netanyahu is undergoing a corruption trial and all of this politics, personal situation is all happening at the same time. And again, it's very unclear where the Trump administration will go.

will fall down on this issue. I don't mean fall down. I mean come down on this issue. What is his relationship with Trump? Trump is apparently disengaged of what's happening in Gaza, and part of the reason he fired Mike Walz as head of the NSA, among other things, is reportedly because he was upset Walz had been coordinating with Netanyahu for plans to strike Iran. Does Netanyahu have the green light to do as he wants in Gaza as long as Israel doesn't hit Iran? Well, I think they're two very different things. I'm not surprised President Trump took that decision

that action, if that was true, that his own national security official was planning some kind of attack on a foreign country that actually Trump is trying to go into negotiations with. So that in itself, as you know, Bibi Netanyahu has always tried to make Iran the dominant issue in the Middle East and has essentially, you know, constantly wanted

basically the U.S. to go and do his work for him in Iran by blowing up their nuclear plants. The United States so far has resisted it. They've resisted under President George W. Bush after the Iraq war. They've resisted under every president, including President Trump. Trump wants to go into a nuclear deal with Iran, and we'll see where that leads to. Remember, he pulled out of the nuclear deal in his first term.

Right. And now he needs to get it back again. Right, right. So we're going to move to Europe. We'll start with the war in Ukraine. I'm going to go through all the things I'm interested in right now. Trump is showing impatience with Putin. The administration signed a mineral deal and approved arms sales to Ukraine for the first time in Trump 2.0. Lindsey Graham has a bill that would increase sanctions on Russia and has had broad support in the Senate.

Talk about this pivot towards Ukraine if Putin refuses to engage in serious negotiations. And what happens if the U.S. ends up leaving Ukraine to its own devices? Can Europe defend Ukraine on its own or itself?

And obviously that would weaken NATO. And then that would put Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in Putin's crosshairs. So the pivot really happened again in that famous Munich summit. Then there was that disastrous meeting in the White House where Vance and Trump were kind of...

beating up on Zelensky, who also didn't handle it well. If I'd been his ambassador or his spokesman, I would have said, Mr. President, you speak in an official meeting in your own language with translators so that you understand exactly what's being said and so that you can respond in a way that matches the seriousness of the moment. Instead, he was

you know, in a way Zelensky flailing around in a language that he's only just learned to speak pretty fluently, but not quite enough. So that was that. Then you had this whole business about President Trump, you know, spending several weeks kind of blaming Ukraine and thinking that they could negotiate with Russia, you know, talking to Putin before he talked to Zelensky, all of that kind of stuff.

Witkoff going there, his special envoy several times. Again, Putin talking points, Putin talking points. And also Mar-a-Lago talking points. How beautiful that too. But still, you know, the most generous interpretation is try to draw them in with honey.

try to draw Russia into a negotiation like a Putin-Trump negotiation with honey. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Why? Because eventually, under American advice, Trump advice,

And Zelensky of Ukraine agreed to that ceasefire, if you remember. And guess who didn't agree to a ceasefire? Vladimir Putin. And not only that, kept pounding Ukraine and not just anywhere in Ukraine, Kiev, Odessa, but civilian targets. And that pissed Trump off to the point, you remember, he sent out a tweet, Vladimir, stop, right? Right.

And then he started to get, it appears, pissed off with Putin because Putin was now revealing the true Putin. Everybody had said that Putin doesn't really want a peace. Putin wants to win and he wants to play out and wait out the West. He has always believed from the beginning that the West is

or Ukraine's allies will not have the stomach to stay in it long enough. Or there's not enough in Europe, right? And so you can then do it. Because nationalist parties are surging across Europe. They're in power in Italy and Hungary. They're ruling coalitions in the Netherlands, Finland. But not in Ukraine. But yes, they're making striking gains in France and Germany. They could potentially win elections in Romania and Poland.

So can Europe then do this with these shifts that are similar to ones happening in our country back and forth? So can they defend not just Ukraine, but NATO and their alliance? And especially with these far-right moves across all these countries. You know, all of this is in play again. NATO remains, you know, absolutely, you know, solid. It waits to see whether its biggest member and its most powerful member, the United States,

what its role will be. It doesn't necessarily think the US will pull out of NATO, but what will its role be? And it's really thinking right now that, and Europe is, that the West is no longer the West as we know it, that the West is the United States, then there's the Europe part of the West, and then there's the rest, so to speak. And the United States and Canada and Australia, if you want to think about the alliance. But they are

it'll be difficult. They are already moving their spending targets in ways that they know that they now need to spend a lot more on defense, and it may come down to them giving the lion's share of aid to Ukraine. But more importantly,

Can I just make a personal point? I was very, very upset. You know, I've been to a lot of war. I've covered almost all America's major wars since 1990. And I probably got a lot more war experience than J.D. Vance and Pete Hexeth, despite their military deployments. And I'm much older than them.

The way I see it is we Europeans are not pathetic freeloaders. We have come to America's aid time and time again in the last 35 years. The first Gulf War, when President George W. Bush wanted and was correct to try to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

Europe and all the allies came to his defense. After 9/11, Europe and the allies enacted Article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all, for the very first time in NATO history,

defending and protecting the United States of America. They went to war for the United States with the United States in Afghanistan. That was the right war at the time. Then they went to a total misguided war. Europe shouldn't have done, but they came to America's aid in the 2003 war in Iraq, which now we know was based on fantasies and lies. And so we've been helping. When did America come to our aid in the last 35 years?

We'll be back in a minute.

I do want to finish up talking about China. As you said, opportunities everywhere for China. Trump's tariffs are already causing, obviously, major pain to the Chinese economy. They're lowering interest rates to response. We've discussed it, that China is more than ready to withstand. Both Scott and I on Pivot talk about that economic fallout, in part because the Chinese don't get much say in the matter. Talks between Chinese and American officials began this week, and the goal is to de-escalate. And Trump has already said he will lower tariffs. He's been like a

a sad weather vane on this issue. There are reports that China is considering slowing exportation of chemical precursors used to make fentanyl, which is something Trump people want to point to. Taiwanese President Lai Ching-ta has been provoking China, at least rhetorically. Meanwhile, China is practicing war gains that are so aggressive that General Roland Clark, the Soviet Army commander, said that leaves him speechless.

Give me an overview right now of China, and that's what we'll finish out on. Where do you see, because that seems to me the person who's going to enter the void rather significantly across the globe. So overview is that China believes, Xi Jinping believes, it was slightly different with his predecessors, but Xi Jinping believes that China's historical role is to lead the world. So that's clear, whether by trade, military dominance, all of the rest of it.

Secondly, somebody who's been considered for a Trump position, Elbridge Colby, I don't know whether he's going to get confirmed or not, but before all this, we had him on the program quite a lot and in the Pentagon. And he was saying, you know, China is most certainly going to be looking at Ukraine and how Ukraine plays out and the Russia and Ukraine and all this, because they're going to get their kind of marching orders, if you like, from what's allowed to happen to Ukraine.

You know, everybody believes that China, one way or another, is going to move on Taiwan in some form or fashion at some point. So, yes, China has played outside the rules of the game on so many of the IP, creativity, all of that kind of stuff, and indeed, in terms of its policy.

the rules of the international waters. It has dramatically upped its threat posture in the South China Sea and in that area. And that's a big, big issue. But as you say, it has a much higher pain threshold. It doesn't, you know, respond necessarily to a democratic will of the people. And so it hasn't probably...

longer time to take the pain of these tariffs. And I'm not a business expert, but you can see from their psychology and what they say and the way they've played this in the public, in public, and they're bringing out all sorts of Mao sayings and going all the way back to sort of nationalist China from, you know, 1950, etc. They are waging this

in a very deliberate manner. And as you said, you know, so far, President Trump has said, you know, I'll do this, but I won't do that, et cetera, and changed his mind on a few of these things. We'll just see where it ends up. What is his, I mean, if you were sitting next to him and said, Christiane, I'm going to do what you say, Steve Miller leave or whoever leave, Peter Navarro leave, what's the piece of advice you would give him? Well, look, there are people, including my ex on the X-Files, who credit Trump with really bringing this

China, unfair trade stuff.

into, in a big way, into the public domain and into the political domain. This issue is a genuine and big issue. The question is, how do you implement it? I think that the President of the United States and the President of China, the two most powerful people in the world, with the most powerful economies, the U.S. is still a little bit ahead, most powerful militaries, U.S. still a little bit ahead, but China is

rushing to the finish line. They have to be able to have, again, some kind of, you know, again, rules of the road. So what happens when you throw the rules of the road out?

as Trump has sort of said he wants to do and recreate them, then where do you have to go to to create the parameters around safe and secure trade and economic and military policy? So I think that it needs a bit of both, you know, toughness and total awareness on what you need China not to do

but also the ability for both to speak and negotiate in a way that, you know, stops it from, A, destroying the global economy, and B, hurting people, and C, coming to some dreadful military head. If there's no world order, what is the next phase and how long till we get there? Or what are you calling it? You have to go beyond no world order.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's being formulated as we speak, and we'll see what happens in these four years, because it is the four years of Donald Trump that we're talking about, and who knows who comes or what comes afterwards. But this is an attempt to reorder the world to America's liking, right? America first. And there are some who suggest that the

The inexorable sort of route forward is to divide the world into the strongman spheres of influence. So who are they? President Trump in the West, President Xi in Asia, and President Putin in Eurasia. Is that possible? What will it mean?

It was something that happened a long, long time ago. We're going back 100 years or more when it was last tried. Then the whole of our past experience, 80 years, has been the reverse.

And by and large, it's worked. By and large, it's enriched people. It's brought more peace. Interconnectedness is better than everybody fighting, right? But it has raised some very tricky issues, and that is trade and protectionism and immigration. The world has turned against the idea, which was a fundamental idea of the economy, that people will move in order to

you know, make life better for themselves, but also enrich the countries where they move to. All of that has been tossed on its head. And the question is, who and what are the politics and the policies involved

that can meet the actual complaints of the time without tipping everything into, you know, over the edge. I actually have one last question. If you had to pick the one person you think is most important in the U.S. foreign policy area, who would it be? Ooh, golly. Besides Trump. You can't say Trump. Yeah, okay, I won't say Trump. I'd been hoping for an interview with Mike Walz, but he never gave me one, and now he's out of that position. Yeah.

I guess, I guess, okay, J.D. Vance. Why? Because he's the one who either it's him or he's channeling Trump. And also, obviously, Marco Rubio is channeling Trump. But J.D. Vance is the one who came to Europe 80 years after VE Day just about, 80 years into this phenomenal alliance, which has paid dividends for all who are members of it.

and basically turned it on its head in one speech. And in that room, the German defense minister, he's quite an impressive fellow, Boris Pistorius, he shouted and heckled from the back. Because remember what Germany went through. I mean, this is all 80 years was built to deny and annihilate what the terror that Germany waged on the world 80 years ago. He shouted from the room, this is unacceptable.

So, will it be acceptable? Is it unacceptable? But I think J.D. Vance has a very, very, that's what I'm saying today. You know, I've often been wrong on things, but that's what I'm saying today. Oh, I like it. I like it. Good choice. I'm surprised. You can reach Mike Walls on Signal.

Anyway, thank you. And we're not getting into that. All right, Christiane, congratulations on becoming a podcaster. As I said, you jump in the pool. You did it. I'm so proud of you. And I'm thrilled that you are here. We'll do a trade. I'm still on CNN. You know that. I know that, but I don't care. Podcasting, you'll love it. You look like you're having fun on that podcast. I can tell. Yeah, yeah. It's been fun.

getting it ready. In a month, you'll be like, I've never had so much fun. You'll see. Well, Cara, I'll call you if it's the reverse. I'll call you either way. Trust me, I'll see you soon.

On with Kara Swisher is produced by Christian Castor-Russell, Kateri Yochum, Dave Shaw, Megan Burney, Megan Cunane, and Kaylin Lynch. Nishat Kerwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Eric Litke. Our engineers are Rick Quant and Fernando Arruda, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you and your ex will have a wonderful friendship just like Christian and Jamie, and possibly a podcast. If not, it'll be endlessly contentious.

Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.