Pod Save the World - Secretary of State Antony Blinken

Episode Date: September 13, 2023

Tommy and Ben talk about Kim Jong Un’s trip to meet with Vladimir Putin, Viktor Bout’s entrance into local Russian politics, Armenia’s diplomatic shift away from Russia, and a positive development in Nagorno-Kabarakh region. They also dig into an escalation into the economic war between the US and China, allegations about an undercover Chinese spy in the UK parliament, Biden’s trip the Vietnam and political value of foreign trips, Mexico’s future female president, the resignation of Spain’s head soccer official, a Florida man trying to cross the Atlantic in a hamster wheel and a red wine flood. Then US Secretary of State Antony Blinken joins to discuss the war in Ukraine, the G20, a reported Saudi Arabia-Israel normalization deal and more. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast. Help those affected by the Morocco earthquake: USAID Center for International Disaster Information-- https://www.cidi.org/disaster-responses/morocco-earthquake/ Give Directly-- https://www.givedirectly.org/morocco-earthquake/ Banque Alimentaire (The Food Bank) -- https://banquealimentaire.ma/en/

Welcome to POTS day of the world. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Ben Rhodes. Ben, you're in London. Did you happen to catch the Jets game last night? Mercifully, I went to bed. Very excited to wake up and see what had happened with the Aaron Rogers era. The first thing I woke to was our text chain with like Cody Keated being like, oh man, Rhodes, I hope you didn't see that or something like that. And I was like, oh, no, what happened? And, of course, I saw that two plays and he tore as Achilles. Yeah, for those who don't watch the NFL, Ben's beloved New York Jets got, you know, arguably the best quarterback and not the best quarterback. One of the best top three quarterbacks in football. No offense, Patrick Mahomes.

And he tore as Achilles on the fourth play, fifth play, not ideal. So it's a very Jets situation to unfold. Very Jets situation. But, you know, it's good that you were in Woody Johnson's former Stompbegrounds, the Jets owner, Maga Chud. Yeah. Yeah, it's better that he's not the ambassador here. I'd rather that than have healthier in riders, I have to say that. Yeah, that's true. Well, listen, Ben's sadness around sports aside, we got a great trip for you today. We just wrapped an interview with President Biden's

Secretary of State, Tony Blinken. You'll hear him talk about Ukraine. I talk about a big speech. Tony's given this week. Talk about, you know, sort of views in the global south of the G20 of the United States. We talk about a potential U.S. Saudi Israel normalization. deal. So a lot of ground covered there. And then Ben and I are going to talk about the latest from Russia and Ukraine, Armenia and Azerbaijan, a bunch of interesting updates about China, the politics of presidential travel, some good news out of Mexico, the tragic earthquake in Morocco, and then an update on everyone's least favorite soccer asshole in Spain. And then, Ben, two quick things before it's the news. So we haven't asked for this in a while, but like, if you guys like

the show, if you enjoy it, please rate and review it in the old iTunes story. It really helped people find the show. It helps us grow. Share it with your friends. Maybe subscribe to the YouTube. Also, if you're a Midwesterner, get your Mallort out because love it or leave it is coming to Chicago on September 21st and Madison on September 22nd. They got all kinds of great guests. Tickets are going fast. If you go to crooked.com slash events, you can buy them. Beloved is also going to cities like Louisville, San Diego, San Jose, Washington, D.C. and New Orleans. again, cricket.com slash events. Okay, so Russia, Ukraine.

We asked Tony some of the big picture strategy questions later in the show, so stick around for that, but some updates that are new this week. The first is that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has arrived in Russia for talks with Vladimir Putin. Kim was reportedly accompanied by one of his goons in charge of munitions policies and then two other goons in charge of acquiring space satellites and nuclear-capable submarines. So no real secret here, Ben, about what the topics are of this. this meeting. Republicans are highlighting the fact that the U.S. has officially spent more than 100 billion on the war in Ukraine. So according to a Fox News exclusive, but this obviously

comes as Biden is looking to get more funding out of Congress. In Russia, Putin was at an economic conference in Vladivostok Tuesday. He gave a speech where he said, the criminal case against Trump is an indication of the, quote, rottenness of the American political system. He praised Elon Musk and claimed that 270,000 Russians have voluntarily signed up for military service in the past six or seven months. So a couple of parts trolling, a couple parts, military industrial complex trumpeting there, Ben. And then Russia also held some regional and municipal elections recently. Giant air quotes around elections there, by the way. In territory, they annexed from Ukraine. Big surprise, the pro-Pooten Party won ABC News reported that poll workers were going to voters' houses

with, like, literally armed soldiers, detaining people who wouldn't vote. And then lastly, Ben, the merchant of death is getting into politics. Listeners might remember. Victor Boot, he's the Russian arms dealer who has returned to Russia in a prisoner swap for WMBA player, Whitney Griner. Boot is now standing in election in the town about 450 miles east of Moscow. That was Vladimir Lenin's birthplace. So some sad news there, Ben. I think we both had hoped that Victor Boot would make something of his life after getting out

a prison, but instead he got involved in politics. So here we are. Yeah, no surprise there. You know, these guys, other than Progrosion, a lot of these guys have second lives. But the, you know, we obviously get to some of the stuff with Tony, you know, the Kim Jong-un stuff, you know, is really worrisome. I mean, the Russians have a lot that they can provide here in terms of long-range missile technology, satellite technology. So hopefully we'll have a read on exactly what happens. You know, like that may take intelligence and may not be something we know.

That's a big question I have coming out of this. It's just like, are we going to have any sense of what the Russians might be doing in exchange for this ammunition? The only other thing that really stands out to me, Tommy, beyond what we get into with Tony, is this Putin comment about Trump, you know, really echoing Trump's points, right? And then the comment clearly meant to appeal to Elon Musk's vanity. I think it's a little appetizer, if you will, for how much the Russians are probably going to want to get involved in our politics. It's existential for them. You know, if Trump's elected, the U.S. support for Ukraine.

ceases. I think we should anticipate that. So just think about what the stakes are for Vladimir Putin. And so I think we should all prepare ourselves. This has not been discussed much. Trump has kind of made people weary about talking about Russian interference. But this is an indication of what's to come. Yeah. It really is. And the conflict is binary for Putin. If Biden is around, there'll be much more support for Ukraine. If he's not, or if really any of these Republicans come in, support for Ukraine will probably go away. You're right. And by the way, there's a trend. of Russians convicted of crimes abroad coming back home and getting into politics. There was the former KGB guy accused of murdering a Russian defector in the UK.

He joined the Duma. There was Maria Butina about Russian gun rights activists that got swirled up in the NRA here in the U.S. And accused of being a spy. She also joined the Duma. So, you know, it's a proud legacy there for our friend Victor Bout. Ben, a little good news about the ongoing dispute between Armenia and Afghanistan. Azerbaijan in the disputed Nkornok Karabakh region. So Nagorno Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but the area is ethnically

Armenian and for a long time was basically governed by pro-Armenian separatist groups. That situation on the ground changed in 2020 when Azerbaijan won back a bunch of territory in a war. And more recently, people have been quite concerned about Azerbaijan blockading the only road linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh because it was causing a humanitarian. crisis. There were reports today that say Azerbaijan and Armenia have cut a deal to reopen that road, which is obviously a good thing for humanitarian reasons. But the geopolitics of the Russian invasion of Ukraine really flow into Armenia and Azerbaijan as well. Historically speaking,

Armenia has been an ally of Russia. That seems to be changing maybe. On Monday, Armenia participated in a joint military exercise with the United States. And Armenia's first lady visited Ukraine recently to deliver aid. So I'm just curious, Ben, if you're, if you're, if you're, Putin, would you be happy, you know, upgrading relations with North Korea while losing Armenia as an ally? Or is this kind of like feel like a shrinking world for him? Well, I think, look, the reality is that there used to be these Russian peacekeepers or, you know, who are in, who are kind of charged with being in that region to kind of help manage things like the Nagorno-Karabat conflict. And they were obviously pulled out because Russians need all the troops they can get.

and the Russians weren't willing to kind of lean on Azerbaijan or Turkey, which is very close to Azerbaijan, to help resolve what was really a humanitarian crisis and a warning of genocide by leading voices on these issues in the national community. I think, so it clearly shows a kind of diminishing role for Russia in that part of the Caucasus, you know, where Turkey might have more influence, right, or Azerbaijan is flexing its muscles more. I think a key lesson here is I have to think that this is no way resolved. There's a lot of threat to the people who are still very vulnerable in Nagorno-Karbach. But if there has been incremental progress, it's because I think there's been greater attention on this. And I think, you know, the Armenian-American community in this country has raised a lot of noise. But so increasingly has there been diplomatic pressure, diplomatic attention on this. And I think the lesson here is Russia is playing less of a role here.

But to prevent that vacuum from being filled by, you know, Azerbaijan trying to swallow up this territory and the people in it, it's going to take a lot of diplomatic attention from a lot of countries, including the United States and Europe. Yeah, I think Tony actually was making some calls over the weekend about this to try to help get a resolve too. Let's switch to China because, you know, we've been talking a lot about China and its economic challenges lately. If you want more detail, the last episode you did with Max when I was out, had a great overview. view. But I think one question we've asked ourselves, Ben, and we've asked some of our guests like Kirk Campbell a couple weeks ago, is whether they think that China's economic problems make it more or less likely to invade Taiwan. President Biden gave us the clearest answer we've heard during his press conference in Vietnam. Let's listen. I don't think it's going to cause China to

invade Taiwan. As a matter of fact, the opposite probably doesn't have the same capacity that it had before. So, you know, interesting, much more direct and I guess reassuring then. More broadly, though, you know, the trajectory for U.S.-China relations is pretty rocky. No official announcement was released, but there have been reports about directives to Chinese government employees and state-owned companies ordering them to use domestic phone brands instead of Apple products. This comes as the Chinese tech giant Huawei released its new phone that's supposed to be an iPhone competitor. The U.S. has repeatedly warned about Huawei's connections to the Chinese. military. Now, this ban, you know, the potential ban of Chinese government officials from owning

Apple phones could be like the tit for tat for the U.S. banning TikTok, but it spooked the hell out of Wall Street. And people started to wonder if Apple could caught in an economic war, and the stock price dropped 6%, I think, at a day. And then finally, Ben, there was a report in the Times that was interesting worth reading, which is one that talked about how China is getting into the disinformation game, even in deeper. and use artificial intelligence programs to sell a narrative that the wildfires in Maui were started by a secret American weather weapon. Previously, most of China's disinformation has focused on core issues like Taiwan. So this feels new and troubling. But Ben, what did you make of that Biden

assessment at the top about the likelihood of a Taiwan invasion and then just sort of this broader trajectory in this economic war that's going? I mean, first of all, I have to say it's I don't think there's much gain from commenting on that. You know, like, I, look, I understand I'm always sympathetic to policies. I actually want to answer the question. That's usually a good, good thing. But in this case, at the end of the day, the only person who knows the answer to that question is Xi Jinping. You know, I mean, their economy could be great or it could be bad.

It's in what that guy's head is going to determine what happens here. And so, you know, I don't think it has impact in the real world, per se. I just think we don't necessarily know because they do have a significant military capability and the current state of their economy, unless it really falls off a cliff, I'm not sure it cripples their capacity to do something. I think that the Huawei piece,

it feels like them hitting back at us for what have been really big export controls, limits on technology going in. And that speaks to kind of the separation, is taking place between the U.S. and China and supply chains and particularly in technology, which is, you know, I think creates more vulnerabilities for them than us, but it does create vulnerabilities for us, too. And I think it raises this question of how far does this escalation go in both directions? Because if it goes all the way, you know, in terms of the

tech space, well, that's a big deal for like an Apple. They mix your iPhones in China. So it's a reminder that there is risk for us. I think there's probably greater risk for the Chinese in the score, though. And it may account for them. being a little more aggressive in the disinformation space. They may see that this is a more existential conflict for them than just kind of a Taiwan issue. They're doing now kind of Russia-style stuff where they're creating divisions in the United States. And that shows them kind of getting ready for a pretty long conflict here. Yeah, the potential iPhone ban on government employees did seem like a bit of a tit-for-tat type response. I mean, certainly China could decide to

fuck with Apple, fuck with their manufacturing, and the crown jewel of the U.S. economy, but I think that would have massive ramifications for any company in China. But then on this disinformation story in New York Times, I just want to read one paragraph to you, which is it said, it's a quote, if China does engage in influence operations for the election next year, U.S. intelligence officials have assessed in recent months, it's likely to try to diminish President Biden and raise the profile of former President Donald J. Trump. While that may seem counterintuitive to Americans who remember Mr. Trump's effort to blame Beijing for what he called the China virus. The intelligence officials have concluded that Chinese leaders prefer Mr. Trump.

He's called for pulling Americans out of Japan, South Korea, and other parts of Asia, while Mr. Biden has cut off China's access to the most advanced chips and equipment made to produce them. Sounds right, but very interesting and kind of surprising to me that the intel agencies would brief that. Yeah, but there's no question. I don't think this is a close call. You know, there's no way that Donald Trump cares about Taiwan. He insulted Taiwan when he's asked about it, right?

He said they stole the chips or something. His trade war was this kind of half-ass thing, trying to get the Chinese to buy soybeans, whereas the Biden administration is like literally choking off investment and tech inputs in the Chinese economy. And frankly, just Trump's, you know, embarrassing, the embarrassing reality of Donald Trump discredits democracy and opens up a huge space for China

to kind of move forward with a parallel world order that eclipses what the, United States is doing. All those alliances that the United States is trying to reinforce under Biden get on rocky waters if Trump is back. So I think this is not much of a question. I think it reminds us so. We just talked about Putin wanting to be involved in this election. Like Russia and China decide they really want Donald Trump back in there and they both have good reasons for that. You know, we could be seeing things in this election that go beyond even what we saw in 2016. Yeah, it's going to be a nightmare. Also, Ben, I know you're in the UK.

There have been these allegations recently that a researcher working in Parliament on China policy was actually a foreign agent spying for China. It's led to, it seems like a bit of a freak out. I think two men have been arrested, both deny they were spying. But the government is making changes. The British government is making changes for the first time, making it illegal to be an undercover spy. And then I think creating sort of a version of America's Foreign Agent Registration Act. Rishi Sunak said he raised this.

issue of this spy in parliament with Chinese officials of the G20. But interesting to watch them kind of go through this news cycle. Yeah, it's a massive story here, by the way. Like, this has been like a huge story broke when I was here. A lot of discussion about it. I saw our friend David Lammy. He was on it. Very alarmed by it. And I think it speaks to like a much more aggressive, you know, we've seen the Chinese government do this, versions of this in places like Australia. we've seen them try to project influence into Canada. I think it just shows that they're getting very aggressive. And this is someone like, you know, this is basically timing the equivalent of someone

who was a hill staff, like a junior congressional staffer with access to some secure information, right? I mean, this is not just a small piece of business. And this is the pattern that we were seeing. We had the arrests in the United States of people who worked on military facilities and, you know, enlisted people in San Diego. So I just think, you know, this is a pattern where governments are going to have. The Chinese aren't going to stop doing it because Rishi-Soonak raised it with G20 officials. No.

You're going to, this is going to have to be about defense more than warning the Chinese off of it. Yeah, getting a stern warning from Rishi-Suna is not going to do it for anybody. So, Ben, speaking of China, President Biden just finished this five-day swing to Asia. He went to the G20 in India. They pushed through some important developments and reforms to multinational development banks like the World Bank. It's a big deal for these low- and middle-income country. and it helps the U.S. counter China's investments through the Belt and Road initiative. Biden also went to Hanoi where the U.S. upgraded relations with Vietnam, again, a big deal in

its own right, and a reminder to the Chinese that were a Pacific power, that we have alliances around them, et cetera. I will say that human rights groups were not entirely thrilled about the trip. They wanted to see Biden press Vietnam much harder on human rights issues. There were also some reports, thinking in the Wall Street Journal of a potential U.S.-S.-S.-Saudy deal to extract rare earth minerals from African countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo. That combo makes my skin crawl. But Ben, the big story out of this trip, of course, wasn't the substance, as it never was for us on our foreign trips.

It was about how Biden ended his press conference in Hanoi, maybe a little weirdly. He said, I'm going to bed, which in my view is not a weird thing to say at like 10, 15 p.m. at night when the press conference ended. But it led to a question I have for you, which is, you know, first of all, feel free to discuss any of the substantive stuff from the trip. But also, second, it's clear that the Biden team thinks that one way to push back on concerns about his age is to talk about these foreign trips. Their first campaign ad is about Biden's trip to Ukraine. You know, we both know how hard it is to get coverage of foreign trips back in the U.S. To the extent you do, it's usually about like some political news of the day.

and not what you're actually doing. But what do you think about the political value of images and coverage of these foreign trips for Joe Biden? I think, you know, look, we, first of all, there's nothing new here, right? Like, we both dealt with this. I mean, you know, we could go on and on about all the times that Obama's, you know, we yelled at the press because they weren't covering substance, you know, because one time Obama, like Baudas had a tiny bit to the Japanese emperor and a five-day trip to Asia, it became about, you know, him bowing in the wrong way. Or, like, you know, President Obama used to, you know, get really annoyed and he'd take it

out on his press staff. You and I probably both got some of that because he was pissed that, you know, they didn't cover the G20 communique or something because they were, you know, focused on some optics issue back home. This is, this happens to everybody. So this is not unique to do it, Biden, but I'm sympathetic to him. I think that, however, you can make it work for you. look, they're not going to cover the communique.

And there's some important things in the GCHONI Communique. You know, financing for the World Bank is really important to, you know, making a lot of progress in development. But that's not the kind of stuff that people are going to talk about on cable television or even necessarily write about. Where you can break through is kind of iconic shots, right? Like, you know, you give a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. You know, you address a large crowd in foreign country.

You take a train to Ukraine as President Biden did, right? Like, I think one thing, you know, you have to consider is just going to the summit and giving a press conference is a way to guarantee that you won't get your message out. Because they don't care about the summit communique and they're going to use the press conference to ask you a bunch of questions that are probably unrelated to the things you want to talk about. And so I think the way to make it work, and frankly, the ads that they've run show that when you're, you know, you're out there in an iconic position. filling the role of the American presidency, that breaks through. Those images do break through back home because people want to be proud of their president. They want to see their president out there doing work and kind of inspiring people or standing up to dictators. That's the way to make the politics of foreign travel work.

You're always going to be on defense at the summit press conference. Yeah, no, your press conference is never a great place to deliver your message. Speaking of iconic moments in presidential speeches, here's another quick clip. I didn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah. That's George W. Bush. We saw that on Twitter this morning and it made us laugh. It is funny, though. We're in this giant debate about like, oh, did Biden have a gaff? Is he too old? Is Trump too old? Like, hey, George W. Bush was pretty young and pretty fucking stupid and said crazy stuff all the time like Osama bin Laden not enjoying Hanukkah. So maybe we recirculate some of those. Well, he might have a point, though. I don't think bin Laden was said. He is right. I mean, just straight, if we're going to substance, not optics, right? I mean, I don't think bin Laden was in a Hanukkah.

Have you ever seen a minister? His loss, by the way. His loss. His loss. You know, I never saw him light a menorah. I never, you know, like a, but that's, you know, that's one of the reasons why it didn't end well for him. Okay, let's turn to our hemisphere because there is some good news out of Mexico, where the country's Supreme Court decriminalized abortion last week, Mexico's congressional chambers, were ordered to remove any criminal penalties for abortion from Mexican law by the end of its current legislative session. This ruling lays the foundation for Mexico to begin providing abortion services and broaden access dramatically, but that doesn't mean abortion services will now be

readily available. Basically, the federal public health system allowing abortion services to happen is very different than actually providing them. In the past, the health system has only been legally allowed to provide abortions in cases of rape or to preserve the mother's health. Mexico is also likely to get its first female president in its 2024 election. As the ruling Marana Party announced that Claudia Scheinbaum will be its nominee, she'll be facing off against the opposition coalition's nominee, Sochitel Gavez, who's also a woman. They are both socially progressive. They support decriminalizing abortion rights. They're vying to succeed President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. He is required to step down next year, per the law, because he can't seek

another term. He says he doesn't want any, you know, influence in politics going forward and we'll step away completely. Consider me very skeptical of that, Ben. So, Ben, I mean, it's great to see Mexico taking these steps forward on gender equity, but it is also just very depressingly highlights the ways the U.S. is backsliding constantly. Yeah. And first of all, congratulations everybody who's worked for this for a long time in Mexico. But the reality is, yeah, deeply Catholic country in Mexico, I mean, obviously not everybody, but like a deeply established Catholic church, they're taking the opposite direction of the United States, going to have a female president before we do, you know, they're leading on this. And I wish we would move in similar direction here. I share your skepticism. I think

Amlost Party will be favored, and I think he'll continue to be quite powerful. But, you know, that doesn't diminish the importance of, if they do break that glass ceiling. And it certainly doesn't diminish the importance of the breakthroughs. an abortion rights. Yeah. One story that's just worth flagging for folks, New York Times did a long piece on this decades-old mystery of what happened to 43 college students who went missing in 2014. It turns out they were shot at by police. The cops then handed them over to drug cartels who murdered them on their behalf. But the broader story is about the depth of corruption and inclusion between Mexican officials, the military, the police, lawmakers, and drug cartels.

So it's very, very worth your time and worth reading because it is appalling in sort of what we're dealing with in terms of the cartels down in Mexico where all the Republicans want to invade now, I guess, or bomb them in some form or fashion. Yeah, that's where we're going. That's where we're right. And so a couple more things here. So I was off last week because I was in Morocco at a friend's wedding. Marrakesh is an insane choice for a venue for an L.A.-based friend group destination. wedding. But once we got there, it was very clear why my buddy Josh wanted to get married in Marrakesh. It's a beautiful city. We explored it. We went out to the desert and then incredible

people. It's just like a life-changing experience. It was because of that experience, it was extra heartbreaking to see the earthquake and the reports now today of like 2,900 deaths from this earthquake last Friday. Marrakesh is a very old city. The sort of inner walls are from the 12th century. A lot of those walls came down. One of the biggest mosque, iconic mosque in the city was damaged. This situation in the death toll is far, far worse in rural areas where a lot of the homes are just clay and mud and bricks and people are just crushed. And there's been no effort to help them yet.

I mean, the government response has been slow and insufficient. And, you know, this will be a very long, painful recovery. So basically, just wanted to raise it to say, you know, if you're considering charitable donations, this is a great place to help out. consider Morocco, especially charities that are run by Moroccans. If you're on Twitter, check out at Food Bank, M-A-R-O-C. That's at Food Bank, M-A-R-O-C. That's a handle for a local food bank that some folks told us about when the wedding party was trying to figure out how to help out. USAID has great options listed on their website. We'll put that in the show notes. I donated to

an organization called Give Directly, which is an international organization, but I think what's great about them is they just give people cash, which is usually what you need in a situation like this. So there's a lot of really horrible things happening right now. I was just reading Ben about how there's 2,000 people reportedly dead and 10,000 missing after flooding in Libya. So there's a massive need everywhere. So I just wanted to flag both. Yeah. No, and I think the local charities point is well taken, and so is this cash point. I mean, you know, oftentimes you're trying, you know, the international community is trying to figure out these needs and what is needed and, you know, it's hard to move certain resources down there.

But a lot of time about people need is cash, and they can make decisions for themselves. And if they're desperate, they're going to spend it on what they need, whether that's shelter, food, whatever. So people should definitely look for ways to provide support. Yeah. Quick update on soccer in Spain. A couple weeks back, we talked about Luis Rubiales, the head of the Spanish Soccer Federation. He's the guy who kissed a player named Jenny Hermoso on the lips after her team won the women's

World Cup. That kiss was not welcomed. It was not consensual. It set up this firestorm of criticism. A lot of people were calling on him to leave, including many of the players, elected officials in Spain, but he dug in his heels for a while. The good news as of this recording is that after weeks of pressure, Rubiales finally resigned. This was far from his first scandal. He was accused of hosting orgies with Soccer Federation money. By the way, his uncle was the one who made those accusations. So this was not some crazy source. But Ben, And so obviously good news. It is worth hearing a quick clip from Rubiales from Pierce Morgan's show of all places where he went to sort of announce his retirement.

Take a listen. About my resignation, yes, I'm going to do. You're going to resolve. Yeah, I'm going to. Yes, because I cannot continue my work. What was the final moment for you? Was it talking to your family, your dad, perhaps? Yeah, my father, my daughters, I spoke with them.

and it's not, they know it's not a question about me and some friends very, very close to me. And they say to me, Louis, now you have to focus in your dignity and to continue your life. Because if not probably you are going to that much people you love and the sport you love. Didn't hear a lot of apologizing there, Ben. It sounds a little bit like he might think he's the victim,

but, you know, I guess it's good that he's gone. Yeah, auditioning for like a, you know, very low listenership podcast where he can vent against, you know, we'll mine virus and things like that. Oh, man. Goodman, Zach. I chastened by the women of Spain, particularly the women on the soccer team. So there is occasionally justice in this world. Yeah, he'll definitely launch a soccer show on X that Elon will say as like a trillion views. A couple of dumb things before we get to Tony's interview. So a Florida man, of course, was arrested after trying to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a vessel that is basically a floating hamster wheel.

So he would run in this thing and it would turn and that would propel him east, I guess. 44-year-old Reza Balucci was intercepted 70 miles off the coast of Georgia, the state of Georgia. According to BBC news, he has tried to make journeys like this three times before every time he gets intercepted and picked up by the coast guard. This guy was so pissed he got picked up this time that he refused to get up. out of his hamster wheel for three days and at one point he even claimed there was a bomb on board. Then in 2021 he tried to drive a similar hamster wheel from Florida to New York via the ocean. He said it was for charity, but he ended up 30 miles south of where he started. So apparently he's not very good at driving this thing.

It seems like a good thing that Coast Guard keeps rescuing this guy from himself. But I do wonder at some point when they're going to be like, okay, buddy, like go with God, see you in London or never. Yeah, or like a very large, like, you know, sea creature comes up and mistakes him for a hamster, right? Yeah, they'd be probably pretty tasty. Yeah, probably look pretty tasty out there. Speaking of tragedy, Ben, residents of a small Portuguese village woke up this weekend to a river of nearly 600,000 gallons of wine flowing down their streets after two tanks at a local distilled. The reburst, nobody was hurt.

Local firefighters were able to prevent the wine from flowing into a river at a lake and sort of messing up. the local ecosystem there. But it turns out a bunch of European countries are trying to figure out how to manage a big wine surplus. I've heard there's a lack of demand in France, Spain, and Italy. This wine in particular that got spilled in Portugal was going to be distilled into other products. And owners are going to drink it necessarily. This is all from a great report in the Washington Post. But Ben, you're in Europe now.

Yeah. Do you think you should do your part and kind of take off some of the top? I was actually just kind of calculating my head how long it is to get to Portugal. I'm actually going to be in France tomorrow, so I'm going to try to make a dent on this. And if anybody wants to ship some of that wine over to the Crooked Media HQ, we'd also be willing to help you take that off your hands. We'll drink and get. We'll bathe in it. For international cooperation, yeah.

Yeah, whatever it takes to help out the people of Portugal. In 2020, a 97,000-gallon winery tank burst open in Sonoma and flooded the Russian River Valley. So it seems like this is an ongoing issue. Well, I guess that's enough wine stats for you guys. We're going to take a quick break and we'll hear. Our interview with Secretary of State, Tony Blinken. So stick around for that. Today, we are thrilled to have the U.S. Secretary of State, our friend, Tony Blinken, on the show.

He is fresh off visits to Ukraine. Fresh shot, not so much. Yeah, not so sure about fresh. India for the G20, Vietnam. Tony, great to see it. Tommy, Ben, great to be with you. Thanks for having me. So, Tony, I wanted to kick this off.

I know the day this airs, there'll be a speech that you're giving. And I know it's been part intended to kind of step back and give a look, brought a look at the Biden administration's foreign policy. But the way I wanted to ask this question is essentially even people follow things closely. You know, they see the war in Ukraine. They see a lot of, you know, hotspots that flare up that you have to rush to and deal with. Even people that, you know, listen to this podcast, follow things pretty closely are probably having trouble trying to make sense of like, what is this moment that we're in? And you've been in multiple administrations, you know, Clinton administration after the end of the Cold War, the Obama administration after the financial crisis. This is obviously a different kind of moment.

What would you say to people who are trying to make sense of this? You know, of like, what is this kind of, what is the moment that we're in geopolitically? And how is your job different today than it would have been in the Obama administration or the Clinton administration? So, Ben, I think as we're looking at it, we really see this moment as an inflection point, by which I mean this. We've all been living through, working through what was called the post-Cold War era. And as we see it, that era has come to an end. And there's an intense competition on to shape what comes next. And we're seeing that in a couple of ways.

We're seeing that with this renewed, but also in many ways new great power rivalry and competition. We're also seeing it, though, with a whole host of profound transnational challenges that are putting new and extraordinary demands on governments and international organizations much more so than ever before, whether it's climate, whether it's mass migration, whether it's the food and security that we're seeing, energy challenges, emerging technologies. And for a variety of reasons, we've come to a moment where so many of the benefits that we thought would accrue from the end of the Cold War, benefits, which in many ways we saw, but not to the extent and not with the durability that we hoped. We're seeing that in many ways being questioned and come to an end, and we are engaged

heavily in how we shape the next period of time in a way that reflects what we want to achieve, which is, broadly speaking, a world that's free, that's open, that's secure, this prosperous, that's connected. And the importance of an inflection point moment, and I'll stop with that, is that almost by definition, you get to one of those moments, and they come around every six or seven generations. The decisions that we make now, the way we organize ourselves at home, the way we organize ourselves in the world, are likely to shape what things look like, not just for the next few years, but for the next decades. We believe we're at that kind of moment. So one of the big sort of inbox issues is for you guys lately has been Ukraine. You just got

back from your third trip, I believe, since the war started. It's been raging for a year and a half. The U.S. has provided an enormous amount of assistance to Ukraine. I think I read today that the number is topped 100 billion. Ben and I watched the Republican primary foreign policy debates very closely. And the arguments are generally against U.S. support for Ukraine. And they're very simple and they're very clear. It's like we should be spending that money here. We should be securing our border here. the risk of escalation with Russia is constant, if not growing. I even hear supporters of the U.S., the war effort in Ukraine saying, you know, our message is more complicated. We don't know what success looks like. We don't know what the end game is. We're worried about the counteroffensive, maybe stalling or

struggling. We're worried about they're not being sort of public peace talks. And I was just wondering if you could help the listeners understand, like, what our core objectives are in Ukraine and what success looks like so they can try to figure out what an end game might be. Yeah. So Tommy, I think first, it's important to step back and look at the stakes of Ukraine for us and indeed for folks around the world. Look, first, I think most Americans just inherently don't like to see one big country bully another. It's something that we generally object to and where we can want to do something about. So when we see the brutalization of Ukraine by Russia, when we see what's being done on a daily basis to bomb not only its cities, but to bomb

its people, its infrastructure, when we see some of the atrocities that have been committed by Russian forces in Ukraine, that's something that gets people rightly concerned and upset. But fundamentally, there's something even larger at state, which is – this is not only an aggression against Ukraine. It's an aggression against some very basic principles that we labored long and hard to try to establish after two world wars to try to ensure that it would be less likely that we'd have another world war and certainly less likely that we'd have conflict and that we'd have a greater chance at building peace and stability. A lot of this is enshrined in the United Nations Charter and other places. And it basically says one country doesn't have the right to go in,

change the borders with another by force, try to take it over, try to do what Russia did, which was to erase Ukraine's identity, erase it from the maps, assume it into Russia. Because if we allow that to go on check, if we allow that to go forward with impunity, then it opens a Pandora's box. It's open season. Every would-be aggressor around the world will say,

well, if Russia can get away with it, so can we. And Russia itself, the idea that it would stop at simply trying to take over Ukraine, it would stop there, I think, is very misguided. So not doing something about this is, a recipe for a world of conflict that we know from history draws the United States in in ways that cost a lot more toil and treasure and blood than we're seeing now. So I think that's the big piece that's so important. The other big piece is this. This is not just the United States

standing with and standing up for Ukraine. It's dozens of countries around the world. And we've built different coalitions to deal with different aspects of this, the military peace, the economic and reconstruction piece, the energy piece, the humanitarian piece, and you're seeing countries from around the world coming in and standing with Ukraine. The ultimate objective, really, Tommy's twofold. First, of course, is to deny Russia any kind of strategic success in Ukraine, because if we don't, then, as I said, it's open invitation for aggressors everywhere. And already, it's really important to note that Russia has failed and what it was trying to accomplish, because its goal, as I said, was to erase Ukraine from the map, to end its identity as an independent

country, to subsume it into Russia. That's already failed. Where exactly the settles, exactly where the lines are drawn, that's fundamentally up to the Ukrainians. And we want to stand with them to maximize their ability to take back the remaining territory that Russia seized. Russia still controls about 17% of Ukraine. But not only that, to ensure that Ukraine not only survives, but also thrives. And that gets into supporting it economically and supporting its democratic emergence. But the objective is to make sure that Ukraine can stand on its own feet. This is not a recipe for some kind of indefinite support by the entire world to keep Ukraine going. It's getting Ukraine to a point where militarily, economically, democratically, it can stand strongly on its own.

It seems clear that, you know, Putin is struggling to get the resources necessary to conduct this war. He is reportedly meeting with Kim Jong-un today in Russia. A lot of analysts, though, are saying, you know, are looking at this meeting and saying this is significant and worrisome evolution of the Russia-North Korea relationship because North Korea finally is something that Putin actually wants, in this case, artillery shells. And can use that as leverage to extract something that might worry us a lot like military technology to launch missiles, spy satellites, nuclear technologies. It's notable that Kim is accompanied by two AIDS that I believe managed the satellite program and manage their acquisition of nuclear capable

submarines, for example. How worried are you about this deepening partnership between Russia and North Korea and the potential for North Korea to get these more modern weapons or sort of nuclear infrastructure? Well, I think this says two things to us. First, it says that Russia's increasingly desperate. Desperate because of the effectiveness of the Ukrainians and pushing them back, desperate because the sanctions and export controls that so many countries have imposed on Russia are denying it the technology that it needs to replace and even modernize its military and its weaponry. So it's looking wherever it can. And of course, right now it's looking primarily to North Korea and to Iran. On one level, that's kind of a Star Wars bar scene of countries. So I think

it does speak to Russia's desperation. On the other hand, it's also true that we don't want to see Russia be in a position where it can strengthen the capabilities that's bringing to dealing with the aggression on Ukraine. And we also don't want to see North Korea benefiting from whatever technologies it might get from Russia. And same with Iran, where there's also a two-way street relationship that's developing. We're working with other countries. We're taking our own actions to try to disrupt as much of that as we possibly can. Of course, the relationship between Russia and North Drea that's moving forward now is in violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions. We're looking to make sure that we, as necessary, can impose costs and consequences.

But I also think it's having the effect of further isolating these countries from the rest of the world. So one question following on both, you know, this inflection point you mentioned and Ukraine. You know, you were recently in India for the G20. and it was interesting because that came shortly after for India, the BRIC summit that got a lot of attention in South Africa. And so we've seen kind of India comfortable at the BRIC summit, comfortable in Washington and state visit. But I want to ask more generally about the global south and countries like India and countries and places like Southeast Asia and Africa that have been much more reticent to kind of embrace the Ukrainian side of this war in the same way that, you know, say,

our European allies have. Is there a risk? Because it feels like here in the United States and in Europe and in some of our Asian allies, okay, the Ukraine war is an inflection point. The Ukraine war itself is kind of representative of the inflection point that you talk about. But it does feel like, you know, almost a couple years into this war, that's not of you that is shared in the global south. And that if anything, there might even be a risk that our focus on Ukraine is not where their heads are at. You know, they're thinking about climate change or they're thinking about development

or they're thinking about emerging technologies. How do you balance this risk between wanting to, you know, get a statement at the G20 expressing support for Ukraine versus maybe not meeting these countries where they are in which they're like, you know what, I don't like the fact that there's this war, but I don't really want to get involved in it

and why aren't you talking to us about what we care about? What would you say to that kind of line critique that we hear a lot from some elements of the global south. Sure. Ben, I think two things. First, if you look at what we've been able to do over the last year and a half with regard to the rest of the world in Russia's aggression against Ukraine, on multiple occasions,

we've had more than 140 countries at the United Nations clearly stand up for territorial integrity, independence, sovereignty, and against the Russian aggression. That includes many, most of the countries in the so-called. global south because I think they understand that the principles I was talking about earlier are principles that matter to them too. And so again, we've seen them stand up. Similarly, with some of the support that we've helped to build for Ukraine, as I said, it's not just the military piece. It's the economic and reconstruction piece. It's energy. It's humanitarian. A number of these countries have taken part in pieces of this, which goes to the kinds of varied coalitions

that we're building on any given issue. What I like to call variable geometry, because what we're doing is we're putting together for very fit for purpose reasons, different collections of countries, different sizes, different shapes of coalitions to address specific problems. That's one piece.

But the other piece is exactly what you said. We have to, and we are demonstrating, that we're focused on the issues that matter most to them and that we are the answer to many of the problems that they're facing, and Russia, in this particular case, is a big part of the problem. Food security, to take one example, the combination of over the last few years of climate change, of COVID and of conflict, and particularly now the Russian aggression against Ukraine, has had devastating consequences for countries, particularly in the global South when it comes to food insecurity.

The breadbasket of the world, Ukraine, Russia preventing Ukraine from exporting its grain and its wheat, an initiative by the United Nations to allow that to happen, the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which when it was in effect, allowed 30 million tons of grain to get out of Ukraine, the equivalent of 18 billion loaves of bread. The Russians recently tore that up. Who does that hurt the most? The very countries in the developing world that desperately needed, even countries that weren't direct recipients of Ukrainian grain are affected by the fact that prices go up when grain is kept off the market. We've put together a coalition of countries around the world to deal effectively with food and security, both emergency assistance, where we're the number one provider around the world, as well as long-term support to help

these countries build their sustainable, productive capacity so that they're not the prisoners of a country like Russia weaponizing food. I can go across the board on the things that countries are actually looking for and want. Infrastructure, a huge demand for infrastructure around the world. Well, thanks to what President Biden's done, starting with the G. and now expanded to the G20. We have a very significant program of infrastructure investment that is bringing countries together to catalyze private sector investment to respond to these needs, but to do it as a race to the top, not a race to the bottom that these countries have experienced when they've

had other significant supporters of infrastructure, do it in a way that builds to Shadi standards that doesn't pay attention to the environment or the rights and needs of workers. and that puts a huge amount of debt on countries that they can't afford. We're in the process of reforming the international financial system so that countries have greater access to capital, so that they have ways of getting debt relief, that they can make more manageable the needs that they have. And, of course, working to make sure we have a Security Council to the United Nations

that's better reflective of the world of today, not the world that existed when the Security Council has formed. So in these and so many other ways, we've been demonstrating that, yes, we're focused on the agenda that most countries around the world want us to focus on. And in this moment, a country like Russia is the main disruptor of that agenda. And it's one more thing on this. Are you, you know, it's interesting that the G20 just happened before that the BRIC summit, you know, we've obviously had a G7, which you guys have referred to. I think, an interesting, a good bumper sticker, you know, the steering committee of the free world. But we're also, you know, the UN meetings are coming up. And it, you know, these are my words, not yours.

It feels like the UN is far less capable of being a place of collective action. I mean, for the obvious reason that, you know, Russia is not going to let anything get to the Security Council and anything that we care about, for instance. Is there a worry that, yes, you're building these coalitions and good, strong coalitions of like-minded countries on different issues, like you said, the variable geometry, which I did not do well in geometry at school. But I get you mean, you know, you have quads and orientations in Asia. You had the trilat with Korea and Japan at Camp David, G7. But, you know, then China's building its own blocks. You know, are you worried a bit that part of what's happening is the world sorting out into kind of competing blocks. And rather than having that system that coordinates collective action,

that there's a system being built that is really an us versus them system. Even that that's not the intention in the United States, that that may be the effect of what's happening at this moment. Look, there's no doubt that the international system, the UN system is challenged in many ways. But that's not a reason to give up on it. It's a question, it's actually a reason to double down, lean in and seek to make it more effective and, again, more reflective of the world, as you might put it as it is, not as it once was.

Good book plug there, Tony. Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah, it's seamless. Right, thank you. But, and that's not purely out of altruism. It's because it's in our interest to do it. The fact of the matter is virtually none of the problems that, We have to face it around the world and they're having an effect on the lives of our fellow citizens

are problems that we can effectively address alone as strong and powerful as we are. We benefit profoundly from having these alliances, these partnerships, these coalitions, and an effective international system that can pick up some of the burden. Because if not, then either we're going to be stuck doing it alone at much greater cost or no one does it. And then you're going to have a vacuum that is just filled by bad things before it's filled with good things. So we have an interest in making sure that the UN can operate effectively through its programs, for example, on food security, on maternal health, on climate, you name it. And to some extent, even if you have relative paralysis at the Security Council, for the reasons you said, that doesn't mean that these different programs aren't functioning and having a positive impact.

Again, in ways that if they weren't around, we'd have to pick up the slack. So we're working on that. Look, I'd like to see a security council that functions, but that is very challenging at a time when you have the antagonisms that we have with Russia and the competition that we have with China. But we're also seeing this, Ben, and this is what I'm finding as I travel around the world. There's a demand signal from countries around the world that we, the United States, lead responsibly. And that means dealing with what you were talking about a few minutes ago, which is focusing on the things that matter to them, and also trying to find ways to move forward and try to make the UN and other international institutions more effective. And if and as we do that, or at least as we're seen and caught trying, that actually benefits us in our leadership around the world. Tony, last question for you. Thank you again for your time.

There have been a bunch of news reports about a possible U.S. brokered normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Now, I know you wouldn't ever comment on a deal that's not finalized, nor would you get ahead of President Biden if a deal wasn't announced. But I was hoping you might help us understand why, you know, the administration thinks now is the moment where it might be advantageous to cut a deal with the Saudis and the Israelis. Because in Israel, you know, there have been months of protests over changes to the judiciary. People like Ehud Barak said that these changes could turn Israel into, quote, de facto dictatorship, right? there's questions about the future of Israel's democracy. Over in Saudi Arabia, it obviously, of course, already is a dictatorship. The Crown Prince has an ever-worsening human rights record.

The most recent iteration of that was reports that border guards were shooting at Ethiopian migrants as part of a policy. MBS has a tendency to undercut U.S. interests. I mean, cards on the table, obviously, in case it's not obvious already, I'm not a big fan of B.B. or MBS. But I'm wondering sort of like, why help these two leaders out? now, it seems like a big political win for two folks who fight against President Biden's political wins on a regular basis? Well, first, Tommy, this and most things that we do are not about individual leaders or individual governments. They're about the substance of the issue and whether we can in whatever we're doing advance a world that's a little bit more peaceful,

a little bit more prosperous, a little bit more full of opportunity. And there's no question in my mind that if we could help achieve, normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, it would move the world in that direction. We've had extraordinary turmoil in that part of the world going back to at least 1979, decades of turmoil. Moving away from that, having more moderating and integrating dynamics carry things forward, I think would be a profound change and a profound change for the good, and a change that would, again, not be tied to any specific government,

to the fundamental interests of the countries involved. Now, this is really hard to do, and there's a lot that goes into it and unclear whether we get there. But there's no doubt in my mind that if we could, it would be good for us, good for the countries in question, good for the region, and indeed, good for the world beyond. If you have the leading Muslim country in the world, Islamic country in the world, making peace with Israel, that's going to have benefits that travel well beyond the region. Now, one very important piece to this.

Normalization, any of the efforts that are going on to improve relations between Israel and its and its neighbors are not, cannot be a substitute for Israel and the Palestinians resolving their differences and having a much better future for Palestinians. And in our judgment, of course, that must needs to involve a two-state solution. So it's also clear from what we hear from the Saudis that if this process is to move forward, the Palestinian peace is going to be very important too. Yeah, I mean, that is the big question, right? Because the previous Abraham Accord normalization deals have said to the Palestinians, you know, kind of you get breadcrumbs, if not, if nothing at all. I was just in Morocco where I was recalling how Jared Kushner handed over control of an entire disputed region to the Moroccan government.

as part of the Abraham Accord deals. And I was just trying to figure out to what extent a normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel is viewed as something that would aid a Middle East peace process or efforts to get to Palestinian state that has seemed to be, you know, been on ice for a while. Well, look, that's clearly something that's important to the Saudis in doing any kind of, doing any kind of deal. It would be important to us, too. But I think every country involved, if this is to move forward, will clearly find significant, tangible benefit in it in the near term.

But again, this is even more about putting in place a foundation for a much different future, one that is more peaceful, that is more secure, that is more prosperous, in moderating so many of these different problems and passions that have led to turmoil over the last decades and through the process of integration that is going to deliver much more tangible benefits to people in all of these countries and throughout the region. That's the goal. Now, again, whether we can get there, the jury's out because the practical substance of this is challenging. It's hard, but we're working on it. And I think the labor is well worth the fruit that could be produced. Excellent. Well, listen, Tony, thank you so much for doing the show. And thanks for all the hard work. And God, I hope you get some sleep, man. Yeah, thanks for a lot of travel. Thanks for everything you're doing. Working hard. Thanks, thanks for having me on. Thanks again to Tony for doing the show. Ben, thanks for staying up late. I hope the jet lag doesn't punch you too hard. Yeah. No, I'm sorry, a little slow here. I had one of those nights where I didn't see that much last night. But I, you know, I bet Tony Blickett has a good nose for one, you know? Oh, definitely. Like, I would not surprise me.

With that, he speaks French impeccably. And with that hair, you know, uh, uh, hardworking man, uh, worldly. Um, if I was out to dinner, uh, that's the man I'd want picking the one off the list, you know? Oh, yeah. I wouldn't even look at this somewhere yet. I'd just say Tony.

Yeah. Tony, what's up? Your call. Or over my whole fucking meal. Yeah. You're in perfect French. All right, buddy. See you soon.

All right. I'll see you guys. Patsy at the World is a crooked media production. Our executive producers are me, Tommy Vitor, Ben Rhodes, and Michael Martinez. Our associate producer is Ashley Mizzou. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick, audio support by Kyle Seaglin and Charlotte Landis. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, and Phoebe Bradford, who upload our episodes and videos to YouTube.com slash Pod Save the World.

Thanks to Saul Rubin and Rebecca Rottenberg for production support. Our intern is Naomi Beerenmo. Hey there, I know you're a curious person who loves to learn, so I have the perfect podcast recommendation for you. Freakonomics Radio has more than 10. 10 years and 500 episodes worth of answers to your biggest questions. Hosted by bestselling author Stephen Dubner, the show dives into the hidden side of business, economics, and so much more.

Here from CEOs, historians, politicians, and Nobel laureates to explore all kinds of topics, like how the U.S. came to dominate the whale market and why the Biden administration is spending billions to bring high-tech manufacturing back home. New episodes of Free Economics Radio are available every week, wherever you get your podcasts. Tell them we sent you.