 I'm Jay Fidel. This is Keeping the World Company, the changing battlefield in these two wars that are now pending. What should we, that is the U.S., be learning from what is happening? And for this discussion, our co-host, Tim Apachella, and Gene Rosenfeld and Vicky Taitano, esteemed guests. Thank you very much all for showing up on this show. It's an important show. Our panel is going to discuss the changes in the battlefield in the two wars that are going on, including changes in trench warfare, an old notion, tunnel warfare, relatively new notion, drones, gliders, missiles, anti-ship warfare, swarming strategies of drones and missiles, a war against shipping, an environmental war like blowing up a dam, a war of attrition intentionally, a proxy war with lots of players behind the scenes, human shields using people as human shields, hostage-taking and negotiating with hostages, coordinated terror attacks by multiple terror groups, torture and other atrocities, obviously, peace negotiations that go on in the press, war, legal war at the UN, the ICC, and the ICJ cyber war all at the same time, satellite war with threats of nuclear war, sanctions war, economic, that is, symmetrical, asymmetrical propaganda, social media and protest war in the region and beyond around the world, and so much more. It isn't simple. We're going to examine what the US needs to do to deal with and adjust to these changes and keep up. And we're going to take only six hours to do this. Am I right? Tim, why don't you give your thoughts about the scope of this discussion? Your lead-in is what has the United States or what will the United States learn about this war and war in general? And I always say, go back to the past, look at history and see what you've learned from other conflicts that the United States has been involved with, be it the Korean conflict, which we never do call it a war, be it the Vietnam War, be it with the quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan, those wars, and what do we learn? And the number one principle that we fail to learn is how to avoid it in the first place. What broke down as far as diplomacy, what led to the conflict, how could have that been altered or different so that we didn't have a kinetic war or a non-kinetic war? So what we learn is what we forget and we gotta stop forgetting how we get into these conflicts. And in the case of Ukraine, I'm not sure it could have worked out all that much different, but there could have been some different options. I'm not gonna say we blindly walked into it, but that appears as what we've done. And now we're in it and we're in it for billions of dollars and the Ukrainian account is that at least 31,000 Ukrainians have died since the last two years. I'm sure the number of Russians is equal to or greater than that number. And that's kind of where we stand. It's a quagmire and it's yet to be remained to be seen as to how this thing's all gonna roll out as far as a peace settlement and or the separation of borders. You know, from an anthropological point of view, Gene, seems war is a condition of humanity. That's the way it is. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse. It's a sine curve too, but it always comes back. And what I find interesting about the list of harbors that I read to you is that those are creative ideas. Those are ideas that take a toll on the other side. Those are the ideas that spread the war perhaps without going the full measure of nuclear war, but they spread it out to so many aspects of our human relations and national relations. So my question to you is, does this change the nature of war going forward? These creative things that we have seen over the past, what, two years, is war different now? Will it be different in the future because of this creativity? We have seen in Ukraine, particularly, but also in Gaza, a return of the level of warfare of battles we saw in the Great War, World War II, and even in the Korean War. But in World War II, we had specific battles in which civilians were squeezed and caught up much as they are in Gaza, and in which nation-states were overwhelmed by invasion by other nation-states, namely Germany, and we haven't seen this for about 75 years. So we were caught off guard. But prior to the war, there were high-level discussions between the United States and Russia regarding defensive postures going forward. At this time that these discussions were going on, Russia was amassing troops at the Belarusian border, just not far from Kiev. So it's very difficult to know if, even at that late time, had we made an agreement on Russia's terms, which was not to move NATO closer to Russia, not to move defensive postures in the border states of Russia, and not to continue our drive for democracy and self-determination. If we could still have stopped that invasion because armies are juggernauts and you can't turn them around at the last minute. So I think there's good reason to believe that Putin would have gone into Ukraine regardless. We are now in this situation, which is not of our making. Likewise, Israel is in a situation, not of its making. As to how it's handling that situation, there are different ideas about that. In terms of getting out of that situation, in both cases, there are negotiations going on. Those negotiations regarding Ukraine may not be at the level yet where important parties are at the table discussing specific things, but it's hard for me to believe that there isn't some set of plans that the United States has put forward as its position vis-a-vis Russia and Ukraine that it is not making some sort of initiatives about. And Putin just yesterday in his speech also made some allusions to negotiations, which is why I think he prefers Biden to Trump because he knows what he's getting when he sits down with Biden's administration. This is not a new type of warfare. It is utilizing the tools of World War I and World War II, kamikazis, trenches, minefields, stasis, everything to avoid the nuclear option. But there is also an interesting array of cyber and electronic modes that are new in warfare and also things to be avoided like cell phones. Let me go one step further with your change. It seems to me that just hearing you go through that seems to me that all of the elements that I read and all of the additional elements you mentioned are really focused on the negotiation part because all the players know we're not gonna have a nuclear war. All the players know this is gonna be resolved by negotiation. At the end of the day, at some point, parties are ready to really negotiate. But meanwhile, as in litigation in general, you want a lot of points on your side when you walk into the negotiation and all those points that we have been tossing lead to finally do a negotiation. And one, I'd like to know if you agree with me. And then two, I'd like you to interpret Sinwar's remark yesterday where he said, after the 100 people had been killed in Gaza, a crowd that rushed the Israeli forces, he said, now we have them right where we want them. Can I get an interpretation from you on that and whether that is consistent with my theory that all of this is directed at negotiation? Hamas made its attack from a position of weakness. It is conducting asymmetric warfare as we have seen with terrorist groups like ISIS. The way in which terrorism works is it sends a message through violence. It sends a message to the audience, which are those that are taken on a wares or those that are non-combatants and they're looking from an observational point on the sidelines in order to win their hearts and minds and to have their narrative prevail. Everyone has forgotten how this war started in Gaza and or it's just downplaying it and overlooking it. Taking this to the court, the international court is a calculated move because that court is not set up to try the other party. It's not set up to try Hamas. I mean, the world regards Hamas as a Palestinian regime and a state, but in terms of international law, it can't be treated that way. So it can't be held to account. All of this is part of the propaganda warfare, which has been an element of warfare since the Cold War especially. And it is exacerbated by our tools now, which are instant communication throughout the world. So we are in this position of the hybrid war again, where what the war of words controls and accomplishes is, as Sonor said, a jockeying of positions on a different battlefield, a virtual battlefield. And he feels very confident right now. In fact, he feels confident about the Gaza war and what they want to achieve in terms of their future going forward and Putin feels confident about what he feels he's achieving in bogging down again in Donetsk and Luhansk. And I don't think Putin at this point has the wherewithal to go to the cities of Kiev and Kharkiv, but he'd like us to think that he does. Well, Vicki, we talk about propaganda. We talk about a kinetic war versus a war of propaganda. And many people think, increasingly think that the propaganda side of it will rule. That was inherent in what Jean was saying. And so there's a substantial chance here that history will see that the propaganda war is actually more important than the kinetic war. Governs the way people react, all the players. And the players on the battlefields are far wider and broader and deeper than just the ones shooting at each other. They are essentially the whole world. So my question to you, and this is a hard one, Vicki, is how do you fight back in a propaganda war that is so sophisticated and so ubiquitous globally? How does the United States fight back? Thank you, Jay, and that is a very good question. And as Jean was speaking so eloquently, I was listening with great interest. One of the things that came to my mind is, in countries like Russia, China, and to an extent, a little bit also in the Israel Gaza war, the governments there are able to rule in a much less democratic fashion than here in the United States, where the public weighs in and pushes forward their individual propaganda and interests to influence what happens at the state cap at our nation's capitol. And when you think about our leaders facing all that instead of being able to make decisions independent of everyone, their constituencies, comments, and input, you won't have to wonder is United States in a weaker position? Given our leaders' dilemma and dealing with this, the public pressure and oftentimes an ill-informed public versus these countries that are able to make decisions without having that consideration, and they can form their propaganda solely based on the kind of messaging they want to put forward to their people. But in our case, it's the people in our country, which is what makes us such a great democracy, but at times it works against us because we're putting so much influence into DC and oftentimes for the individual group's benefits that it tears our, I think, our government apart. You can see how polarized we are. And you have to wonder, will these wars get impacted depending on who the next president will be for our country? And that's a question I'd like to ask all of you too. And that's kind of an interesting and concerning issue that I would have. And let's not forget on sideline, quietly creating their own power is China and how they're looking into Taiwan. We always seem to be blindsided when things happen because we're caught off guard by DCs that we're not focusing on. But I think Xi Jinping is very happy with all this distraction. So he continues to think about what he's going to do with Taiwan. Tim, you know, we talk about these kinds of domestic issues and political arguments on American issues, your show. And it seems to me that Piki brings up a very good point is the ability of the United States to learn from these new battlefield techniques is seriously hampered by our political fights in the country. We're locked up on so many issues and this is one of them. And so the other point she raises, which I would like to ask you about is we have such as it is a lurching campaign, combination of campaigns for president happening right now where people are taking positions on these wars and I wonder your thoughts about how all of that rhetoric affects the ability of the United States to deal with and learn from these wars since you have a debate going on between the two camps in public for those campaigns. Tim. Well, let's look at not only the influence of how it's impacting the United States as far as the rhetoric in both Republican and Democrat camps, but also what Putin is getting out of this. And I'm sure that Putin, until recent one, they didn't know whether the funding was gonna come for Ukraine or not and it still hasn't. I'm sure Putin is far more energized now to hold out and wait for the election and the election results. As far as internally, what have we learned? And that is if you don't have a unified front when you're fighting a war, it's not gonna go well. It will fray at the edges. I mean, Vietnam is a classic example of internal domestic strife against the Vietnam War that ultimately led Johnson to abandon ship. And that's exactly how it happened. It was internal strife. There was no support. You 58,000 American GIs died and they were coming back in body bags and mothers across the nation were outraged and that spread. And so if you're not unified internally, you're certainly not gonna have, you could be unified on the outside of your support. And that comes in the form of Congress and funding. So Putin is happy and we're not looking so great right now. And I think there needs to be a swift negotiation before the other shoe drop, so to speak. Jean, the whole world seems to be dividing in two camps. And that's a factor in all of this. I mean, I noticed to my dismay that two of the terrorist leaders met were scheduled to meet today in Moscow. And then I find most recent news is that not only did they meet, but they met with senior Russian official. So what you have is the terrorist meeting in Russia, I guess with Russia's permission. And then you have the meeting with Russian officials. It's part of the, what do you wanna call it? I don't wanna say clash of civilizations, but the axis that falls against Israel, that falls against Western Europe and Ukraine, and that falls against the United States. And it seems to me that these battlefield changes we're talking about are gonna take some time to play out into legitimate peace talks and hopefully peace. Your thoughts? Well, just to return for a moment to what Vicky was saying internally, domestically, and because this is totally related to what's going on in Moscow, with terrorist leaders too, or anywhere in the world, for that matter. Yes, there is polarization that probably not as much as Putin would like. He's done his darnedest to create a block, China and Russia, and unaligned countries, North Korea, Iran, proxies like them, against a raid against Europe and the United States and other countries that we would include in the rubric of the West. But suppose back in 1935, two years after Hitler came to power and had that huge national socialism rally in Nuremberg. Supposing it wouldn't have been 35 because that wasn't an election year, Charles Lindberg had been elected president instead of FDR. What would have happened in the next five years? That's where we are now, except the MAGA movement is much further along than the right-wing movement that would nominate Charles Lindbergh. Philip Roth has written a novel about what might have happened at Charles Lindbergh and elected president. And I would say that Lindbergh was not a power monger, he was the face of people seeking power in a fascistic way. But Trump's much worse, he's a power monger. And he has the same type of personality that dictators and authoritarians have. And he has a plan to replace the civil service with his loyal totes. This would put us in a very bad position vis-a-vis the block that Russia is building along with asymmetric terrorist groups to carry out its initiatives to wear us down and undermine us. Putin felt before the invasion of Ukraine that the power of the United States was waning in the world and Trump was largely responsible for that because he created the idea that somehow he, Trump as president of the United States could not support NATO, could not support Europe. And that's critical for Putin, who wants his borders to be secure from his paranoid vision of NATO coming over those borders and invading for the third great time in history, Russia. So we have to deal that we're dealing not only with a pathological personality with Putin but also a paranoid personality. When we say, oh, there's not gonna be a nuclear war. Well, the chances are there won't be if he is irritated beyond belief but we don't have a hundred percent chance of that. So we know we're dealing with a very fragile personality here. The use of terrorists is ongoing in Gaza. That's what started this. The axis of resistance consists of four terrorist groups surrounding Israel that wanted to attack Israel on all sides simultaneously. And most people don't understand the military aspects of that, but that is the case. So he's amassing whatever he can who's unaligned with the United States, has wrenches against the United States or feels that the United States power is waning in the world. He's trying to fashion a block to unseat us from world leadership and we need to know that. Yeah, so it's a battlefield of attrition. It's a long-term battlefield. It's a battlefield by Putin and Trump is complicit. The two of them are in a kind of arrangement together. What I see is that in the 30s, and Rachel Maddow also wrote about what happened in the 30s, we had a debate going on in this country. There are some people like Lynn Burke who wanted to join up with the Germans with the Nazis, many of them. And it was not clear, it was not clear which side was gonna prevail until Pearl Harbor. And Pearl Harbor clarified it politically. All of a sudden, you know, FDR could get up in front of Congress and declare war and they would go along, mainly because everybody was in shock, like 9-11, in shock. If that kind of shock brings people together. So you could have a slow-rolling war of attrition using these new battlefield techniques and you could hide behind proxies and do really dastardly things but keep it from a level of global war. Just a war of attrition. Vicki, what about that possibility? Will it take to get the United States galvanized such as it was on December 7th, December 8th, 1941? Will it take some incredible disaster, some huge, you know, 100-foot attack of some kind? But to wake us up, do we need to be woken up or will we just go along with this and allow it to be a war of attrition in which the United States military, which spends almost a trillion bottles a year of our tax money, maybe going in the wrong direction, maybe unprepared to deal with a war of attrition and not have the political will to deal with a war of attrition? Will it take some disaster to wake us up? You know, sad to say, but I'm afraid that that's what it will take. You know, you have to look back as Tim said, let's learn from history. If the United States had not entered World War II, I don't think Europe would look as it is today, okay? I really think Hitler would have won that war and would have invaded and controlled all of Europe and perhaps more. So it took the United States to get into the war and let's be realistic, if you look at history, much of Americans did not want US to enter that war. So it's kind of the same thing. You know, let's just take care of ourselves. It may take something very major to, one, really bring us to the reality that we need to continue to be at the table as a world power for peace in our world and to bring our country together because right now we are so polarized and I think it will take something major to make that happen. Well, what about the possibility of appeasement? There are people in this country and in Western Europe for that matter. And in Israel itself, who would like to make peace, get the hostages back, stop the killing and for that reason, they will, let me use this expression, go to Europe, go to Munich with Chamberlain and appease in order to make peace. Is that on the table? Is that possible? I think that people who think that way, while it's noble to always pursue peace are also not very realistic or knowledgeable about who they are dealing with. This is why I say I'm sad, but I think it will take something very major, drastic and painful in order to turn the course of where we are headed and in the long run, create a better world. So I have so many questions for you Tim. Let's do a differential, okay? Hypothetically suppose Biden wins, hypothetically suppose God forbid suppose Trump wins. How will that affect things in both of these theaters of war? Well, I like to comment that Putin actually prefers to negotiate with Biden because Biden is more predictable. If Biden wins the election, I think Putin realizes that support for Ukraine will continue and will not wane that President Biden will figure out a way to get $50 billion or $60 billion to Ukraine for ammunition. And so that would prompt him to either calculate, can he sustain his popularity or the lack thereof in Russia for another one, two, three, four more years or is it wise to hit the negotiation table and settle the Ukraine war once and for all? If it's Donald Trump, I think Putin is very joyful about that. And he sees an opportunity for the weakening of NATO and opportunities for expansion of his borders. I don't think it's a matter of him maintaining his borders and keeping NATO away, but I think it's an opportunity for him to look at and lick his chops over the non-NATO countries and see what opportunities he can to take them over. As we said in previous shows, Belarus is already part of Russia now, whether it's former or not. So if Trump gets in the office, I think Putin is delighted. And if Biden wins the election, I think Putin comes to his senses and realizes it's time to settle some affairs in Ukraine at least. Yeah, it's a definite element one way or the other. Gene, I wanna ask you a question I kind of was going to ask you before. And that is how equipped are we to deal with these changes in the battlefield? I think you'll agree with me. These changes are, if not permanent there, they inform the future of war. In the human condition. And how equipped is the United States to stay on top of that? As I mentioned, we spend almost a trillion dollars a year on our military, but we still, for example, we have a lot of money and men and women and resources invested in aircraft carriers that can be brought down with a missile or even a drone. And so are we in the right place? Are we dealing with these changes in the battlefield adequately? And what will it take for us to do that? Well, the United States military is already planning for changes on the battlefield as a result of what it has seen in the last two years in Ukraine. There have been surprises in terms of what they expected. We gave them some weapons, missiles, guided by GPS, only to have the Russians figure out how to jam GPS. Ukrainians being very creative took some older missiles which were not with a GPS or guided system that could be jammed and put certain types of things on them that could direct them to the target. And it was the use of older methods as well as newer methods that the Ukrainians have been very flexible and have suppressed the US military. US military has taken note that the use of cell phones on the battlefield can reveal to new sources of electronic devices on the part of the enemy to follow the movements of us on the battlefield. So all of this is going on now. There are high level reports being filed and so forth. So we are taking note of the changes and incorporating them. On the other hand, in the Asia Pacific Theater of Battle, this has now become our number one concern with the rise of China in Asia. I personally feel strongly that China does not want a kinetic war. China's history is replete with the greatest loss of human life during times of war. Think of the rape of Nanjing and also internal strife having to do with uprisings at the ends of dynasty. So I think we can figure out how not to go to war with China. Nevertheless, we are looking back to the World War II tactics in the Pacific. We are bringing to Hawaii foreign troops and planes to train. Germany is sending Air Force personnel here. European countries who are aligned with us are training with us in that theater and we are preparing if we cannot contain China in terms of Taiwan and control of major trade routes in the world that we at least are prepared should anything kinetic happen. This should not deter us from producing the kinds of weapons of war that Ukraine needs. We can put ourselves on that footing now if we have a president and a regime with the will to do that and the foresight to do that. And to apply what the generals here have learned from the generals in Ukraine about how to fight the type of asymmetric hybrid proxy type wars that Russia is stirring up. And the next problem area may be North and South Korea. Before we go further on that, I wanna ask you about the boots on the ground issue. We have talked here on these shows about the phenomenon of proxy wars and certainly you see that. See it in both theaters where you use these non-kinetic modalities and create proxies that help you. Ultimately, as a matter of practical fact at the negotiating table. So when American leaders say we're never gonna put boots on the ground, I guess for the while I accept that, but going forward, how are we gonna change our creative style? Are we gonna be putting boots on the ground? Are we gonna be enlisting the support of proxies such as we see Russia doing and we see Iran doing in the Middle East? Are we going to take it to another level that we have learned from these two wars in terms of alternatives to boots on the ground? The trend in war today is to replace manpower with new types of devices that will protect what manpower we have. So whoever seems to be most innovative and ready and able to apply these different types of electronic warfare devices and cyber war and satellite war is going to be in a better position. I don't think we're gonna put boots on the ground unless as Vicki noted, there is some kind of shock or catastrophe like 9-11 or Pearl Harbor. Biden doesn't want war. He's taken troops out of theaters of war. He's been extremely cautious with Ukraine. He sent ships to the Red Sea, but we're being very cautious there too. And that's not quite the same thing as boots on the ground. As for Trump, he's an isolationist. He's a fascist. He wants America to be solitary alone and unaffected by what goes on in the world. And he wants to occupy high status position power that he can flaunt. All of these men are not gonna live very long. Can we hang on for 10 more years until the situation changes? I don't know. It makes me want to live longer, what you say. So Vicki, we have this increase in the creativity of weapons and aggressive techniques, as I mentioned at the outset. And we have more players involved. And by that I include national state players involved directly by proxy. We have moving targets everywhere, very hard to predict what's gonna pop up. But would you agree with those who say that we are in right now, the world war? And that of course, the world war three would be different from world war two, would be different from world war one. And maybe the difference is greater as you go forward. Are we, do you think, in or about to be in world war three? I think we're on the brink of world war three. I don't think we're quite in it yet, but I think people should recognize how fragile the situation is. And we need to act now in order to avert that in any way. And the way to do it is not to be so polarized as a country that others like Russia or China will take advantage of our own internal hostility, whatever you want to call it, the problems that we're facing to take advantage of that. Because as Tim said, we are not unified. We cannot be a player in the world order of things. You know, Hawaii is a little speck in the Pacific, small state, small population. But the question comes up as to what an individual citizen in Hawaii can do, should do, to solve the problems of the United States to be influential in the way the United States proceeds. Do you have any thoughts about what Hawaii can do? What the individual citizen in Hawaii can do? We must recognize while we're a small state state, from a position Hawaii is, from a military position, we are absolutely very keen. And so I would just say that while there's no question that the military has done a number of things that it needs to clean up, specifically Red Hill and all those issues there, we must not understate the importance of the military in Hawaii for the sake of our country and the international community. And that I think many people don't quite fully understand or recognize. You're here. Tim, I think it's almost time for summarizations and final comments. Would you mind going first? Love to. What we've been discussing for almost the last hour now is how the battlefield has changed, how war has changed either kinetically, non-kinetically, the politics now and then the use of proxies and how that has shaped things that I agree with the panel that we are in a pre-World War III, if not already in World War III, as far as alignment of allies and hopefully the access forces that we saw in World War II. What we need to realize, as Vicki said, is that we need to be vigilant and realize what our role is as far as Hawaii and how significant this state is. But also as a country, we need to realize that we're dealing with forces as we did dealt with in the 1930s. And Gene, a couple of weeks ago, you quoted Mark Twain that history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. And history is rhyming right now and we're rhyming with what happened in Germany in the 1930s domestically between Trump and Joe Biden. So let's wake up. Let's wake up and look at history and see how it's repeating itself almost in this country. And let's be vigilant about that. Humanity, we kind of live in biblical times. And as a backdrop to all of this climate change, which is the largest non-human, I guess, well, it's also a human effect, is the most existential threat humanity has ever seen. And we see it every day in some place around the world, increasingly so. So Gene, can you put it in perspective for us? How much have we lost our sense of priority, of humanity with all these wars and with this possibility of being in a third world? I don't think we've lost our sense of humanity, but I think that we have not recognized that there is a strong force in the United States, which is attempting to dismantle the institutions that we set up in 1789. Yeah, same year as the French Revolution when democracy was instituted into the modern world. And we have not been good caretakers lately. We've been resting on our laurels. How many kids take civics and understand, have ever read the Federalist Papers, for example, and can see what a threat, a desire for a strong man is, in terms of what we will accept in terms of Trump's wrecking ball to our civil service, those people that spend their lifetimes being public servants to the United States, not just those that are elected. And how this is the backbone of our nation should any threat come, our ability to mobilize against anything that any other nation could do to us or any threat that we need to respond to in terms of an ally elsewhere. That is in jeopardy because of our internal laziness in not understanding that we are, in essence, the strongest nation in the world. We still are, despite the propaganda and the wishes of Putin and others, we are still the strongest military and financial power in the world with the greatest pulpit and ability to make alliances and to preserve world order. Unless we commit ourselves to this, no matter what our political persuasions are, we risk throwing it all away. A moment to think about that. Vicki, your thoughts to summarize the message you'd like to leave with our viewers to bring all of this together and look forward, hopefully, to a better time, but also to deal with what might be a worse time, what are your thoughts? Really, Jay, after what Jean and Tim have said, I just have to say amen to that, really, especially Jean, thank you for being on this show because I learned a lot and appreciate what you said. We, you know, the United States perhaps doesn't fully appreciate many in this country the power that it has and what it has, what we have done in history and to throw it all away now, it's such a shame and it really hurts me personally and I just think that hopefully we can reverse this but I'm afraid that it may take something of great magnitude to bring us together again. Jim, you want to take one last comment? Oh, I think I've said enough. Thank you, Jay. Thank you, Tim. I have a challenge. Thank you, Jean Rosenfeld. Thank you, Vicki Kytano. It's really been a very important discussion. Thank you.