.jpg)
BACK STORY WITH DANA LEWIS
Dana Lewis is a veteran World Affairs Correspondent. He's been everywhere. From global war zones to the streets of London where he is based.
He has been based in Jerusalem, and Moscow.
And he loves talking to people about whats behind the headlines. Award winning. "A real in the trenches reporter". Great interviewing skills and easy to listen to.
BACK STORY WITH DANA LEWIS
Trump's Impact: Europe Rattled By A Trump Return
What if Donald Trump's re-election could redefine global politics? Join us for a conversation that explores this provocative question with Sir Mark Lyle Grant, a distinguished former British diplomat and National Security Advisor, as we dissect the political shockwaves reverberating through Europe and beyond.
The Back Story examines the potential implications for Ukraine, the dance between President-elect Trump and US intelligence agencies, and the broader rise of extremism with insights from Colin Clark of the Soufan Group.
And Former Lt General Ben Hodges on concerns Trump could use the U.S. military domestically. It's a huge concern for the officer core, which swears an oath to the constitution not to a commander in chief.
The last thing Ukraine would agree to is any kind of demilitarization. I mean they fear Russia so much that why would they ever agree to put down the weapons that they have?
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Of course. Why would they agree to forego 20 years that they want to ask to come into NATO? I mean, that's what a I think short-sighted vision by whoever thinks this is a good idea.
Dana Lewis :How do you see the relationship between agencies like the FBI and President-elect Trump in the future, and is that a serious concern?
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :I think it is a serious concern. You know, I keep grappling with this notion of how similar will the second Trump term be to the first, you know, because that's what we have to go off of, that and the things that he said, and he has attacked the intelligence agencies quite vigorously before.
Dana Lewis :Europe is rattled, would you agree?
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :And why? Yeah, I think Europe is rattled. I think they'll be popping champagne corks in Moscow, probably less so in Beijing, and there's a deep concern obviously in Kyiv.
Dana Lewis :Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of Backstory. I'm Dana Lewis. Donald Trump's re-election will reverberate around the globe. Europe is rattled by his return to the global stage, largely because he is thought of as being unprincipled, self-serving, transactional. Because he is thought of as being unprincipled, self-serving, transactional, with almost no allegiance or loyalty to many of the principles that have guided democracies and alliances since World War II. Will Trump pull America out of NATO? Will he start a war with Iran? Is Ukraine going to be abandoned? And Trump's presence may fuel extremism, not only overseas but at home in the US. We talk Ukraine and Trump and the US military with Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, terror and extremist threats with the Soufans' Colin Clark. But first Europe and Trump with former National Security Advisor to the UK Ambassador, sir Mark Lyle Grant. Sir Mark Lyle Grant is a former British diplomat who served previously in the United Kingdom's National Security Advisor role with the Conservative government and then he was also permanent representative to the United Kingdom in the United Nations. Hi, mr Ambassador, always good to see you, sir.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :Hi Dana, Good to speak to you.
Dana Lewis :Can you tell me, first of all, your reaction to the Trump victory? I mean, the world appears to have the potential to be a very different place with him back in the White House next year.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :Sure, and it's certainly a very remarkable comeback. I mean, you know, the first president to be reelected, as it were, for over 100 years, the oldest president elected, and he ran an amazing campaign using podcasts and social media rather than normal news channels, and that has proved to be exceptionally effective in the campaign. So it was always going to be tight, but I think I certainly am surprised by the extent of the landslide win that he's got. I mean, in American terms it is a landslide, and the fact that it looks as though the Republicans are going to win both the Senate and the House of Representatives, that gives him quite a strong platform to implement his policies both domestically and internationally.
Dana Lewis :Let's talk about it. I mean, it's a blank check. People say to have both houses, you know, until there's an election two years from now. It looks like you know he's on a long leash.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :It's not quite a blank check, though, dana. I mean, in the Senate, for much legislation you need 60 votes, and he's not got 60 votes on the Republican side, so there were some things he wouldn't be able to do, but certainly, like he had at the first time, he had all the trifecta, as they call it, first time around, as did Obama for the first two years, as they call it first time around, as did Obama for the first two years, as you say. It's most unusual that that survives the midterms, but it gives him a strong platform. There's no question about that.
Dana Lewis :Europe is rattled. Would you agree, and why?
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :Yeah, I think Europe is rattled. I think there'll be popping champagne corks in Moscow, probably less so in Beijing, and there's a deep concern obviously in Kiev. But in Paris and Berlin they are deeply worried because President Biden was a known quantity. He was enthusiastic about Europe and the European Union and Donald Trump I remember because I was there congratulated Theresa May on the fact that Brexit had happened and that Britain was no longer in the European Union. He hasn't a great love of alliances of any sorts, both about the trade implications for Europe but also obviously the security implications, given his sort of lukewarm enthusiasm about NATO.
Dana Lewis :Okay, first of all, you and I are of the same generation. I believe we were both born in the 50s. I hate to admit it. We were born in the late 50s, so let's just try to. I mean, if you can just wrap your head around this a little bit for me, because I have trouble navigating and figuring it out. I mean, this is a guy in any other campaign Ambassador who spoke about you know eating people's immigrants, eating people's animals, shooting through the media. You know comedians who talked about different islands of garbage. I mean, these were really political faux pas that would put a lot of campaigns underwater. What in the world happened that people just seem to want to vote for him more, and does that bode well for Europe?
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :I mean, european politics tend to follow these kind of things yeah, I don't think people voted for donald trump because of the some of the wild things he said. I think it's probably more uh. In spite of that, I think there was a lot of uh, nostalgia about the good times of the early Trump years where the economy went well, people not feeling good about the economy under Joe Biden Probably not his fault, I mean, that was the sort of hangover of COVID. As much as anything else, that was a big factor. Migration was obviously a massive factor, as it was in the UK elections as well, and I think they feel that his slogans of America first end all the wars, stop the migrants those sort of slogans cut through in a way that Kamala Harris didn't really cut through with her messages. She didn't have as much time, obviously, to prepare as she might have done, given the way the campaign went.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :But I think those are some of the key factors and there are parallels in Europe. We've seen populist parties throughout Europe in the UK with the Reform Party, but in Germany with the Alternative for Deutschland, obviously in France as well. You know these populist right-wing parties are doing extremely well. It only translates into a huge victory in the United States because they have a two-party system. In Europe we have multi-party systems and that obviously complicates the election results.
Dana Lewis :Mark, do you see this as an evolution of politics or do you just see it as waves? Do you see, is liberalism, liberal democracies, you know, is their head in a noose, or you just see this as kind of, you know, political change that comes and goes and liberal democracies will surge, you know, like waves on the beach or the tide will go out again.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :It's probably something in between those two things, dana. You know it is a wave, but I think it's quite a substantial and potentially long-lived wave. You know, really for the first time since the Second World War so sort of 80 years, I think, the ultimate triumph, if you like, of liberal democracy and liberal economics can no longer be taken for granted. You know, it wasn't that long ago where Francis Fukuyama was saying the end of history was the end of communism and the victory of democracy. I don't think you can say that anymore. The victory of democracy.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :I don't think you can say that anymore. 75% of the world's population now live in countries that are not democracies and that rise of nationalism and populism is on the increase, and certainly Donald Trump has been not just a beneficiary of it but a driver of it. But we've seen it in many other countries around the world, including in Europe, in places like Turkey and Hungary in particular. So I don't think it's a sort of short-lived wave. I think it's a longer move away from that Washington consensus that has governed international relations since the Second World War and that is of great concern, I think, to liberal democracies in Europe in particular.
Dana Lewis :Autocracies, incorporated as the title of one of the new books I'm reading right now. Let's talk about NATO. What do you think is going to happen? Here I mean Trump, the art of the deal. He has threatened to pull out of NATO in the past. But you know, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, spend your 2% of GDP. But he sees it transactional. He sees it transactional, you know, you spend your money and America will protect you. It's kind of like a mafia dawn.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :Yeah, there's an element of that. There's no question that he is driven by some of these principles of America, first of a sort of more transactional approach to foreign policy. But I don't think that he will pull the United States out of NATO. I don't think he will discontinue the commitment to the Article 5 guarantee to defend other NATO countries. And he can point to a very significant success, because when he was first president it was only, after all, eight years ago he took over only four NATO countries spent 2% of their GDP on defense. Now 23 of the NATO countries do, and that is partly due to Donald Trump. He can take some credit for having cajoled duress to whatever you know other NATO members to spend more money. So that lesson has been learned and I therefore I'm not too concerned about the long term future of NATO.
Dana Lewis :I think there are some short term concerns about Ukraine, but I think the NATO alliance is pretty strong some 800 miles long a line of ceasefire, demilitarization and a promise from Ukraine that they wouldn't. This is floated by JD Vance, trump's pick for vice president. 20 years Ukraine would not join NATO. Do you think that has any chance of flying? And if not, who's going to shoot it down?
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :No, I don't think it has any chance of flying. I think we have reached a stage probably of the Ukraine conflict where President Zelensky, most unfortunately, will have to consider exchanging land for peace. But a key corollary of that is some sort of security guarantees for the rest of sovereign Ukraine, and that means you can't wait 20 years for Ukraine to be able to join the European Union or NATO. I think if, on the one hand, you did give up some of the land that Russia now occupies, including Crimea and Donbass, but you gave those security guarantees, then there might be some scope for a deal. And of course, that is what happened with Korea, because America did give South Korea that security guarantee and I think Zelensky, at an absolute minimum, would require that. So I don't think the JD Vance ideas will fly, certainly not in Europe and 100% not in Kyiv.
Dana Lewis :If Trump cuts off funding to Ukraine, what will Europe do? Because a lot of countries they have a lot at stake. I mean they're on the border or close to Russia. So what are they going to say, and can they go it alone in terms of supporting Ukraine and keeping that war going?
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :And can they go it alone in terms of supporting Ukraine and keeping that war going? Well, they can certainly go it alone up to a point, but not to the extent of allowing Ukraine to win this conflict or even to delay it very significantly, because the numbers that the Americans have provided in terms of military equipment is very, very significant and, with the best will in the world, the Europeans can't backfill for that. They simply don't have the military hardware available to be able to give to Ukraine. But we shouldn't forget that President Biden still has two and a half months to go of his presidency. Not all the $60 billion worth of military aid that's been endorsed by Congress has yet been delivered, and it is at least technically possible for Joe Biden to release some of the shackles that he has actually put on President Zelensky in prosecuting this war over the next two and a half months, in order to put Ukraine in a better position to face a negotiation when Donald Trump takes over in January.
Dana Lewis :I find it pretty hard to believe that Biden would suddenly step up and say go ahead and use long range weapons inside Russia.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :I think it's unlikely. I think he should and this is an important point on Ukraine is that you know, it's not as though the President Biden administration has been fantastic for Ukraine. It's provided Ukraine with enough ammunition and weaponry to avoid losing, but not enough to win, and with huge suffering that they've undergone as a result. So I agree with you it's unlikely, but all I'm saying is that it is possible and I think the British and other European governments would love that to happen.
Dana Lewis :Last question to you and it's going to be the most complicated and the most difficult to answer. In a way, Putin spoke yesterday. It was a long, long, you know diatribe at the Volodya Club which he does annually in Russia. Events of a truly historical scale before our eyes. A completely new world order is being formed, unlike what we know from the past, for example, the Westphalian or Yalta system. New powers are rising, peoples are becoming more and more aware of their interests, their self-worth, identity and increasingly insisting on achieving goals of development and justice. Insisting on achieving goals of development and justice. This coming from a guy who has invaded another country and wants to turn the clock back. He talks about going forward, new era, new world, but he wants to take Russia back to dominating. You know, the near afar, the near abroad. Is this KGB doublespeak?
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :or what is this all about? Yeah, I know it's definitely doublespeak. I mean, Putin sees himself as Peter the Great, reuniting Russian lands after years of chaos inside Russia. So he's absolutely looking back to what he would consider the golden era of the sort of Soviet times. Why doesn't he just say that?
Dana Lewis :Because why doesn't he just say that we want to dominate all you guys, we want you back and we're going to take over your land? Why does he can't say that?
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :I'll tell you why Because he doesn't have natural friends and allies around the world, in contrast to that China does, and so he's trying to talk the language that China has been talking.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :Because President Xi is precisely saying we need to get away from this unipax, you know, the unipolar Pax Americana we've had since the Second World War.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :We need a new world order with justice and fairness and more Chinese characteristics. Now Putin is trying to tap into that because China and Russia, despite all the tensions between the two countries, have a joint interest in upsetting American leadership around the world. So they are coming together in a marriage of convenience and Putin is beginning to use some of that language that Xi would resonate with and resonates more widely, let's be honest, in places like India and Brazil and South Africa and some of these developing countries who feel that they haven't had a fair share of the pie in this global construct that was built up after the Second World War. So he's talking that language, but in his heart he's absolutely a revisionist, trying to take Russia back to the glory days when it was a falling population. Its economy is only 12% of the economy of China and about 60% the economy of the United Kingdom very narrowly based. So it's not a great power anymore, but he harks back to the times when it was one of the great powers.
Dana Lewis :So, mark Lyle Grant, always good to talk to you, mark. Thank you so much, mr Ambassador. Have a great weekend.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant :Thank you, Dono.
Dana Lewis :Thank you. Colin Clark is with the Soufan Center and he's been a regular on this program. Soufan Center is a think tank. It's a security advisory firm and analysis and Colin is well acquainted with doing analysis on terrorism and he's an expert on that. Hi, colin, thanks for having me. Dana, so much of what we hear, first of all very broadly, on threats, whether they be in America or in Europe, is based on intelligence analysis. Right, yeah, a hundred percent. So those very agencies which do the analysis the FBI, the CIA, independent firms like yourselves that then take some of that analysis and write about it more broadly, analysis, and, and, uh, and, and and write about it more broadly Um, they've come under tremendous attack from your president elect, donald Trump in the past. Well, how do you see the relationship between agencies like the FBI, um, and, and president elect Trump, uh, in the future, and, and? Is that a serious concern?
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :I think it is a serious concern. I keep grappling with this notion of how similar will the second Trump term be to the first, because that's what we have to go off of that and the things that he's said, and he has attacked the intelligence agencies quite vigorously before you know, there's part of me as an American that wants to remain optimistic that this isn't going to be a revenge tour and that Trump will really consider his legacy with how he deals not only with our allies abroad but also with, you know, the institutions we have here that function as the pillars of our democracy. I think it will be telling the first six months of his administration and how he deals with these agencies agencies, you know, one glimmer of hope is a lot of people have focused on project 2025, um, which has threatened to kind of hollow out large parts of the U? S government. He backed away from that quite a bit. Um, after the backlash and and and I think maybe cooler heads have prevailed, uh, and so you know whether or not that was a campaign stunt.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :Here's the thing about Trump, and I'm not saying this in a pejorative way or in a critical way, although there's plenty to criticize. I think one advantage of having him be largely unmoored from any principles is that he's not an ideologue he kind of and you can see that in the way he approaches his foreign policy. One day he threatens to bomb North Korea, the next day he's inviting Kim Jong-un to a summit. There's no real kind of framework that guides him. It's very erratic, but in a sense that's good, because if, if he has a team around him, you know of kind of very sober, you know fairly war worldly. If no, and and that's a, it's a huge yeah, no question, um, he's malleable enough where they can help, try to guide him to to do the right thing. You know, and I also think that again, with his second and final term, he will be focused on his legacy. You've heard him talk about making peace deals, um, and so I'm hoping that, uh, we have a far less erratic administration than we did the first time around.
Dana Lewis :Take Russia, for example, so people can understand this. I mean, he has rejected some of the intelligence analysis over Russian interference in elections. For, for instance, if you start rejecting your own intelligence agency's analysis and warnings and you side with President Putin in the Kremlin, it's a pretty significant danger, isn't it? Because then you're acting in Russia's interest, you're not acting in your own nation's interest, and the next warning may be about something much more serious than not that I'm minimizing election interference or something that's not serious, but it could be about a potential nuclear launch, or you know, I don't want to be ridiculous about it, but I mean it can be about pending military activity et cetera.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :Look, I just read Bob Woodward's book War and he went into great detail about how close we were or how close the intelligence community thought we were to the Russians using the tactical nuke in Ukraine. And thankfully folks in the Biden administration Jake Sullivan, secretary of Defense, lloyd Austin were very clear about what the consequences would be. But you're right. I mean, when you side with a dictator like Putin over your own intelligence community, not only is that just unwise from a foreign policy perspective, the morale blow that that deals to the intelligence community has got to be tremendous. I mean, even as a civilian, as an American citizen, I was disgusted by it.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :I couldn't imagine what it would feel like if I worked in the intelligence community and had the Russia portfolio. I mean, getting your legs cut out from under you. So you know it'll be things like that that will be very telling, if we start seeing similar behaviors going forward, that we're going to be in for a very rough ride these next four years. Again, coming into this with it's not necessarily a blank slate, but maybe a reset within his own administration. I'm really, really hoping that things go differently this time. Maybe I'm being naive, maybe this is wishful thinking, but we'll see.
Dana Lewis :We'll see You've written. The election in the US was heavily marred by foreign interference. In what way? And I saw some of those bomb threats being reported at various polling stations. I mean, how big was it and was it significant in the result? Or you think it didn't change?
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :the result Did not change the result or you think it didn't change the result Did not change the result. I mean, it was an overwhelming mandate for Trump, if you look at the map, and no amount of Russian interference would have tilted the election that far for him. I think the American people spoke and they spoke loudly. You know there was bomb threats, there was massive disinformation, ai generated fake videos, um, you know the usual that we see, uh from the Russians, but no, I I. The interesting part to me is for an administration that cried foul and and fraud for the last election. Now that they won, there was magically none Right, um, which just kind of goes to show you how valid the initial claims were, but no, I mean the, the. If you look at how dominant, you know, trump performed in this election, you really have to kind of discount in some ways, the impact of foreign interference. Now, what we can't discount is the impunity with which the Russians and, to lesser, the Iranians and the Chinese- I mean there's got to be.
Dana Lewis :I don't want to overstate it, but if you said, like 10 years ago, interfering in democratic elections would almost be an act of war, I mean, no way, that was a red line. Now it's commonplace. In every single election we're hearing Iran, China, Russia setting up you know, you wrote about so-called how did you put it? Doppelganger networks of websites imitating real media.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :I mean, so part of it is the lowering of barriers to entry. That technology allows anybody to kind of muck around in this space and I think that's why the response hasn't been as severe is because this is just par for the course now across the board, Um, and every democratic election we see. But I do think it's a mistake that we've kind of internalized this and just kind of shrugged of like, ah well, kind of what can you do? Right, this is, this is the way things go. What do you do?
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :I think you start looking into sanctions to begin with. You start looking into turning the tables. Here's where the intelligence community could get creative and giving the Russians a dose of their own medicine, perhaps. But sitting back passively and allowing countries to meddle in your elections is absolutely not the answer. But you know again, I do have faith and confidence in CISA, the Cyber Infrastructure Security Agency, and some of the leadership there, and that they're doing everything they can to maintain the integrity of our elections.
Dana Lewis :You've also written. Four more years of Trump could see a resurgence of domestic terror, neo-Nazis, white supremacists. And then, as I was waiting to do this interview with you, I see the breaking news in the US that the FBI now is investigating a spate of emails that were sent to brown and black Americans telling them they should report to the cotton fields even children, telling them they should report to the cotton fields even children. So why does a new Trump administration equate with the sense from these groups that they can act with impunity?
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :I think it emboldens people. I think you know, uh, you know, a slice of the maga movement. Um is variantly racist. You know, I'm not saying it's a anywhere close to a majority, but there are people that revel um in, uh, you know, some of the kind of you know, racist rhetoric. Frankly, uh, the great replacement theory, all these other things.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :There are true believers that really fundamentally believe that there is a conspiracy or a cabal of Democrats, jews and folks in Hollywood that are actively trying to replace white people with immigrants, and some of the things that Trump has said may very well be the wink, wink, nod, nod that these people need to go forth and unleash acts of violence.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :We saw it in my own city, in Pittsburgh, in 2018, with Robert Bowers. You know, where he almost thought that he was doing something for a greater good. Screw your optics. I'm going in. Right is what he said in response to this migrant caravan. We saw it in El Paso, with Patrick Crucius, when he attacked a Walmart because of elements of the rate replacement, and so my concern is that people feel emboldened, to quote unquote finish the job and target what he's called the enemies within right. They're poisoning our blood and even though it's not the government that's condoning these things. It's people taking matters into their own hands, and in a country like the United States, where everybody has access to high-powered weaponry, it looks a lot different than it would in Europe or Australia or somewhere else.
Dana Lewis :If you're concerned about domestic terror, you know internationally, what do you see in kind of the short term that you've written about? The resurgence of ISIS, ISIS-K? It seems like we're very focused on state to state conflict right now. Everything's about to rise. While things are are there, there's a lot happening with with terror groups that have not gone away no doubt you know if you go down to the beltway in washington.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :Um, there's three things people want to talk about china, china and china, maybe a little bit of ai. Uh, nobody wants to talk about counterterrorism. There's a significant sense of counterterrorism fatigue, I think, um, after 20 years of the so-called global war on terrorism that's permeated the larger part of the body politic.
Dana Lewis :But that's a luxury right, Because until the next bomb goes off, you have that people might be fatigued until that moment I'd go further, I I wouldn't even use luxury, I'd say it's complacency.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :I think it's very dangerous. In fact, um, because these groups have not gone away, we're out of afghanistan. That's helped lead to the resurgence of isis-k, which has also set its sights on countries globally, and not just the west, mind you. Uh, they attacked iran in january and russia in March, but certainly they would love to pull off some kind of major terrorist attack in Europe or the United States, and if that does happen, then we can get into these kind of second and third order outcomes. This is where Trump's unpredictable nature might surprise some people. Largely, he's seen as wanting to draw down US presence overseas. Largely he's seen as wanting to draw down um us presence overseas. But if there's a major terrorist attack on us soil, on his watch, depending on how serious and severe it is, maybe he deploys the military to somewhere we haven't been prior.
Dana Lewis :Uh, you know, it may be faulted for a lot of things in his first term, a lot of things on foreign policy, but the one thing he did do was go after ISIS.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :He did, and we have to give credit where credit's due. Look, this is where I think we get in a lot of trouble in this country. The level of hatred for Trump has blinded analysts from doing their job objectively. Analysts from doing their job objectively, and no doubt it's a challenge to assess him like you would assess any other president or any other administration, but I look at that as our job. You can't take into account your personal feelings, your ideology, if you want to be a credible analyst.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :I think, without question, he did a very good job going after the Islamic State. Now there's some hyperbole there. Right, I defeated ISIS. Well, we all know that ISIS isn't dead. Look at ISIS-K and even look back in Iraq and Syria. The US conducted airstrikes in Syria against ISIS targets just last week. We still have the camps in Al-Hol in northeastern Syria where we've had a policy of kind of kick the can down the road. The ISIS threat is percolating, it's very much there and it could revive. There's different geopolitical factors that could influence the reinvigoration of this group and you're 100% right, we can't afford to be complacent there.
Dana Lewis :And there's been certainly attacks that have been carried out by Iran, even within Europe itself assassinations, assassination attempts. We might see President Trump get very, very tough with Iran, much tougher than the Biden administration was he could, and I think that's another challenge.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :We did a project a couple of years ago, and as part of the project we were doing interviews with high-ranking current and retired security, intelligence and defense officials in the UK, and one in particular had a comment that's really stuck with me and it's quite resonant. He said nothing ever falls off the plate, and what he meant by that was we have these old threats Al-Qaeda is still there, ISIS is still there but we have these new threats too. Right Now we have far right extremism, we have the axis of resistance. We're now kind of going to see a regrowth of Shia extremism and terrorism, but the old threats haven't gone away, and so the picture at one point was fairly narrowly focused on, you know, Sunni jihadists, Salafi jihadists.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :It's now this kind of kaleidoscope of threats, and I do think you know the threat from Lebanese Hezbollah, from other, from the Houthis, from Hamas. We don't know what shape those are going to take in the near future. The Israelis have dismantled these organizations in some ways, but I warn people, the second order effect of that could be more terrorism worldwide. Think back to 1992, after Hassan Nasrallah's predecessor was killed. Hezbollah responded by attacking Jewish and Israeli targets in Latin America and in Argentina. So you know, do we enter a period or a phase where US embassies in sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia are being attacked? Because Hezbollah is a global network and if the United States is in the kind of crosshairs of that group, that's certainly a possibility.
Dana Lewis :With capabilities increased by Iranian sponsorship.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :No question, I mean largely undergirded by, you know, iranian and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, quds Force training.
Dana Lewis :So state-sponsored terrorism. Would you comment, Colin, on what kind of has been spinning around for the last week that Russia was behind sending explosive packages to Europe that could have downed aircraft, but they were, you know, detected on the ground and in places like sorting facilities before they exploded?
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :Look, I wrote a piece for the LA Times back in February 2022, shortly after the Russian reinvasion of Ukraine where I warned, if we start to see Russian battlefield losses in Ukraine, one byproduct could be terrorism in the West, because the West has rallied, because NATO has rallied to support the Ukrainians and you know it wasn't that revolutionary of a statement. We've seen Russian terrorism in the West before that. Let's look at the Litvinenko's, let's look at some of the things that the Russians have done blowing up arms depots in parts of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, an assassination of a Chechen dissident in Berlin in broad daylight so the Russians are not afraid to conduct acts of terrorism. They've also now they're going to be dealing with the return of these Wagner folks or whatever you want to call them now back into regular Russian society, who maybe are heavily battle scarred, have maybe been conscripted from prisons. What becomes of these people? Russians aren't going to want them running around on Russian soil, so maybe they're kind of dispatched or deployed in different ways.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :I think we're in for a really turbulent time with the Russians, particularly with the posture toward Europe. And that's, you know, put Ukraine, you know how that conflict ends aside. You know this is a clear signal to the West that the Russians are not afraid to uh, to take that next step. I mean taking out a plane with an explosive, pretty, pretty drastic Uh. This isn't kind of uh, what we call salami slicing or incremental terrorism. This is a very blatant, clear sign of what the Russians are prepared to do.
Dana Lewis :And you have a president who, uh, a, a, a, a second term president, donald Trump, who wants to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours and have a great relationship with president Putin. Um, it's, it's not really seen, seemingly based in any kind of reality right now it's not.
Colin Clarke, Soufan Center :And you know, again, my hopes are that his advisors can kind of uh, you know, convince him that putin is not our friend. Um, and again, you have to think of some of the drastic kind of 180s trump did during his first administration. What's to say that Trump doesn't hate Putin six months into this? I know it's implausible or it's hard to fathom, given the kind of bromance that they've had, for lack of a better term, but you know, geopolitics makes for strange bedfellows. If Trump feels that Putin is kind of uh, you know, embarrassing him or trying to show him up in some ways, we don't know how he'll react.
Dana Lewis :Colin Clark with the Cefan Center. Colin, great to talk to you again. Thank you so much. Thanks, dana. All right, joining me now from Washington is Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, who was the former US Army commander in Europe and is now retired. Ben, you've been on the program many times and I've known you for decades now. You were among dozens of former US military commanders, diplomats, former members of Trump's administration including his national security advisor, john Bolton, and it goes on and on that long list who warned of dangers if Trump was to be elected. Here we are. What are those dangers, and do you believe that they are possible, or do you really fear that we're heading into a very dark period?
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:fear that we're heading into a very dark period. Well, I think it's first important to be very clear that the election is over. American people have voted and, while I may not have wanted this outcome, I respect the election. I can't say that I'm for democracy and that I care about the Constitution only when my guy or woman wins the election. So I just say that I'm for democracy and that I care about the Constitution only when my guy or woman wins the election. So I just want to be very clear about that. I accept the outcome of the election and, for the good of our country, I hope that the new administration will be successful. Having said that, of course, I'm going to remain engaged on policy issues, which is what we should all be doing where I think the policy is wrong or right or needs to be adjusted, particularly on the areas where I have some expertise, like security, working with our allies in NATO and in the Indo-Pacific region.
Dana Lewis :I'm not going to let you get off the hook this easy.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Well, I finish, but it's important to be very clear that I acknowledge and accept the outcome of the election. The dangers are as follows. Number one our leadership within NATO. The president based on what he said and did in the past president-elect. What he said and did in the past president-elect, what he said and did in the past uh, both when he was president before and in the last four years on the campaign trail, you know, makes people wonder will he remain committed to, to nato? I mean, that's that never has been a question before, regardless of who the president was. So that's do you?
Dana Lewis :want me to let you go through your list, or should we chip away at these as, as you, as they were like let me do it.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:I'll do quickly headline and then we come back to it. So that's the first thing american commitment to nato. The second thing, of course, is um interaction with russia. Uh, what's what's going to be the attitude in dealing with russia? In eight years he's never said a negative thing about Vladimir Putin, in fact praised how smart Putin was. So this gives people pause, especially our allies in Eastern Europe.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:And then the third thing is our officer corps. I think the fact that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on their retribution list talking about General Millig and I haven't seen a lot of people speaking out about this, you know former military I mean people should be outraged. A professional officer corps that will give their best professional advice and then carry out the orders when they carry out legal orders. I mean this is a problem, and so I worry that this will have the effect of future senior officers who are being considered for leadership positions under this administration, that they might have to pass some additional litmus tests other than professional competence and their oath to the constitution let's start with the last one, because you've raised it and a lot of people don't recall.
Dana Lewis :I mean, there's just such a whirlwind of outrageous statements that have come from trump during the campaign period. I think people just forget some of them and I, on millie, I had to go look it up because I knew I would be talking to you today. So on this revenge list, if you want to call it that, that Trump has is former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, mark Milley, who Trump has raved against because Milley had been in contact with a Chinese official during a tense transition period four years ago and Trump suddenly says that amounted to treason, quote this is an act so gregarious in times gone by. The punishment would have been death, said Trump, would have been death, said Trump. And this was reignited after Milley said that Trump is a fascist to his core. I mean, it's been pretty combative, but I mean, do you really expect that the president-elect to become the president would actually go after his former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:No, number one, of course that's a possibility, but you know others may do it with or without direct guidance. So I think you know a nobody, nobody of either party, uniform or not, should live in fear, that of retribution if they were performing their duty. And this is where I think the president-elect and his team, if they're serious about moving forward, then they would say hey look, we're moving forward. I disagree with General Milley or whatever, but we're moving forward. That would be presidential. I don't know that everybody agrees with that.
Dana Lewis :That would be presidential, which kind of goes against Trump's grain at times. The officer corps in the United States. When Trump has talked about deploying the military inside of the United States, why does that trouble the officer corps? What is constitutionally the objection, and would they answer that call?
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:I think that you know we work so hard in our in the culture and the education and the training of the officer corps and our non-commissioned officers, constantly reinforcing the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That and always highlighting that in our, that which, by the way, was created after the civil war.
Dana Lewis :You know, or what?
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Because you're glad you'll cut out there, I'm sorry. The oath that we use today was created after the American civil war. Uh, because you had officers from the U? S army, including West Point graduates like Robert E Lee, that violated their oath and joined the Confederacy. So this oath was to make sure that, to remind officers that their oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. So we reinforce that. Every time there's a re-enlistment, a promotion, a retirement, whatever, we always reinforce that oath. So it's in the culture.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:And then we also have obedience to civilian or that the military is under civilian leadership. That's in the Constitution, the president's commander in chief. But that's Article 2 of the Constitution. Article 1 lays out roles and responsibilities of the Congress with regards to the military. Is the Congress with regards to the military, so the uh, the idea that, um, loyalty of the officer corps, that they will, they will perform their duty? Of course they will. If it's a legal order, because we also train and educate people, it is your responsibility to be able to tell the difference If you get an illegal order and to have the courage to say no sir, no, ma'am, I can't do that, that's illegal. So, uh, that removes what we always referred to as the Nuremberg defense, that you know, I was only following orders Um, that's, that's, that's, that's serious stuff, and and I think, um, uh, the officer corps will hopefully continue to emphasize that.
Dana Lewis :NATO. You raised that as number one on your list, I guess, or the first one that you raised. I mean, a journalist asked me a journalist, friend of mine in Washington actually also today asked me what Europe's reaction is to the Trump election. And I wrote back um, europe wants to puke. And now that that's pretty crass on my part, but I think you know you, you might, you might find some common ground in that that.
Dana Lewis :The fear is that you know Trump um, just isn't playing the art of the deal on NATO. Then in fact, he may just want to get out. He doesn't have a view that NATO's collective security protects America. Trump tends to see NATO as something as this kind of an army for hire arrangement where you know, we'll protect European countries if they pay, and if they don't pay, and if they're not hitting that 2% of GDP or whatever, um, you know they, they Putin, can have Adam. What fundamentally is the problem with that thinking? What fundamentally is the problem with that thinking, that transactional thinking, as again I'll mention John Bolton, his former. What was his title? Again, national Security.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Advisor.
Dana Lewis :National Security Advisor. Excuse me, john, the National Security John Bolton says it's just transactional. He has no idea of the history of NATO and what it's all about, and post-World War II security in Europe.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:So I have thought about this a lot over the last few months, of course, but especially in the last couple of days, trying to think okay, now it's a fact, so the fact that there is going to be a Trump administration, so what does that mean for our alliance and for our relationships in Europe and our adversaries in Europe, such as Russia?
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Fortunately, there are several members of Congress on the Republican side, people like Chairman Mike Turner of Ohio or Senator Lindsey Graham or Senator Lindsey Graham who are very, very longstanding transatlanticists that they value and understand the value of NATO and American leadership in the alliance. Why that's for our advantage. It's good for America to be able to do that, for America to be able to do that, and so I think that they will prevail upon the President Trump to make sure that we don't lose this huge advantage that we have of being able to lead inside the alliance. Now, of course, president-elect Trump, like every other president, is correct to put pressure on allies to do more. Like every other president, that's correct to put pressure on allies to do more. But, um, that doesn't mean that nato is not the kind of thing where you just want to say, okay, screw you guys, we're leaving, because who really gets hurt is us. So that's, that's the first part, and I think that congress will play a role.
Dana Lewis :Secondly, see understand that the first people who get hurt is us being America, that it's not just America providing protection. America gets back security from that arrangement.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Yes, well, that's. I think that's going to be part of the compelling argument from people like Senator Graham and Mike Turner to explain why this is good for America.
Dana Lewis :But by the way, ben, one more time I just adding to what you say, rather than interrupt you and I know you don't like it, but I have to put it in there. Because you mentioned NATO, secretary General Mark Rutt came out today and he's pretty diplomatic and he knows Trump. He said the strengthening of ties between Russia and North Korea are not only a threat to European security, but also for the United States. What we're talking about, russia is delivering the latest technology to North Korea in return for North Korean help in the war against Ukraine. So he's already laying that kind of groundwork where he's saying to the Trump administration understand that this is not just about Europe in isolation or Ukraine and Russia in isolation. This comes back to our security, the collective security and America's security.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:So this has been my point for a long time. I just haven't been very compelling is that helping Ukraine defeat Russia isolates Iran, isolates North Korea and deters China, that all of these things are linked. So having a strong alliance where we actually have a very small American footprint in Europe, I mean it's very small. The number of Americans in Europe could not fill up the University of Michigan football stadium. I mean we're not talking about a lot of people, what's?
Dana Lewis :the number how many, how many about a hundred thousand okay about 100 000.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:That's how many people sit in the big house in university of michigan football stadium and over half of those are rotational. So and and there's very few troops or capabilities that are in europe that are needed in the end of pacific region. So this is this is a very sustainable contribution by the United States. That is good for us. But look, I think that the second reason that he can be persuaded not to turn his back on Europe is because he will be very concerned. He will not want to be seen as the loser, the guy that lost Ukraine to Russia, and I think Ukrainians and Europeans and people inside the administration can be effective in saying that he will be blamed for a failure in Europe. I think, like all of us, he would not want to be seen as having lost Ukraine.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:So there will be a test I predict a test very early in the administration, when Russia will trot out one of their nuclear red lines, whether it's Lavrov or Medvedev or Putin himself that will say we're relooking or we're updating our nuclear doctrine or we're going to do a nuclear test somewhere. You know, just a reminder that if you know Ukraine uses American weapons inside Russia, we may have to revise our nuclear doctrine. That worked consistently to stop the Biden administration from from doing what needed to be done. So I wonder what will happen. When will that first little nuclear test come out after President Trump is in office? And that will be an important indicator of direction of travel.
Dana Lewis :You just reminded me that former US Ambassador Mike McFaul, the former US Ambassador to Moscow, said in a social media posting today that he said now is the time that Biden should step up and give those long-range weapons to Ukraine, give permission for Ukraine to use long-range weapons against Russia, because Putin wouldn't dare do anything when he knows that the Trump team is in transition. Now is the time to step it up rather than throttle back. Any thoughts?
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Well, of course I would not be against that, but that would also just highlight the fact that the administration failed for the last years to act decisively. And that would almost sound like a gimmick kind of thing after thousands of Ukrain, but it would just remind everybody of the failure of the administration to act strategically and decisively. And I don't know that Putin would understand the game here and would say OK, I'd see what's going on, don't worry about it. I mean, I'm as far as I know, he is still not called up to congratulate president elect Trump yet. I mean, so this is not going to be, you know, bouquets. This is not going to. This is not going to be bouquet.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Well, no, don't, this is not. This is not funny. You know, zelensky called immediately. Other leaders from around the world have been calling in. It's noticeable to me that Putin has not done that, and so I would not assume as much respect as I have for Ambassador McFaul I would not assume that the Biden administration could okay, let's empty the locker, give them everything ASAP, and that Putin will just kind of let it go. And plus, there's a practical aspect it's very difficult moving all this stuff and it's shameful that we have been so slow with actually delivering what was already committed.
Dana Lewis :Let me ask you this report in the Wall Street Journal today that Trump's team is reportedly crafting a peace plan for Ukraine. It would delay NATO, ukraine's membership to NATO for at least a decade, for sorry, for 20 years, for two decades. It would establish a 1,200-kilometer demilitarized zone along the front line sounds like north of South Korea and leave 20% of occupied Ukrainian territory under Russian control. What are your thoughts? Is that going to pass the mustard with Ukraine? First of all, because they're the ones that are going to have to agree with it, and uh, and I guess Russia, russia also has to sign off on something like that.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Well, this sounds like something that you know happened back in the 18th century, when the three big powers would kind of divide up smaller countries amongst themselves. Uh, that's not, that's not going to pass mustard. Um, that's not. That's not going to pass muster in the in the 21st century. I think you're you're you're correct that Ukrainians are not going to go along with that. I mean, they know what happens.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Number one, when the Red Army shows up somewhere. Number two nobody, nobody, believes that Russia will actually live up to any agreement unless you've got blue-helmeted or NATO troops or somebody there actually enforcing it, and that's not going to happen. So I have zero confidence that Russia would live up to that and, frankly, none of the Eastern European countries would have any confidence in that. Nor, I think, will they be satisfied with the, with something that rewards Russian aggression like that, because that means that you're going to see millions more Ukrainian refugees pouring into uh, Central and Western Europe as a result of this. So, okay, I of course they're probably working on a plan. That's normal, but each of the tenants of that plan that you just laid out are, I think, infeasible, uh, unsupportable and undesirable seems to me now, uh, more than ever, the last thing ukraine would agree to is any kind of demilitarization.
Dana Lewis :I mean, they fear russia so much that why would they ever agree to put down the weapons that they have?
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Of course. Why would they agree to forego 20 years that they want to ask to come into NATO? I mean, that's what I think a short-sighted vision by whoever thinks this is a good idea. Um, and the real question is why? Why do nations want to join NATO? Why did every country that used to be under the Soviet thumb or the Russian thumb seek to join NATO as soon as they could? Because, uh, they know what it's like to be under that the thumb of Moscow. Uh, and they also know that NATO represents, with all its imperfections, represents the best possible hope for security against the historical adversary, Russia. So why would we, the United States, assume that we can make a decision for another country like that? I think it's terrible that we have failed to live up to our agreements with the Budapest Memorandum from 1994, when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. The US, UK and Russia all failed to live up to that, and so nobody's going to trust Russia and, frankly, I worry that, um, nations don't trust us.
Dana Lewis :Would you agree in, in closing here, that the, um, that the world is a far more dangerous, far more complicated place than when Trump was in office, during his first term, and that the, the, the threats that you have from North Korea, the, from Iran, it's? It's far more complicated because it's a web now of those nations China and Iran and Russia all cooperating and working together? Um, so so he is going to have a hell of a challenge in front of him and he may not be the guy, he may not be the president, for that.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Well, he is the president, and what I'm looking forward to seeing is who does he bring in? You know the old adage that people is policy. So who he brings in to fill positions at Secretary of Defense, secretary of State, national Security Advisor, not just the top level, but the two levels down. You know who will be the undersecretary for policy, for example. Those will be strong indicators of direction.
Dana Lewis :Do you think he's up for the job? Foreign policy and foreign threats when you think about America's security, I mean what he's going to be in the job foreign policy and foreign threats. When you think about America's security, I mean he's going to be in the job.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:I mean whether or not I think he's up for it. You know the election has been completed. He's going to be the president and we all have to hope that the president is successful in protecting us, protecting our allies and defending the international rules-based order that has made America and our allies incredibly prosperous and safe.
Dana Lewis :But you still think he's dangerous because that's what you said and I believe you're a lifelong Republican who voted against him. You just can't walk away and I don't say you are, but I'm sure you cannot walk away in good conscience after delivering that repeated message and think anything different the day after.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:Daniel, you're putting words in my mouth, and I was a lifelong Republican until I left the party after January the 6th and I did not want to be associated with the GOP anymore because I didn't recognize it.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:I'm an independent now and, yes, of course, the election is complete, so I'm no longer campaigning against him. I am concerned about those things that I mentioned earlier. You know, impact on our alliance, that American security has been guaranteed because of NATO, as has the security of over a billion other people because of NATO, the most successful alliance in the history of the world. So I am, of course, I'm going to be concerned about that, just like I was concerned by the Biden administration's failure to do certain things in Europe. Yes, I'm going to be concerned about impact on the officer corps. If there is a politicization of the serving officers where they have to pass some sort of litmus test that's beyond professional competence and oath to the support and defend the Constitution of the United States, I'll be concerned about that because that will have a damp negative effect on the quality of the professional military advice that senior leaders are expected to provide to the president, to the secretary.
Dana Lewis :Oh, to the constitution, not to the man, not to the president, that's correct. What was the word I put in your mouth just before I let you go Danger?
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:You said. I'm not going to let you walk away from what you said. I'm not walking away from what I said, but when I said those things, of course it was the campaign. The election has been had is complete, he is the president, and so, like any other patriotic American, I'm going to do everything I can to help make sure our country, um is, is successful and it's strategic interest. Um, and the beauty of our system is that, you know, people can talk about policy in public, should talk about policy in public.
Dana Lewis :Lieutenant general Hodges, always a great pleasure, sir.
Lt Gen Ben Hodges:All right Dan.
Dana Lewis :Thanks for the privilege. Thank you, and that's our backstory. This week, president Putin has said he's open to talk to Trump. Of course he is. He's talked to Trump more than half a dozen times, seven times since Trump left the White House. Their close and suspect relationship has been the stuff of wild speculation for years, as in. Does Putin have something on Trump? What does he have? Putin will attempt to play the president-elect, that's for certain. What may save the day are the people that Trump appoints to cabinet, if he appoints a qualified and sober inner circle and if he's up to listening to them. I'm Dana Lewis. Thanks for listening to Backstory. No-transcript.
