Joining us right now. Thrilled and I'm really honored that we could have him today. Is someone with a global perspective. His initial acclaim with the Bush senior administration on Northern Ireland Richard Hass. Of course, I'm going to say, really the reinvigoration of the Council on Foreign Relations, he is with Center view. Ambassador Haas, thank you for joining us. I think we forget that Soul, Korea is thirty five miles from the Demilitarized Zone the DMZ. How does the tension of North Korea and South Korea fold into the shock of government collapse and tests in Seoul?

Joining us right now. Thrilled and I'm really honored that we could have him today. Is someone with a global perspective. His initial acclaim with the Bush senior administration on Northern Ireland Richard Hass. Of course, I'm going to say, really the reinvigoration of the Council on Foreign Relations, he is with Center view. Ambassador Haas, thank you for joining us. I think we forget that Soul, Korea is thirty five miles from the Demilitarized Zone the DMZ. How does the tension of North Korea and South Korea fold into the shock of government collapse and tests in Seoul?

Good question, Tom, Good morning. I think the issue is whether North Korea, which is obviously watching what's going on in South Korea with say more than a little interest, whether they see this as a moment of some opportunity. This is in North Korea remains the most militarized country in the world. You've got two large conveys armies or raid against each other. You still have more than twenty thousand American troops there. North Korea obviously and also has a missile and a growing nuclear force. So that's the danger here that they would see this as some a moment of opportunity to exploit, and I would expect and hope that South Korean and US forces would be at a higher level of alert just to try to deter any such thing.

Good question, Tom, Good morning. I think the issue is whether North Korea, which is obviously watching what's going on in South Korea with say more than a little interest, whether they see this as a moment of some opportunity. This is in North Korea remains the most militarized country in the world. You've got two large conveys armies or raid against each other. You still have more than twenty thousand American troops there. North Korea obviously and also has a missile and a growing nuclear force. So that's the danger here that they would see this as some a moment of opportunity to exploit, and I would expect and hope that South Korean and US forces would be at a higher level of alert just to try to deter any such thing.

June of twenty nineteen, President Trump meets Kim John Un. We all remember that moment. What if that happens again, What is the signal to South Korea if the President elect reducts is June of twenty nineteen.

June of twenty nineteen, President Trump meets Kim John Un. We all remember that moment. What if that happens again, What is the signal to South Korea if the President elect reducts is June of twenty nineteen.

Look, the South Korean relationship with President Donald Trump was one of the worst relations between an American ally and the United States. The President really pushed hard about why wasn't South Korea doing more to pay for US troops? There concerns about the trade and balance and so forth so much, and by the way, and threatened to pull US forces out of South Korea. So if you were to once again ratchet up the pressure, I think the most likely reaction would be that South Korea would think very seriously, indeed about developing nuclear weapons of its own if it came to lose faith in the United States. And that's the sort of thing that, among other things, could cause a real crisis with China. So there's a lot of potential dynamics.

Look, the South Korean relationship with President Donald Trump was one of the worst relations between an American ally and the United States. The President really pushed hard about why wasn't South Korea doing more to pay for US troops? There concerns about the trade and balance and so forth so much, and by the way, and threatened to pull US forces out of South Korea. So if you were to once again ratchet up the pressure, I think the most likely reaction would be that South Korea would think very seriously, indeed about developing nuclear weapons of its own if it came to lose faith in the United States. And that's the sort of thing that, among other things, could cause a real crisis with China. So there's a lot of potential dynamics.

Here, Richard, how concerns should the average American be here, the average just observer in the West be about South Korea. This martial law news over the last couple of days really caught I think everybody by surprise. How concerned should we be about the stability of that part of the world.

Here, Richard, how concerns should the average American be here, the average just observer in the West be about South Korea. This martial law news over the last couple of days really caught I think everybody by surprise. How concerned should we be about the stability of that part of the world.

It did catch everybody by surprise, including everybody in South Korea. The good news is it went nowhere. You had the declaration of martial law. The National Assembly met almost immediately repudiated, public opinion repudiated it. The president back down very quickly. So to me, the larger story is a good one about the resilience of South Korean democracy and institutions some forty plus years since South Korea joined join the ranks of the democracy. So I don't think we should be concerned. I actually think the big loser here is President Yun, and he'll obviously face now an impeachment challenge, and I'm not sure if he survives. Is what he said in motion. He was unpopular before this, he's far more unpopular now. He's lost a lot of legitimacy. But I actually think it's a good day for South Korean democracy.

It did catch everybody by surprise, including everybody in South Korea. The good news is it went nowhere. You had the declaration of martial law. The National Assembly met almost immediately repudiated, public opinion repudiated it. The president back down very quickly. So to me, the larger story is a good one about the resilience of South Korean democracy and institutions some forty plus years since South Korea joined join the ranks of the democracy. So I don't think we should be concerned. I actually think the big loser here is President Yun, and he'll obviously face now an impeachment challenge, and I'm not sure if he survives. Is what he said in motion. He was unpopular before this, he's far more unpopular now. He's lost a lot of legitimacy. But I actually think it's a good day for South Korean democracy.

It is not quiet December. We welcome all of you across the nation in your morning commute. Bloomberg surveillance, too much, international relations, it seems, were focused on Paris, and of course on what we see in seoulon with this, Richard Haas coming up, Arderchild Friedman and the currency markets, and we're looking forward to economic data here in twenty minutes, Paul.

It is not quiet December. We welcome all of you across the nation in your morning commute. Bloomberg surveillance, too much, international relations, it seems, were focused on Paris, and of course on what we see in seoulon with this, Richard Haas coming up, Arderchild Friedman and the currency markets, and we're looking forward to economic data here in twenty minutes, Paul.

Richard, let's move over to what we're seeing in Ukraine here. Boy, there's so many dynamics here, so many ebbs and flows here with an incoming US administration here, how do you think this is going to play out over the coming months in Ukraine?

Richard, let's move over to what we're seeing in Ukraine here. Boy, there's so many dynamics here, so many ebbs and flows here with an incoming US administration here, how do you think this is going to play out over the coming months in Ukraine?

Actually, uncharacteristically, I hope you're all sitting down there upbeat. I actually think over twenty twenty five, while the battlefield will continue, I think attention's going to move to the negotiating table. The person Donald Trump is appointed Keith Kellogg, retired Army general. He was Mike Pence's National security advisor, but he's been appointed to be the point man for Ukraine and Russia. What he's recently written about the subject, I find incredibly sensible, is potentially first going to Ukraine saying We'll continue to provide arms, but you've got to be willing to negotiate in good faith and base the negotiation pretty much on a ceasefire in place, and I think the Ukraine government has come around to that if you listen to what mister Zelenski's saying. And then the question is whether they can bring Russia around. But to me, it's all good news. There's a focus on negotiations. No one's talking about throwing Ukraine under the bus and very quickly. I think the pressure is going to be on Vladimir Putin to meet Ukraine halfway. So I don't think it's crazy optimistic to say in twenty twenty five by the end of that year, so a year from now we could be seeing real progress diplomatically. I'm actually optimistic about it.

Actually, uncharacteristically, I hope you're all sitting down there upbeat. I actually think over twenty twenty five, while the battlefield will continue, I think attention's going to move to the negotiating table. The person Donald Trump is appointed Keith Kellogg, retired Army general. He was Mike Pence's National security advisor, but he's been appointed to be the point man for Ukraine and Russia. What he's recently written about the subject, I find incredibly sensible, is potentially first going to Ukraine saying We'll continue to provide arms, but you've got to be willing to negotiate in good faith and base the negotiation pretty much on a ceasefire in place, and I think the Ukraine government has come around to that if you listen to what mister Zelenski's saying. And then the question is whether they can bring Russia around. But to me, it's all good news. There's a focus on negotiations. No one's talking about throwing Ukraine under the bus and very quickly. I think the pressure is going to be on Vladimir Putin to meet Ukraine halfway. So I don't think it's crazy optimistic to say in twenty twenty five by the end of that year, so a year from now we could be seeing real progress diplomatically. I'm actually optimistic about it.

Richard, how do you think how would you characterize the relationship today with President LEC. Trump and Putin? Is going to be constructive? Is can we move the ball forward on a number of issues? What's that relationship like?

Richard, how do you think how would you characterize the relationship today with President LEC. Trump and Putin? Is going to be constructive? Is can we move the ball forward on a number of issues? What's that relationship like?

Yeah, it's the right question. The atmospherics have often been good. The substance who knows, Look, you've got Ukraine be probably the first early test we'll see if mister Trump can persuade Putin to dial down his relationship with North Korea. That'll be a second test A year after Donald Trump resumes his presidency because and re enters the Oval Office, the new starred Arms Control Framework PAUL is set to expire, So we're going to learn there as well. Can the Trump administration and Putin? Can they extend the nuclear arms agreements that have been so central to international stability? So there's any number of issues. So I'm not in the predictions business, and I don't think there's any way of knowing, but we're going to have some pretty early indications, beginning with Ukraine.

Yeah, it's the right question. The atmospherics have often been good. The substance who knows, Look, you've got Ukraine be probably the first early test we'll see if mister Trump can persuade Putin to dial down his relationship with North Korea. That'll be a second test A year after Donald Trump resumes his presidency because and re enters the Oval Office, the new starred Arms Control Framework PAUL is set to expire, So we're going to learn there as well. Can the Trump administration and Putin? Can they extend the nuclear arms agreements that have been so central to international stability? So there's any number of issues. So I'm not in the predictions business, and I don't think there's any way of knowing, but we're going to have some pretty early indications, beginning with Ukraine.

Richard Hass, look at your work with the consult Foreign Relations and your ability to write prodigiously about this. Let us stop and go back to really an important work. Foreign policy begins at home. How are we doing, Richard Hass, how we doing in building out our domestic structure to project internationally?

Richard Hass, look at your work with the consult Foreign Relations and your ability to write prodigiously about this. Let us stop and go back to really an important work. Foreign policy begins at home. How are we doing, Richard Hass, how we doing in building out our domestic structure to project internationally?

If I were still a professor, I give us a pretty low grade. I'm not sure I give us a passing grade. We're extraordinarily divided, which makes it increasingly difficult to be consistent and reliable either for our friends or against our flos. We're also been unsuccessful at tackling many of our domestic challenges. Just take two. One is the border situation, and if people in this country see real problems here at home, they don't have the bandwidth, they don't have the focus on the rest of the world. The other something you talk a lot about on your program here, which is the deficit and debt. And again we'll see whether we have the collective will to tackle to tackle that. It's interesting the numbers that have brought down the French government running a deficit to GDP ratio about six or so percent. Guess what, that's where we are, and our cumulative debt is essentially now what equal to RGDP, So we're in serious water. So I think there's real issues about our focus, our political consensus, and also just the resource availability for the United States to play the kind of role in the world that we have for what eighty years now, and that I would argue has served us in the world pretty well.

If I were still a professor, I give us a pretty low grade. I'm not sure I give us a passing grade. We're extraordinarily divided, which makes it increasingly difficult to be consistent and reliable either for our friends or against our flos. We're also been unsuccessful at tackling many of our domestic challenges. Just take two. One is the border situation, and if people in this country see real problems here at home, they don't have the bandwidth, they don't have the focus on the rest of the world. The other something you talk a lot about on your program here, which is the deficit and debt. And again we'll see whether we have the collective will to tackle to tackle that. It's interesting the numbers that have brought down the French government running a deficit to GDP ratio about six or so percent. Guess what, that's where we are, and our cumulative debt is essentially now what equal to RGDP, So we're in serious water. So I think there's real issues about our focus, our political consensus, and also just the resource availability for the United States to play the kind of role in the world that we have for what eighty years now, and that I would argue has served us in the world pretty well.

You were a young laded oberman. There's a photo out of Paul Sweeney of Barnier. I think he couldn't shave he was so young. In Pompadou, which harkens back to folks in nineteen sixty two in the collapse of another French government. Richard has a question I asked our Stephen Coe earlier, should we get ready for a sixth French Republic?

You were a young laded oberman. There's a photo out of Paul Sweeney of Barnier. I think he couldn't shave he was so young. In Pompadou, which harkens back to folks in nineteen sixty two in the collapse of another French government. Richard has a question I asked our Stephen Coe earlier, should we get ready for a sixth French Republic?

A good question, but the problems to me aren't so much mechanical tom as political. So you have the left and the right voting down the Prime minister, and all this comes against the backdrop of I think mccrome, mishandling French politics, calling for map elections when they are unlikely to result in anything good. But the real question is what is the left and the right willing to vote for? So it's the issues, not just Barneer. The issue is not mechanical like it was with the Fourth Republic. The real question to me is do you have a consensus in France to take some difficult decisions about spending, taxation and the rest. Sounds familiar, I expect, and I don't think that can be fixed mechanically with rewriting the rules of French politics. And you couldn't rewrite the rules in any case quickly enough we're get approval of them. There's no figure like de Gaulle who could ram it through the French political system, so I think we're pretty much stuck with the Fifth Republic.

A good question, but the problems to me aren't so much mechanical tom as political. So you have the left and the right voting down the Prime minister, and all this comes against the backdrop of I think mccrome, mishandling French politics, calling for map elections when they are unlikely to result in anything good. But the real question is what is the left and the right willing to vote for? So it's the issues, not just Barneer. The issue is not mechanical like it was with the Fourth Republic. The real question to me is do you have a consensus in France to take some difficult decisions about spending, taxation and the rest. Sounds familiar, I expect, and I don't think that can be fixed mechanically with rewriting the rules of French politics. And you couldn't rewrite the rules in any case quickly enough we're get approval of them. There's no figure like de Gaulle who could ram it through the French political system, so I think we're pretty much stuck with the Fifth Republic.

Thank you so much for the time. Richard Hass, of course, with cent of you partners, can't say enough about his work with the Council on Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs magazine as well.

Thank you so much for the time. Richard Hass, of course, with cent of you partners, can't say enough about his work with the Council on Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs magazine as well.