Skip to main content

About your Search

20090604
20170921
DATE
2017 6
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
conflict with, iran, russia, china and to define some spaces to satisfy their needs and get some balance and then that would allow the united states to draw its influence and rely more on friends and allies, i believe that was a strategy.y. almost all of these things by them so i never form policy. restraint, unilateralism, aggression, defense, isolationism. it's all relative to the peoplea you're competing against an entrance that you're trying to defend. so there's no cookbook answer. even when you have a doctrine which i believe obama did you can't always stick to your doctrine because the enemy gets. a vote and sometimes the enemy doesn't want to cooperate. >> i think that's right.t. what's in your inbox when heas e shops matters a lot. the enemy gets a vote. vote. we seen rushes a great example.s of this. we've seen people come into office to find some way to rebalance with rush or reset whatever terms can be.ll and that has not worked out very well. so now it's interesting to see the trump administration come in a discussion about how they will calibrate on russia how does
power set the united states was in conflict with -- iran, russia, china. satisfy their needs and to get to some balance, and then put the world and balance, and that will allow the united states to withdraw its influence and hello friends and allies to pick up the burden. but almost all of these things by themselves are never a foreign policy. restraint, unilateralism, aggression, defense isolationism, -- it is all relative. relative to the people you are competing against, relative to the interests you are trying to defend. there is no cookbook answer, and that is why even when you have a doctrine, which i believe obama did, you can't always necessarily stick to your doctrine, because the enemy gets a vote, and sometimes they don't want to collaborate. guest: i think he's right. what you say matters a lot, and as you said, we have seen russia as a great example. two success of american administrations come into office thinking they were going to find some way to rebalance with russia, reset with russia, and neither case worked out very well. the interest with the trumpet ministrati
world to balance. have you powers at the united states was in conflict with, iran, russia, china and to find some staysis. satisfy their needs and get to some balance then put the world in balance and that will allow the united states in a sense to withdraw influence and rely more on friend and allies to pick the burden. i believe that's the strategy. almost all of these things by themselves are never foreign policy. it is all relative. relative to the people you are competing against and relative to the interest you are trying to defend. there is no cook book answer. that's why even when you have a doctrine, which i believe obama did, you kabt always necessarily stick to your doctrine. the enemy gets a vote and sometimes the enemy doesn't want to cooperate. >> mr. breen? >> i think that's about right. when in your inbox when you show up matters a lot. as you said, the enemy gets a vote. we have seen, russia is a great exam. many /* -- example of this. two administrations thought they would come into office and rebalance or reset with russia, and in neither case that worked out well.
about getting the world to balance anv you have conflict with iran, russia, china. so getting to some balance.resta it's a strange unilateralism and it's all relative to the people that you all are competing against and the interest you are trying to defend. so even when you have a your doctrine, you cannot always stick to your doctrine. sometimes the enemy doesn't want to cooperate. >> was in the inbox matters a lot and we've seen the great example of this thinking thatth they were going to find some way to rebalance with russia and in neither case did that work out very well so it will be interesting to see the administration come in about how they are going to calibrate on russia so how does that go theya will take advantage of whatever disorder exists in the system and whatever unbalanced. they take this into account and it's not necessarily wrong. are we attempting to reach a better situation with adversaries and are we stepping into the shoes of thee steppi adversaries. >> guest: i'm not name dropping but she said something really important. two in particular legacy there are no
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)