as a future, but nobody here knows when will even if their lives will ever go back to normal. malcolm web address era rank south sea down in japan, the number of deaths linked to a dietary supplement has risen to 5. the east product to use to lower colors drove as were cold last week out to 2 people taking a dive in more than 100 needed hospital treatments. the manufacturer says it may have been contamination is almost 9 months after its level type or the feel about the mastermind behind the atomic bomb is finally getting a japanese release for residents of how russia oppenheimer has opened to mixed reviews and the motions for the account. reports at the pace memorial in hiroshima. again, backing down is preserved as a reminder of what happens here. and then negate saki in 1945, the 2 atomic bonds dropped by the us air force killed and estimated 200000 japanese

. now the blockbuster film about the american nuclear scientists to help develop the weapons, has finally been released in japan almost 9 months after everywhere else. audiences in hiroshima have mixed emotions. i mean, this film was telling the story from the american perspective, from the slide who invented the atomic bomb every steamer. and i guess i'll ask you whether you told me thumbs would drop to certainly the victims. but i think even though the inventor is one of the perpetrators of victim co, tough in the will, oppenheimer swept the academy awards earlier this month, including best actor for irish actor kelly and murphy, who portrayed the conflicted physicist the films initial release in japan was delayed after a public backlash against an advertising campaign, critics a trivialize to bombings based upon what i really like christopher norman's

feelings. of course, this is an amazing film which deserves to win the academy awards in the united states. but the film also depicts the atomic bomb in a way that seems to price it. and as a person roots in her wash, and i found it difficult to watch, i'm not sure this as a movie, the japanese people should make a special effort to say oppenheimer reflects on the impact on the so called father of the atomic bomb. and here she met the memory of its victims, will still cast a long shadow, long after the movies run and for the car out to 0. well, that's it. somebody told me to cry for the moment, so you can find much more information on our website that is elda 0 adult calm. then use continue sale now to sierra, up to upfront optics. the rama done is a time of mercy transformation. worship reward for every good deed is multiplied

by 70. it also brings nice you to the millions of people around the world to us suffering, trumpets, injury to conflict, devastating disasters, and abject poverty. donate. use a cat to human appeal now to help save lives and transform communities as united states is under fire for its continued support of israel's brutal war on gaza. and while it becomes further invest in a costly war and ukraine, many are asking, how is this affecting washington's global stance? is the us overstretched and click the signal, the end of us middle polarity, will ask renown political scientists, john mearsheimer ended up front special the nearest time, or thank you so much for joining us on upfront. my pleasure to be here. it's been

nearly 20 years since you co author your seminal piece titled, the israel lobby, dealing with the lobby's undue influence on united states foreign policy. have there been any major policy shifts or any other changes or developments since you wrote the piece? well, i think there's 2 things have changed. one is i think that we help to open up this course about the lobby before we wrote the article and then the book, not many people talked about the lobby explicitly. lobby's influence on u. s. foreign policy and i think in terms of the, this course, we had a significant influence in terms of actual policy. i think we've had little influence at all. i think that the lobby remains as powerful as ever, and american foreign policy towards israel and towards the greater

middle east remains greatly in fluids by the lobby. i mean, one could argue you're being too hard on yourself, but you're selling yourself a little bit short to the extent that there is at least resistance now. and that resistance does matter. i mean, there's a campaign against the lobby group, a pack, the american israel public affairs committee, and how they influence us politics. specifically the targeting of progressive democrats, according to one paul at 62 percent of respondents who voted for president biden and 2020. agree that quote, the us should stop weapons shipments to israel until israel discontinues. it's a tax on the people of guys and now present it by and certainly continues to provide military aid and financial support to israel. there's no doubt about that. but there is at least the perception of a risk that biden is taken. now that wouldn't have been there 20 years ago. is that safe to say? well, i think there is no question that the attitudes towards is real and towards is real

policies regarding the palestinians has shifted in the body politic, especially among young people, and especially among democrats. and there is no question that causes problems for president bite. but the fact is that the lobby still remains exceedingly successful at influencing a policy at the elite level lobbies influence in congress, and the lobby's influence on the white house remains as powerful as ever. so what you find here is something of a disjuncture between public opinion on one hand and the lobby's ability to influence policy on the other hand. and how that plays out over time remains to be seen. it could be the case that bike is defeated in the fall, in large part because he is supported israel down the line up to now

and that he continues to support is real down the line and that comes back to bite him. that may be the case, and if that does happen, then attitudes towards israel and towards the lobby and towards the is really american relationship, i think will change even more and maybe policy will change. but that has not happened. so for fair enough, the something memo organized by the us state department staffers, which was leaked back in november early november, a warrant that the us as failure to criticize is really war crimes quote, contributes to regional public perceptions that the united states is a biased and this honest actor, which at best does not advance and at worst harms us interest world wide, is the u. s. has continued support for israel affecting it's global standing and there's no question about it. the united states is effectively complicit in the

genocide. that's widely regarded. our ability, you know, to influence people around the world has diminished significantly as a result of this. all of this makes a joke out of the concept of a rules based order, which we preach about all the time. so this is a disaster for the united states, but i would point out to you that despite the fact that to disaster the united states continues to support is real down the line. now the rejoinder to that, at least the most reasonable rejoinder to that would be that this is absolutely a matter of national security. that is really, is not just the recipient of us large, yes, for philanthropic reasons or humanitarian reasons, but that is a strategic interest in the middle east that goes beyond the money. but it is, it's actually directly tied to us. national security interest is supporting israel . vital to maintaining us national security. i think your comments have it dead

wrong. israel is a strategic albatross around their neck. it's a liability. we gain hardly any benefits from our relationship with is real, any strategic benefits, and there are significant liabilities as we're seeing now. furthermore, it is a powerful moral or ethical dimension to this. and the idea that being joined at the hip with is real is in their moral or ethical interest is not a serious arguments. as i said to you before, the united states is complicit in a genocide. this is certainly not in their interest. so the idea that you know, we're supporting israel unconditionally because it's in our strategic and moral interest is not a serious argument. but the moral side was more saying, if we cast aside the more argument against supporting israel, of uh, is this still a, a strategic interest that trumps that instance?

some people would argue whether it's, whether it's being wary of your, on whether it's proxy wars that there might be some vital military reason for being there. and being so staunchly tied to it. but you say there's no, there's no credible argument there. no, i don't buy that argument for one second. and stephen, i lay out the case against that argument in both the article end of the book. and by the way, with regard to a ran, i believe we would have much better relations with a ran today. we're not to the lobby in our chapter on a ran in the lobby book. we make it quite clear, it ran, tried to improve relations with the united states on a number of occasions of the eighty's and ninety's and the lobby moved in and killed their efforts to accommodate the or randy ends in any way. and furthermore, if you look at the jcp away, which is the nuclear agreement between basically the united states and the ram that

i think affectively shut down the rainy in nuclear program in the short term. uh, it was israel in the lobby. they put enormous pressure on the united states to put an end to that agreement, which i don't think was an error interest. so help me understand why we end up in this place if there is no legitimate moral argument here to your point. and if there is no legitimate strategic interest and it's certainly a financial burden, we're talking 3 or $4000000000.00 a year. and we're talking about in post october 7th, an attempt to get even more tens of billions of dollars to israel. it's certainly a financial burden. why does the united states continue to double down in this way in the sixty's? we say it's hawk missile sales. perhaps, you know, we might say that it's a, it's a, it's an attempt to leverage a geo political standing in order to access oil more. but now in 2024. what good reason does the nicest have to do this? they're not doing it blindly. they're, there must be a reason. what is it as well,

let me just point out that the united states just doesn't give israel lots of weapons and lots of money and supported diplomatically it does it unconditionally. there is no relationship between any 2 countries in world history. and it looks like this relationship, the united states again, supports israel, no matter what it does. this is truly remarkable. we don't treat is real like a normal country and help it because it's to our benefit strategically. that's the argument you're basically making. this is a strategic asset for the united states as a normal country, and we take advantage of it. that's not what's going on here. so the why, what is the organizing principle behind this special relationship? and it's a fascinating argument you're making, but why then, why is us doing it? because of the lobby. the united states has

a political system that is set up in ways that allow interest groups to have great influence. just think of the national rifle association. when you look at polls in terms of how americans think about gun control, what you see is that there are lots of americans who are interested in some serious gun control, but it's almost impossible to get any meaningful gun control because of the national rifle association. the national rifle association is the interest group that wields enormous power when it comes to legislation involving gun control. well, the is real hobby, is one of the most powerful lobbies, if not the most powerful lobby in the united states. and the lobby goes to a nor misplace to make sure that american foreign policy supports is real unconditionally and it is wildly successful. truly impressive, how good the lobby is. getting a u. s. foreign policy makers to support israel,

hook, line, and sinker. never the optimism that it's, you know, is the invincibility of apax that are, of invincibility breaking down. and i think that's a little too strong. i think it's a road in somewhat of what the future looks like for sure. it's hard to say. let me make 2 points there. first of all, the lobby now has to operate out of the open, and it has to engage what i call smash male politics. before we wrote the article in the book, the lobby could operate behind closed doors and for any interest group, the ideal situation is to operate behind closed doors and not out in the open. but when you're out in the open, like the lobby is now when you're engaged in smash mouth politics, it's going to cause you all sorts of problems that's pointing out. ready one, please, number 2 that israel's behavior has gotten more outrages over time and

a good manifestation at this point is what's happening in regards to today. and the situation is not going to get any better with the passage of time. it's widely recognized. it is real, is that apartheid state. and furthermore, it is engaging in a genocidal campaign at this point in time. well, that tells you that the lobby has really got a difficult job confronting it. it has to work over time these days to defend is real and it will have to work harder and harder with the passage of time. because more and more people are aware of what's going on in the middle. at least they see what is real is doing, but i would never underestimate the ability of the lobby to adjust to the circumstances and, and prevail. a more that may not happen, but you don't want to underestimate the lobby. that's my basic point. understood, that's what the warranty praying a bit in october of last year, president biden had asked congress to authorize $61000000000.00 and ukrainian

assistance. in addition to another 14000000000 for israel, which for now still remains stalled. in the us house of representatives of the us department of defense in early february, we stated that without us funding ukraine's defense will likely collapse, given that the funding is now stalled. what do you believe the impact would be for ukraine and for us policy to well, i believe the ukraine was going to lose this war to russia, whether they got that 60 plus $1000000000.00 or not. the fact is that the ukrainians need weaponry. and furthermore, they need manpower because they're badly out numbered in terms of troop levels. well, we can't do anything to help them with troop levels. and in terms of weaponry, we don't have the weaponry to get them. when you listen to people talk about the 60 plus $1000000000.00, you would think that this is going to allow us as soon as this aid is provided,

to take all these weapons off the shelf and ship them to ukraine. and that's going to go a long way towards redressing the in balance and weaponry over there. but that's not true. we can't, we can't give them the weapons they need in large enough numbers because we don't have those weapons and that we includes the europe pins as well as the united states. so we can give them dollar bills or yours, but that's not going to do much good. so we can't. number one, we dress the weaponry in balance. and number 2, we can not re dress demand power imbalance. oh, so there's money, largely and effective to the point that it's, it's a little legitimate argument not sending any that's worse than that. what it does is it encourages the ukrainians to continue fighting, which means they'll lose more territory and more ukrainians will die. when, if we cut off the aid and what you can go its own way and become a neutral country, ukraine could cut a deal now and get

a better deal today. then it will get tomorrow if we give it the to continue finding a little bit like i won't call it appeasement, but thing to effectively yield a significant portions of your land because you can't when uh, when there's an entire global community that could offer support, feels like a tough decision to me and you get an on site with mohammed ali. you go to rounds with them and it's quite clear that he has the ability to kill you. what are you going to do? quit after 2 rounds or continue to fight and allow me to kill you. well, i think if i'm wearing gloves and he's not, i've been yelling to somebody, hey, is there a rest of it? i can put some gloves on the guy. i feel like rushes fighting with our gloves and no, it was watching. well, in the international system there is no higher authority that can rescue you when you get into trouble. ukrainians are in big trouble, and there is no referee, no god, no higher authority, no, whatever up there that can rescue. and my point to you is that with the ukrainian

should do now is they should cut all security ties, cut all security, ties with the west, right, and declare neutrality and work with the russians to make it clear that they are a neutral state and have no interest in joining nato, and then the united states should cut off all way to ukraine, and the ukranian should rely on economic aid from europe in its place. oh, the russian president dmitri made video of who is now deputy chairman of russian security council, was recently asked at what point russia should stop its invasion. and he stated, it probably shouldn't be keyed if not now. then after sometime, maybe in some other phase of the development of this conflict of president putting himself also stated that russian troops would push further into ukraine after the rest of success and taking over the town of of the of car. do you think pollutants goal is to take over all of ukraine and especially even capable of doing this?

and i think that despite the conventional wisdom of the west, he is not determined and never has been determined to conquer all of ukraine. and indeed, he would be foolish to do that. and furthermore, despite the conventional wisdom in the west, there has never been any evidence that he is interested in conquering other countries in eastern europe as well. the idea that he's trying to recreate the russian empire or create a great, a russia is not a serious argument. but what's your argument isn't that he's trying to take over the rest of europe, but maybe just the rest of ukraine? no, i don't believe that there's no evidence to support that. he'd be a full to try to conquer all of ukraine because the western half of the country is filled with ethnic ukrainians, who would resist russian occupation mightily. he'd have a serious insurgency on his hands, and that's the last thing you need. and as i said the before,

they would be foolish in the extreme to try to do that. but let's move on because there's a, there's another thing i want to ask you about. in december of 2023 us defense secretary lloyd austin stated, rushes, military is badly weekend. and last year, the head of the defense intelligence agency said that it would take somewhere between 5 and 10 years for russian to rebuild the capabilities of its armed forces . some argue that ukrainian resistance with western support was, in fact important to prevent further aggression from russia. what are you making it? i think it's just dead wrong. i think the russian military today is much more formidable, that it was then, it was when the war 1st started. armies at the start of a war, rarely look like armies midway through a war or at the end of a war. and by almost all accounts in the ukrainian media, this is in the ukrainian media media. the russian army has gotten much better with the passage of time. they mobilized lots of troops. they've trained them up,

the equipment is much better. and most importantly, the tactics and strategy are smarter, which is what you would expect in any army the fights of protracted works. it gets better in most cases, which the past with the passage of time. i think the concern was the wiping out of ground troops and that to replenish those troops, it would take 5 to 10 years. but i hear what you're saying loud and clear, which is that those numbers are inflated and that, and that they're, they've replenish troops and much more quickly and efficiently than that. i think that's exactly right. the numbers of casualties for inflate. ready and furthermore . ready who has mobilized a huge number of troops. they've trained them up, and they now have a quite effective military fair enough. you recently stated that the u. s. as in trouble in regards to the middle east and ukraine on ukraine. you said a quote, we were committed to beating the russians in ukraine. we were committed to wrecking the russian economy and knocking the russians out of the ranks of the great powers

we sailed. this is a devastating defeat for the west. you said i'm from here. stand point is this the end of american unit polarity, you know, una blared in my opinion, ended in 2017 with the rise of china. and the fact that who brought the russians back from the dead between the period of 2000 when he took over in 2017 due to polar moments lasted from roughly december 1991. when the soviet union collapse, until about 2017, we were the only great power on the planet. and it was the ideal strategic situation to be in. but the world that we live in today is not uniform. it's multi power is china, there's russia and there's the united states. and let me push back on that just a little bit because the us still remains the largest economy in the world, according to g, d, p, and g d, p per capita in 2023. and in 2024. in the us,

we're still ranked as the most powerful military in the world, with the world's largest defense budget, in excess of oblique $750000000000.00. there we have military base and in well over 70 countries. right now, can i have a partners really threaten the unipolar strength of the united states? well, i was going out to use it. you're absolutely correct that we are the most powerful state on the planet. but the argument i'm making to you is there are 2 other great powers on the planet, and although they are not as powerful as we are, they still qualify is great powers. but the fact is that china is a pure competitor, and china is bent on dominating asia, and the united states has been on preventing china from dominated nation. so we have an intense security competition now taking place between china and the united states in east asia. so in that sense, china is a threat to the united states with regard to the russians, as you will know,

in ukraine, we are effectively involved in a war against russia. so we have these 2 other great powers in the system, russia and china. and in both cases, we are competing with them at the security level and very serious ways. with regard to russia, one could make an argument that were more with russia in the past when countries have attempted to challenge or break 3 of us orthodoxy, they faced the wrath of the u. s. government. some countries today are still in, during a ferocious array of sanctions. others in the past with victims of resumed change operations that were supported by the united states or other western governments. does the us do have the same ability to threaten nations that go against them or have things changed? so i think things have changed somewhat. i think that to other countries like a ran, for example, in north korea, which we're in a much low layer position during the unit polar moment,

can now cosy up to the chinese and the russians who are willing to cozy up to them . and this just goes to tell you the weaker countries in the system can find allies who will help to protect them from the united states and its pension for regime change. so before we go, let me ask you one more question. so if i accept your argument that us uno polarity is over, what comes next? are we going to see a genuinely multi polar kind of political environment here? or are we going to see a situation where china eventually takes the us as plays and imposes the new kind of imperialism to were in a genuinely multi polar system. and there is no evidence that it's going to end any time soon. one can make an argument for demographic reasons, moving forward, we will eventually go back to a unipolar world. and the reason i say that is it's quite clear that the chinese

and the russians, but especially the chinese have wicked demographic problems. and their populations are going to shrink in significant ways over time. the united states has a bit of a demographic problem itself. but we have one great advantage that they don't have . and that is that we're an immigrant culture. so we can import all sorts of people to redressed the demographic problems that we have. and i think an argument could be made that you know 50 years from now as the united states may be back to you in a polarity, in large part because of demographic reasons. because you understand the 2 principal building blocks of military power or wealth and demography. you have to be rich and you have to have lots of people in china and russia are in a very precarious situation over the long term because they have declining populations. john, this time i wanna thank you for your time. thank you so much for joining us. on our part with your insights. my pleasure. thanks for having me on the show. i enjoyed

it. all right, everyone, that is our show. a product will be back in the as the world plunges into a climate disaster. we are in the planetary class. this year, a new a pub series exposes the reality of the global emergency. there will come a time where no amount of dollars will be able to make up for what is broken and makes the people trying to make a difference. it was endless economic growth, a growth cut rising for as nothing unite to growth, reference dying. coming soon on counting the costs, the world's population is shrinking rapidly. how will that affect the global

economy, regulations on both sides of the atlantic cracking down, take monopolies, plus the june the gas and take jones's narrowing. but when will it be? what doubts counting the cost on alex's hair? business like this, this wrote to you believe i guess is i live it's funny. on one of your makes modern plates. the

business life just is free to you believe i guess is an ice fly on one of your makes modern plates. the the hello until mccrae. this is then use our line from coming up in the next 60 minutes for the israel attacks living on in syria. it has been like a monitor in 6 months has are among the dates as well as a strong x on cause a continue, 17 people have been killed and this huge i, a neighborhood of guns, especially report side of the us is about.