All In David Sacks SOUNDS OFF On Biden's Ukraine, Gaza FAILURES

Summary

In this insightful interview, venture capitalist David Sachs discusses his early warnings about the Ukraine conflict, his views on NATO expansion, and the impact of U.S. foreign policy. Sachs shares his sources for accurate information on the war, his concerns about the potential for a larger conflict, and his thoughts on the state of free speech on Twitter post-Elon Musk acquisition. He also reflects on his political philosophy and the influence of John Mearsheimer and Pat Buchanan on his views, as well as his perspectives on the 2024 election and the Trump vs. DeSantis dynamic within the Republican party.

Takeaways

• 🗣️ David Sachs, a venture capitalist, has been vocal about the Ukraine conflict since early 2022, advocating against NATO expansion as a key irritant.
• 🎙️ Sachs hosts the Allin Podcast, where he discusses current events, business, markets, geopolitics, and politics, including the Ukraine war.
• 🔍 Sachs relies on independent channels for accurate information on the Ukraine conflict, as he believes mainstream media often shades the truth.
• 🚀 Elon Musk's early peace proposal for Ukraine was met with criticism, reflecting the polarized and censored nature of online discourse on the conflict.
• 🌍 Sachs views the US policy on Ukraine as a significant mistake, potentially worse than the Iraq War, and criticizes the mainstream media's role in promoting it.
• 💭 Sachs is concerned about the potential for the Ukraine conflict to escalate into a larger war, akin to a 'World War III' scenario.
• 🤝 Sachs and the interviewer agree on the need for a change in US administration to address the issues in Ukraine and other foreign policy matters.
• 📉 Sachs criticizes the inefficiency of the US defense industrial base, highlighting the disparity in artillery shell production costs between the US and Russia.
• 📉 The Ukraine conflict has exposed the extent of US de-industrialization and the hollowing out of its defense capabilities.
• 🔄 Sachs believes that US policy has inadvertently strengthened Russia's military and economic position, contrary to the stated goals.
• 🌐 The conflict in Gaza and the Israeli response have led to a humanitarian crisis and a shift in global public opinion, which Sachs views as detrimental to Israel's long-term interests.

Q & A

What was David Sachs' initial stance on the Ukraine conflict?

David Sachs started advocating against NATO expansion, suggesting it should be taken off the table as it was a significant irritant in the situation.

How did David Sachs become involved in shaping the narrative on Ukraine?

He began speaking out on his podcast, Allin, and continued to research and share his views on the conflict, despite facing resistance and criticism.

What does David Sachs believe is the biggest foreign policy mistake by the US since the Iraq War?

He believes the biggest mistake is the policy decision regarding Ukraine, which he describes as a blunder and potentially an even bigger mistake than the Iraq War.

How does David Sachs view the mainstream media's coverage of the Ukraine conflict?

He criticizes the mainstream media for shading the truth and not accurately reporting the events of the war, in contrast to independent channels which he finds more reliable.

What are some of the sources David Sachs relies on for information about the Ukraine conflict?

He relies on independent channels such as The Duran podcast, columnists like Step Bryan, and military analysts like Colonel Daniel Davis for accurate information.

What does David Sachs think about the potential for World War III due to the Ukraine conflict?

He expresses concern that the one-way ratchet of escalating support for Ukraine could lead to a larger conflict, which he refers to as 'World War 3' or 'woke War I'.

How does David Sachs assess the current state of the US defense industrial base?

He believes the US has de-industrialized and hollowed out its defense industrial base, making it less efficient and capable compared to Russia's.

What is David Sachs' view on the impact of US policy on the Russian military?

He argues that US policy has inadvertently strengthened the Russian military, making it larger, more industrialized, and more battle-hardened.

How does David Sachs evaluate Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter?

He believes it has significantly improved free speech online, as it has rolled back censorship and stopped the momentum of expanding categories of censored thought.

What does David Sachs think about the Republican party's stance on Trump?

He suggests that the Republican party still favors Trump, and that DeSantis would need to be perfect and Trump to botch his campaign for DeSantis to have a chance.

What is David Sachs' prediction for the upcoming US presidential election?

He predicts that Trump will win the Republican nomination and face Biden in the general election, emphasizing the need for a change in administration.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ David Sachs on Ukraine and NATO Expansion

David Sachs, a venture capitalist and podcast host, discusses his early warnings about the Ukraine conflict and his views on NATO expansion. He criticizes the mainstream narrative and advocates for a more restrained U.S. foreign policy, drawing parallels to the Iraq War and the potential for a larger conflict. Sachs emphasizes the importance of independent media sources for accurate information and expresses concern over the U.S. policy decisions leading to the current situation.

05:01

🌍 Geopolitical Consequences of U.S. Policy

The conversation delves into the geopolitical implications of U.S. policy decisions, particularly regarding Ukraine and NATO. Sachs argues that the U.S. has made a significant foreign policy mistake by not avoiding the war and criticizes the mainstream media's role in shaping public opinion. He warns of the potential for a larger conflict, likening the current situation to the lead-up to World War I, and discusses the fusion of the woke left and neocon right in supporting the war.

10:01

💥 The Escalation of the Ukraine Conflict

Sachs and the host discuss the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, with Sachs highlighting the U.S. administration's role in providing military support and the potential for further escalation. They debate the effectiveness of U.S. defense capabilities and the impact of sanctions on Russia, with Sachs suggesting that the U.S. has underestimated Russia's military and industrial capabilities. The conversation also touches on the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and the demographic consequences of the war.

15:02

🕊️ The Gaza Conflict and U.S. Response

The discussion shifts to the Gaza conflict, with Sachs expressing concern over the U.S. administration's handling of the situation. He criticizes the lack of restraint shown by Israel and the U.S. support for Israeli actions, arguing that this approach is counterproductive and harmful to Israel's long-term interests. Sachs also reflects on the changing narrative around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the potential for increased international backlash.

20:04

🤔 Political Philosophy and Foreign Policy

Sachs shares his political philosophy, influenced by John Mearsheimer and Pat Buchanan, and discusses his shift in perspective following the Iraq War. He criticizes the neocon foreign policy and the U.S. foreign policy establishment, advocating for a more restrained and realistic approach to international relations. The conversation also touches on the importance of free speech, particularly in the context of Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter, and Sachs's involvement in electoral politics.

25:04

🏛️ The Future of U.S. Politics and Foreign Policy

The final paragraph focuses on the upcoming U.S. election and the potential outcomes for U.S. politics and foreign policy. Sachs expresses his desire for a change in administration, citing concerns over the current administration's approach to Ukraine. He discusses the likelihood of Trump winning the Republican nomination and his hopes for a more restrained foreign policy under a potential second Trump term, while also acknowledging the unpredictability of Trump's actions.

Keywords

💡Venture Capitalist

A venture capitalist is an investor who provides capital to startups and other companies with high growth potential in exchange for equity or a stake in the company. In the video, David Sachs is introduced as a venture capitalist, highlighting his role in the investment world and his influence in shaping narratives and discussions on various topics, including the Ukraine conflict.

💡Ukraine War

The Ukraine War refers to the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which escalated significantly in 2022. The video discusses David's early warnings and commentary on the conflict, emphasizing his counter-narrative stance against mainstream media coverage and his advocacy for a non-escalatory approach to NATO expansion.

💡NATO Expansion

NATO Expansion refers to the process of adding new member states to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In the context of the video, David criticizes NATO's eastward expansion towards Russia as a provocative action that has contributed to tensions and the outbreak of the Ukraine War, suggesting that this policy decision was a significant error in U.S. foreign policy.

💡Neocons

Neocons, short for neoconservatives, are a group of conservative individuals who advocate for an interventionist foreign policy, often supporting military action to promote democracy and U.S. interests. David Sachs discusses the influence of neocons in shaping U.S. foreign policy, particularly in relation to the Ukraine conflict and the push for NATO expansion.

💡Information Channels

Information channels refer to the various sources through which news, data, and opinions are disseminated. In the video, David emphasizes the importance of discerning reliable information channels, particularly during times of conflict, as he did by identifying independent sources that provided accurate reporting on the Ukraine War, contrasting with mainstream media narratives.

💡Geopolitics

Geopolitics is the study of the effects of geography, including international relations, on the political processes of the world. The video touches on David's interest in geopolitics, as evidenced by his podcast and his analysis of the Ukraine conflict, which involves understanding the strategic implications of global political developments.

💡Public Debate

Public debate refers to the discussion and exchange of ideas on a particular issue in a public forum. David advocates for a healthy public debate on the Ukraine conflict, emphasizing the need for diverse perspectives and critical thinking to avoid one-sided policy decisions that could lead to further escalation or even a larger conflict.

💡Woke Left

The term 'woke left' refers to individuals or groups who are highly attuned to social justice issues and advocate for progressive change. In the video, David discusses the fusion of the woke left and the neocon right in supporting the war in Ukraine, noting their shared opposition to any negotiated settlement that does not result in a total Ukrainian victory.

💡De-Industrialization

De-Industrialization is the process by which a country's industrial base declines, often leading to a shift towards a service-based economy. The video highlights the United States' de-industrialization and its impact on the defense industrial base, which has become evident in the context of the Ukraine conflict and the U.S.'s ability to produce military equipment and supplies.

💡Strategic Autonomy

Strategic autonomy refers to the ability of a country or region to make independent decisions regarding its defense and security policies. The video discusses how European leaders, particularly French President Macron, have been advocating for strategic autonomy for Europe, which in this context means adopting a more hawkish stance on the Ukraine conflict, potentially leading to further escalation.

Highlights

David Sachs, a venture capitalist, discusses his early warnings about the Ukraine conflict and his views on NATO expansion.

Sachs began paying attention to the Ukraine situation in January 2022 and advocated against NATO expansion.

Sachs believes the Ukraine conflict is a result of deliberate US policy and neocon influence.

He criticizes mainstream media for not accurately reporting the situation in Ukraine.

Sachs relies on independent channels for accurate information about the conflict.

He mentions the Battle of巴赫穆特 as a turning point that highlighted the disparity between mainstream and independent reporting.

Sachs considers the Ukraine conflict the biggest US foreign policy mistake since the Iraq War.

He expresses concern about the potential for the conflict to escalate into a larger war, likening it to World War I.

Sachs criticizes the fusion of the woke left and neocon right in supporting the war and opposing peaceful resolutions.

He discusses the inefficiency of the US defense industrial base compared to Russia's.

Sachs believes the US has made Russia's military stronger through its actions in Ukraine.

He highlights the humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine due to the conflict.

Sachs discusses the potential impact of the conflict on the US's own readiness for war.

He shares his views on the handling of the Gaza conflict and the reaction of the Israeli government.

Sachs criticizes the lack of restraint in US foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East.

He discusses the influence of John Mearsheimer and Pat Buchanan on his political philosophy.

Sachs reflects on his past support for the Iraq War and how it changed his views on neocon foreign policy.

He assesses the state of free speech on Twitter after Elon Musk's acquisition.

Sachs shares his thoughts on the political future, particularly the upcoming election and the potential return of Trump.

Transcripts

joining me now is my friend David Sachs

he's a venture capitalist at craft

Ventures and host of the Allen Podcast

David it's great to see you in person my

friend yeah good good to be here all

right so David you were the Cassandra on

Ukraine uh have been now for two years

far before it was in Vogue so day one

the Ukraine war is happening you all of

a sudden I mean in some people's

estimation I think especially for the

neocons you come out of nowhere and

you're very counter narrative so where

did that come from just give us some of

the background as to why you decided to

speak out on the conflict from very very

early days and really be intimately

involved in trying to help shape the

narrative away from the mainstream on

Ukraine Aid on how the ukrainians were

doing and on some of the historical

background of the conflict well I

started paying attention to it in

January of 2022 because we covered it on

our podcast so like you mentioned Allin

is a weekly podcast we do current events

uh a lot of business and markets we also

do geopolitics and politics in any event

in January of 2022 the media started

reporting that there was this conflict

that could even become a war and um you

know I was I was a little bit familiar

with uh the conflict and uh with the

idea that NATO expansion was something

that the the the the Russians really

didn't like and um and so I started

advocating on the Pod that just we

should just take NATO expansion off the

table that's clearly an huge uh irritant

here in the the situation and even if

you believe that Putin is just using

that as a pretext for whatever he's

going to do we should Rob him of that

pretext by just saying that you know

Ukraine's not going to become part of of

nat so I started saying that on the Pod

before the war broke out and then uh

when the war broke out I gave a talk

here at American moment uh reiterating

that position and the more I kind of got

into it and uh the more uh I sort of

researched it the more I realized that

this was all kind of the result of a

deliberate US policy kind of a neocon

policy that either wanted this war or

certainly wasn't willing to avoid this

war that NATO expansion they weren't

willing to take NATO expansion off the

table to avoid the war so um so yeah I

just started speaking out about it I

guess using my channels uh to talk about

it and uh the more resistance I got uh

the I'd say the more hysterical

resistance I got the more that kind of

encouraged me I guess I'm just kind of

stupid that way uh and so here we are

two years later yeah I mean you in

particular you drive these people crazy

in a way that I honestly ASP to I I wish

I could be in their heads uh I mean I

guess the criticism that I often see is

like this guy is a sass venture

capitalist he doesn't even know what

he's talking about um but I mean in my

estimation been far more correct on the

conflict than they have so then where

are you getting your information from I

mean this is a question that we get here

all the time like where do you guys get

this information we talked previously I

know about like adva U others you know

we're looking at open source channels

why and where can you look to get the

real information you can help our

audience maybe look in the same places

yeah yeah so it's a very interesting

question so what you do when you're an

investor or or when you're an investor

you have a track record it's very easy

to size up an investor based on their

track record I mean that's all you

really have to do with these information

channels is what do they say was going

to happen and then what actually

happened nobody ever does that in the

information space right so you know I

figured out uh pretty early which

channels were sort of telling the truth

and and which ones weren't MH and the

mainstream media is and isw they were

always really shading the truth or not

telling us what was really happening in

the war and independent channels were

the ones that were giving the the

information that turned out to be

accurate and I think the the Battle of

bachot was really a turning point where

I could clearly see you had um the

independent channels who I really came

to rely on saying that the Russians were

actually winning whereas isw and the

mainstream media were saying that the

Russian attack had had culminated that

was the big word the independent

channels were saying actually the

Russians that created a cauldron so it

was sort of culmination versus cauldron

it turned out the cauldron was exactly

correct that the ukrainians basically

destroy themselves by pouring all these

resources in and then with the sumar

counter offensive same thing so in terms

of like who who do I respect who do I

listen to I mean the Duran as a

geopolitics podcast where they summarize

the war virtually daily they've turned

out to be much more accurate than other

sources step Bryan who's a columnist for

I think Asia times who's a former under

Secretary of Defense so it's weekly

column he's been very uh accurate Daniel

dve Colonel Daniel Davis has been very

good um there's a a Twitter account

called Aiden uh who has a podcast called

um calibrated with Scott I think is is

is his actual name and he's turned out

to be pretty accurate um I'm probably

forgetting there's other ones I to but

yeah this is because people ask us the

same thing and this is you know this

you're someone that I really look to you

know for my information which I'm sure

people will call me out on but I mean I

guess it gets back to the track recer

question and what you're talking about

with the conflict but at the base like

passion level I mean I I can assume I

know I personally I mean I've spoken out

on BLM I spoking on covid a lot of thing

I have never received any more push back

than on NATO expansion on Ukraine

specifically it might be the single most

controversial topic so why do you feel

passionate about it like why do you even

care you know you've got this investment

thing going on I would assume this is

probably not the best thing for that you

know in terms of some of the people the

mill you that you surround yourself with

so why do you care well I just can't

believe what a big blunder the United

States is making I mean this was a

horrible policy decision this is easily

the biggest foreign policy Mistake by

the us since the Iraq War it might end

up being a bigger mistake than the Iraq

War it was entirely avoidable and yet

you have the whole mainstream media

stampeding us into this policy and the

um the sort of the taboo they're trying

to create around it where uh you know

it's a lot like the Iraq War where

anyone who opposed it was considered

unpatriotic or sort of treasonous that's

the argument you're make that is made

today uh in fact I think it's even worse

uh the the sort of the consensus that

they're trying to manufacture around

this so I think that I guess I wouldn't

speak out as much about it if I thought

that the issue is being covered

accurately and it is such a important

issue I mean this could lead to World

War I or what I call woke War I if we're

not careful so uh so I think that you

know just again the the magnitude of the

the policy mistake and the importance of

the issue relative to how inaccurately

it's it's been covered sort of

encourages me to kind of keep posting

about it what do you mean by World War 3

dig into that a little bit Yeah well one

of the things I noticed early on in this

war is that there's been a fusion of the

woke left and the neocon right in

supporting this war and they both

support the same cancellation tactics

they've both tried to make it

unacceptable to um to support the idea

of a negotiated settlement apparently

any kind of peaceful resolution of the

conflict other than total Ukrainian

Victory uh is is pro- Russian in their

View and uh and you know and it's you

saw this actually remember when Elon

came out pretty early in the war with

his peace proposal I think this was in I

think this must have been around

September of 2022 that sounds right it

was in the height of the UK craze I

right exactly yeah and and um and it is

a craze and zilinsky himself came out to

denounce elon's proposal as pro-russian

and there was this huge pylon um but

that and and that's just one example but

the point is just anyone who has

contradicted the official narrative uh

basically gets uh demonized uh as as Pro

Putin as a puppet for the other side

what have you and the problem with this

is it creates a oneway ratchet because

there's only one acceptable position

which is to keep escalating the war and

that is in in fact what we've seen I

mean the Administration has continuously

escalated the type of support they're

going to provide in the beginning Biden

said that providing things like f-16s or

Abrams Tanks or long range missiles

could start World War III now they've

done all those things so we've seen this

pattern where the thing that initially

was considered to be too risky uh

eventually you know becomes normalized

and the discussion we're having right

now led by European leaders like mcon is

well we need in ground

troops and uh and again this has been

dismissed now but the pattern we've seen

is this thing starts to get kind of

normalized by talking about it the fur

sort of dies down and then the the Deep

State kind of does what they want so uh

so I think it's very important that

there is actually uh like a healthy

public debate about this question

because it could lead somewhere TR even

more disastrous than it's already LED I

totally agree so give us the kind of the

forks of the decisions where for where

we go from here so as you said you know

we've got macron and Germany kind of in

a spat here and so it's like macron and

the Brits and then Germany kind of

weirdly in the middle somewhere where do

the Europeans do what do you think that

they're going to do what do you think

the us is going to do let's say we have

two forks here some Aid no Aid and then

finally the ukrainians kind of in this

question where are some possible like

decision trees we could see the conflict

going well it's it's very interesting

the debate you're seeing in Europe um

the the pressure is really on Olaf

Schultz right now to deliver these these

Taurus missiles these long range

missiles um Yen stoltenberg the

Secretary General of natives already

said that it's now acceptable for the

ukrainians to hit targets inside of of

Russia and then you've got macron saying

that uh that he's trying to normalize

the idea of ground troops so where all

of this is is headed is World War III um

if we if we if we go for it uh it's it's

kind of ironic that macron's the one

pushing this because he's the one in the

past who's always talked about strategic

autonomy for Europe that Europe should

making it own decisions apparently what

he means by that is that Europe should

be even more hawkish than the United

States that the that Europe should adopt

the American position but actually push

it even further it's not that Europe

should rethink whether the American

position on this war is actually good

for them uh the the American position on

this war has been disastrous for Europe

it's basically especially Germany has

plunged the Europe e exactly um so in

any event that that's sort of the debate

that's been set up in terms of where

this goes from here uh we will either

escalate or the Ukraine will lose it's

very simple I mean there's nothing

really we can do anymore to help them

and whether this 60 billion or not

passes doesn't matter we're out of

ammunition to give them mean unless

we're going to deplete the stock pil at

are reserve for our own Readiness uh

which would be very dangerous to I

wouldn't put it past them though yeah it

is possible but but the Bas the bottom

line is we don't have the ammunition and

they don't have the Manpower anymore

so and they wasted a lot of time when

they should have been building defensive

fortifications they were sort of

charging headlong into the the

minefields and you know uh during the

summer counter offensive so it's

entirely too late now I think for

Ukraine to be building the proper kinds

of defensive fortifications that they

need so the simple reality is what

you're seeing right now is it's not a

stalemate it's never been a stalemate

it's always been a war of attrition the

ukrainians have been at Tred the the

Russians are getting more powerful they

have more soldiers

uh are enlisting more coming out of

training and their industrial capacity

is really ramping up they have this huge

industrial war machine that they

inherited from the Soviet Union East of

the urals that's now been fully ramped

up and is producing more of everything

more of artillery shells drones tanks

planes everything yeah you know it's

interesting because you go back to 2022

I think it fell off for some of those

too you're like man these Russians you

can't even beat the ukrainians right and

it's like well three years later youve

replaced every single one of these dead

people with conscripts doesn't seem seem

to be that much consternation

domestically you're producing 4 and a

half million shells Europe can barely

deliver half a million if we were to get

into some prolonged conflict Russia

China whatever do you think America how

long do you think it would take America

to actually reach full Readiness because

I fear I truly fear that this war has

only exposed and then further depleted

us to the point where it could take

years to be able to ramp up production

even if we were to really be in a

situation where we had a genuine

strategic interest in front of us and we

may have to make some serious

concessions yeah I think the war has

really exposed the extent to which we've

de-industrialized ourselves and how

we've hollowed out our defense

industrial base uh if you look at

artillery ammunition for example at the

beginning of the war we were producing

about 14,000 shells a month we're now

what two years into it and they've only

as of a few months ago what I saw

publicly reported was that they had

roughly doubled production to 28,000 a

month that's still only what is that

about 300,000 a year it's on10th what

the Russians can do it's pathetic right

and what the Pentagon has said is that

we're going to double it this year and

then dou next year that still only gets

you to uh generously 100,000 a month

which is a quarter to a third maybe of

what the Russians can do now never mind

what they're going to be able to do in

two years so we have figured out or

learned I think just how pathetic our

our dib or has become and the other

thing we've learned is that is how

inefficient it is so the New York Times

reported that the cost to the United

States of producing one artillery shell

is in the5 to $6,000 range it cost the

Russians $600 of course so now at the

beginning of the war you're right the

Russians were accused of being this um

incredibly inept kleptocracy the idea is

that their military was Hollow it would

collapse because you know their

kleptocracy had stolen everything well

as it turns out we're 10 times more

inefficient than they are so what does

that make us if they're a kleptocracy

it's like oligarchic

kleptocracy competence we just have a

different kind of kleptocracy yeah well

see and that's the fascinating part is

you know in many ways people part of the

case for Ukraine Aid is we got to weaken

Russia and I'm like well it seems as if

every step that we've made and by

protracting the conflict you blood you

blood the Army that's very key if we go

in the history of military conflict

we've rapidly increased their

industrialization for their defense

capacity they have become more sanction

proof today than ever before I mean they

seem better capable of mounting even

more aggressive action against the West

I'm not saying that they want to

necessarily then before the war had

happened on top of adding some 800 miles

to our NATO border with the expansion

which goes to the route of the conflict

that we began this interview with so I I

call this Biden's big backfire if you

look at all of his claims at the

beginning of the war they've all come

true in Reverse he said that we would

weaken Russia in order to prevent them

from waging uh this type of War again in

fact we've made the Russian military

stronger it's larger it's larger than it

was before it's produced uh far more

weapons the industrial base is ramped up

plus it's now a battle tested and battle

Harden especially against Western

weapons so it's a much more formidable

military Biden has created on the part

of the Russians than when we started

meanwhile it's the United States that

has seen its stockpiles depleted and

hollowed out uh then you look at the

economic claims that Biden made he said

that sanctions would crush the Russian

economy in fact the Russian economy is

growing faster than any of the G7

economies it's really booming and it's

our European allies economies that have

been crushed by the sanctions so you

know all this all the this policy he's

pursued has really boomeranged and again

come true in reverse then then you take

the humanitarian claims he said that we

would help ease the suffering of the

ukrainians in fact we've led to I think

our support of this proxy war and our

willingness to fight to the last

Ukrainian like Lindsey Graham said this

is the best money we've ever spent using

ukrainians to kill Russians this has led

to uh an unprecedented humanitarian

catastrophe in Ukraine where something

like 10 million plus uh people mostly

women and children have left the country

uh I think at least half a million

casualties killed or seriously wounded

uh and um the population of the country

is reduced from s like 44 million to 28

million yes and if you look at the

demographic pyramid something like 10 to

12 million are pensioners they can't

really work so what we've done is really

leading to the demographic uh death of

this country so I want to shift to Gars

a little bit uh in the early days of the

war in Gaza uh you and I as many others

were warning about expanded war in the

Middle East so we're several hundred

days now or whatever into the conflict

of the Gaza do you still worry about

that in President Biden's handling how

would you rate his conf uh the handling

of the conflict so far well what I said

about in the wake of October 7th the

first thing I said was that uh it's a

little bit of reminiscent of 9/11 that

the purpose of a outrageous terrorist

attack is usually provoking overreaction

yes and I hope that the Israelis would

react wisely and not in the 911 manner

like the United States did it's safe to

say now that the Israeli reaction uh is

exactly it has to be exactly what Hamas

wanted because uh they've created this

humanitarian crisis in Gaza and it's

basically turned uh the whole Middle

East and most of the world against

Israel I mean the I'm actually shocked

by the some of the arguments that I'm

seeing now that this this sort of

decolonization narrative that used to

really just be in academic circles is

now kind of gone mainstream and you're

seeing lots of people on social media

take the position that um that uh that

Israel doesn't have a right to exist you

know which which I strongly disagree

with but but I think this has been that

reaction has been caused by the way that

Israel has reacted to this uh yeah

obviously every action is equal opposite

ex reaction so how how bid handling that

well yeah I think Biden made a huge

mistake of basically going to the Middle

East initially and hugging Netanyahu and

giving him car blanch I mean if you look

at the history of the relationship

between American presidents and uh you

know Israeli Prime Ministers in war It's

usually the American role to pull the

Israelis back from going too far yes so

you know Eisenhower stopped the

israelies from going too far with Suez

uh it let's see it was uh Kissinger

Nixon who stopped him from going too far

in 1973 that's right uh Reagan called up

makan in 1982 and said that stop bombing

Lebanon you're creating a Holocaust

actually use that word so it's

historically been the American role not

to encourage the Israelis to basically

go to the limit but to kind of pull them

back before they do something that

frankly is not in their own interest

never mind ours and uh Biden kind of

missed the opportunity to do that to

kind of set some boundaries on what

America is willing to support and I

think it's been disastrous for the

Israelis I don't think that what they're

doing is in their own interest when they

started bombing Gaza I basically tweeted

that I Al got ratioed for this that yeah

Israel has a right to defend itself what

happened on October 7th was an outrage

and atrocity and yet it's pretty obvious

that indiscriminately bombing a civilian

population in Gaza is going to backfire

horribly on them right and that's what I

see happening so I said that the most

controversial thing has spoken out is

Ukraine I think the discussion you and I

just had why is this so difficult so you

and I swim in right-wing circles I think

it's fair to say or at least you have

you know much longer than I have what

you and I are saying right here is

anathema for a lot of people but it's

self-evidently obvious especially if

you're going to imp play uh if you were

going to Embrace a restraint philosophy

whenever it comes to Ukraine it equally

applies to the inment that we've had

over some 20 some years in the Middle

East with respect to Israel and you can

say that we should as you said take a

leading role and we should try to at

least concur to some restraint for our

own sake if not for you know the

survival of the Israeli state but I

don't see a lot of this discussion David

amongst the right-wing politicians that

I am what explains that what do you

think well I think a lot of people think

that the way to be quote pro-israel is

just to support Israel no matter what

they do and I guess I don't think that's

intellectually honest I mean look I want

Israel to survive and thrive I just

don't see how the current strategy that

they're pursuing is in their long-term

interest I mean at the end of the day

here there's going to be what 2 million

plus Palestinians in Gaza there's

another 3 million plus in the West Bank

that's right where are they going to go

what are you going to do with them I

mean it seems to me that you're

radicalizing that population even more I

mean by again by indiscriminately

killing

civilians which I I don't think you can

argue that they're not at this point um

that uh you know again you're you're

turning this this whole population

you're radicalizing them against you and

then again you're losing the sport of

the world which you know may not matter

in the next month or two but eventually

it seems like it's going to matter it

seems like you look at you look at

polling of young people in America like

18 to 24 year olds really crazy poll

result that of 18 to 24 year olds the

majority believe that Israel should just

be handed over to

now I think that's an insane uh view I

mean I don't support anything like that

but Israel's actions are because they're

going so far are going to f that type of

backlash yeah I mean look we saw so much

of it during after the Iraq War as well

in terms of backlash against the United

States it seems again so self-evidently

obvious and yet you know we come back to

this restraint his philosophy that's

actually something I wanted to talk to

you a little bit about um I've noticed

you you're one of the few people I view

is actually principled within this

discussion I think a lot of people are

very you know the selectively restraint

this whenever they want to be and then

not so who are the people what helped

formed your views so I've seen you've

been attacked previously I think you

were on C-Span in 2002 advocating for

the Iraq War so give us some political

philosophy background of yourself and

you were involved with the teal folks

and all of that so what did you read for

you to arrive at the place that you are

today which I think is very unique for a

lot of people in your position yeah so I

I think the the two intellectual Giants

for me are John mimer and Pap yanan yes

absolutely um so you know Pat sort of

represents this isolationist school of

thought and then mirim represents this

realist school of thought when the two

of them agree I think you can take that

to the bank like 100% accurate and then

when they disagree you have to you have

to think a little bit harder about yeah

see yeah I mean well and so what were

some of the big breaking points for you

post Iraq like what happened just take

us back to that time as somebody who was

kind of involved in the discourse well I

wasn't really involved in the the

discourse around around Iraq I mean some

people doing on me discovered some clip

that that where I was really promoting a

book about um about political

correctness at Stanford at the time and

then I got a question about Iraq and

really I just repeated the conventional

wisdom at the time and I think that when

I saw the result of the Iraq War and

that we had been lied into it I mean so

egregiously um and I don't think there's

any other word for the the the untruth

that we were were told about it that

started to really change my point of

view um on this neocon foreign policy I

mean our going into Iraq and then the I

mean it wasn't just Iraq it was also

staying in Afghanistan for 20 years it

was the you know the covert War we waged

against Syria uh what we did in Libya I

mean these things were it was a total

Fiasco we unleashed um you know

incredible amounts of death and

destruction created this huge Refugee

problem in any event I don't need to

recite all of that but yeah I think

anybody who lived through that and

didn't reconsider American's foreign

policy and to really start asking

questions about the foreign policy

establishment that gave us those Wars

yes hasn't been paying attention I I

couldn't agree more Libya was a big one

for me I I will say just you know

personally I want to you know just shift

gears a little bit you talk a lot about

Free Speech you've helped uh Elon you

know kind of with the Takeover of

Twitter so we've been more than a year

or so in that now what's your assessment

do you think free speech is better on

Twitter is it worse what do you think oh

it's it's much better I mean thank

goodness Elon did that it's the only I

the the the fact or the the the fact

that Elon decided to acquire Twitter I

think is the only reason we have free

meaningful Free Speech online anymore

you have to remember it's not just about

the fact that he rolled back you know

what Twitter was doing uh it's also the

fact that that censorship movement had a

Ament momentum to it and they kept

adding new categories of thought and

opinion that you couldn't you couldn't

say I mean imagine if we had this

Ukraine war under the old Twitter

management I can't uh you remember like

during Co there were all sorts of

positions that we now know are true that

you couldn't say without getting

censored lab leak exactly look it's the

censorship uh it's it's protean and it

morphs in order to protect official

narratives at least that's what it was

doing and and still does at other major

tech companies and so I think that it

the problem would have gotten worse and

worse if Elon hadn't essentially pulled

an intervention by buying Twitter so uh

the other thing is I know you've been

more recently involved in electoral

politics you did this uh the the launch

with Governor DeSantis and I know you

supported him or at least I think you

attended something for so what's your

assessment of what went wrong for that

campaign I you talking a little bit

about it but I mean a lot of people

pointed to the xace that you guys

launched on do you think it was m i mean

not your fault it was good for you uh

but on his part you know was it a

mistake for him to do that do you think

he was too online what what went wrong

for him what do you think you know I

don't think that that Twitter space was

that big a deal we got started 15

minutes late and then the people people

are always looking for something to to

some fault to find look I just think

that uh D's main problem is that the

part wasn't willing or ready to move on

from Trump and um you know Trump would

have to like absolutely botch his

campaign and then D sance would be have

to be absolutely perfect in order to

have a chance and or maybe maybe that

might may not have even worked and the

reality is is that Trump is still pretty

much you know at or near the top of his

game I mean I think that when Trump did

that CNN town hall and he kind of walked

into the lion's den and he kind of

pulled out of his pocket the the tweets

that he said look on January 6 I tweeted

this this this I mean he was ready for

them that's a master yeah he was yeah

Caitlyn Collins had the whole CNN studio

in her earpiece trying to get Trump and

they couldn't get him yeah and I think

everyone's like okay this guy's still on

the top of his game I think that was it

and um and you look De Sanchez didn't

run a perfect campaign but I don't think

it mattered I mean the reality is the

Republican party is still likes Trump so

then politically what do you think is

going to happen in this election what's

your

assessment well I mean if you believe

the polling right now Trump's going to

Wi win okay so it's going to be Trump

versus Biden it's kind of a you and I

are talking on day after super Tuesday

so it's definitely going to be Trump

versus Biden it's not even a controversy

at this yeah I mean uh it's funny how

we've been talking for months and months

and months about whether it's going to

be Trump ver you know it was it was

always inevitable um it was sort of

Unthinkable and yet inevitable at the

same time uh so you know I I think we

really need a change in Administration

in Washington I I get really worried

about this Administration uh about

whether about how objective they can be

on what our next steps in Ukraine are

because just sunca fallacy that they

they may feel the need to protect their

previous policy choices avoid having egg

on their face by continually escalating

the situation in Ukraine and B and by no

means has been the craziest on the

Ukraine war I mean there are people in

Washington like Lindsey Graham even like

Mitch McConnell who wanted more

escalation sooner or like mcon in in

Europe so you know there are forces

pulling him in a direction of even more

escalation and then you know since he

got us into this uh War this proxy war

uh he may his administration may have

the incentive to really keep doubling

down so I think it's really important to

have a change of administration my worry

with the Trump Administration is I

covered it you know extensively at the

time I interviewed him four times at

that time is you could always see that

he didn't particularly care about what

was going on he outsourced I mean he

cared about a few things but he would

Outsource things John Bolton or you know

whoever was running HR Master these

people were nut yeah Pompeo I mean these

people are more psychotic than many of

the people in the Biden Administration

do you think that Trump has learned his

lesson uh do you think that things will

be different in the Trump 2 kind of

policy because that's the biggest

question to me when I want to change the

administration too 100% but with him it

genuinely is like I never know which way

he's going to go who he's well I think I

think I think the biggest knock on the

first Trump term was personnel and that

Trump ended up choosing a lot of people

who didn't support either his policy or

at least policy instincts right and I my

suspicion is he's learned his lesson if

for no other reason than all those

people betrayed

him good for so uh so I think that he I

hopefully he's done with all those

people yeah all right well I hope so

David thank you so much for joining me

my friend really appreciate it all-in

podcast you can go and subscribe highly

recommend it and we'll have a link down

to his Twitter as well where you can go

and check them out so thank you David

thanks for taking the time hey guys if

you like that video go to breakingpoints

tocom become a premium subscriber and

help us build the best Independent Media

organization on the planet that's right

we're subscriber funded we're building

something new we want to replace these

failing mainstream media organizations

so again to subscribe it's

breakingpoints

tocom