Yes exactly. [laughter] jacob, lets start with something youre just attending which was the change of command ceremony at fort meyer just over there. Mark milley stepping down by statute after four years as chairman of the joint chiefs. Brown coming in. I want to hear you on mark milley. But it would also note that in his Farewell Speech as he has is spoken before about his loyalty of the american officers of the constitution. Not to a king, a queen, a tyrant, or a dictator he added lived in said or a be dictator. But you were at the ceremony. Did you suddenly look up with interest when he said that . I was being extremely close attention to every word he was saying. I was completely dialed in and focus. Look, mark billy is somebody you deal with in real life but you feel like you were actually at the same moment engaging somebody in history. He is like a person out of another era in a way. The way he best strides of washington, the military, the National Security enterprise, and he obviously has extremely strong views about the state of american democracy, the threats to american democracy, and it is not surprising to me took the opportunity in this farewell to really drive the message home to the broader military and the American People about the importance of the constitution but. Who do you assess the role that he played briefly the role he played in the tumultuous year of 2020 in terms of upholding the constitution and keeping the military to the best as of his ability out of politics . I actually first engage with chairman millie in that transition. Between President Bidens election and when he took office in really intensely between generally six then generally 20th. It was chairman millie who really kind of took over the entire exercise of ensuring the inauguration itself came off without interruption, disruption, attack. So i got to see it up close and personal following the days of generally six and the extent to which he was almost like it hada burning incense in him that he was not going to let this happen again but what happened on january 6 he, mark milley, was personally going to ensure that on his watch the capitol was defended. The peaceful transfer of power is defended. The early days of the new presidency was defended for that is unusual frankly for the chairman of the joint chiefs to be in a position like that. This is an interesting question. The worry, the anxiety which is shared by people in that building over there as that the military is supposed to carry out the role in a way that we are organized, civilians get the orders for the military carries out the orders. Did he give you any discomfort at all that in that last period of the truck presidency that military some top generals had to take steps they themselves were uncomfortable taking or being involved in planning things they should not have been planning because of the instability of that time . Do you think about this a lot. It is hard for me to answer the question. Because honestly i was out there. I was not in the room. I dont know exactly what went down what millie or others felt they had to do for the point of view of upholding the constitutional oath. But i will say this. Chairman millie said today in his remarks the constitution is the northstar this is fundamentally not about individual, a Political Party or an ideology. It is about his oath of office. I do believe everything he has done throughout the time i have seen him in action has been in service of that. I would also sees its extremely seriously the basic job is a chairman of joint chiefs of staff that job is to provide the best military advice to the president of the United States, secretary defense and the National Security council. The times i remember best with chairman millie were not beans in the oval office on the situation room for the crisis we went through of which there have been many. But rather the random phone calls to make it night to me what he called level bubbles just calling jake and he would have a tick list of things that worried him about the world and where he was trying to give advice based on the work his joint staff had done to me and ultimately to the president. He takes the role of sacred and the constitution very seriously. But we should not lose sight of the fact the stag day in and day out was provided as best military base to the president at a time of great change and transformation in the world an immense pressure and challenge American Foreign policy. I want to come to Jake Sullivan tour of the world the things youre worried about. They should take six eight hours are going to try to contracted into 21 minutes. But theres something very interesting and at washington observation but we are in washington. Mark milley stepping down as chairman means this is the first time interNational Security cabinet that you have had a changes is remarkable given we had new secretary of defense every 12 minutes the trump administration. You have the same exact team you started with. And so how have you and how is President Biden kept the group so stable and beat, what is it like for the new air force general coming in to this very, very Seasoned Group now . We are going to haze him a lot. [laughter] i have warned him of that. It can probably give as good as he gets. Its actually something he and i talked about when he came by my office a few days ago as he was getting ready to get on board. He was asking kind of the way someone coming into a new Office Environment or a new school kind of whats the vibe . Whats the deal . Whats whos the bully . Yes thats tony blinken. [laughter] naturally. And the one who talks all the time is lloyd austin. [laughter] clearly. And on down the line. We really had to drop mark milley out. [laughter] it is true there has been a remarkable stability in the National Security team and that we have developed a crucible of crises over two and half years a sense of trust and a deep, watery. But of course cq brown us up in the middle of that the principles i was been a part of the broader effort as a chief of staff in the airport he knows what is walking into both in terms of whats going on in the world and frankly in terms of whats going on in the interagency process. He will be a great voice at the table. But it is interesting because the dynamic we have developed to both when we sit around the table and principals meetings and the dynamic the president has developed with all these guys. We hold the president s daily briefing. Historically that is for the National Security advisor with the head of the cia or more recently the head of the director of national intelligence. I try to turn that into more of a like a mini principals meeting with the president the secretary of defense the chair and we had secretary of commerce and on export control issues. So there is a familiarity and a kind of feeling about this group that i think has enabled us over time to build a much stronger ability to serve the president well and hopeless of the country. Of stark ukraine. It feels like this is a moment of change. Part of the reason it feels that way is for things happening in this city not on the eastern or southern france. And by that i mean ukraine has become an issue in the Government Shutdown issue. There are a larger and larger number of republican representatives who dont want to fund this effort anymore. I am wondering if you could frame out how worried you are that ukraine on the ground is not making the progress it needs to make in order to keep apace with the american impatience calendar lets call it that. The first of all the some of the credibility of the United States of america. We have come to stop russian aggression ukraine walking away from that be hit to her credibility. It is also a matter of National Security for the United States. Its not just about how much territory ukraine takes its also about making sure russia itself cannot renew an offensive that takes further territory the other direction in ukraine ultimately places greater pressure on nato which history tells us to drag student seats into a conflict. So for me the notion the United States was stopped funding ukraine at this Pivotal Moment goes against every National Interest of our country. I feel there is a bipartisan foundation to build on for that. Strong support in the senates by both parties and in fact strong support in fourth both parties assist small group of one party whose vocal on this issue. It is not where the vast majority of members are in either house. Except the presumptive nominee for president of the Republican Party is aligned with that sensitively small group in the house. That matters for the pretty near future. It does. Although i would point out to get up or down vote on ukraine, should we continue funding for ukraine in the house today . Just as we had one in the senate a few days ago overwhelming support from democrats and republicans it would pass by a lots, by a lot. There are procedural obstacles to getting ukraine funding across elaborate more fundamentally procedural obstacles with keeping the government open and the lights on. That goes way beyond ukraine in terms of the battle over the budget in the house. But i think we are at a moment now where those who support the continued defense on freedoms front tier need to stand up and make a case for them in the immediate term one point i want to emphasize over the next few days, the next week or whatever the span is. This is ultimately about us sustaining our support for ukraine for the long term. For years, not just months. At a different level but nonetheless four years we are committed to make sure we muster both parties. Stay on this topic. Part of credibility and part of being a superpower is the stability of your credibility. You have spent, tony blinken has spent a lot of time the last couple years going around the world saying we had a midlife crisis or whatever but we are back, we are calm, we are cool, we have a strategy we are buttressing nato. Putin helped by reminding everyone at white nay it was necessary. Including finland and countries that did not think that previously. But what are you hearing now from your allies about our political system . We have a war between authoritarianism and freedom going on we have a land war in europe. And on the hill theyre spending a lot of time to get resolution to get the government funded thenew got this impeachment pros starting which is like the seinfeld impeachments about nothing. And so i am wondering how you are staying soak home given the fact our allies are going to watch this and say these guys cant be right now we can counsel them to supply weapons but god knows whats going to be next year. First i would say these are not babes in the woods they are sophisticated actors they are seeing an american politics over time they have seen Government Shutdowns before over multiple administrations. Does not mean its not a credibility problem for the u. S. That we have debt ceiling crises in Government Shutdowns and so forth. This is not for them some kind of new shocking thing. We are engaged as i have just recently been with a number of european leaders on questions of ukraine the strategy the Government Shutdown issues up front of mine. They do want to note the end of the other chewing and throwing up on the hill support for ukraine will continue and we are telling them we have confidence that by hook or by crook however things get voted on and so forth at the end of the day the votes are there in the support is there to make sure ukraine keeps getting funded. Now, that leaves the question that you raise about next november. That is american democracy. That is a fixed variable we have elections every four years i dont make any warranties or predictions to anybody other than to say as long as joe bidens president he is going to continue to lead this country in this alliance the level of intensity weve seen for European Partners requests come back to ukraine what victory look like to you question what is the definition of ukraine victory . Works for small ukraine going to define for itself what ukraine is big. I have no ukrainians here so i have to ask you. [laughter] theyve been very clear about the definition of ukrainian victory is. They recover their tender territorial integrity they have their full sovereignty and they are able to defend that sovereignty in the future against any further attacks. And also their economy and their democracy are sustained through the intense pressure that russias attempt to place on both of those parade that is ukrainian victory that is what we are working towards. Can you imagine a situation in which you have to go to the ukrainians that youre not getting one 100 of your territory back. We could do a lot of other things for you. Do you envision a clash coming at some point if this offensive does not succeed in capturing one 100 of what was he creating territory including crimea . Works what i can imagine is basically the conversation we have had from them since the beginning. Which is here is how we see the military situation. Here are the capabilities we have available on the resources we have available to give you. Here is our best advice with respect to what you said your stated objectives are and ultimately its up to them to make the decisions about how they proceed. What we can decide is what forms of support we give them prate what level of resources we give them prevent us but we have worked through thats what weve rallied the rest of the world to do. They have to decide how they want to proceed both on the battlefield where they will make their own choices about tactics and military objectives and eventually through diplomacy where again they will make their decision about where they go. That is not something the United States is going to try to do. Which country do you represent the greater threat to westernstyle democracy russia or china . Cooks use it to westernstyle democracy what you mean . I mean Europe America liberal democracy as we think of western liberal democracy. I think the prc represents a greater challenge to the basic elements of an order that have protected our interests and values for long time. They are looking to adjust that order in ways that benefit the prc and come at a cost of the te knights its in our allies. I think more acutely brush it represents a more direct military threat to europe and a direct military threat to europe is a military threat to the United States because history is told us. I think one is a greater longterm strategic challenge for the United States the other is a more acute immediate threat to the United States and our allies. Fundamentally our strategy has to count for both of those at the same time while also recognizing that geopolitical competition is not the only thing going on for something tn town. Live in interdependence with massive transnational challenges. Climate change pink top among them we have to rally cooperation of the nations of the world including the aforementioned nation. Certainly the prc somehow it got have a strategy to, its all that that is what we have worked for in the course the past two and half years. You think there is a nonzero solution to Climate Change in the sense that do you think youre going to have to give china something make a greater feeling of dominance in the pacific in order to get concessions on climate . Whats the prc would like that but the answers that question is an emphatic no. The United States is long as joe bidens president is not going to view climate as a hostage and strategic or diplomatic negotiation to be give it up only for the confession of something else. But, we will be available for serious conversation about how the two largest emitters we can Work Together to reduce our own Carbon Emissions and to deploy the necessary resources and technology for the rest of the world to do it too. Its really incumbent on china to come to the table to participate in that. And not to say we will only do so if you hand us some concession and some other thing. That kind of hostagetaking does no one in this world the service and that dog is not going to hunt it with respect to the United States big. You said a russian aggression against europe will be a direct National Security threat to the United States. Would a chinese aggression prc aggression against taiwan represent a direct National Security threat to the United States . Actually taiwan relations act which was passed in 1979 says a unilateral change the status quo an attack on taiwan as a matter of grave concern to the United States thats written into the law for. A matter of grave concern and meet a lot of different things. One thing that it means that kind of instability. That kind of conflict in the indo pacific across the Taiwan Strait would have absolutely catastrophic effects for the Global Economy people use the word catastrophic a lot for a lot of things. We are talking potential Great Depression level impact if you actually had that kind of conflict. For another it would mean tens of millions of people and direct military threats in a place that is trying to have a democracy and to sustain peace and stability. It would also mean at that point further challenges to the overall Security Architecture of the indo pacific which directly implicates the interest of the pretreaty alliance. So the entire object of our approach on the issue of taiwan is to maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits is to ensure the hypothetical that youre pointing at the potential war there never comes to pass. That is what we are committed to. That is why we are taking the steps that we are taking to try to create the deterrence in the diplomatic context necessary to ensure there is not a war over taiwan progressed to think the chinese are looking at american support for ukraine and saying it may be they are still serious about protecting democracy . Its hard for me too characterize exactly how beijing is seeing it. But i can tell you is i believe strongly that if United States walked away from ukraine would be aggressors elsewhere would think man i might have a better shop to go after my particular target for. To think the u. S. This goes back to probably the most controversial act Foreign Policy exabyte administration do think the u. S. Withdrawing completely from afghanistan and the taliban coming in do you think that sent a signal to authoritarian the over interpreted . Ask if you are asking do i think Us Withdrawing from afghanistan led putin to invade ukraine . My answer to that is no i do not. Not that directly but the messaging got muddled question. I was a couple things about that. First, when the United States had hundreds of thousands of troops deployed in both iraq and afghanistan putin invaded georgia. The United States was deep in it in afghanistan with no end in sight putin invaded ukraine in 2014. His decision to invade ukraine in 2022 in hindsight stretches so well back before august of 2021. So no i do not think theres a connection between the two things in terms of putins decisionmaking. I do think theres a connection between us two things in terms of americans position and capacity to respond in ukraine. If we were still in afghanistan in numbers under threat from the taliban our troops being killed, being wounded, our ability to put the Strategic Focus and emphasis and natos ability to do that would be less. And also you can bet that russia would be using every opportunity it had with the taliban to try to use afghanistan as a way to go after us, go after our forces, our troops to try to hold us back at ukraine. So it was not still being at war after 20 years in afghanistan has improved our strategic capacity to deal with russias aggression in ukraine i think its improved our capacity to deal the challenges of the prc in the end the pacific as well. Your administration is providing more and more on a regular basis more and more sophisticated weapons ukraine. What is the anxiety level about russian response to that . Obviously russia is a Large Nuclear power. Do you fear providing too much in the way of offensive weaponry to ukraine could escalate tension between u. S. And uncomfortable way question. Taking the issue that temperature right now because its a great question is a question that keeps me up at night. It did not keep me up a time it should be fired. That is a serious heist takes question. Two competing extremes. One said you are a chicken if you even contemplate russia s or use how could you think about that that is kind of one argument on one extreme. The other extremes is dont do anything to help ukraine audit medically mean world war iii. The answer as with most things lies in between those two were we have to contemplate and take into account escalation on the other hand we cannot be paralyzed that we have not been paralyzed that to the tune of a massive quantity of sophisticated weapons we have provided to ukraine. So yes we do think about what are the implications of our support and the nature of our support and the amount and extent of sophistication . But we also dont have that question stop us from doing what we believe is necessary to give ukraine the tools it needs to succeed on the battlefield. To one quick turn of the few mitts we have left to one quick turn on the normalization issue. Israel and saudi arabia. What are the chances it would really happen . And i want a precise number. [laughter] execute sound first sold on the prospect. And why pursue this . Is this sort of a proxy way and read normalizing relations with the saudis by using israel as a pathway to the saudis . Explain to people what is going on. We came into office you had the war in yemen raging is the Worlds Largest humanitarian catastrophe. You had a few months before we came in our embassy in baghdad stormed separatist state pompeo going out and talking about pulling the entire American Mission out of iraq. You had iranian groups in both syria and iraq very missiles that u. S. Forces. All of that is what we walked into. And what we said is we want to de pressurize, deescalate it d ultimately integrate the middle east region. The war in yemen is in, its a 19 month truce. For now they iranian attacks against u. S. Forces have stopped. Our presence is stable i emphasize for now because all that can change. The middle east region is quieter today than it has been in two decades per enough but nowchallenges remain and nur Weapons Program the tension between israelis and palestinians. But the amount of time i have to spend on crisis and conflict in the middle east today compared to any of our predecessors going back to 911 is significantly reduced. So what are we trying to do a saudi and israel . Reinforced deepen that out into the future. We believed regional integration and normalization between significant countries in the middle east is a greater and more Stable Foundation as we go forward. We also believe necessary dimension of that is Real Progress for the palestinians as well. Its having with these railings and the palestinians. That is what this is about. Because we are out of time i cannot give you a number, a percentage. [laughter] no but heres the interesting thing of editorinchief of the atlantic but i can overrule the clock. [laughter] the only number i see in here is zero zero. I would say the percentage chance is higher than that. [laughter] higher than absolute zero. Let me ask one final question because im not going to get an answer. Let me ask one final question thats almost three years now you have been doing this. I have a weakness for the word doctrine. Can you define for us in a few words what you think this president overarching Foreign Policy or is he allergic to the idea of having a unitary principle of Foreign Policy . Can i have many words are than a few words . Now the clock works all the a sudden. [laughter] i was about to do it teaser for a piece i am writing since its not for the atlantic i wont do that. [laughter] i am sorry, i apologize, i apologize but its too long its they would never publish it its too long. Wrote a very good piece about his own personal Foreign Policy doctrine a few years ago was very good. Inc. Us back to something a saint earlier in we believe the postcold war era has come to an end. And there is a competition under underway to what comes next. We believe at the heart of that is basically an era of geopolitical competition in an age of interdependence and sell at once we have to improve the Competitive Edge against our major power competitors. And improve americas capacity to rally the world to solve significant challenges. That basically comes under for simple pillars invest in sources of american strength at home. Built out and modernize our alliances and partnerships. Deliver a better Value Proposition to the global south where we have been too absent for too long. And then be disciplined in the use of our power. In part being disciplined in the use of our power meaning ending americas longest war. Not get involved directly in new wars. Standing up to russian aggression in ukraine in a way that is both powerful and responsible. And that is basically the biden approach. And we believe that if we do all of those things we will leave america stronger and more strategically wellpositioned than we found it. And we will create some durable basis upon which we can succeed in our competition in this age of interdependence going forward. And i will leave the rest out to the pages and some other. [laughter] i look forward to article and us magazine. [laughter] [laughter] 27000 words on kosovo. You have the stars like us then . Yes National Security advisers are just like us. Thank you very much for coming. I appreciate it. Thank you all for coming. [applause]