General Nick Carter: Lessons of War and Prospects for Peace

>> H.R McMaster: America and other free and open societies face crucial challenges and opportunities abroad that affect security and prosperity at home. This is a series of conversations with guests who bring deep understanding of today's battlegrounds. And creative ideas about how to compete, overcome challenges, capitalize on opportunities, and secure a better future.

 

I am HR McMaster, this is Battlegrounds.

>> presenter: On today's special episode of Battlegrounds, our focus is on ongoing wars and efforts to end them. Our guest is General Sir Nick Carter. General Carter served as the United Kingdom's Chief of the defense staff from 2018 to 2021, where he led the British armed forces as the most senior uniformed military advisor to the British Prime Minister.

 

General Carter previously served in Western Germany during the end of the Cold War, Northern Ireland during the Troubles, and in Bosnia, Kosovo during NATO peacekeeping operations. He served multiple tours in Afghanistan, including command of Regional Command south in Kandahar. He also commanded British forces in Basra, Iraq. We welcome General Carter back to Battlegrounds to discuss the future of warfare through the lens of conflicts in Israel, Ukraine and Africa.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: General Sir Nick Carter, welcome back to Battlegrounds it's so great to see you. Really appreciate you making the journey to come out here to Stanford and to hoover.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: No, thanks, H.R. it's great to be back here and it's always an uplifting experience coming to Stanford and particularly having a conversation with you.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: Always uplifting to be with you and to hear your thoughts on what's going on in the world. The world's changed quite a bit since we last talked about about two years ago, so I thought we'd just jump right into it. Of course, what's on top of mind for I think most of us in, in the US in the UK And Europe and maybe the world is the situation in Ukraine.

 

And whether or not there'll be a ceasefire, whether or not there'll be progress toward an enduring peace that's acceptable to the Ukrainian people. Were talking as President Trump has just concluded a phone call with Vladimir Putin and we'll see how that went. But what are your thoughts about the conflict overall and the prospects for peace in what has been a terribly destructive war?

 

 

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Of course we're three years into it now, and of course, I think most of us would love to see the end of this war, not least to try and stop the human suffering that's obviously taken place. But of course, the war needs to be ended on appropriate terms.

 

And those terms, I think, needs to be ones that the Ukrainian people themselves, and particularly their president, can endorse and I think that's the big question for all of us is. Has the war gone far enough for either party to compromise enough to be able to reach a peace settlement?

 

What does the peace settlement look like? Is it going to be a ceasefire? Is it going to be an answer? Is it going to be a longer term thing? Again, I think we're all nervous about that because I think we've all read and listened to what Mr. Putin has said over the course of the last three years.

 

But particularly what he wrote in 2021 when he published that essay about the relationship between Russia and Ukraine. And his objectives in that essay were very maximalist. So I think we do worry about whether this is going to be something that is a proper end to the war.

 

Or whether it's simply going to be a pause, which will enable the Russians to remobilize, to reconstitute themselves, and perhaps go back on the offensive again.

>> H.R McMaster: As we know from history, what can appear to be a peace agreement can often just lead to more war. And you mentioned that 2021 essay that Putin supposedly wrote where he said Ukraine's not even a thing.

 

And we hear echoes it and some of his conditions that he's trying to put on what's supposed to be an unconditional ceasefire, right. So what do you think the right conditions are? If we agree that what the outcome needs to be is a Ukraine that is sovereign, that is secure, that is capable of protecting itself.

 

And is economically viable and can get on the road to kind of reconstructing itself and providing the kind of life that the Ukrainian people deserve. What do you think are the conditions that are necessary for an enduring peace?

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Well, I think all the things that you mentioned there, but I think also some form of security guarantee.

 

Now, I'm not sure that will immediately be membership of NATO, because I don't think that's something that of course, Mr. Putin would in any way endorse at this particular point in time. But I think a security guarantee that is underpinned, I suspect, by the United States of America will be pretty fundamental from a Ukrainian perspective.

 

And whether that, of course, is doable given the policies of the current US Administration, I don't know. But my guess is that that's going to be a red line for Mr. Zelenskyy.

>> H.R McMaster: And it appears that that's the case that was kind of the cause of this contentious encounter between a long meeting.

 

Way too long meeting, in my view for a public meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump several weeks ago in the White House. President Trump, I guess we could agree, is taking what we might call an unconventional approach to this, and seems to have been sympathetic to Putin's interpretation of the war.

 

Putin's effort to kind of offload responsibility for the war that he initiated and the costs that he has imposed on the Ukrainian people. But maybe that's what he thinks is necessary to get Putin to the table. What is your perspective on the approach that the Trump administration has taken thus far, and do you have any concerns about it, and how do you think it might play out?

 

 

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Yes, I mean, I think the war was three years in. I think that some disruption was probably necessary to try and get both parties to start to have a proper conversation about what a peace deal or a ceasefire might look like. So I think that was important.

 

I think that many of us are nervous, though, about the extent to which some things have already been put on the table. So I think it's already been declared that Ukraine will have to give up a certain amount of real estate. I think it's already been declared that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.

 

I think it's already been declared that US Boots will not be on the ground. So those are three really quite important bargaining chips have already placed on the table. So I think we do worry about the way in which this conversation is going to go and the extent to which, therefore, both parties are going to end up with a reasonable and fair settlement at the end of it.

 

So I think that does worry. I mean, I think it's interesting to reflect on where the Russian economy is headed at the moment. And I wonder if a bit of strategic patience, perhaps if Putin does vacillate a bit, which is the sense you slightly get from what might have fallen out of this morning's conversation.

 

If perhaps we can wait a little longer, maybe the Russian economy will struggle even more and we do still have leverage. I mean, there is more that sanctions can do, there is more that we could do to make the Russian economy become even weaker than it currently is.

 

With interest rates at 21%, the cost of food going up rapidly, the extent to which the economy has been mobilized for war. And the pressure that's having on employment and the difficulty they've got with growth. I mean, I think there are fault lines, and I think a bit more strategic patience might make it easier for a proper negotiation to occur.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: What are the aspects of President Trump's engagement with President Zelensky? Some of his public statements, his engagements with Putin, have been disturbing because they seem to highlight only Russian strengths. But as you're alluding to, Russia has some real weaknesses. I mean, I know that you've been following the war very closely.

 

I think every army has a breaking point, and they've been suffering 30,000 casualties a month. I mean, I think 41 to 45% of the casualties they've suffered have been in the last year alone. And so that, combined with the economic difficulties that you've alluded to, I think does give a real opportunity to convince Putin that he can't have it all right.

 

He can't achieve his objectives in Ukraine, could you really maybe talk a little bit about how you see Putin viewing the war? Because concessions, I don't think, are going to necessarily warm his heart, and he's going to be more cooperative. He'll just pocket those concessions and continue his aggression or figure out ways to get out of the corner he's painting himself into, but how do you think the war ends from Putin's perspective?

 

 

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Well, I mean, I don't think it ends quickly, I think he may well be prepared to sign up to some form of ceasefire or armistice. But I think he will go on the offensive again if he doesn't get what he wants this first time round. And I do think back to a point I made about five minutes ago, that I do think he's got maximalist objectives, and I still think he wants to realize those.

 

And when you think of the cost of the war for him up until now, it doesn't look a great victory if all you achieve is the parts of the Donbass that he already occupies and even Crimea. I don't think that looks like what he really wants, because if Ukraine, as you were saying earlier, ends up retaining her sovereignty.

 

Becoming entirely economically viable, heading towards EU membership. Becoming essentially a positive and flourishing democracy, these are all things that Putin does not want to see. So, I'm a pessimist, I genuinely don't believe that he's going to stop now. He may stop temporarily, but I think he'll go back on the offensive in exactly the same way he did in 2014.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: Well, and he has a track record, right? The old definition of insanity attributed to Einstein, whether he said it or not, it's too good not to mention it, which is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. And, of course, the Minsk agreement of 2015 was not successful, and so it's really important to have, as you mentioned, the security guarantees.

 

But I thought maybe you could also share with our viewers your broader view of what Putin's trying to achieve in Europe, right? He's waging a much broader, what we might call shadow war, than the war on Ukraine.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Yes, and I mean, I think one of the striking things about this war is the extent to which it's become globalized.

 

I mean, we have all heard of thousands of North Korean soldiers being deployed in the Kursk region, which, regrettably, it sounds like Ukraine has now had to withdraw from. Of course, we've heard about the South Koreans responding in providing expertise to Ukraine to interrogate and deal with some of the North Korean prisoners that they've managed to capture.

 

We've not yet seen South Korea supply Ukraine with weaponry, but I suspect that's not that far away, perhaps. And then, of course, we've also seen the conflict expanded into Europe more broadly. And over the course of the last two or three years, we've seen a campaign of subversion and sabotage which has got after data cables in the Baltic Sea.

 

And off the coast of Britain and Europe more broadly, they've got after pipelines. We've seen three ships, two Chinese registered, one registered elsewhere, dragging their anchors during the course of the last four or five months in the Baltic. We've seen the chief executive of Rheinmetall targeted for an assassination attempt 18 months ago.

 

We've seen a Ukrainian owned warehouse in East London set on fire. We've seen drones being used to disrupt landings in airports in Sweden and in Germany and Poland. And we've seen a number of reconnaissance by what we imagine are those who've been employed by the Russian GRU. And of course, a whole load of disinformation, the whole of cyber-attacks and all of that sort of stuff.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: The Bulgarian cell that you just uncovered in the UK.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Yes, exactly.

>> H.R McMaster: DHL aircraft with incendiary bombs, right? I mean, Putin doesn't seem like he's about to let up, and he's already annexed Belarus, he's subverted elections in Slovakia, in Romania, he's got his eyes on Bulgaria.

 

So, with those broader ambitions, how do you think the west broadly is responding, the United States, Europe? There are these tensions now between the United States and Europe over Ukraine. Different interpretations about maybe who's responsible between the Trump administration or at least President Trump and those in Europe.

 

Europe has concluded that it has to develop its own capabilities. I mean, how do you see the transatlantic relationship, Europe's response to President Trump's effort to end the war?

>> General Sir Nick Carter: I mean, I think where you started the question from, which is what would Putin most like to see happen?

 

Well, of course, what he's doing, in the way that you and I both understand as military officers, is he's trying to attack the will and cohesion of the Western alliance.

>> H.R McMaster: True.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: He wants to disrupt it, and he'll be absolutely delighted to see potential fault lines appearing within the transatlantic alliance at the moment.

 

And it's absolutely fundamental for all of us, whichever side of the Atlantic we sit on. To try and make it clear that that alliance is still completely impregnable, and that is fundamental. But there are clear worries, and our media are portraying the vulnerability of Article 5, that article in the NATO treaty, which means an attack on one is an attack on everybody.

 

And people are beginning to wonder whether Putin might test it to call our bluff. Perhaps to take a nibble out of a Baltic state or Finland or one of those NATO countries that are actually on Russia's borders. And I think Putin will be delighted to have a go at that and to try and undermine our cohesion.

 

And, of course, what we've got to try and do is to show that it's absolutely as cohesive as it's always been, if not more cohesive. Having said all of that, it is entirely right, I think, for the United States to be asking Europe to do more. I mean, Europe has had a buy over the last 30 years, it's enjoyed a peace dividend which has allowed welfare spending to go up and defense expenditure to go down as a compensation for that.

 

And the reality is that European nations need to spend the fair amount on defense that they should have been spending for the last 30 years. So that's a good thing, But what it mustn't do is to undermine the cohesion of the Western alliance. And I do worry about some of the things we hear in some European countries that are now talking about not buying American, for example.

 

About trying to reduce the dependency, which actually isn't a dependency, it's about interoperability and all of the things associated with that. So, I think, we all need to take a large breath in and hold it and, frankly, make it work. Because the alliance is the alliance, and it's the most successful alliance ever in history.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: Nick, one of the things that I've been lamenting is the fact that Putin has been maybe a little bit successful here at driving wedges and creating a separation between the United States and our allies or maybe within Europe itself. There's a tremendous opportunity for a positive agenda.

 

So, if you look at the Draghi report, for example, which looked at impediments to economic growth in Europe and the need to deregulate. That sounds like Trump's agenda when you look at really the concerns around energy security. Well, President Trump likes to call it energy dominance, but the US could be a big part of that solution, burden sharing, we're all on the same sheet of music finally, right?

 

Because a lot of the people who support President Trump felt they were underwriting a lot of the social programs in Europe by providing defense. So, it seems to be, hey, we could actually get on track for a very positive transatlantic agenda. Am I being too optimistic about that?

 

 

>> General Sir Nick Carter: No, I don't think you are, I mean, I think one of the things that, will, I think, make Mr. Trump more positive towards Europe, if Europe is seen to be pulling her weight. And I think that's what we've got to see, I mean, we need some smart ways of doing it.

 

I mean, one of the initiatives I've been pursuing recently is what we call a European Rearmament bank. And the idea behind this initiative is that it will double down on the European Union's AAA rating. And that money will become available that governments can borrow, but also defense industry can borrow on favorable terms over longer periods of time.

 

And this is now, I think, being pushed a little. By the Paul's who got the European presidency over the first six months of this year. And I think smart ideas like this could lead perhaps to expenditure being realized quickly, and also it being translated pretty quickly into something good from a defense industrial perspective in Europe as a whole.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: Absolutely, and I think because of the degree to which our industrial bases have atrophied, and the degree to which our reliance on China for critical supply chains has increased. We need all hands on deck, to use a naval metaphor, For us to work together. To invigorate our industrial base and improve our manufacturing capacity, and improve the resilience of our supply chains.

 

 

>> General Sir Nick Carter: And I think the resilience of our populations as well. I think one of the things that we feel very strongly about in the UK now, is the extent to which Gen Z needs to begin to realize that actually you might have to fight for your country. And understanding that national resilience is a core element of national strength, is something that we need to be pushing, I would suggest.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: Absolutely, and also maybe national pride, right? Richard Rorty, who was no right winger, a political philosopher, said that pride is to nations what self respect is to individuals. A necessary ingredient for self improvement, and I think it's a time we should be confident. You started to talk about this with the weaknesses in Russia, but as I look at the axis of aggressors, and I would describe that as China and Russia, these two revanchist revisionist powers on the Eurasian landmass.

 

North Korea, who as you mentioned, is fighting alongside Russians in the first major land war in Europe since World War II. And Iran, right? Which is really kept on life support by China, it buys 97% of Iran's oil, while Iran provides shahed drones and missiles to the Russians.

 

I mean, it really is a global conflict, you might say, or competition at least. And should we be confident? Because when I look at this axis of aggressors, I think we should, because they look strong from the outside, they all look good on parade, right? But there are some real weaknesses in that axis, don't you think?

 

 

>> General Sir Nick Carter: I do think so, yeah, definitely. I mean, I'm not sure that trying to split Russia from China is going to be that easy to do at the moment. I mean, a lot of people have talked about a reverse Nixon and everything recently. I mean, I think China would have preferred the war in Ukraine not to have started, would be my judgment.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: At least now. At least now- Right.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Certainly now, but I also think that China does believe in the integrity of states. It doesn't believe in people meddling inside states, but I think it does believe in the integrity of states. And I think it would therefore have preferred not to have seen Russia invade Ukraine in the way that Russia has done.

 

But I think her neutrality as such is positive towards Russia, obviously. But I think trying to break the two apart is unlikely to happen in the short term, because I think they are genuinely united as two countries. But with Belarus, North Korea and Iran in support in their antipathy towards the West, and to Western values and Western attitudes toward human rights and all of those sorts of things.

 

But I think for the first time in yours and my lifetime, we see a genuinely hostile coalition of powers who wish to do us damage. And I don't think we've seen that probably since the 1930s.

>> H.R McMaster: And I think there's a tremendous opportunity for unity of effort here, this is why I lament the tensions between the US and Europe.

 

Because when I look at Ursula von der Leyen or Kallas in the EU, I mean these are people who understand the nature of this threat. And we could work together, again kind of on this positive agenda, and I think you're right. I mean, instead of trying to separate it, maybe glue them together.

 

Not only because they deserve each other, but I think when we pretend like they're separate, they can actually compensate for one another and cover for one another. But, I'd like to talk more about your observation at the outset that this really is a global conflict. You spent a lot of time traveling across the Middle East and in Africa.

 

Could you maybe share some of your observations about the nature of this competition with revanchist powers in Africa? How is that playing out, how has Russia really doubled down and why have they doubled down in Africa? And maybe a bit about China's role on the continent as well.

 

 

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Yes, I'll come back to that just before all that, I think there's a point that needs to be made about the way in which the so called rules based international order is being rewritten at the moment. And perhaps it may be the end of the liberal international order that the United States and her allies created after 1945.

 

Because I think what we see, rather like Yalta in 1945 when Roosevelt and Churchill, and Stalin got around the table to carve up the victory at the end of World War II. Is we see this phenomenon of the strong man ruler again, and strong men who are gonna determine how the world is carved up.

 

Rather than perhaps the collective that we'd understand from the UN, or any of those other global institutions that we've all grown up with. And we see that particularly I think in the Middle East, you see that with people like Mohammed bin Salman, you see it perhaps with Erdogan in Turkey.

 

These are strong men who have strong views about the positioning of their countries in relation to the rest of the world. And whilst it's obvious that Russia, Xi Jinping, and of course the United States are the three largest strongmen in this circle, you've got others as well. And I think the way in which those strong men are seeking to compete, seeking to carve up the world to their own interests, I think is a very different world order to the one that we knew even two or three years ago.

 

And that bears on your question about Africa, Turkey is fascinating in Africa. If you go back 15 years, Turkey probably only had 10 embassies in Africa, they've now got 44. Turkish Airlines now fly to over 60 destinations in Africa. Turkey's got a significant footprint in the Horn of Africa, in Somalia, and is training a lot of Somalian soldiers, bringing them back to Turkey, creating brigades and then deploying them in Somalia more effectively.

 

And then if you look at the way that Russia is behaving in Africa, ever since the demise of Russia's two bases in Syria, Taqya and Tartus, going with the Syrian rebellion occurring and as it taking them out. They've been looking for other footprints in Libya, where Haftar one of the protagonists on the other side of the Libyan government.

 

And of course they're doing so in West Africa as well, where some of the deep water ports like Lome and Togo could be a fundamental access for the Africa call. What was the Wagner group operating in the Sahel, in Niger, in Burkina Faso and in Mali.

>> H.R McMaster: And the three coups that occurred in the past year,- Have been helped by Russians.

 

 

>> General Sir Nick Carter: And of course what the Wagner group, AKA the Africa Corps, it's now called, sells itself is as a counter coup force. We will provide you a President X with some people who will prevent an uprising is gonna lead to your demise.

>> H.R McMaster: Like they do with Maduro, by the way, in Venezuela, right?

 

I mean, they're,-

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Same idea.

>> H.R McMaster: Yeah, right.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: And of course that's very attractive to autocratic rulers for obvious reasons. But of course, what's fascinating is how it also creates a vulnerability. And it's been interesting to see the way in which Ukrainian intelligence services have targeted the Wagner group via proxies whether it's Tuareg rebels in Mali or whether it's somebody else in Togo.

 

The answer is that these are opportunities to undermine Russia's presence in Africa as a whole. And of course, what Russia's doing in much the same way as China is in Africa is looking for scarce resources, rare earth and special metals which are fundamental to climate transition, green energy or whatever else it might be.

 

These are really important minerals that we have a competition for and China is winning in this competition, I'm afraid, which is why countries like Greenland all of a sudden become very attractive.

>> H.R McMaster: Right, well, and I think what was our strength is to be on the side of sovereignty, right?

 

And maybe describe what Russia and China are doing is kind of a new form of colonialism. Of course, when we say, Hey, we're to claim Greenland, we lose a little bit of that That moral high ground, But I think overall we should help countries understand better that partnering with EU nations, the UK, the US, Japan, for investments, right, that enhances your sovereignty.

 

Whereas, I think Russia and China expect servile relationships. But I think maybe if we can just take it to the Middle East. You mentioned already, the demise of the Assad regime, which I think came rapidly on the heels of the dismantlement of Hezbollah. And demonstrated the degree to which Assad was reliant on Iran and Hezbollah to stay in power.

 

Now that that has occurred, you still have the ongoing conflict in Gaza. You have, maybe the hope, I mean, we could at least hope for a stabilization of the situation in Lebanon with a diminished role for Hezbollah there. And great pressure on Iran economically, another one of the members of the axis who have created real problems for themselves economically, recent US actions against the Houthis, right?

 

I mean, this is a very complicated conflict across the Middle East. How do you see the trajectory of this, I think what is kind of a regional war there as well? What can we expect to see in the future?

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Well, I mean, I think, as you imply, the region has been turned upside down ever since 7th October 2023, no question about it.

 

And of course, what took place that day was ghastly in every sense. But of course, weirdly, other opportunities have manifested themselves for Israel, but also for other powers in the region. And of course, Israel's quite successful operations against Hezbollah, the removal of its headshed, as you imply, led to Hezbollah having to step back in Lebanon.

 

But also not having the wherewithal to prop up the Assad regime at the same time. And of course, Turkey saw that as an opportunity. Turkey began to prop up and help the HTS, what is now called Mr. Al Sharra's Force, which ultimately led to the overthrow of the Assad regime.

 

And of course, it's provided an opportunity for Israel also to incur into Syria to create a buffer zone south of Damascus. And of course, ISIS has become slightly more of a thing as a consequence of that. The United States has had a go at ISIS, and Russia has had to take a step back, because Russia has lost her bases in Syria and is lingering, hoping that she might get those bases back.

 

But all of a sudden, Syria has become a country of competition. Iran is significantly weakened. The Houthis, of course, had stepped back for a while because of the ceasefire that materialized from sort of, January onwards in Gaza.

>> H.R McMaster: Ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis had been supposedly, they said, in support of Hamas.

 

They stood down during that ceasefire. But of course, the ceasefire is over in Gaza, just for our viewers. And the United States has just conducted some pretty extensive attacks against Houthi leadership and infrastructure in Yemen.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Yes, and you do wonder, I mean, I think the ending of the ceasefire, in a sense, Israel going again on the war path in Gaza, which really took place over the last 24 hours.

 

It was interesting, the timing of the US attacks on the Houthis, which was 24 hours before that.

>> H.R McMaster: No doubt, coordinated.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: And you'd imagine that there was some sort of coordination or collusion there in that happening. I mean, it's going to be very interesting to see whether this attack on the Houthis makes any difference at all.

 

I think it'll be very challenging without, I'm afraid, finding some way of getting onto the ground or somebody getting on the ground to get after the Houthis. To be able to deal with that problem, as we saw, I'm afraid, in the post 911 campaigns in Iraq and of course, Afghanistan.

 

Ultimately, missiles and bombs don't do the job, I'm afraid to say.

>> H.R McMaster: That's right, as Israel learned in the 2006 war in Southern Lebanon, we learned vis a vis Gaza and Lebanon since then, right? I mean, these problems that manifest themselves in the maritime and aerospace domains originate where people live, on land.

 

 

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Yes, absolutely. But I mean, I think the two big questions are, given Iran's weakness, will Israel see this as an opportunity? I mean, is this the moment where you could end Iran's aspirations for a nuclear weapon through military action? What would the Trump administration think of that as a course of action, discuss?

 

And then I think there are big questions about the longer term political horizon in Israel itself. And we've seen the actions on the west bank, with settlements becoming greater since the 7th of October 23rd. We've seen what's happened in Gaza. We've seen the Trump administration table the idea of some form of riviera on the Gaza in terms of the rebuilding of the country.

 

We've seen Arabs respond through some form of peace settlement themselves and reconstruction plan for Gaza. How are those issues going to be bottomed out? And I think that it must be an ambition, I think, of the US Administration, to be able to take the Abraham Accords. Which were of course, signed in the previous Trump administration between Bahrain, the Emirates, Sudan and Morocco, and Israel.

 

Must be an ambition to see if Saudi Arabia could cross the line to do the same sort of thing. So there are a huge number of dynamics at play there, all of which are gonna require US diplomacy and US pressure, I'd have thought, to get over the line.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: And I think this is the last gasp chance maybe, at a two state solution. I mean, of course, it's ridiculous to talk about it at this moment as being on the horizon. This could be well into the future. But you can see from Israel's perspective, based on what happened in Gaza, where you had the takeover of Hamas, an organization dedicated to destroying Israel and killing all the Jews.

 

That they don't wanna have Gaza in the west bank. And so, this is why I think, you've seen more aggressive actions in the west bank against Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas as well, because Israel's learned this lesson from October 7th. Can't have a hostile force on your border that has that kind of capability.

 

It's why they went into southern Lebanon as well. But can you talk about, and we were talking about this earlier, there has to be a political solution to wars, right? War is, as Clausenwood said to us, right, is an extension of politics, which means you need some sort of an enduring political end to the war in Gaza.

 

That can't happen as long as Hamas has the guns. Can you see any path forward to sort of, a better life for the Palestinian people, under a Palestinian political entity that is not committed to the destruction of Israel? How do we get there?

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Well, of course, if one goes back to the Oslo agreements of the late 1990s, when the Palestinian Authority was created out of the PLO.

 

The answer is that you need to have some form of Palestinian Authority, some form of Palestinian government that Israel can work with and live alongside. And that requires decent quality Palestinian leadership. And the problem, of course, is there doesn't appear to be much Palestinian leadership around which can genuinely unite the Palestinians behind an authority that could work with Israel.

 

Now, people would argue that some of the Palestinians who could perhaps do that are behind Israeli bars at the moment. Barghouti being an example of that, who some people talk about as the Palestinian Mandela.

>> H.R McMaster: Or they're in Gaza, but as soon as they say, I'll be the mayor of Gaza, they get a bullet to the head, right, from Hamas, right?

 

 

>> General Sir Nick Carter: So it is very challenging to see where some form of leadership for the Palestinians is going to come from. But ultimately, that'll be what makes the difference. Because at the moment there is nobody that anybody could negotiate with even if they wanted to have a negotiation. And I think until we find a way of rejuvenating the Palestinian Authority, and that is led by Palestinians who can cooperate with an Israeli government that's Prepared to try and cooperate with them, I don't see an end in sight.

 

Nick, one of the things that really is terrible for all of us to see is the degree which the Palestinian people have suffered. And of course, we want Israel to be able to apply firepower with more discipline, discrimination, and so forth. But also we have to recognize, hey, Hamas is using the population as a human shield and actually deliberately set out, if you listen to their statements, to get a lot of Palestinians killed, right?

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: And to make that an issue, I can't think of a historical example where a population that has been in that kind of a dangerous, perilous situation hasn't been able to evacuate somewhere, right? I mean, what is sad to me is how they've been penned in there. And while President Trump says outlandish things about a Riviera and they should move somewhere.

 

Do you see any opportunity to at least temporarily get the Palestinian civilians out of the way if there is going to be a final campaign to destroy Hamas in Gaza?

>> General Sir Nick Carter: No, I don't think there is a way of doing it like that because at the end of the day, in much the same way as we saw in Afghanistan, Hamas merges itself into the population.

 

And young men who one day might be driving an aid truck inside Gaza are the next day picking up a weapon to fight against the Israeli Defense Forces. So they merge into the population. And I think it's almost impossible to see a way in which you could separate them from the population in physical terms.

 

Which means, I think, that the only way forward is to try and find a political solution to this problem. Whereby you do get Palestinian leadership to rise up amongst the population of Gaza who recognize that they don't want to be led by an organization like Hamas. Whose objectives are inimical to peace and to reconciliation with the Israeli population.

 

And I'm afraid that's the only way you can sort it. Which is why objectives like destroy Hamas will always be challenging to achieve. The best you could hope for in terms of a military objective would be to defeat them. And defeating them, frankly, means sorting the politics. And as you said at the beginning of your comment, come question.

 

Ultimately, what we do as soldiers is an extension of politics. When you're dealing in an insurgency environment like the one that the IDF are dealing with in Gaza at the moment, often the politics are an extension of the insurgency and the war that you're fighting. And it's that nuance which is so challenging to deal with.

 

And we will not see an answer to this problem, I fear, until there is a political solution, physically, you can't separate the two people apart.

>> H.R McMaster: And what's sad about is until you lift the pall of fear off the population, there's no space for a political alternative to emerge and that has to be some kind of a peace enforcement force, right?

 

That is empowered to protect whatever emerges as a political entity from Hamas, who will come back after them.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: And I think that's the big lesson we learned when we finally realized what we're doing in southern Afghanistan. Where, of course, what we realized we were doing was trying to connect the population to positive governance.

 

And, of course, that's what needs to happen in Gaza. The governance needs to be governance that serves in support of the population rather than acts as the enmity to the neighbors. And we eventually understood that, I think in parts of Afghanistan, in, particularly in Kandahar, and to a degree in Helmand, where we began to put in place positive governance, people could identify it.

 

They felt they were being secured effectively, and the insurgency became marginalized. And that, of course, is the answer to these sorts of problems.

>> H.R McMaster: And you can't let up, as we learned, right, because these enemies are persistent and will come back in. I'd like to just talk just a little bit more about the Middle East.

 

You already alluded to this, the danger of Iran's nuclear program. We think that it appears as if Iran is in kind of a rush to get to a threshold capability. I mean, Nick, I think the chances of Israel taking action against that program is like 98%. How do you see that evolving?

 

I mean, Israel's demonstrated tremendous capability. In the last reprisals against Iran, they flew 140 aircraft into Iranian territory and destroyed their defense systems, I think, took out a lot of the nuclear sites, the undeclared ones. I mean, how do you see that aspect of the competition with Iran evolving?

 

 

>> General Sir Nick Carter: The impression I get is that the Trump administration wants to talk to Iran, wants to have a conversation. So I think that's an interesting angle, which I think we'll see how it evolves. I mean, the Iranian government is more politically fragile at the moment than it's probably been for a generation.

 

And we know that the population is not happy. We know that inflation is sky high and that the cost of living is deteriorating and so on and so forth, and they very rarely get any consistent electricity, etc. So I think there's definitely an angle there. I think, though, if you're gonna go and conduct a military operation against the nuclear program, my guess is it would be very difficult to do it decisively unless you put boots on the ground.

 

I mean, I think, I suspect the bits that really matter are buried somewhere, and I'm sure people know where they're buried. But I wonder whether there's a bomb around at the moment that can find its way under a mountain. I mean, I'm not an expert in this, but my judgment is that to do it properly, to do it decisively, you would almost certainly have to put certain Special Forces boots on the ground.

 

Now, I'm sure the Israelis would do that, but, my gosh, it's quite a risky operation and would be a challenging operation to do. We remember that attempt to rescue those hostages back in 1979, which didn't end well, did it? And that was a superpower trying to achieve it.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: Yeah, and I think we're now, it's almost analogous to 2015 from Iran's perspective, when they were under a great deal of pressure. Remember, Israel at the time was making public statements about maybe the need to go after the program. Their economy was in a real big downturn.

 

And then President Obama, his administration, sadly helped Ayatollah Khamenei up off the mat with the Iran nuclear deal and sanctions relief and payoffs and so forth. I don't think President Trump's gonna want to do that, but I think you're right. I mean, Iran is making noises, even though Ayatollah is saying, hey, we're not gonna talk to you.

 

You've got Zarif at the shop window for the regime writing essays about the need to negotiate. But that'll be something really interesting to watch. But I wanted this to go because we have limited time now to go to the Indo Pacific region. And could you maybe talk a little bit how you see the connections between the conflicts that we've been describing, from Africa to the Middle east to Europe.

 

How are they connected to what I think we would agree is a looming crisis in the Indo Pacific associated with China's revanchist agenda there?

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Yes, I mean, I think we absolutely need to recognize that, we can talk about tilting to the Indo Pacific or whatever else it might be.

 

The reality is that the problems we're about to talk about are global problems, and they are all interconnected. And when you look at the relationship between North Korea and Russia, you look at the relationship between North Korea and China. You look at the relationship between North Korea, South Korea and Japan, the plain fact is that in that part of the world, these things are all connected.

 

And if you're Japanese at the moment and you look around your landscape, I'd be quite nervous. I've got North Korea trying to pursue a path towards really very high quality missiles and of course, nuclear weapons as well. You've got China on your doorstep that's becoming ever more assertive and ever more coercive in her behavior.

 

And of course, Of course, you've got Russia next door who also are arguing about some of your islands. So if you were Japanese at the moment, you've got all three of these people.

>> H.R McMaster: And you have a South Korean government that's in turmoil.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Yep.

>> H.R McMaster: And you just lost kind of an ally in President Yoon, right?

 

Who knows what kind of South Korean government.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Yeah, I mean, from Japan's perspective, I just got back.

>> H.R McMaster: I was in Japan last week, and there was a good bit of Anxiety, especially about to the reliability of America because of the tensions we've had with our European allies over Ukraine and Russia.

 

So, yeah, I mean, Japan is, though, doing what it needs to do, in my view. I'd love to hear what you think about this, but they're doubling their defense budget. They're thoroughly engaged in the region. I mean, heck, they've established better relations even with Cambodia, Laos, let alone their partners.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: And South Korea, yeah. So, looking at it out from Japan, I mean, what can be done to kinda reinforce Japan at this time or allay their concerns?

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Well, I mean, I think that she needs her allies. And I think, I mean, I spent quite a lot of time when I was in my four last military job as the equivalent to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, talking to my Japanese opposite number who's remained a good friend.

 

And Japan can see real parallels with Britain. There are real political parallels with them, monarchies, and parliament, and island nation and all the rest of it. So I think she needs her allies and we need to help her build her military capability and create some form of credible deterrence to stop, frankly, her neighbors from beginning to undermine her position.

 

I think the United States has done a lot over the last few years to do that. I think the quad relationship, which whilst in theory not a national security relationship, more of a sort of foreign policy relationship with India, Japan, Australia and the United States coming together is a helpful step in the right direction.

 

You mentioned the relationship improving with her neighbors, at least South Korea. I mean, the Philippines is important in all of this. And of course, the Philippines is very much on the front line of Chinese coercion at the moment and the Chinese desire to dominate and arguably own the South China Sea.

 

And then, of course, Australia is a player in this. And Australia is doing a huge amount to improve her defense capabilities through much increased defense expenditure. And I think the relationship between all of those westwardly oriented democratic countries is fundamental to trying to keep some form of stability and some form of containment in relation to the more nefarious agendas of Russia, North Korea, and, of course, China.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: Right, laying claim to the ocean, for example, the South China Sea, or trying to subsume Taiwan and threaten Japan. Hey, we don't have much time left, but what I'd like to do is ask you how you were thinking about war and warfare. Having now observed closely the evolution of the conflict in Ukraine, especially after the last three years, what we've seen with sort of the Iran's ring of fire activated against Israel and how Israel has responded.

 

I mean, there's quite a bit to learn, I would think, from recent armed conflicts as we try to make a grounded projection into the future and determine how to prepare for future war. But as you mentioned, ideally, prepare for future war effectively so you deter conflict and prevent conflict from happening.

 

But what are your just broad observations about the nature of war and the character of warfare and how it's evolving?

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Yeah, I think those last two points you make are the most important ones to begin with, which is that I think what we learn from, whether it's Gaza or Ukraine, Is that the nature of war doesn't change.

 

It's always political interaction. It's always that visceral relationship between human beings fighting with each other. And you could bring robots into this and you can make life easier for the human being, but ultimately, the decision will come from violent human interaction. And, of course, what that means is that you're always gonna be fighting in friction, it's always gonna be confusing, it's always gonna be difficult, and the simplest thing's gonna become really hard to achieve.

 

What does evolve, and we have seen particularly from, I think, Ukraine and to a degree, Gaza, is the character. And the character of warfare evolves with geography, but also technology. And I think the obvious point to make about Ukraine is that whilst war has probably always been about a competition between hiding and finding, what we've learned, I think, in the Ukraine war, is that it's much harder to hide than it ever was.

 

Finding has become more straightforward with this sort of technology, particularly drones, and satellites, and all the open-source material that's available to us these days. We've also learned that when you find something, the trick is to whack it as quickly as possible. And that's why software becomes important, artificial intelligence becomes important, and the ability to be able to do things in that very agile and quick fashion is pretty critical.

 

And that's gonna ask some big questions, I think, about the ethics of warfare. How many human beings are gonna be in the loop when this happens in the future. But that triangle between hiding, finding, and then striking quickly, how that is enabled is going to be, I think, the turnkey in many ways to the future of warfare, notwithstanding the point I make about the nature of war being about human interaction.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: Well, just in conclusion, what I'd like to ask you is are you optimistic about the future? Are you optimistic about the US/UK relationship, the transatlantic alliance, the prospects of the free world? I'm thinking about Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, when they get together, they appear to be quite smug.

 

And Xi Jinping will say to Vladimir, Vladimir, I'm seeing changes like we haven't seen in 100 years. And the world's chaotic, but they seem to think that the chaos is in their favor. I would differ with them on that, but I'd love to hear your view at a time when, I think there's a great deal of pessimism.

 

How do you view the evolution of the prospects of the free world?

>> General Sir Nick Carter: I mean, I think there are extraordinary risks at the moment. And I think the fact that we haven't had general war for 80 years or so, is dangerous because I think people have forgotten how awful war is.

 

But putting that to one side, I think what gives me confidence is that I think that whatever may happen at the high end political level, in terms of leaders and how they get on together, I think our institutions are still extraordinarily well connected. And I think at the heart of those institutions are values.

 

And I think it's those values that will hold us together. And, of course, we're gonna go through perturbations. Everybody worried at the beginning of last year about the year of elections. And actually what we saw was that those elections went remarkably well. Whether you got the outcome from those elections you wanted didn't necessarily matter.

 

The reality was that they were handled in a fair way. And 4 billion people went to the polls, and 4 billion people voted and were able to vote. So I think there is reason for hope. But my gosh, there are risks. And that's why sane people need to keep talking to each other.

 

 

>> H.R McMaster: Absolutely, meaningful, respectful discussions of the challenges and opportunities we face, right? That's what we hope to achieve here on Battlegrounds. Hey, General Sir Nick Carter, thank you so much for helping us learn more about critical battlegrounds and help us understand better how we can work together to build a better future.

 

Great to be with you.

>> General Sir Nick Carter: Thanks, HR, it was a lot of fun.

>> presenter: Battlegrounds is a production of the Hoover Institution, where we generate and promote ideas advancing freedom. For more information about our work, to hear more of our podcasts, or view our video content, please visit hoover.org.