231 | David Sacks: The Case for Realism & Non-Interventionism

For today's episode, David Sacks, keynote speaker at Up From Chaos: Conserving American Security, cohost of the All-In podcast, and venture capitalist, joined Marshall and Saagar joined to discuss his case for foreign policy realism and non-intervention as the U.S. moves on from the War on Terror and the war in Ukraine deepens.

0:00 - Introduction
1:22 - David Sack’s speech at Up From Chaos conference
3:14 - “Expertise” around Ukraine crisis
5:10 - David’s business mindset
7:24 - What parts of the Ukraine crisis were new to David?
10:11 - What is the ideal outcome of the Ukraine conflict?
15:15 - Realism vs. Idealism in foreign policy
19:29 - How do we adjust to a multi-polar world from a realist lens?
23:13 - Reasonable diplomacy
24:57 - Future of NATO
29:45 - Future of technology companies in a multi-polar world
34:47 - How should we look at Asia?
37:54 - The U.S.’s strengths vs. China
42:00 - David’s outlook on the economy
46:50 - Biden’s policy on Ukraine

[threeofeight]

I have a background in bio-science and it wasn't until CoVID that I FULLY realized that the experts we are presented with are not all that good at their jobs. Some more than others, but for the most part... wow. I now imagine it is like that across the board.

[bsmithhammer]

Why are we continually intervening? Because it's been very, very good for business. The elephant in the room is that the defense industry (both public and private) is the real engine that has primarily fueled the U.S. economy for the last 50 years. We are addictied to it, build our foreign policy objectives around it, and the amount of money at stake is staggering. And also, in fairness, this has had many secondary benefits in non-defense sectors of our economy as well. I'm not an anti-interventionist - but I do think that it's impossible to raise the question of why we are continually involved in foreign conflicts without acknowledging that we've built an economy that literally has to be at war, or preparing for war, or supplying others with that they need for war, continually. I'm not making a moral argument here, this is simply the realpolitik that needs to be on the table if we are going to have real conversations about it. Otherwise, wondering why we do what we do and grasping at other reasons is pointless.

[DocDanTheGuitarMan]

Sacks doesn’t have any books behind him. I was ready to nominate him for Sec of State based on his thought process but now I’m not so sure.

[beagleguy]

Realignment x All In cross over episode? Did I die and go to heaven?

[Psycho]

@22:40 can anyone help me out with a source for anyone telling selensky in private that ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO but that publicly they wouldn't say so?
he is referencing an interview with I think Fareed zakaria but I still can't find it

[elirothblatt]

Great discussion as always. Thank you gentlemen!

[TD-lhwt]

Common Sense discussion. Need more of this

[petersen]

Link in the description for David Sacks speech?

[JakubMMajewski]

Listening to this conversation, I can't help thinking: despite admitting to being entirely wrong on Ukraine, Saagar simply refuses to understand and accept *why* he got Ukraine so badly wrong. If you keep talking about the possibility of avoiding conflict in Ukraine by denying Ukraine NATO membership, then you just don't get it. What else would Russia have to do, to finally get it through to you that this is not about Ukraine's NATO membership, and it never was? It's simply not about *you*. Russia isn't simply trying to counteract the US - they have their own agenda. They have repeatedly stated their intent to rebuild their sphere of influence. This does not merely mean keeping the US out of Ukraine. It means re-incorporating Ukraine into Russia, in the same way that they have effectively incorporated Belarus (whether this is permanent - that's another issue). And in the long term, it also means imposing Russian hegemony on the Baltics and Poland. NATO membership for these states is not the reason for Russia's moves - it's what slowed them down up until this point.

[harivatsaparameshwaran]

While i think marshal is correct about the whole culture war edgy contrarian aspect of the pro Putin takes, it is definitely more complex than that in my view because republicans now sort of "feel" the cultural "imperialism" of American liberals and the whole media-academia nexus. It's a sentiment born more out of a sympathetic understanding of the bad aspects of American cultural imperialism that other nations (like Afghanistan) faced than just an edgy own the libs take.

[patrickbateman]

Read "On The Two Faces of Russia" by Oswald Spengler 1922 😎👍

[TheAlexzingale]

I didnt think many people really believed the US had an idealist foreign policy lol. The US has mostly gotten involved in conflicts that were directly tied to our national interests. Iraq was to get rid of saddam who we once supported but no longer served our interests. Operation 'iraqi freedom' was just a digestible way to deliver it to the american people and the world. I dont really think we had any nation building goals in iraq or afghanistan and i definitely dont believe that our government ever thought it was possible to spread democracy in these places. Libya was a conflict that was probably idealistic as our only goal was to remove gadaffi and it had literally nothing to do with our country. The US had the chance to intervene in Rwanda and many other horrifying conflicts but we chose not to and even pressured our allies not to either. We have a long history of backing and supporting some very morally questionable authoritarian regimes. The Shah of Iran probably one of most famous. Which after decades blew up in our face and lead to a theocratic regime that now opposes the west and funds terrorism. Weve alligned ourselves with saudi arabia, a theocratic monarchy who practices some of the strictest forms of islam in their nation. But their foreign policy a lligns with our own therefore we overlook their extremely anti liberal/democratic rule. I think weve realized that its easier and possibly safer to help prop up dictatorships that we can influence and exploit rather than a liberal democracy. A democratic state can vote against american interests and there wouldnt be much we can do about it. But a dictatorship we can exploit and if they act against our interests we have the moral justification to help overthrow that regime or go to war with them because of the human rights violations they often commit against their own people (Iran pre shah, Iraqi freedom) etc. There are countless examples of US backed authoritarian governments that may serve american interests. So no, i dont think we have a very idealistic interventionist foreign policy. I think most of our decisions come down to who and how can this serve US interests.

[nextuplevelup]

Fire 🔥 interview. The 🇺🇸 needs to get its shit together

[Gibbons-qy]

I basically agree with everything David said here.

[jioklgt]

Minsk Accord! If Ukraine had adhered to the Minsk Accord there would never have been a Donbas issue.

[therealdonelaitis]

I loved the stand-alone Marshall episodes where he and the guests talked rationally. With this episode, we’re back to close-mindedly pointing the finger at “NATO expansion.” Insufferable.

[doctorisout]

The only sane thing I have heard this month.

[TomsDone]

?? the experts were the ones saying NOT to do the no fly zone. Next you'll be telling us that it was the experts who were selling us Ivermectin!

[axel]

Kosloff must hate the views of this person so much. It is really sad that Kosloff did not dare to ask a single difficult and challenging questions. Sacks is fine with challenges if you've listened to the all-in podcast.

[DocDanTheGuitarMan]

If you read Kai Fu Lee, he will tell you that Chinese entrepreneurship is on par or above that of the US. Yes we have inherent advantages but I’m not convinced our monopoly is real.