The Atlantic Council. 2024 marks arguably the most important year for democracy in the in our lifetimes there will be elections where 50 of humanity will be voting representing more than 60 of global gdp. And and some 70 countries at a time when we them and Freedom House are tracking the upward tragic story of authoritarianism and the downward trajectory of democracy and democratic rights rights, how we navigate this period and how we navigate this election in the United States has. Generational consequences. In that spirit, i want to commend matt kroenig and dan negrea for significant contribution to the debate over future of americas role in the world, which ultimately will grow of the strength of our democracy and the strength of our and how we define ourselves so read it. If you dont read it, buy. And give copies to your friends. Its a its its ive, i cant say ive read it all. Ive skimmed through it, ive read quite a bit of it already and its a very intelligent, lee argued, argued treatise. I only have a problem with the title, so but i dont have a problem. I have a problem explaining it to other people. So im going to explain it you as well. We win. They lose, we win. They lose. Republican Foreign Policy cold. So let me take the win we win. They lose part in january this 1977, four years prior to becoming president president reagan bluntly stated in a conversation with richard valle, and i think i have this right, his basic expectation in relation to the cold war quote my, idea of american policy toward the soviet union is simple and some would say simplistic. He said it is this we win and they lose. So its the good guys win, the bad guys lose. I get it. Some have interpreted resistance. Republicans win, democrats lose america wins. Everybody else loses. This is not what this title says. This title says good guys when bad guys should lose. So i embrace that. And then ive also stumbled over republican Foreign Policy. So the American Council is nonpartisan. Sometimes were bipartisan. Sometimes, you know, if theres independent party, we can be tripartisan. But but we there should be an american Foreign Policy, not a republican Foreign Policy. Not a democratic Foreign Policy. And for most of the cold war it was the us. But were not there yet. And i actually if this fusion of trump ism and reaganism can be pulled off and i cant wait to hear the debate because. Morgan youre going to have a wonderful to see Morgan Ortagus here. One of my favorite people. But this debate, i think, is a central debate for the future because for me, reaganism is engagement in the world. Its not isolationism. Its its its positive. Its sunny, its forward looking. So i am now at peace with the entire title of the book. Let me just Say Something else before i pass on. In the spirit of what i said and i know were going to hear from congressman in a minute right after me, but i want to quote something he said the book, because i think it captures is enough that i said it. No but with gallagher saying very much what im saying about, an american Foreign Policy, let me quote him matthew kroenig. And then the great two of our nations sharpest Foreign Policy minds, not only compellingly these threats, hes talking the threats of the axis of authoritarian powers, arrayed against the free world. Not only connect these threats, but articulate a strategic framework for confronting them that can unite all americans. And to me, i was very pleased to see that, because i think thats where ultimately we hope to land, where how we approach the world and our Foreign Policy can consistent irrespective of what party relatively in the basic tenets consistent so so what the authors hope for is a trump reagan. Ill look forward to the debate on this concept. I think this is a time for big debates and big ideas and thinking it the beginning of a new era. We are on the cusp of the new era and we have the potential to shape it if we have the political will and we have the unity of purpose. So im very grateful for all of our speakers for joining us today. Others will introduce the other speakers, but i want to call a close with a special thanks to congressman Mike Gallagher for delivering virtual to kick us off. He represents wisconsins eighth district. Hes done so since 2017 and serves as the chairman of the select committee on strategic competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist party. So thank you all for joining us. And let me turn over now to congressman gallagher to say ones greatest role models are usually in the family and the cranie family provides two excellent models you, brad, whos not at the event today, but clearly got the looks in the quranic family and is actual model but friend matt is here to present a model of his own for how we can win the new cold war. His author, dan negrea came to the Atlantic Council from policy planning at the state department where George Kennan wisconsinite, i remind you worked. And for dan, this was a chance to give back to his adopted country after a career behind the iron curtain and then on wall street and in new book the two with you, just incredible backgrounds have provided a strategy to win our new cold war with the ccp and synthesize the reagan and trump schools of republican Foreign Policy into a new fusion approach that can unite a fractured party. Unifying principles. When did this new cold war begin. Academics continue to debate. When the old cold war began, did it begin when orwell first used the phrase . Did it begin when the soviets tested a Nuclear Weapon in 49 . Did it begin with the korean war when it turned hot in 1950 . Who . But academics will continue to bet in the future when the new cold war with communist china began. But theres no debate that the ccp has been waging cold war against america for over a decade, since at least 2009, which predates xi jinpings rise power. The longer we did not of this new cold war, the longer we allow the ccp to advance their totalitarian antiamerican agenda under the cover of win win cooperation. And i think matt and dan deserve a lot of credit for just recognizing reality and nature of the competition were in because. The ccp is history and ideology even among communist regimes make it an aggressive, paranoid regime that is laser focused on destroying our global position. Shiba believes that the soviet union fell because its leaders did not understand they were engaged in an ideological war against capitalist democracy, and he will do anything he can to prevent the Chinese Party from facing the fate as communist russia. This is not a regime thats going to be content making a grand bargain, even with the stable balance of power in the indopacific or globally so, even if we wanted that to happen, i dont think itd be feasible in the short term. The title of dan and matts book also echoes Ronald Reagans. Model in 1977 for how you end a cold war. We win and they lose. And many of their proposals for dealing with the ccp today echo reagans strategy victory over the soviets as outlined in nsc 75, where and here i quote reagans team u. S. Policy toward the soviet union will consist of three elements external to soviet imperialism. Internal pressure on the ussr to weaken the sources of soviet imperialism and negotiations to eliminate the basis of strict reciprocity, strict reciprocity, outstanding disagreement since reagan, kennan and other cold warriors understood that it would end. Not necessarily through negotiations or military force, but when the soviet union was transformed internally to remove the of the conflict. And if you read dan and matts book, i think is the closest weve come to actually having a meaningful about what our long the long term goal of u. S. Strategy should be. There is consensus on nearterm goal, which is deterring a war over. And i would even say in the midterm theres an emerging consensus that we should control the commanding heights, critical technology. But theres been a a dearth of debate on what our long term goal looks like. And that and dan, really tease out what victory in new cold war looks like. And they say it comes the Chinese Government no longer has the will or the capacity to threaten core or United States interests. Despite me and the ccp mellowing over time or a new generation of chinese leaders deciding that shes approach failed, and having concluded that, challenging the United States and its allies is simply too costly or offering a more cooperative path, the ccp might even collapse as the soviet union did did leaving a less threatening regime or even a peaceful liberal democracy. But to get there, our policy like reagans must feature ideological thrust that clear the supremacy of, our values and at the same time what the Trump Administration brought was an understanding that our National Strength lay not in force of arms or in our values, in the strength of the american economy, from the degradation of the American Industrial base, from ip theft to currency manipulation, countering ccp economic aggression is just as central to protecting our National Security interests as deterring the prc in the taiwan strait. Thats what makes this cold war far more difficult and complex than the old, because we never had to contemplate selective decoupling in the soviet union because our economies didnt really interact, whereas we are conjoined twins with china economically in the new cold war. And in their book, matt and dan call for this foreign reagan trump fusion. It combines that aggressive rebalance that will bring jobs to america while reducing ccp sources of leverage with a diplomatic approach that includes clear red lines for chinese behavior and is in peace through strength, both and reagan rejected a reliance on norms or mutually assured destruction in favor of a military buildup that aims but hard power in the path of our adversaries. American weapons did not stop mao from sending troops into korea. Brezhnev, afghanistan, or putin into ukraine. We have no reason to think that will stop xis craft from crossing the taiwan strait. We need to restore our conventional deterrent in particular. Im also reminded in reading dans book that, famous moment, when Ronald Reagan traveled to moscow. In 1988 and he spoke at moscow university, where his goal was less than it was addressing the russian people directly at moscow state, which is where gorbachev went to school. He made the case standing the bust of lenin, i believe he made the case for freedom everywhere. And i think he gave us a model for how you do ideological warfare intelligently, smartly, and how candor and truth, far from being provocative, can actually be a core part of a deterrence strategy and a stabilizing factor. And i think when american leaders speak about the United States and china relations or even to leaders of the ccp themselves, they should use it not as a moment to kowtow to our nations foremost adversary or take the temperature, but to speak truth to the chinese people, truth of the ccp does not want them to hear, as dan and matt observe in their book domestic political stability. Is an autocrat achilles heel and the u. S. Government should identify what the ccp considers pillars of its regime stability and put them at risk. For example, they suggest that your Cyber Command should make it a Daily Mission to bring down the great firewall and provide access to information to the chinese people. This is a critical point that often ignored because its difficult. People dont even want to talk about it because its considered provocative. But theres a point at which the fear of provocation becomes itself because it signals weakness. And i would submit that if we want to set ourselves a path to victory, we have to define what victory looks like. And dan and matt had done exactly that. And in the process theyve done the nation lasting service. I hope my colleagues in washington and in fact all read this book and take up the cause of waging and winning new cold war. And ill end with a thought i often get criticized for using that term new cold war. It has to remind people that there are things that are worse than cold war. One of those things is hot war. And a hot war with china would be absolutely horrific. Its even harder to wrap minds around even those of us who fought the wars in afghanistan and iraq struggled to comprehend what a great power war would look like. I would also submit that surrender, surrender American Global leadership, a slow surrender of order that we built up, painstaking lee since the last time we fight great power, conflict would be worse. Waging cold war and deterrence may be difficult, but war is. And surrender is unacceptable. So thank you to matt and dan for their critical work for outlining for giving us a sense of what victory looks like and then identifying a path for how we achieve victory. I look forward to engaging in the debate that im sure this debate, this book will will provoke. And its a debate that we need to be having in dc. And im honored that i could join you, albeit virtually today. And i look forward to seeing you all in person. Well, thanks to everybody are here in person and all of you watching online. Im Morgan Ortagus, the moderator of this event. Im going to quickly introduce our panelists and then going to get right into the debate. Were going to take audience questions as well. We may even have questions online. So im not going to be long on the bios. But youve heard authors reference dr. Matt kroenig, Vice President and senior director here at the Atlantic Council, also thought this was interesting. I thought i was one of the only people who could say this. But you have served the bush obama and trump admin situations at various levels. We also have dan negrea, whos a senior director here at the Atlantic Council. He worked in policy planning at the state department, but much more. He defected from communist romania and is now a great american. And so were thrilled to you next to me here in person, have Miss Elizabeth brar. She is a senior fellow here at the transatlantic security initiative, where she focuses on gray zone and hybrid threats at the Atlantic Council. An expert on europe an expert on the intersection of geopolitics and the economy. Excited to have your take especially the european perspective and virtually we have ambassador Gina Abercrombie went stanley her resume is way too long we can take the whole hour talking about all of her achievements shes a 30 year diplomat former u. S. Ambassador to the republic of malta and shes a nonresident senior fellow here at the Atlantic Council and has served all over the world. And most impressively, i like this about her bio. She has the department of state meritorious and superior honor awards for acts of courage during an al qaida on the u. S. Consulate in jeddah, saudi arabia 2004. So thank you ambassador. Good for you. Okay. I think we should jump right in. First of all, you can tell i host a sunday radio show, which, by the way, is on sirius patriot channel one 2511 two one every sunday. And were going to take your show. So we have to talk about the where do you get the book before we get into everything . Everyones here watching, listening. Do you buy it . Its available on amazon and its the number one new release in International Relations currently. So some people are buying it already, but encourage everybody to go out and get their copy on amazon. Amazon, thats easy. My husband would say i dont get nearly enough amazon packages. So now i have a new awesome. Thank you. Well i think thats incredibly important. So lets right in. Im really interested in. And what for example is talking about, which is the well, what it may be the intersection of trump reagan policy. Can you sort of tell us what exactly that means . Are the similarities and what are the differences . Well, the idea for the central argument of the book came at a retreat. Republican Foreign Policy experts and had kind of never trumpers people who had served in past Republican Administration and Trump Administration officials. And there was a lot of agreement, a few heated debates, but a lot of agreement. And prominent u. S. Senators said what we really need is a trump reagan. And i thought that was an interesting idea what would a trump reagan fusion look like . And so thats what dan and i try to articulate in the book. And i think theres this conventional wisdom that the party is very much divided between kind of the trumpian wing and the reaganite wing. And actually in doing the research in the book, dan and i came to the conclusion the party is more united than people think. Yes, on ukraine or other issues, there are big fights, but when it comes to just kind of basic worldview, i think there is a conservative thats different from a progressive worldview, brings them together, and then we go through and talk about peace through strength in defense policy of free and fair trade and economic policy. American exceptional, its kind of major pillars. But then china, iran, north korea, border, immigration, climate. I think these are all issues where, both the kind of trumpian and reaganite of the party really do agree. And thats we try to articulate