Transcript: John Sullivan, Michael Morell, Michele Flournoy and H.R. McMaster on "Face the Nation," Jan. 1, 2023

The following is a transcript of an interview with economist John Sullivan, Michael Morell, Michele Flournoy and H.R. McMaster that aired on Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, on "Face the Nation."

MARGARET BRENNAN: For a look at what's ahead on the foreign policy front we're joined by the former US ambassador to Russia John Sullivan, CBS News national security contributor Michael Morell, former Obama administration Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy, and former Trump administration National Security Advisor General H.R. McMaster who joins us from Palo Alto. It's good to have all of you here. You know, February 24th, 2022, was a wake-up call for the world on the national security front. That's when Russia invaded Ukraine, and Ambassador Sullivan, I know you were posted to Moscow at the time. It must have been surreal. I mean, European nations really didn't believe the United States that this was gonna happen, and then it did. What was that like?

JOHN SULLIVAN: Well, it was literally a wake up call in the middle of the night, we had a code, the watch-stander at the embassy called me well before dawn to say that the invasion had started. We knew it was going to happen. We'd been predicting it for months. I'd spoken to Secretary Blinken just a few days before on February 19th and he asked me what the mood was and I said it felt like August 31 1939, a world leader was going to launch an aggressive war on the European continent with unknown consequences. I then thought, jeez, I hope I haven't overstated this. So on the one hand, I was appalled by what happened on the 24th, but relieved that my advice to the Secretary of State turned out to be true, but we were very confident in our assessment about what he was going to do, the only question was when.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But what was so surreal as a reporter, was that all of our allies were doubting that Vladimir Putin would do this.

JOHN SULLIVAN: Oh, listen, I spent a lot of time talking to fellow ambassadors in Moscow, the U.S. business community in Moscow. I met almost on a weekly basis with the American Chamber of Commerce representatives, U.S. business people who had been in Moscow for years, and had been telling them what was going to happen, and they scoffed. They said, 'oh, you're- you're chicken little, the sky is falling, absolutely not. This is irrational, Putin would never do it." Those same people on February 25th, were texting me on their way to the airport, saying, 'goodbye,' I was right, and for those who had Russian spouses and children who may have dual citizenship, seeking help, so that their children, teenagers wouldn't get drafted into what was going to be, they knew now, a war that President Putin had launched.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It- it's incredible, and to date, sanctions have not stopped Vladimir Putin. And he is making clear that this war is going to continue, and that has global ramifications. And it will continue to in the year ahead.

MICHELE FLOURNOY: Absolutely, I think in 2023, we're likely to see minimal Russian gains on the military battlefield. But more of Putin's spoiler campaign where he's using missiles and drones to take out civilian and infra- infrastructure, target electricity, target water supplies, really trying to break the will of the Ukrainian people, while also hoping that Europe has a very cold, dark winter, and the energy prices the risk of a recession. He's- he's seeking to break the will of the Ukrainians and of NATO. I don't think he's going to be successful. But he still doesn't seem to have grasped that his military cannot actually achieve his political objectives in Ukraine. So I think in 2023, we're either going to see some kind of escalation on Putin's side, and or, possibly both, some entry into some negotiations if- if, in fact, the Western and Ukrainian will holds and Putin realizes he can't actually achieve his objectives. So he wants to put lipstick on a pig and declare victory somehow.

MARGARET BRENNAN: General McMaster, Vladimir Putin just recently visited a military outpost for the first time, you know, with his generals. Some have read that as an indication that he is- he is doubling down. What do you see happening here? Some Ukrainian generals are forecasting a Russian offensive could begin as soon as January.

H.R. MCMASTER: I think that's likely to be the case, Margaret, but it's going to fail. I mean, Putin is- is in denial. He's a man who's always been obsessed, right? Obsessed with restoring Russia to national greatness and- and he fancied himself as the new Tsar presiding over an expanding Russian Empire. Well, he's failed utterly, but he's increasingly isolated. You know, Putin is- he's kind of a street thug. I mean, he's, you know, he's a bully and a coward at the same time, and this is a reason- this is the reason why I think now we, you know, we have agency Margaret. We can- we can stop meting out assistance. We can give Ukrainians what they need to protect their population and infrastructure and to sustain a counter offensive to regain at least the territories taken since the renewed offensive in- on February 24th. So, you know, I'm pretty confident about Ukrainians ability to sustain their will like Michele. And I think we just have to bolster our own will and those of like minded partners across NATO and the European Union, principally.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mike Morell, I want to know what you think the red line is. From what I hear, it's Crimea, that if the Ukrainians tried to retake that area, that that might lead to the escalation that you were just referring to. What are your thoughts on that, and the contact that the CIA is having with Russian intelligence?

MICHAEL MORELL: So, Crimea is the most important piece for Putin, right, in terms of what he's taken since 2014. But I'm not sure what that escalation could look like. I mean, he doesn't have a lot left from a military perspective. His troops in matter of fact, are digging into defensive positions in eastern Ukraine right now. Right. They're afraid of a Ukrainian offensive, particularly as we provide more, so I'm not sure what he can do, what He has left in his bag if the Ukrainians were to go into- into Crimea, and I would not dissuade them from doing that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Director Burns did have contact, he met face to face with his Russian counterpart. I mean, the intelligence channels are open, they're open, they're functioning. They're not at the table with the diplomats functioning very much right now, as you would say. But when you hear escalation, people fear Vladimir Putin's nuclear arsenal. What is the probability of it being used?

MICHAEL MORELL: So I hope that part of the communication, right, between Director Burns and his- his counterparts in Russia are 'here is what the United States will do if you were to use a nuclear weapon or biological weapons on the battlefield,' and I hope that we've sent a message that our response would be significant and consequential, right. To give them the- to force them to think about whether using nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction of any type, right, would ultimately blowback against Russian interest?

MARGARET BRENNAN: What does significant look like?

MICHAEL MORELL: I think what it looks like is US forces attacking Russian forces inside Ukraine. I think that would force Vladimir Putin to think twice.

MICHELE FLOURNOY: I think the international dimension is important here. I mean, Putin is pretty isolated, but you've had the Prime Minister of India come out and say, 'We don't want to see nuclear weapons used,' you've had Xi Jinping, probably Putin's closest ally, come out and be very clear that nuclear weapons should not be used. So I think Putin would also find him incredibly isolated, not only from the West, but from much of the, you know, international community as well.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador Sullivan, just to button this part of the conversation up, though, does Putin care that he's isolated?

JOHN SULLIVAN: We made the same arguments to him to not invade Ukraine, that he'd be isolated, that the consequences would be devastating, that the international community, not just- they refer to the United States and our allies and partners is the collective West that wouldn't be just the collective West. That turned out to be true. 141 countries condemned and deplored the- the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in the General Assembly just after it occurred. He doesn't care. He's got his plan. He is going to regather the Russian lands. His response would be 'Peter the Great didn't care what- what other leaders thought, Peter the Great did what he needed to do to gather the Russian lands, to- to recreate this triune Rus. This- this- this mythic in some sense, in his own mind, Russian empire that he wants to restore, he's messianic. He doesn't care.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that's terrifying. I want to take a very quick break because we have so many more national security issues to continue to talk about. We'll be back with more of our panel. Stay with us.

=======

MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face The Nation. And we continue our conversation now with our foreign policy panel. H.R. McMaster, General McMaster, I want to ask you from a military perspective, we heard the CIA Director describe a full-fledged military partnership between Russia and Iran. What does this look like? I mean, we know Iranian drones are being used on the battlefield in Ukraine. But where does this head next?

H.R. MCMASTER: Well, I think where it heads next is support for Russia's war making machine more broadly, I think you're gonna see missiles, you already have reports of Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps trainers and assemblers of- of these drones. And I think what we're recognizing is these problem sets that we're facing with the theocratic dictatorship in Iran, and- and the revanchist hyper-nationalist Putin. They're connected to each other, and they're connected to China, which of course, also has just doubled down on- on his relationship, Xi Jinping, his relationship with Vladimir Putin and support for Putin. So I, I think we are hopefully now in full recognition that we are in really consequential competitions with authoritarian regimes who are hostile to us, and- and we have to respond much more effectively than we responded in the past. And that's a broad range of I think, preparations for potential military conflicts where we can deter a widening of war, but there's also very significant economic and diplomatic aspects of these interconnected problems.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, they are interconnected problems. I'm guessing one of the things you're saying there is recognize that the attempt to broker a nuclear deal with Iran is dead.

H.R. MCMASTER: It's a pipe dream. It's trying to revive something that is completely dead. And I couldn't believe it, Margaret, as- as we were supplicating to the Iranian regime as they're intensifying their proxy war in the region, and attacking some of our- of our long standing partners there, the- the Saudi- Saudi Arabia and, and the UAE. And I think we lost a lot of ground in the Middle East, because we're chasing this pipe dream of trying to revive this- this nuclear agreement. And if we didn't Margaret, what would happen- what would happen is we'd give Iran a pass on- on the destructive effect that the dictatorship has had on the Iranian economy. And you know, where that money would go, that money would go into the bonyads, which are these collectives controlled by the theocratic dictatorship, who extend their patronage network and control and that money would go to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, who would, as they did after the first Iran nuclear deal, intensify their proxy war against us, their Arab neighbors, and especially against Israel. And I think, Margaret, if we're going to be in the business of making predictions, I think the chances are quite high of a significant conflict in the Middle East, maybe entailing an Israeli strike on- on Iran's nuclear program.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Michele Flournoy, do you agree with that assessment?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: I think the risk is very real. I would say the problem goes back to the Trump administration's abandonment of a good agreement that had actually placed real constraints, and actually rolled back the Iranian nuclear program for a time. But be that as it may, we are where we are. The real risk is that in 2023, they will acquire enough material and highly enriched nuclear material to build a bomb. Israel has long articulated that as a red line, that that is an unacceptable condition for them to have to- to coexist with. And so I agree with H.R., the risk of an Israeli strike, and then the decision that places on the President- the U.S. President's desk. Do we support them? Do we stand back? What- what happens? And do we find ourselves in an escalating situation with Iran in the Middle East?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador Sullivan, the administration has been in this uncomfortable position with Iran because of a few things, but one of them, there are a number of Americans being held in Iranian captivity, that the United States would like to get back. State Department talks about that. But you also have these protests on the streets of Iran. What is the feeling about the attempt to get anything diplomatically done in this circumstance?

JOHN SULLIVAN: Well, as- as you note, Margaret, we've had Americans detained in Iran through the tenure of my service over the last six years as Deputy Secretary and Ambassador, but it goes back to my family that lived in Tehran in the late 70s. My uncle was the last U.S. Ambassador to Iran. His staff was taken hostage on November 4th, 1979 and stayed 444- and stayed for 444 days as guests of Ayatollah Khomeini. So this is not a new problem. This is a significant problem, as H.R. has mentioned, and as Michele has- has mentioned. But there's very, very little diplomatic engagement with- none really, with- with Iran now. I mean, our engagement, the State Department's engagement on trying to- to reanimate the JCPOA, the so-called Iran deal, that's all been indirect. In fact, I hosted in Moscow, our Special Representative, Representative Malley, in Moscow last year for talks with the Russians. We were actually trying to have the Russians help us engage with the Iranians, which shows how- how much of a struggle that- that that relationship is.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And Mike, the CIA has still- the intelligence community has not determined that Iran actually will make a nuclear weapon, it's just that they're giving themselves the possibility to do so at a future date. 

MICHAEL MORELL: The judgment has always been that what the Iranians want is to get to the threshold, right? To have all the pieces and be able to put them together quickly. Right now, they have enough fissile material, enriched to 60% for four bombs, and they could get to 90%, which is what is required for a weapon in a matter of weeks. So in terms of fissile material piece, they're very, very close.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Does the regime which has withstood many popular protests withstand what's happening in the streets? Which is unique with these protests that were started by young women.

MICHAEL MORELL: I think you have to look at the current protests in the context of a series of protests that have occurred since 2017. And they've- they've all had different causes. Right? People are asking for different things. But the one thing they have in common is a growing alienation of the young people from the regime, and a growing group of people who want a more normal life and a less rigid life. But at the same time, there's a large number of Iranians who support the regime. 18 million people voted for the current president, who's a hardliner. So I don't think that we're going to see regime change unless there's an incident that takes us in a different direction. And, and we all remember, in 1978, the Shah's- the Shah suffered a theater fire. It killed 400 people, set on fire, doors blocked, and that changed the whole dynamic in the first Iranian Revolution. So if something were- like that were to happen now, this could go somewhere. But absent that I think this is probably going to fizzle out.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It's, you know, it is so fascinating that the dynamic is there, that it's- that it's woman who started this round of protests, and it makes me think, Michele, of time and again, as expected, it is the young women who are paying the price for what's happening in Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the United States, and basically the abandonment of the international community following the end to military engagement there. Do you buy the argument that that choice to withdraw factored in, in any way to Russia and China's assessment that the U.S. was in decline?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: Look, I think both Russia and China have had a narrative of U.S. decline, particularly China, for- ever since the financial crisis. And, and they–

MARGARET BRENNAN: In 2008, 2009?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: Yes. And so they selectively add to this, you know, the protests on January 6th, and that television coverage added to it. I think the messiness of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, you know, is another contributor. So it's one- it's one brick in a wall that they've been building for quite some time that has- that has many bricks, which is why it's so important that we need to invest in our alliances, invest in you know, really demonstrate our credibility when we make foreign policy commitments and so forth. I actually would give the administration some credit for that in terms of pulling NATO together after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, building stronger partnerships in Asia to try to deter and counterbalance China. But it's, you know, this is a narrative that they will persist in because it- it serves their interests.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you optimistic that those alliances in the West will actually remain solid? Because there is an argument that if Vladimir Putin hadn't bombed Kyiv and terrified European leaders, that- that they wouldn't be united. That it's not just diplomacy, it was actual fear. 

MICHELE FLOURNOY: But we are where we are, war has come to this door, you know, come to Europe, and- and I think the NATO alliance, and- and the U.S.-EU relationship, they have found their purpose again. There's a tremendous amount of transatlantic unity that I think is quite solid. I also think as Beijing overplays their hand that actually bolsters our- our alliances and our partnerships in the region. But we have to play our cards well, and seriously compete, not only diplomatically, but shoring up deterrence militarily, competing economically, technologically, keeping our edge, making the right investments at home. So how we play our cards in the next few years really, really matters.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I don't want to lose the Afghanistan thread. I know I took you to Europe, but I want to come back to Afghanistan. Ambassador Sullivan, you're not at the State Department anymore, so you can speak freely. I know what H.R. thinks of the Trump deal with the Taliban and the flawed withdrawal. He's made that very clear on this program in the past. What do you think of the same question I asked Michele Flournoy, how much of the withdrawal, how it was executed, and the agreement with the Taliban is responsible for shaping the perception of weakness of the West? 

JOHN SULLIVAN: Well, as Michele said, I- I completely agree with Michele that the Russians, Beijing, they will use any misstep by the United States real or imagined against us in their- in their false narrative. Unfortunately, in this case, we did make a major misstep. I think, particularly in how we implemented the- the withdrawal. There's no doubt in my mind that it- it factored in, at least in some way, in the Russians' calculation about our strength, our ability to convince allies and partners to oppose what the Russians were doing, our credibility. Did it ultimately turn out to be the case? No. As with so many things, Putin was wrong about that, too. This administration came through in a very strong way, with allied- allies and partners, not just in Europe, but in Asia as well. So, yeah, they thought that, but they were wrong.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mike, after the fall of Kabul, you were on this program and you correctly forecast that the Taliban knew where al Qaeda's leader was inside Afghanistan. 

MICHAEL MORELL: Right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So I'm wondering what your thought is about where the emerging terror threat is now?

MICHAEL MORELL: Right. So one of the major affiliates of al Qaeda, it's called al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent, the leader of that group, the deputy of that group, and the top recruiter of that group are today in Afghanistan. So al Qaeda is- is a problem that needs to be watched in Afghanistan. The bigger problem in Afghanistan at the moment is ISIS and ISIS, you know, almost weekly attacks inside Afghanistan. The biggest worry is that they are increasingly recruiting from neighboring countries, and those individuals, particularly Tajikistan, those individuals are coming in where they're getting training from ISIS. And the concern is that they might leave Afghanistan, go back to their home countries, and conduct attacks against Western interests. Think embassies. The bigger- the bigger terrorism problem is actually in Africa, all the way from Somalia, all the way to- to West Africa, where you've got both al Qaeda affiliates, and you've got ISIS affiliates. They have- control of huge swaths of territory. They've conducted primarily local attacks so far, but at some point, Western embassies, Western military bases in both Africa and possibly in Europe could become targets. And if we're going to make a prediction, for 2023, I'd say we're going to see a terrorist attack against a Western interest somewhere in the world.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that's terrifying. It's sobering. It's a reminder that declaring victory was too early. 

MICHAEL MORELL: Terrorism has always waxed and waned. It has always gone up and down. And I think it's starting to bounce back again.

MARGARET BRENNAN: General McMaster, do you agree with that assessment that the emergent threat is coming out of Africa?

H.R. MCMASTER: I- I do, but it's also coming out of Afghanistan. It's also coming out of the Middle East still, and ISIS in Syria has not been defeated. And you know, there are internment camps of tens of thousands of people terrorists and their- and their families that are just languishing there. Now you have a Turkish incursion against the Kurds. That is- that is taking resources away from the fight against ISIS there. You have French forces who have withdrawn from- from West Africa, because Russia has tried to- to move into some of those areas and- and- and influence African governments to oust French counterterrorism support. So as we disengage from jihadist terrorists, they gain these- these havens. And we- it's a main lesson from- from 9/11 is that threats- jihadist threats that develop abroad can only be dealt with at an exorbitant cost once they reach our shores. So sustained engagement through partners, like the partners we abandoned in- in Afghanistan, is really critical to our own safety and security.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So what does that look like? Because the administration, Ambassador Sullivan, would argue you can do all of this from a distance.

JOHN SULLIVAN: Over the horizon. I tend to agree with H.R. I think that is- that's a talking point for when we are out of the region. One of the issues that President Biden raised with President Putin in Geneva in June of 2021, was discussing potential basing in Central Asia for U.S., the U.S. counterterrorism mission, and Putin was having- having none of it. But I think, I think that's a significant problem.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to transition to the other looming threat that you hear the administration saying it will turn its eye towards in the new year, and that is China. The Secretary of State will make his very first visit to Beijing in the months ahead. I mean, the agenda is so big. Michele Flournoy, where do you begin to try to de-escalate?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: Well, I think President Biden tried to sort of put a floor under the- the downward spiral of the relationship when he met with President Xi in late 2022. And I think there is a desire to sort of right the apple cart. That said, neither side is going to change its fundamental interests. And those interests are in many ways in conflict. So there is a competition ongoing and it's economic. It's technological. It's informational. It's political. It's military. I think the real name of the game in 2023 is shoring up deterrence. I don't think President Xi wants to move on Taiwan. He's got, you know, COVID to deal with. He's got a youth unemployment problem to deal with. He's got all kinds of domestic challenges. And I think he'd prefer to take Taiwan using economic and political coercion ultimately. But he has instructed his military: be ready by 2027. So we've got the next few years to really make sure that he cannot have confidence in his abilities to succeed militarily. So that means we have a lot of investment to do alongside investing in the drivers of our economic competitiveness, our technological competitiveness as well.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador Sullivan, how does Secretary Blinken approach this sort of trying to defrost this frozen relationship?

JOHN SULLIVAN: Well, one thing I'd say to add to what- what Michele said is- is my- my former colleague, mentor General Mattis, Secretary Mattis used to say the United States is strong, because we have allies, allies and partners. And we're not going to do this alone. We just saw at the end of the calendar year, this year, last year, the Japanese government announcing its new national security and defense strategy significantly increasing its defense budget. Our European allies and partners, becoming more forthright about the threat that they see, the challenges they see from- from China. In an odd way, Putin always talks about- makes references to World War II and the Great Patriotic War. What he's done in particular, and this has energized, been a catalyst for the reemergence of- of the Axis of Germany and Japan, becoming more engaged militarily spending more on their military- more (unintelligible) with us this time. So in an odd way, Putin and his- his- his counterpart, President Xi and their unlimited partnership, which in fact, we know, is limited, no nukes. They've reinvigorated or compelled our allies in Tokyo and Berlin to take these actions which they resisted for decades.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And I want to get to General McMaster because I know you've spent a lot of time on thinking about China. What does this buildup in the Pacific mean? And you know, Michele Flournoy was just saying she doesn't see military invasion as the most likely scenario for China to consume Taiwan. How do you see it?

H.R. MCMASTER: Well, I see- it's a very- it's a grave threat. I think Xi Jinping means what he says, right? I think we have to be careful not to mirror image not to fall into the same traps we did with Vladimir Putin of confirmation bias and optimism bias. Xi Jinping has made quite clear in his statements that he's going to make, from his perspective, China whole again by subsuming Taiwan, and the preparations are underway. So I think what is important is what- what Michele said deterrence, but good old-fashioned deterrence by denial. I mean, hard power matters. And I think we are under invested in defense in the United States. I think, as- as- as John mentioned, Japan has made a bold move, really to double their defense spending. We need more investments, because obviously, it's much more costly to have to respond to a crisis and a war than to prevent it. And- and I think the flashpoint is Taiwan, but it's really also the South China Sea. It's also maybe even the Himalayan Frontier. China has become increasingly aggressive, not only from an economic and financial perspective and a wolf warrior diplomacy perspective, but physically, with- with its military. And what's really disturbing, is I think Xi Jinping is preparing the Chinese people for war. In some of his speeches, he said, well, for us to restore China to national greatness, it's going to take some- some sacrifices. He's used the example of the Korean War, what they call the War of American Aggression, as an example of a preemptive war in which Mao Zedong delivered one blow to prevent 100 blows. So I think we have to take it very seriously and act to extend really our- our- our- our power. You know, Margaret, you know, we talk a lot about relying on our allies. And then maybe if we take a step back, the allies will do more. I think, actually, the opposite is the case. If Americans just do a little bit more, many of our allies will follow suit and bolster their defensive capabilities and capacity as well.

MARGARET BRENNAN: H.R., I got the- the hardest question I have for you. What was positive in 2022? (CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you have a good- good prediction? Positive development?

H.R. MCMASTER: Hey I think there was a lot of positive, Margaret. It was a lot positive. Hey, we live in democratic, free, and open societies. We have freedom of the press and freedom of expression and freedom of religion. And I think what we got in 2022 was a clear look at these authoritarian regimes. What- what Putin has done to destroy his country and to cause so much hardship and human suffering. We've seen the protests in China and the self-destructive policies of Xi Jinping with zero-COVID as he's raced to- to perfect his technologically enabled police state. We've seen Iran which we talked about- about here, and the courage of- of Iranians to challenge the theocratic dictatorship. So I'm optimistic, Margaret, because, you know what, these authoritarian regimes look really strong. I mean, I'm sure John Sullivan has seen some great May Day parades, you know, the Russian military looks great on parade. But it turns out, they can't fight worth a damn. But you know, and our democracies are ugly, you know, from the outside, everything's in the open. But actually, we're quite resilient. So I think we ought to take a step toward restoring our confidence in who we are as Americans, and confidence across the free world in our democratic processes and institutions.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mike Morell, positive development 2022?

MICHAEL MORELL: I think there's two that come to mind. One is the world did come together in the immediate aftermath of February 24th, and the invasion of Ukraine, and said no. And it was the United States. And it was the EU that led the way. And I think that's incredibly important development, gives life to American leadership in the world. We have to continue that. At the same time, I'd say the world is starting to come together to say no to China. If you think about the Quad, if you think about the U.S., Australia, and U.K. relationship, the world is starting to come together. Coalition's are starting to form to say no to China, I think that's a positive.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador Sullivan?

JOHN SULLIVAN: Well, as H.R. mentioned, I just come from Moscow having served there as ambassador and we have something called the Moscow Rules. Some of them are written down, our operating procedures. Others are more informal. One of the Moscow Rules is there is no good news, comrade. So it's all a mirage. But again, picking up on what H.R. said, the Russians would like us to be pessimistic, to be down. And in fact, what we've seen in Iran, for example, the women who've been leading these protests, the germ of this idea that the legitimacy of government depends on the consent of the governed, that there can't just be an autocracy or a theocracy, that is going to crush people's ambitions and their- their desire for freedom. I think that's a really positive story. And something that my- my friends back in Moscow wouldn't like us to focus on.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Final word, Michele Flournoy?

MICHELE FLOURNOY:  Yeah, no, I think the- the reinvigoration of our alliances and partnerships in response to Russia and China is very important. I also think, you know, glass half full, despite our intense political polarization, we managed to get a bill that invests huge amounts of money in our infrastructure, in building back semiconductor supply chain in the United States, you know, in various things that will really help U.S. competitiveness. I want to see more of that. But that gives me hope. And the last thing is young people. I work with a lot of young people. The eye-watering talent and diversity of young people who want to come into this field and serve their country is really inspirational. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: I like that. Thank you. And thanks to all of you. We'll be right back.