Kellogg's Global Politics

Ukraine's Very Bad Week, Venezuela Threatens War, the Dutch Trump, and 2024 Predictions

• Anita Kellogg

Share episode

There have been several big stories since we last recorded. We begin with Ukraine and the fight over continued aid and military support in the U.S. Congress. 

Then, tensions have been heating up between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea. What does this mean for the U.S.? Tensions are also rising in South America over a territorial dispute between Venezuela and Guyana. Will the U.S. need to intervene? 

Right-wing populists made another gain with the election of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. As former residents of the country, we offer our perspective. 

Finally, we made some foreign policy predictions for the year ahead. 


Topics Discussed in this Episode

  • 00:00 - Anti-Semitism or Anti-Zionism: Case Study at Montgomery County Public Schools
  • 14:00 - Ukraine’s Very Bad Week
  • 35:00 - China-Philippines Tensions in the South China Sea
  • 42:00 - Venezuela claims most of Guyana
  • 50:00 - The Rise of the Dutch Trump: Geert Wilders Wins Big
  • 1:03:00 - Anita and Ryan’s 2024 Predictions


Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode


Anti-Semitism or Anti-Zionism: Case Study at Montgomery County Public Schools


Ukraine’s Very Bad Week


China-Philippines Tensions in the South China Sea



Venezuela claims most of Guyana


The Rise of the Dutch Trump: Geert Wilders Wins Big

Send us a text

Follow Us

Anita Kellogg: [00:00:00] Welcome to Kellogg's Global Politics, a podcast on current events in U. S. foreign policy and international affairs. My name is Dr. Anita Kellogg, an international relations scholar specializing in the relationship between economics and national security. I'm here with my co host, Ryan Kellogg, an expert in energy investment and policy.

Ryan Kellogg: Thanks and glad to be back. Thanks This is episode 41, and we're recording this on December 17th, [00:00:30] 2023. 

Anita Kellogg: There have been several big stories since we last recorded. We begin with the Ukraine and the fight over continued aid and military support in the U. S. Congress. Then, tensions have been heating up between the Philippines and China and the South China Sea.

What does this mean for the United States? Tensions are also heating up in South America over a territorial dispute between Venezuela and Guyana. Will the U. S. need to intervene? Right wing populists have made another gain with the [00:01:00] election of Gert Wilders in the Netherlands. As frontal residents of the country, we offer our perspective.

Finally, we make some foreign policy predictions of the year ahead. Well, so we don't really talk about Israel in this episode, but some of its politics have become local to the community, particularly with several teachers who've been accused of anti Semitic comment. Yeah. So 

Ryan Kellogg: we just wanted to, even though normally we start with a wider topic than 

Anita Kellogg: this, but your idea, I was going to talk about the [00:01:30] holidays.

Ryan Kellogg: I know, but I felt like since we aren't going to discuss the Israeli Hamas war, and obviously that's what, what dominates. Most mainstream coverage of U. S. foreign policy lately that this is coming up locally. I mean, I think everybody has very strong opinions on it, and it's touched the average U. S.

citizen's life in some way where they have strong opinions about it, or it's [00:02:00] become very political in nature. So one of these things that's out is our daughter attends school in Montgomery County in Maryland, and there have been three teachers that have been suspended since the October 7th attack by Hamas.

And I think what's I kind of wanted to discuss was kind of that line between anti Semitism, which I think has a clear [00:02:30] definition around attacking the Jewish people and people of the Jewish faith versus anti Zionism, which I think is more complicated definition because I think it's beyond like the criticism of the current Israeli government.

but rather can go as far as criticism of the entire Israel project from 1948 onwards. So I think [00:03:00] it's, it's interesting looking at two different cases with these teachers. So the, the, the first one was around the comments of, and then this one, I think, rose to the closest of being possibly anti Semitic because it touched on kind of denying The Hamas attack.

So basically this one teacher posted that Hamas did not start this on Facebook. They were just the perfect [00:03:30] vehicle for Zionists to continue its apartheid. And I think the way that this was read was that this is almost a conspiracy theory by Zionists in order to subjugate and remove the Gazan people.

So this is all just a faked attack. 

Anita Kellogg: I mean, I think this is anti Semitic. I think it goes close to denying the Holocaust. The mass attack is well evidenced. It is horrific, absolutely [00:04:00] horrific. And I'm definitely on the anti Semitic side of this. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, and I, I think I support that one, that one too, and that one I think was the most clear cut out of the different postings from different teachers.

So now if we pivot towards the teacher that was actually at our daughter's school, she posted a series of three different posts. So the first was a post shared on Instagram, and it [00:04:30] depicted a bomb covered in the Israeli flag and pointed at a child surrounded by bomb buildings. This one to me does arise to even like anti Zionism.

I mean it's clearly a political statement. But I, I don't see any personal issue with this first one. Yeah. The second post is, I do have an issue with for, for different reasons. So she was discussing this around having an art class [00:05:00] outside in the courtyard. And then sent a text over a video that read, okay, art class outside, I have a very heavy heart, praying for justice so that there might be peace, and a small graphic of a fist with the Palestinian flag overlaid, and then in the video, She says, made it to class on Friday.

I'm grateful for that because there are a lot of people in the world who didn't. It's been a hell of a week. But then the video briefly pans to show her students working [00:05:30] on their sketch assignments. And nothing within the message of the video. If it was outside of the school, I don't think that rises to anything.

Kind of normal political speech is fine. But the fact that she used the students as props in political speech, I had a real issue with. Yeah, of course, 

Anita Kellogg: of course, there's no consent there and teachers should not be able to film their students without consent and put it on social media. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, so I think that's, that's the number one reason [00:06:00] for potentially, but it wasn't raised as an issue.

It wasn't the fact that she used students as a political prop, but rather that this was, was anti Semitic, which I don't agree with these first two. Now, this third one is probably the most controversial. This one was, again, a post on Instagram and has a black and red eyes centered and then the text, The world is watching.

Palestine will be free. And then follows, [00:06:30] colonized peoples across the world stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people against Israel's settler colonial state sanctioned apartheid program of genocide backed by U. S. imperialism. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Decolonization is not a metaphor.

So what do you make of that? 

Anita Kellogg: This is such a difficult topic. I certainly. see the perspective of anti Semitism in this, essentially [00:07:00] calling, almost calling for the end of the Israeli state. I mean, it's kind of understandable that Palestinians would feel this way about the creation of an Israeli state, but I do think that this is Anti Semitism in some form, yeah.

I'm leaning on that. 

Ryan Kellogg: And I think this is where it becomes difficult. I would say also, I think this is anti Semitism because [00:07:30] clearly it calls for the end of the Israeli state, which that phrase, which has drawn a lot of attention and media coverage from the river to the sea. Palestine will be free implies.

Yeah, the destruction of of the Israeli state and that alone could just be a Zionist or a a political statement, but given the history of the Jewish people, given why the Israeli state was founded, [00:08:00] it kind of rises to that level where you get that the people in that nation in particular is associated with the people that it rises to anti Semitism.

I get how that That also becomes, and it may be controversial. Yeah. And the take of it. So, so yeah, so it's just, it's kind of this, and there's a lot of discussion around that border. Obviously we saw the, before Congress, the three presidents [00:08:30] of, uh, Yale, Harvard, and Penn about anti Semitic remarks being made by students on campus there.

They were, I think, rightfully criticized for giving pretty ambiguous sort of academic responses. I mean, it was very kind of intellectual, which didn't, does not work in a public setting in front of Congress. And they got taken to task and the, the Penn president already lost her job over it. So I was kind of curious, coming from academics perspective, [00:09:00] what your, your thoughts were on that.

Anita Kellogg: I think it's It's complicated, but I think there are clear instances of anti Semitism that's hate speech and should clearly not be allowed on campus. Though there are a lot of borderline comments, kind of like we've talked about, and where does that fall under free speech? I mean, from my perspective, you should say, then say, well, the great replacement theory should not be allowed to be spoken on [00:09:30] campuses because that's anti Semitic.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, that's where I'm totally on board. I think they have no problem going after people that are clearly Nazis, especially if they're white, they should apply that same lens towards anybody that's ethnically different, but expressing essentially the same anti Semitic views. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. So I think, but I don't know that schools say that you can't.

talk about the great replacement theory. 

Ryan Kellogg: [00:10:00] Yeah. No, I don't, I don't think they do. And clearly we saw a presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy in the last debate, make that just part of mainstream. And apparently it's part of the standard democratic platform, great replacement theory. Right. 

Anita Kellogg: So, I mean, I think there is a complexity there that should be realized, but at the same time, there is definitely a certain speech that just simply qualifies as hate speech.

Ryan Kellogg: Yep. So, right or 

Anita Kellogg: wrong. I do hate the politics [00:10:30] of it 

Ryan Kellogg: though. Yeah, right or wrong on the pen president being forced out and the pressure kind of on Harvard. 

Anita Kellogg: Wrong. Wrong. The university, I think they should have taken a more clear stance and saying anti Semitism is hate speech and that's not allowed. I mean, I wish they just made clear statements like that.

Yeah. I'm not sure in trying to address the complexity of Free speech, which I [00:11:00] think they did not do and in a great manner should be cause for them to be removed from their positions. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, and it was interesting seeing how that developed because it was mostly the larger financial backers of those universities that put the pressure on it.

So now there's a discussion and maybe you can weigh on this also as an academic is there's a push to not have academics. Heading up universities anymore, but have somebody that has more of a business mindset since essentially, especially with [00:11:30] these universities, they're just private wealth managers who have 50 billion in assets that they manage.

It's more business than an academic institution anymore. That's the 

Anita Kellogg: problem. I think that's a terrible idea. 

Ryan Kellogg: But that's the, that's the, that's the truth of it. And that's really what led to Penn, especially being so tied closely to Wall Street. It's ruled by, by capitalists. It's not this bastion of free inquiry anymore by academics, [00:12:00] but the interesting thing I think with Harvard is you did have the professoriate rally around the president.

So you've had like 700 professors kind of come out and support maybe because they saw what happened at 

Anita Kellogg: Penn. Right. And I mean, free speech is important. Like I said, hate speech should never be allowed, but there's all these unclear lines that it is important to preserve. And I think the last thing universities need is to be run by business people because it's [00:12:30] already essentially run by business people.

I mean, It should 

Ryan Kellogg: just be four months. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Too much. If we think about what we want out of education, and then we think about what we get from the business like orientation, I think there's a big discrepancy. And I think the last thing we want is to make it even more of a business. I mean, then it kind of becomes just almost like buying degrees.

Ryan Kellogg: It's not that way already. We'll see.[00:13:00] 

As undergrads, you're customers. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: And more and more, they're treated like customers instead of trying to actually teach them something and uphold academic standards. That's why there's such huge grade inflation, which of course is huge at Harvard, known for being huge at Harvard. But across the board, when student complaints are treated like customer complaints.

and err on the side of students, which is an experience that [00:13:30] I've had. Then, yeah, then what is, you can't teach, really. You can't at least uphold them having to do well on tests or study or things like that. So you can't actually uphold that they're learning something. They're just there for four years and they get this degree that gives them access to the right people and the right jobs.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Now, for the record, I, I, I agree with you. I think it's at [00:14:00] least the symbolically academic should be in charge, even if the reality is, is different. 

Anita Kellogg: Wow. That was really heavy banter. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. It was. I'm not sure we can use the word banter. This is just jumping right into the deep end. 

Anita Kellogg: Okay. Well, let's go to something that has been kind of discouraging to me and I think as well to you.

And this is the fact that Congress is still not approved of any additional [00:14:30] funding to aid Ukraine in its war against 

Ryan Kellogg: Russia. Yep. So we saw this week, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky came to D. C. basically in a last ditch effort to try to put, put some sort of pressure on Congress to pass additional aid of 60 billion for the war effort against Russia.

And in fact, he gave a speech at the National Defense University. Yeah, he did, 

Anita Kellogg: which was kind of cool. It would have been cooler if I [00:15:00] was able to attend, but there's only so much room in the auditorium, and most faculty was not allowed in there, but all the students were there. So yeah, it was neat. I mean, I just saw the live stream, but it was really cool.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, and I think that probably if I had to guess was the highlight of his visit, it was at the very beginning and then the rest, the rest, frankly, was fairly depressing. So basically where we stand right now is the U. S. over since the start of the war has [00:15:30] provided about 71 billion in aid to Ukraine, and it's basically fully drained.

At this point, the D. O. D. reported that about 97 percent of those funds had been spent as of mid November. The State Department, all of its allocated funds have been spent, and it seems like with the House having recently gone on. Break for the remaining of the Christmas vacation that Congress will not be taking [00:16:00] action this year.

And this is really being driven by the fact that Republicans have held that aid hostage in order to get stronger border security and immigration restrictions. And essentially what this means, according to the New Yorker, is that Republicans want to see some version of a previously passed House bill called the Secure the Border Act.

Which essentially would substantially curtail the current asylum system, fund construction of more [00:16:30] of the border wall with Mexico, and then effectively push those asylum seekers and keep them in Mexico. And it seems like unlike previous negotiations around immigration reform, there's really no talk. Of any sort of legal pathway, which since the Trump era has really become toxic for Republicans in terms of being seen weak on on immigration.

So this is really being framed as kind of a zero sum deal. So that being [00:17:00] said, There was a Politico article late last week that reported some progress currently in the Senate, which is still in session for the remainder of this week, but it's really not clear. Listening on the Republican side, it didn't sound like they were, they felt they were very close.

And then it's also not clear whether the House would actually take up a bill, even if it did pass the Senate. So pretty discouraging at this stage. 

Anita Kellogg: It's terrible. I mean, it's allowing Russia to win. It's [00:17:30] saying, one, we're saying to Ukraine, we'll support you however long this takes, which is a logical position, because you don't want Russia to win.

Right. And now we're saying, I mean, if that aid doesn't get to Ukraine, like, How are they supposed to fight the war against Russia? It's a complete, almost complete capitulation to Russia. I'm just horrified by it, that this, this may come to pass, that we may not get a funding bill [00:18:00] and what that means for foreign policy.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I would be. I mean, it would be catastrophic. We'll talk a little bit later about that. I'm I'm still hopeful just because the fact that even among Republicans that support for future aid is still over 50%. And I think polling shows that there's general still popularity for for supporting. Ukraine.

But 

Anita Kellogg: big but is there's a lot of issues that the majority of [00:18:30] Republicans support but don't get represented because essentially a minority of Republicans have hijacked the party and are able to keep things from coming to the floor or from getting threatening the speakership. So just because the majority support it.

a slim majority does not mean that the Republican Party will fill the need to represent that majority. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it would. Yeah, I just, I mean, it's kind of a [00:19:00] combination of like the U. S. does the right thing after every other option is exhausted, but it would be one of the biggest cell phones. And the history of U.

S. Foreign policy. If we if we really capitulated and didn't find any additional around the war, that means that we can't answer that now. We could just be hopeful that in the early months. of the next year that they will eventually get their act together and pass something. That being said, Zelensky had a [00:19:30] very bad week in the EU as well because the EU was looking to put together a, it's appropriations for 55 billion in aid that was blocked because again, it requires a unanimous vote.

And the 27 member EU was blocked by course, Victor Orban and Hungary. So this puts Ukraine in a very weak position. Putin. Of course, has taken advantage of that. He held his first press conference within Russia, press [00:20:00] kind of in quotations, but there were questions from the public that were fielded. This is the first press conference since December, 2021 for Putin, but it was almost like a, yeah, it was definitely, he feels like he's in a position of strength.

He noted that there shouldn't be a need for a second mobilization of troops, that they're already, because of the previous partial mobilizations, there's 600, 000 Russian troops currently within [00:20:30] Ukraine. And I think what was interesting, I mean, obviously, mostly propaganda, but it was the fact that Russia, Things that can still win the whole thing that it can meet all of the objectives, especially now, especially after this week, he reaffirmed the claims that much of today's Ukraine, including the Black Sea port of Odessa and the coast to areas historically belong to Russia.

This is something again. He had stated kind of in his long rambling speech. right before the [00:21:00] invasion. And he declared that the goals of his war have not changed since the start and that there would only be peace once those goals were achieved, being the denazification of Ukraine, it's a demilitarization and it's neutral status, which is essentially complete capitulation of Kiev.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, this is the game Putin has been playing all along. How long will the West support Ukraine? There is so much patting ourselves on the back in the way that the West [00:21:30] united instead of kind of falling apart when it came to supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia. But Putin has, like Russia always has, has the numbers, has been able to keep the economy going.

And all they've had to do this whole time is to outlast the West. And it looks like it's, uh, it's succeeding. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. So it seems like he's, he's made this strategic choice. And certainly as we talked about last [00:22:00] time, really betting on the outcomes of the U. S. 2024. Political election, presidential election to give him the maximum strength and if he chooses, I mean, if we end up capitulating, he could get the whole thing, which would be highly desirable, but at the best if he's forced into a negotiated solution to have maximum gains under a Trump administration.

Anita Kellogg: I don't get it. I don't get at all how [00:22:30] Republicans can say that they want a strong America, they want a strong United States, that the Democrats have weakened the U. S. in international affairs, and then at the same hand decide we're not going to support Ukraine anymore, we have other priorities, and so essentially we're going to empower Russia.

Who is challenging the very international world order that we helped set up, and we say we want to preserve against China. So we just let another [00:23:00] powerful country violate those terms and win, and then think that you're making America stronger. I don't get it. It makes me mad. As if you can't 

Ryan Kellogg: tell. Yeah. No, I like the passion.

I like it. I like it. No. And so I think the refrain that we've been seeing and then kind of the analysis has now really turned to a what. What are the implications of a Russian victory? What would this mean for the U. S., for NATO, for Europe, for China, [00:23:30] for other powers that are looking to kind of rewrite the current world order?

So two of them came out, which we'll link to. So first was the Institute for the Study of War, which has been great kind of in its coverage of this war and on kind of latest maps. And then Vox. Vox's piece, what happens in Ukraine if USA disappears, I think in the Institute, the study of war really laid out the fact that tremendous cost that both the U.

S. and Europe would incur if [00:24:00] you had Russian forces who are now battle tested, battle hardened. You push up very sophisticated anti air defense batteries up to the border of Poland, of Eastern Europe, of the Baltic Republics. And that would essentially mean having to position at Cold War levels. U. S.

Troops and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States in order to serve as effective [00:24:30] deterrence. Because again, we should take Putin at his word. He wants to restore the Russian empire. That means taking first Georgia and Moldova and then taking the Baltic republics. And I think these threats have to be taken seriously in order to deter them.

You're going to have to spend billions and billions and billions more housing these troops, which of course pulls them away from the Asia Pacific. 

Anita Kellogg: Right. We say we want this pivot to China, and we say that we, and I say we, Republicans [00:25:00] are extraordinarily vocal about this, about the Chinese threat and the U.

S. ability to counter that threat, and this action seriously hinders our ability to do so. Like you said, it pulls our attention, our troops, our resources to this area of the world and does not allow us to focus on China and East Asia. There's only so much we can do at one time. And we, if we have all these troops that [00:25:30] we have to keep in Europe, then those are troops that we can't put in East Asia.

to try to prevent a Taiwanese invasion or even have the resources to help prevent or respond to a Taiwanese invasion by China. So again, this. Of the most idiotic things we could do that directly threatens our own national security. This isn't just about Ukraine, some country that we may or may not care about because we're the [00:26:00] US and we don't always care about smaller countries.

We should care about Russia, even if we don't care about Ukraine and about the resources we have to put into countering a real Russian threat if they Mm-Hmm. . make this substantial progress in Ukraine, let alone fully capture Ukraine. I mean, it's almost unthinkable, but the fact is you look at what will happen if we don't find a way to get this funding.

And part of me is a little bit like you [00:26:30] that will eventually do it, hopefully in some. 

Ryan Kellogg: Just, just because it seems like such a no brainer from so many angles. But it would 

Anita Kellogg: be, it's terrible, horrific if we don't find that funding and somewhere they must Some somewhere they must recognize that 

Ryan Kellogg: that's the hope that that is, is recognized.

So in terms of the timeframe, I mean, I think Vox kind of laid it out from quotes from various ex military working in, in DC think tanks, [00:27:00] how quickly will they feel this effect on the battlefield? Now, obviously they're already. restrained. They're already having to really limit the amount of artillery that's being used.

But the quotes they're saying is like, in maybe two months, Cranians will begin to have a hard time doing counterattacks. Then by the summer, they'll be really hard pressed just to defend themselves against Russian attacks. And that's where you will potentially see loss of territory. Now, in terms of what they'll pursue then is.

[00:27:30] What a lot of analysts expect at the beginning of the war, where they thought Ukraine military had no chance of being able to defend its territories, where they'll pull back into urban centers and do more asymmetric strategies, pulling them into urban centers and then fighting them in urban combat, which of course is, is hell for the civilian population.

We shouldn't 

Anita Kellogg: even be talking about that. I mean, we really should not have to be talking about that when we've made all this progress over these [00:28:00] years. Yeah, 

Ryan Kellogg: I know. It's, it's insane. And we're going to get into the ROI on the U. S. 's personal investment. We do talk about that Russia has responded remarkably well.

Nevertheless, U. S. intelligence has estimated that Of the original forces that started the conflict with Ukraine, Russia has suffered 90 percent casualties. So that original 300, 000, 90, 000, or 90 percent of them are out of commission, [00:28:30] effectively. Ukraine's been enormously effective in bleeding the Russian war machine.

That being said, they have responded. They have started their industrial base, but I think that then pivots to what about our industrial base and what benefits has it seen? Obviously it's been too slow, but when we talk about spending approved for that 71 billion, about 44 billion of that is direct military assistance and a vast majority of that.

goes back [00:29:00] into U. S. industries. And I think this was a good pivot that the Biden administration made in terms of pitching this, particularly to Republican congressmen. And the fact is, this money has benefited overwhelmingly states in red districts in Arizona. in Arkansas and in Pennsylvania. So it's really just a jobs program also that circulates back into the U.

S. Plus it, it builds up [00:29:30] the industrial base for, for potential conflict with China. 

Anita Kellogg: Right. One of the biggest concerns with a potential conflict with China is how quickly war games show that we run out of munitions within days. And we know like how long it takes to replace that, which can take years. And so one of the concerns is the ability of the industrial base to surge for us to increase stockpiles.

And the ability to replace the weapons that are [00:30:00] being used in any eventual potential potential conflict. And the problem is, is larger than just what we manufacture in weapons, but just losing so many manufacturing jobs altogether and just not having that technical know how. So I was a little bit surprised about how much of this money is going to Arkansas of all places.

Everyone should know Arkansas is my home state. And it. There's several good articles you pointed out to me about Camden, Arkansas, where they make the HMR [00:30:30] system, which of course has been so crucial to the war in Ukraine. These are really good jobs. Camden, Arkansas is this very small town that had It lost a lot of its population and the storefronts had been boarded up and now there's more jobs than they can fill.

And people are moving into the community and they're starting to see a little bit of revival in the downtown area. These are the kind of jobs we say we want in America. I feel [00:31:00] a little bit weird saying, Oh, we should be continuing in a war because it's providing good jobs to Americans. I don't feel 100 percent comfortable, but the fact is we do need this sort of production desperately to face the kind of problems that the U.

S. has internationally. I mean, We have several conflicts that are going on, which we'll talk a little bit more about, and the U. S. needs to have the ability to respond on multiple fronts. And to do that, you do [00:31:30] need to have this industrial base, which could also go back into like the nineties and at the end of the Cold War and how so much of this was shuttered and how much consolidation happened and, and how much was lost in the industry.

And so much of this is coming back. because of Ukraine, the need to support Ukraine, the need to replace those stockpiles. So it's not like the war in Ukraine ends and these jobs go away, but that we need to replace stockpiles and there's [00:32:00] more recognition of what stockpiles we may need, what production lines we may need to keep open in the case of an eventual conflict with China.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, no, absolutely. And I mean, and let's be clear that yeah, he talked about kind of the continuation of the war, but I think we saw clearly that yeah, Russia's in no position. They don't want to lock in the lines where they are now. They still think and have absolutist goals for the complete defeat of Ukraine.

So [00:32:30] this is about protecting sovereign democratic nation at the border of Europe from Ukraine. invasion from Russia. And at minimum, we need to give them the arms to, to, to hold the current lines. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. And like I said, we don't need these weapons just for now, just for Ukraine. We need them for the kind of future responses that the U.

S. might have in various conflicts around the world. But particularly in our concern about a conflict [00:33:00] with China. And one way to deter is to make sure that you have the capacity to be able to fight a war. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, there may not be as much overlap. For instance, there's probably not gonna be huge artillery need in a war with China.

But definitely like the air defense has been a huge component of what aid we provide to Ukraine is it and it's helped save countless lives and protect their infrastructure that absolutely is going to be super relevant for any sort of, uh, Taiwan [00:33:30] China 

Anita Kellogg: war. Well, and think about, I mean, it's not a simple process, but even if you have production lines making munitions that are not the same ones you would need in a conflict with China, you have production lines that can be converted to the type of weapons that you need.

So this is also that we talk a lot about in the industrial mobilization class that I teach. And it's really critical if you think about what might happen and what the U. S. needs to at least be [00:34:00] prepared for. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, just him and that, that training. The extra capacity, the skilled workforce, I mean, yeah, just getting, especially in an area like Camden, Arkansas, having great jobs to have like a skilled, trained workforce there.

Yeah, 

Anita Kellogg: and the local college is trying to get more to providing those skills. Yeah. It's been difficult for them to find qualified people and there's, I mean, the good thing is a lot of people are moving [00:34:30] in, but it also reflects in the U. S. this need to be able to provide technical education that isn't necessarily college level.

Like an 

Ryan Kellogg: associate 

Anita Kellogg: degree with trade school. But it's much, much higher than a high school level. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. And so all these issues are interesting kind of represented when you look into Camden, Arkansas. But it's certainly, I think, should not just be thought of like, oh, we give free money around the world because most of that money ends up funding our enterprises, our [00:35:00] businesses, our industry.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So speaking of China, and we typically talk about it in the terms of a possible Taiwanese invasion, but there are other definitely important tensions that happen between China and U. S. allies. And one of these that has been heating up over the past year is between China and the Philippines over a part of the Spratly Islands that Philippines has claimed to.

Um, these waters [00:35:30] are home to very rich fishing grounds and potentially some gas and oil deposits. So just the background quickly on Spratly Islands, it's a disputed archipelago in the South China Sea. It's composed of islands, inlets, cays, and more than a hundred reefs, sometimes grouped in submerged old atolls.

It lies off the coast of the Philippines, Malaysia, and southern Vietnam. In the particular part of this dispute, there was a 2016 [00:36:00] arbitration, which overwhelmingly found in the Philippines favor for this territory against China, but China has refused to acknowledge this, this ruling. So some of the incidents that have occurring, in February, China flashed a military grade laser to a crew, which is blinding and is normally concerning because Militaries might do this before launching an attack.

One of the biggest problems, which has been seen in March and December, [00:36:30] is swarming. Swarming is the deployment of a flotilla of vessels to intimidate or overwhelm a target, which has been a signature move used by China to assert its presence. So basically, China sends a combination of the Coast Guard, Navy, and militia, vessels, which just to quickly say about those, they're fishing vessels technically, but they are armed more like military vessels just around a site and block and cut off target ships.

So [00:37:00] basically it is preventing the fishing vessels from the Philippines from accessing its own territorial waters. These fishing vessels, which are armed, like militia vessels, are nominally civilians that work with the state, but there's this very clear blend of civilian and military in these cases. And so this has happened in significant cases in both March and December.

China's also deployed water canyons against the Philippines, [00:37:30] Philippine vessels, which is fairly uncommon. And so they did so in August and they've done so quite recently. In the past week, the Philippines sent two missions in the disputed area, a humanitarian mission, a distribute goods to fishermen, and a resupply mission to an outpost on the second.

China used a water cannon eight times on the fishing vessels in the first mission and then four times on the resupply mission. So things are in danger of escalating [00:38:00] between the two countries. There is a real fear that this might spill over into some sort of violent conflict. And if that happened, the U.

S. then is obligated to respond with its military agreement with the Philippines. And a larger issue is also just generally China's control over the South China Sea, which has important shipping routes. So it challenges open shipping in international 

Ryan Kellogg: waters. Yeah. So this is the, the New [00:38:30] York times had really great coverage on this 

Anita Kellogg: issue.

That says the Washington Post, cause I got a lot of those incidents 

Ryan Kellogg: from them. Yeah. There's, there's a great one. It's really this use of one China that has a very beefed up coast guard. And obviously they are trying to enforce the dotted red line, which extends out to these to the Spratly Highlands and, and kind of all the.

Territorial waters of Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam, but yeah, so the New York Times [00:39:00] great article just showing kind of the ship movement, Chinese ship movement, both of their Coast Guard, but also of their quasi civilian fleet of fishing boats that also kind of form these blockades and kind of help support the Coast Guard.

And a quasi military sort of action as well, yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: I mean, they have military equipment on board these fishing vessels that a normal fishing 

Ryan Kellogg: vessel would not have. Yeah, yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: It's just another really big flashpoint [00:39:30] between China and East Asia and the U. S. ally. And I think as with most of these cases, it won't come to violence.

I mean, these are important potential violence, but it's clashes with Japan over the Senkaku Islands, Senkaku Daiyu Islands, and other parts of the world where there's increasing China's assertive behavior is concerning and increasing, but also designed very carefully not to tip [00:40:00] over into any type of direct violent military conflict.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. So what's the, I mean, what's the best response that essentially kind of like the Philippines or the US with its freedom of navigation, where essentially they'll send vessels through and yeah, you'll get harassed that China won't go up to that point where you just assert that these are international waters and you deal with this harassment.

Is that, is that how you, the best way to keep from being seen of backing down and kind of accepting [00:40:30] China's. Defacto control. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, which is definitely what the U. S. does. Yeah, and you accept their harassment. I think it is concerning because China has the ability to block the Philippines fishing vessels from those areas which they have claimed to and should be able to fish.

Right. It'll be really interesting to see when the Philippines begins to explore for oil and gas off its waters. If China will, uh, Use the same tactics and prevent that from 

Ryan Kellogg: [00:41:00] happening. Yeah, and I think that one's complicated. 'cause there, actually in the last couple of days, there's, it just shows you how complicated these relationships are.

But there have been talks between Philippines and China for joint expiration. Mm-Hmm. , because these are capital intensive projects, uh, to get investment. Yep. You look to , whoever, even if that's the same country that is harassing your other industries. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. I mean, and that's a fact. We have to keep in mind with China too, like yeah, whenever we say all these [00:41:30] countries will side with the US, if it was US versus China, and why countries do not wanna have to choose between the two.

Because even when they have these conflicts that are quite. Damaging to a certain extent, they are not willing to cut off like their trade with China and other potential investment opportunities. So, right. Yeah. Yeah. So there's not a lot more there, but it is an issue that's been in the news a lot the past couple of weeks and thought it was definitely worth, worth talking [00:42:00] about and the greater awareness of Chinese tensions that go beyond Taiwan and include all these other disputes.

So another kind of fascinating conflict, we normally think of South America as the place the U. S. doesn't need to pay attention to in the same way with military conflicts, but quite recently, Venezuela has taken claim or been more assertive in its claim over the neighboring country of Guyana, which it [00:42:30] claims three fourths of the country.

Now this claim is a very old claim and maps in Venezuela have always shown that as being part of Venezuela. There was a referendum on taking this claim of 61, 000 square miles in which 95 percent supported it and is one of the reasons why people think Maduro is taking this action is because of the upcoming presidential elections and the need for But of course, the [00:43:00] more Pertinent issue right now is the fact that very recently Yana has discovered huge oil deposits and making them one of the fastest growing economies, going from one of the very poorest countries in the region to one of the fastest growing.

Total reserves are now estimated to be 11 billion barrels. It would make The country, the fourth largest offshore producer in the world. Oil now makes up 62 percent of GDP, [00:43:30] up from 2 percent in 2019. Of course, this comes with the danger of the resource curse and kind of a lot of complexity, how that will affect Yana's economy.

But that's not really the issue. The issue is Venezuela trying to become more assertive in making this claim. Also kind of as a bit of background to understand the claim itself is that Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana were all part of this Spanish colony [00:44:00] altogether. And they, when they split up, there's long disputed borders between Venezuela and Colombia, Venezuela and Guyana.

And I do think Brazil is, is part of this dispute to some extent as well. So basically the British In 1835 claimed Giana as part of British Giana and set the borders there. And then in 1899, the US was on the side of Venezuela, challenged those borders. But [00:44:30] ultimately there was a referendum, an international commission by two Americans, two British and one Russian.

And the Russian essentially broke the tie. And both countries back down. As a complete aside to this, one of the interesting things I found when I was studying rivals, as a potential topic for my dissertation, is this is really the first incident where the United States and Britain almost have a conflict, clash, conflict, but then back down.

And this is actually the [00:45:00] start of the ending of their rivalry to where they're going to become alliance partners. And just a few years later, in World War I. So it's just a really notable kind of transition between the UK and the U. S. as an aside. But going back to Venezuela, I mean, so what is Venezuela really going to do?

That's the big question. Will it

Ryan Kellogg: I mean, I think it's [00:45:30] interesting, mostly for the historic, I mean, I had no idea that it dated back to the colonial period. I think it is interesting, like you said, the, the involvement and the conflict between the U. S. and the U. K. Interestingly, I mean, this is one of the most clear assertions of the Monroe Doctrine.

And it was really the fact that the British rejected kind of the legitimacy of the Monroe Doctrine and the Cleveland administration kind of threw a fit around it along with like the yellow [00:46:00] journalism back then because this is right. Before the Spanish American War, when kind of yellow journalism was at its peak, there was a lot of rah rah around the flag and ready to go to war against the UK, essentially to defend the borders of Venezuela.

So it's, it's always kind of interesting from that perspective. I think, and there was an interesting quote from a Venezuelan political commentator, Francisco Toro, and it was basically like, If we start disputing [00:46:30] like every 19th century colonial border, then there's going to be a lot of issues around the world because these are all arbitrary to a certain extent.

So I think it would be, you said, a enormously bad precedent if there were any sort of revisions. around this one way or the other. So it's, it's interesting. So it did create an immediate response and stir. You mentioned the Brazilian troops on the border, but then a lot of the [00:47:00] Caribbean nations essentially got involved as well.

They threw together a, a conference. So both presidents of Guyana and Venezuela actually met on the Island of St. Vincent on December 14th. And essentially they've agreed to a three month study, which I can't imagine which each side is going to come to the conclusion, the same conclusion they've come up with the last hundred, 20 years, and then meet again in Brazil.

So it'd be kind of interesting. I mean, I agree. I think this is just a [00:47:30] political stunt. I don't know when the election is for Maduro, but I think he'll keep it an issue until right after the election. And then. And then it'll probably be dropped. 

Anita Kellogg: And he did this a few years back to surrounding waters of Ghana.

I don't think maybe he was quite as assertive, but this was around the time that they were just discovering oil in the 

Ryan Kellogg: area. That's definitely a big driver of it. And of course it's a joke because Venezuela has plenty of oil resources that it's not [00:48:00] exploiting and because they drove out, like you mentioned in your research numerous times, they drove out all of the technical professionals.

And the foreign capital needed to make full use of Venezuela's existing resources. So it's kind of a joke thinking they can drive Exxon out, which is also one of their stipulations. I mean, Exxon's the one that took the risk and the investment in this discovery and Venezuela says they'll drive them out.

And three months and take over territory to do what I mean, they haven't done anything [00:48:30] with their own resources, 

Anita Kellogg: right? One of the interesting things about that is chevron still operates within The country of venezuela and they do talk about partnering with chevron to develop these oil 

Ryan Kellogg: resources. Oh, that's it I forgot because I think that was part of the because it's fairly recent that chevron re entered in because they're Their industry is in such a bad state.

So it would be a coup. It's the inter American oil company. Okay. Okay, now that makes sense because I was thinking, oh, yeah, the state [00:49:00] owned company, but yeah, Chevron comes in, it takes over. That would be, yeah, that'll never happen, but it's kind of amusing 

Anita Kellogg: to think about. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. And the reason why Brazil is involved, I thought was interesting because Ghana is so rural that the only way into the country is through Brazil.

Through roads in Brazil because Venezuela would 

Ryan Kellogg: have to go. That would be the only route. Yes. Because there's no direct route. Okay. Because I guess it's very mountainous on. 

Anita Kellogg: The actual border. The actual border. The land border between [00:49:30] Venezuela and Guyana. Yeah. There's no crossings at least. There's no roads that cross directly.

Gotcha. Okay. So yeah, so that's definitely something taking place that is just another place where the U. S. has to be able to deal with multiple conflicts around the world. And. Again, something that is important to our military readiness and even industrial base. Not that I think that there would be an actual war, but [00:50:00] just another area that the U.

S. gets drawn into. So there were the Dutch elections recently, and I know you wanted to talk about that. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. So the Netherlands held its parliamentary elections on November 22nd and the world was pretty shocked by the victory of the far right Freedom Party, which is led by Dutch politician Gert Wilders.

And his party won 37 out [00:50:30] of the 150 seats in the lower house of the, of the parliament, which is more than any other group. It's notable because the extremeness of the Freedom Party platform under, under Gert Wilders. So just to give you an idea, and Wilders has been a public figure since we lived in the Netherlands and the early 2000s, and really came to the forefront because of [00:51:00] his anti Islamic stance and anti immigrant stance.

He's been quoted as saying that Islam is an ideology of a retarded culture and that Moroccans are scum. And he really grew strength following an incident in 2004. So the Freedom Party itself was started in 2004 and he left. the center right party, the Veve De, or the VVD, due to its weak [00:51:30] immigration policy and stance on Islam.

But a lot of the radicalization that we even began to witness in the Netherlands really stemmed from a single incident, and it was the murder of Theo van Gogh. In Amsterdam, and this occurred and broad daylight. So it was in his morning commute. He was a filmmaker and essentially was shot and stabbed by a Dutch citizen of Moroccan descent.

Now Van Gogh was [00:52:00] a controversial figure. Like I mentioned, he was a filmmaker and a public intellectual and months before his film was shown on national television. that depicted quotes from the Quran on a naked female body that came along with commentary because essentially it was about the abuse that occurs within Islamic societies.

So it was this murder in broad daylight that really shocked the Dutch public. I know from what we saw while we were there, there [00:52:30] were numerous throughout the country that were attacked shortly after the event. We had, over time, immigrant owned stores, for instance, we, in our town of Groningen that we lived in, which is in the Northern part of the Netherlands, it's a university town, actually drove out.

where we would buy our kind of American products and things. There's an international store, yeah. An international store. And essentially it was replaced by a very, which you do not see in [00:53:00] this part of the Netherlands, but a very obviously Dutch store with a Dutch flag selling Dutch food. Yeah. It looked like a tourist thing more than, than anything.

But it was, yeah, this very visceral reaction. Now, keep in mind, this This is the period of, uh, right after September 11th. So, there is that general kind of fear of, of radical Islam. You had the Iraq War going on, which, again, was opposed by most Europeans. But there was this undercurrent [00:53:30] of anti Islam going on, and this murder really set things off.

So, that's really kind of the origin story, in my mind, of kind of Gert Wilders, and then of his party. 

Anita Kellogg: I remember there was some consternation among the international community because he was the mayor of Rotterdam, I believe at the time. And yeah, I think you're right. Yeah. He wanted to make everyone speak Dutch.

Like you couldn't speak any other language on the street. And so [00:54:00] there's so many English speaking people in that area of the Netherlands because of all the international organizations and such, and it wasn't targeted at English, but it certainly was something that there was a lot of consternation about.

Yeah, I mean, because obviously English would have been included in that. I don't know how that would have been enforced, but it was certainly sort of one of the ways he expressed his views 

Ryan Kellogg: at the time. Yeah, and I think his views became even more radical [00:54:30] over time, especially since the, period in 2015, we had a huge number of Syrian migrants enter Europe.

And then obviously the, the rise of, of Trump and kind of change attitudes within US and kind of giving permission to far right radicals and voicing these views. But the Freedom Party ran under a very radical platform. So I'll just read a couple of the items. So they want to abolish Mosque and the Quran in the whole [00:55:00] country of the Netherlands.

They want to ban Muslim schools. They have a referendum to leave the EU. On the domestic side, they want to restore Dutch border controls, detain and deport illegal immigrants, reintroduce work permits, even for intra EU workers, and I mean, the first two items are, are unconstitutional under the Dutch constitution.

So, the idea of banning a religion and its religious texts in private schools. [00:55:30] 

Anita Kellogg: I think it's also important to know the background of why you have religious schools. So, in the history of the tensions between, or conflict between, Protestantism and Catholicism, basically, because You had the very southern part that was Catholic.

The way they dealt with that was to have completely separate schools for the Catholics and for Protestants. And basically the Muslim community sort of took over that. And so they actually, that's why they [00:56:00] have separate. Muslim schools is part of that legacy and is why it's part of the constitution. And I just want to explain that because that's kind of unusual.

One of the negative things that, that leads to is the lack of integration into mainstream society, which of course is the point because Catholicism and Protestants had totally two different societies, right? Right. So it's almost the intention of creating these religious schools was to have a not integrated [00:56:30] society, but it's been a particular problem for having so much immigration and allowing them for them to have their own separate schools and separate communities.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. So I think, I mean, that, that has been a major issue is the lack of integration, particularly of Muslim populations. It's an issue in the Netherlands and Germany and in France, I mean, kind of famously, France kind of has the colonial layer upon it as well with, with [00:57:00] Algeria. So um, He did not get an out and out majority, so he's trying to form a coalition.

But because he ran on this platform, which is unconstitutional, the mainstream parties have been reluctant. So the previous head of the last government, so Prime Minister Mark Root's party, the Veve Dey has come out and said they don't want to be part of a governing coalition, which is a major blow because center right would be a natural ally with kind of the far right Freedom Party.

And then [00:57:30] the NSC, which stands for New Social Contract, which are seen as moderates, don't want to be part of the party unless he drops the platform around not only the banning of mosque and the Qur'an, the Muslim schools, but also Throat says that the Netherlands will continue its support for Ukraine and, and staying within the eu.

So basically getting rid of almost the entire platform that he ran on. Mm-Hmm. . Short of maybe the one [00:58:00] area where all the parties agree on the right is to restrict migration going forward. Probably make. Greater language demands, because that's probably now seen as a moderate position having to learn Dutch and speak Dutch on the street, but it's, it's really not clear because it's been over a month.

He's not in any closer to getting a governing coalition, but apparently I didn't realize this, but even with the last one under Mark Root, it took [00:58:30] them 200 days to form a government. But I think it's going to be even more difficult given what a radical position he's at. So maybe. They're not able to form a coalition.

You may even see something put together from the left green parties and then the moderate. So it's, it's really kind of a mess right now. And it doesn't seem like they're very close to being able to form a government. And even then, I can't imagine it being a very strong voting coalition. Mm hmm.

Nevertheless, I think it's [00:59:00] rattled a number of, it's, it's the same dynamic as the U. S. where you have a urban core that voted for the greens and for the, the liberals. And they've basically, some of the quotes were, this is our Trump moment. This is deeply embarrassing. It's kind of the Trump moment. Yeah, yeah, it's definitely kind of a big problem, but without, without the power of the presidency, that's the difference of the systems, but then in the rural area, so more out.[00:59:30] 

Not where, I mean we still live in Groningen. Groningen's actually a hotbed of Marxist, literal Marxist.

And that's most of the Netherlands. You don't have to go very far and you're out in cow pasture, essentially. But there's quotes from rural farmers then are like, well, we can't bring all of Africa here. And more and more of the foreigners arrive with no real reason for asylum. So they were all real thrilled.

A lot of anti 

Anita Kellogg: immigration 

Ryan Kellogg: set to vary. Yeah. Very xenophobic. Not [01:00:00] just xenophobic, but xenophobic. Africans, although probably a heightened level, particularly for them, but also for any EU foreigners from Eastern Europe. Yeah. They 

Anita Kellogg: didn't particularly like any outsiders. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Which always ran against what the, they have very good marketing, the Dutch, in terms of their open, tolerant society.

And, and that has been true historically. But it seems it seems pretty challenged right now. So yeah, I mean, I think the, uh, a lot of those same parallels is what we [01:00:30] see in the U. S. And this growing diversity within their country, a rural urban divide, impact of inflation was definitely mentioned a lot.

People complaining about that. I think unlike the U. S., the employment situation is much worse there, particularly for, for young, young people and young graduates. So the opportunity. So it's natural to, to blame kind of the, the immigrant and the outsider on. That being said, just in seeing that some of the comments from [01:01:00] opinion pieces like in the New York Times.

Of people kind of writing in there is a very strong feeling towards kind of what you said of these Muslim populations. Do not integrate successfully. And that's something that was repeat. I mean, this is the New York Times, so you're going to get pretty liberal base reading it. But comment after comment was these people do not integrate within our society.

Anita Kellogg: And this, but I think I want to emphasize is not their [01:01:30] fault. It's sort of the way it's set up is to keep communities separate. Yeah. And that's a real, that was something I remember being talked about where we lived there is just, that's. A problem in Dutch society is the way that they have formed these institutions to keep communities completely 

Ryan Kellogg: separate.

Yeah, because I don't feel like, I feel like the Anglo countries have a much better history of even integrating societies and cultures that are very different from them. Like, I would think, like, [01:02:00] our, the Muslim population in the U. S. integrates very well. 

Anita Kellogg: Been to U. S., but yes. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I would say it integrates very well compared to, yeah, I mean, and I didn't, actually, I don't know the state so much, and because I always think of France, where France is very much the kind of the ghettoization and isolation of these populations, and it's not this successful integration.

Um, so I, I'm not sure what it is about the Canadian, the [01:02:30] UK, the American model of integrating these populations. But I look at the numbers, it's like 5 percent of the population. I'm like, why can't you integrate 5 percent of the population? They would have to 

Anita Kellogg: fundamentally change the institutions and not have religious schools at all.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. That's really, I mean, that's it. I did not think of it from kind of that religious and that. The whole Catholic Protestant split, but no, that's, that's 

Anita Kellogg: an interesting point. Yeah. Well, I can discuss this a lot more, but we wanted to do some predictions, so we should probably go [01:03:00] on to that. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yep. So I think just as a kind of fun and to the 2023 and looking ahead to what looks to be a very eventful 2024 that.

We would emulate what the Economist has kind of put together where it used a service of super predictors, super forecasters. I forgot the name of of the company that that puts this together, but basically it's it's [01:03:30] experts and all of these these different areas and they're asked to make predictions and it's kind of this wisdom of crowds to and I don't know if I.

Investors then use the service to make bets on, or if it is strictly just like a UK betting market, right? 

Anita Kellogg: Anyone can participate in it, and then it would show like how well you did compared to what happened, or was it to what other people predicted? I don't know. I didn't do very well. So we should just say I'm really bad at [01:04:00] predictions.

I'm really bad at predictions. 

Ryan Kellogg: Okay. So we're going to go through this pretty rapidly, but I just, I grabbed mostly questions from this economist poll and then the remainder, I think I just threw in from the top of my head. So here we go. All right. So first one, how much territory will Russia hold at the end of 2024 of Ukraine?

So it currently holds 18 percent of the territory. Same. I'm going to say 20%. 

Anita Kellogg: [01:04:30] I was going to go with 20%. I mean, this is like just saying the U. S. gets their act together, but nothing really changes. And then there's just nothing to really change it. Yeah. It's stalled 

Ryan Kellogg: out. Yeah. I'm going to say that maybe they make some modest gains, but the U.

S. U. S. does get its act together in EU and keeps it funded. Okay. So next question, um, will Russian Ukraine sign or announce an agreement to end the war next year? 

Anita Kellogg: No, but there might be talks. 

Ryan Kellogg: I'm going to say [01:05:00] No, and yeah, there'll be talk if the Trump administration is elected, but I think that's actually too early for talk, but maybe yeah, they would begin preliminary talks if, if Trump wins.

Okay. Next question. Who will win the next UK general election? Uh, just for context, it's going to be, you have conservatives, the Tories currently in power have been in power for. I think 15 years, the labor government, and, uh, God, what's the last one? 

Anita Kellogg: I don't know. The [01:05:30] Tories, the Tories are going to win because labor still doesn't have its act together.

Ryan Kellogg: Wow. Wow. No, I, I think labor wins. Really? Yeah. Tories are enormously unpopular. I think Scenic's done a good job of just having low profile and just being pragmatic dude. It's not going to save, Tories are going to get pounded, absolutely destroyed. 

Anita Kellogg: I kind of defer to your prediction because I really don't know anything about 

Ryan Kellogg: it.

Okay, next question. Will a quad country or China publicly accuse the other of [01:06:00] using a weapon against its military or other forces? No. I'm going to say no too. I thought that was a weird question, but it was in there. 

Anita Kellogg: I think China is very careful to go up to the line but not cross it. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I think so.

Okay, next question. When will Mahmoud Abbas cease to be president of the Palestinian Authority? I guess we're saying this, I guess you can say not this year, but we're not 2024. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, [01:06:30] not 2024. Okay, 

Ryan Kellogg: I'm gonna say Middle part of 2024, like August. Okay. Do I have a reasoning behind this? No, but I think the Yeah, let's, well, let's go to the next question that feeds into this.

Okay. Will there be a war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2024? I'm going to say no as well. What month will Israel end combat operations in Gaza? You can also say not in 2024. [01:07:00] Not in 2024. 

Anita Kellogg: Wow. Or like, or at the very end of 2024. 

Ryan Kellogg: Okay. I'm gonna say April. Really? That early? Yeah, because I think U. S. pressure is going to be pretty extreme.

All 

Anita Kellogg: right. Maybe towards the end of 2024. 

Ryan Kellogg: I'm revising. Okay. And that ties into my boss. So I'm thinking, yeah, with operations over by the spring, that somehow he's pressured to step down so that Gaza, the PLA [01:07:30] can take over in Gaza. So that's my, that's my prediction. Okay, next one. What will U. S. GDP growth average over the next year?

Anita Kellogg: Wow, 5%.

Ryan Kellogg: Boom times. I think Biden, well, that definitely would answer the presidential election. I'm going to say a solid 3 percent next year. Which would still be real good and obviously a soft landing, total victory for the Fed. How have we been at like [01:08:00] 5%? Yeah. Last quarter. Well, that's not going to stay at five.

You think it's going to stay? All right. I'm going to put you down for 5%. Well, what, what's China's GDP growth going to average? 5%. 5%. I'll, I'm going to say, well, I can't, I don't trust any of their numbers. I think the real one is like 3%, but what the report is 5%. Um, I think the report 7%. Okay. All right. We got all the reported and [01:08:30] actual numbers.

All right. And then finally, the big one, the one, the only one that really matters who will win the U S presidential election. Well, okay. Let's start off with, we'll build up to that one. What, who will win Congress next year? So you have the house and the Senate who will control each. And then by what margin?

No. Okay, just, who's going to control each? 

Anita Kellogg: I don't know. I don't know any of these. I'm just [01:09:00] going to preference. These are just random guesses. So you could flip a coin. I'm going to say the House goes Democrat by one or two. And the Senate is tied. 

Ryan Kellogg: Okay. I agree. I think the Democrats take the House. Mostly driven from elections in New York and California.

I think their margin's bigger. I'm going to say like a 10 seat margin. [01:09:30] And the Senate, I'm going to agree with you and say it's tied. You get some mixed results there. Okay, so now the big one, U. S. presidential election and prediction on the electoral college vote. 

Anita Kellogg: I'm not doing the latter one. 

Ryan Kellogg: That's sad.

Anita Kellogg: Alright, so here's why I'm predicting Biden. Because I cannot possibly entertain the notion of Like, it [01:10:00] depresses me. It's not like 2016 where I just couldn't entertain the notion of a Trump presidency. But now I can't entertain it without crying. So I have to say my hope, which is Biden. 

Ryan Kellogg: I'm gonna agree. I think it's gonna be real tight, extremely ugly.

But I think Biden takes it by similar margins as last time. So around 300 electoral [01:10:30] votes, so not. Maybe closer to that, but I still think that's probably just Trump has such tremendous baggage. I think there is a real possibility I should have had on there. Will Trump, yeah, let's add another one. Will Trump be convicted of any of the 91 felonies that he currently faces before the election?

Anita Kellogg: In the federal trial? I don't think so. The only one, maybe Georgia? I don't know. Probably not. [01:11:00] Yeah. It probably just will get 

Ryan Kellogg: delayed. I'm predicting that he will get convicted on at least one count in these trials, that one of them will push forward during the election. I see 

Anita Kellogg: that. Again, I see that more as a hope.

Ryan Kellogg: And based on what UK betting markets are currently saying, Donald Trump has a 44 percent chance of winning, which is the highest percentage because Joe [01:11:30] Biden is currently at 33%. And there's some reason they have Nikki Haley at 10%. I don't, I don't think the UK betting markets actually understand our political system.

No. So they're probably not a good reference, but that's, that's where they stand now. And it's the only place you can bet. You can't bet on markets here. We just have the sports betting. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. So we'll tally that up and check in next year. 

Anita Kellogg: Have we even gone back and looked at the predictions we made last year?

[01:12:00] We 

Ryan Kellogg: didn't do any predictions. We didn't? No. Oh, we were smarter. Okay. Okay. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: I predict that I do badly. I don't know 

Ryan Kellogg: why. Look at that attitude. 

Anita Kellogg: I don't know why. I just am bad at it. Well, I think that brings us to the end of this episode of Kellogg's Global Politics. You can visit our website at www.

kelloggsglobalpolitics. com and follow us on Twitter at Global Kellogg or me, AR [01:12:30] Kellogg. 

Ryan Kellogg: And you can reach us by email, so anita at kelloggsglobalpolitics. com and myself, ryan at kelloggsglobalpolitics. com. As always, please see the show notes for any of the articles we discussed in this episode. And if you like the show, please take the time, tell your friends and share it on your social sites.

It's a simple, quick and free way to support the show. Thanks everyone. Thanks. Bye.[01:13:00]