This is the Friends of History Debating Society. I am Gaius, John Bachelor.

Germanicus, Michael Laius is here by the Thames. And we turn to an ironic point.

We talk about existential wars, existential contests.

Latimer Putin has said that Russia is fighting for its existence against invaders, similar

to Napoleon once upon a time and the Hitler rights once upon a time.

Ukraine says that it's fighting for his existence against a villainous Russia.

China, the People's Republic of China, believes that it is surrounded by adversaries, that's

accurate, and that it's fighting for its existence at the same time it's living out its destiny to recover Taiwan

which by the way says that it's in an existential contest with China.

There are other examples.

Now the question is in an existential contest do you ever lose and if

you do lose what happens? Germanicus the the irreconcilables, a short list, the Confederacy, the Weimar Republic, the Soviet

Empire, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, that's enough. All losers and yet the

irreconcilables, what do we make of them? What do we make of our assumption that once they're defeated they're going to be obedient?

Where did we get that arrogance to believe that

Vaimar would be obedient, for example.

You are identifying the single greatest vulnerability that America faces. It is a vulnerability that it can't

see, moreover that it doesn't want to see and finally we'll do everything in its power

to avoid seeing and that is that you must be able to take the measure of your enemy. You must empathize with them, not sympathize,

but empathize enough to be able to, as they say say walk a mile in their shoes and if you don't do that

you will fall back on an assessment of the enemy That fits your preferences and desires in other words you will say well we know the enemy

We're democracy of course and they're the opposite.

...