Before February
24th, I
think the narrative among our
adversaries and certainly even
among some of our allies and you
know, when I've talked to them, a
lot of our business outside of
America was something like,
well, you in America, you love
liberty, you produce
great films.
But in fact, the adversaries are
as good as you are by military
and they're willing to do things
you're not.
And I think the February 24th
and what's happened in the Ukraine
involving technology in ways we can
can't really talk about always in
public, has changed the narrative
around war and America,
too.
It's the liberty loving, tech
building people of the West,
especially of America, who produce
products that are so superior that
the non freedom loving people need
to shiver a little more than they
have in the past.
And this is crucial for
the West and and all
of our allies who primarily love
the freedoms and liberties we have
to show our adversaries that, in
fact, we are superior at
modern warfare, which I would define
as tech enhanced kinetic
attack weapons.
So software enhanced the software.
The fact that software is eating the
world is terrifically important for
businesses, most of our business is
in the private sector.
But is it particularly advantageous
for America, because America
is the best at building software
and the fact that we
can build weapons, software,
enhanced weapons that really make
our adversaries quiver.
As Senator Graham said, more in a
more articulate way than I could:
that prevents war.
And now what does that mean for the
tech sector?
You know, you're seeing a lot of
tech companies who once thought
the way to support the US military
was to first hand technology to our
adversaries. And then and this has
shifted.
There's more of a unity of we are
going to support the US government,
not just crazy Palantir and their
crazy batshit crazy CEO,
which like we are going to support
the US government and this this is
crucial.
It's like we have the resources in
this country. We often have not used
them to support our war fighters and
that's changed and in great part
because our adversaries are clearly
just worthy of getting
kicked in the fanny.
A technical term.
The thing is there's
in philosophy of a constant is you
have dynamics that are kind of a
poetic meaning they self-actualize.
A lot of your questions are what
should we ought to do?
But in reality, American business
has decoupled from
China.
And I would say the dynamic in this
country is very much
one of skepticism,
and that is going to affect our
policies.
And I believe, righter, you know,
you can argue about what should
happen, but what will happen
is a decoupling.
Now, again, I'm not
saying that's what one should want,
but if you look at the pressures on
business, the pressures on military,
the pressures on polity, Americans
by and large support this.
And then again, in American
business, currently, five, six
years ago, there was a lot
of people there were a lot of
industries that thought they were
going to export to China and
America.
I there still are some very
few.
And so that's just going to have a
very different dynamic
on the future.
And again I would disambiguate
is an odd I think that is what's
going to happen.
So let me let me stay with you.
One of the notable phenomena
in the aftermath of Russia's
expanded war in Ukraine was
the the flight of
private sector business from
Russia.
Does that merely reflect the
coercive power of sanctions or is
there something else happening here?
Our choices are different choices,
value choices being made by the
private sector.
Well, again, you know, we, of
course, didn't have to flee Russia.
We were never there. I
think honestly, I think good moral
choices lead to good business
choices. But I think what really
is going to hurt Russia over the
long haul is,
in my business, you need
the best of the best of the best of
the best. And they do not want to
work in a country that is invading
their neighbor and committing
atrocious atrocities.
And it's not the GDP
in Russia is just not one
that most international business are
particularly focused on.
And that's different than China,
obviously, although I'd
say that's more European businesses.
What what will really mess
up your ability to build complicated
technical systems is an
inability to explain to people
what is good about my country.
And again, it doesn't have to be.
And I think that's why people fled.
And I don't think they're going to
go back very quickly.
And it's not
actually about the capital market.
It's about the moral market.
Is it especially
incumbent on America's
high tech partners to make a choice
about where they're doing things?
I I think it is
an indisputable fact that there are
certain things, software platforms
that are disruptive and America
is the focal point of building.
And there are other countries. Israel
is quite strong.
There are some strong companies in
France.
It is absolutely
essential that we make
decisions that are long term
in unison with
the countries that allowed us to
grow. In this case, for most of us,
the United States of America.
And I don't think
we should be allowed to just say,
oh, we got rich here.
We are the wealthiest,
most powerful people in
history in the world. But we don't
support the United States of
America. And why?
Because you see in the Ukraine and
you will see in other places that
the products we build actually sway
the world to our direction.
Not as a matter of theory, not an
imagined retort, but a matter of
fact.
And and that's
why I think we have a higher level
of responsibility.