Great interview. It is nice to hear from someone who is cold, practical, and not an ideologue. I also appreciate referencing history other than the beat to death Second World War.

Fascinating stuff but he dodged the question on whether leaving Ukraine to its fate would encourage Chinese attack on Taiwan.

I for one feel like it is incredibly obvious that a weak US response on Ukraine would have, or would, have been a huge encouragement to Xi Jinping to go for Taiwan.

That is the elephant in the room for these ‘realists’, and I’ve never yet seen it convincingly dealt with.

Informed Chinese opinion does not give the world until 2027 before the CCP moves on Taiwan, the action will likely come in 2025. The logic goes along the following lines. The CCP sees itself as running the successor state to the Nationalist Republic of China which it defeated on the mainland in 1949. Prior to that, the RoC had acquired Formosa, now Taiwan, from the defeated Japanese Empire in August 1945 by virtue of being one of the victorious Allied Powers. The CCP therefore dates its claim to Taiwan from August 1945. President Xi has set his heart on the conquest of Taiwan and cannot wait for the centenary in 2045. August 2025 will represent the 80th year since the RoC’s acquisition and thus mark a fitting end to the Chinese civil war, for which Xi will be able to claim the credit. Or so the argument goes.
It follows that the Russo-Ukrainian war needs to reach a satisfactory conclusion well before August 2025. The West should thank President Putin for his folly in invading Ukraine in 2022, leading to Russia’s defeat and effective de-militarisation. It would have been potentially catastrophic if Russia had been in a position to invade Ukraine in August 2025, which would have represented the optimum timing for the Sino-Russian alliance. A war on two fronts simultaneously and at the opposite ends of Eurasia would have been extremely difficult for the Western powers to manage. China may indeed be the main event, but it seems incredibly important to tidy up the situation in Ukraine on terms satisfactory to Kyiv.

Interesting interview especially the parallels identified between Britain in the early 20th century and the USA now.

Really good interview.
The one theme that seemed missing is what all this looks like to other countries outside Europe or not ringing the South China Sea. What’s India thinking as it watches all this? Ditto Brazil, Latin America, African Countries wondering whether to side with the West or the ‘totalitarian Twins’, and of course the Middle East?
This is where the degree of resolution shown on Ukraine and Taiwan has v serious ripple implications not really explored in the interview. It seems obvious that a lack of resolution, or drifting resolution, sends a message to all current neutrals of how they should pick a side. And that ‘side picking’ could become a much greater worldwide threat to the West. Cold War I had this dynamic. Cold War 2, which we are now clearly within, has the same.
As regards Taiwan – it is the ‘cork in the bottle’ for the whole region. Turn the map upside down and you see it clearer. Deterrence is crucial. Xi has to also factor what a failure to take it quickly, and with the semi-conductor industrial capability still in place, would mean economically and whether a deadlock would blow apart his own totalitarian nightmare.

Only 5 comments for such a consequential interview is disappointing.
He’s right. The US has no vital interests in the Donbas. Which NATO is losing, in any case.

Well the US Arms complex needs another profitable war, hot or cold it doesn’t really matter.

Russia has proved to be ‘a complete waste of rations’, so as Mr Colby so cogently says, it must be China next.
Additionally after more than a century of humiliation China feels it’s ‘her’ turn, and nothing but abject military defeat will convince her otherwise.

“Sino delenda est” as ‘you know who would have said’.