February 26, 2025 • 32 mins
In the inaugural episode of One Thing Trump Did, we'll be diving into the shifting geopolitical situation between the U.S., Ukraine and Russia in light of President Trump's recent tone shift on the conflict - especially with regards to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Jeremy is joined by Dan Baer, director of the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as well as the former United States Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. #OTTD #onethingtrumpdid #Trump #Russia #Ukraine #Putin #Zelenskyy #NATO
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Welcome to the inaugural episode of One Thing Trump Did.
It's available exclusively on the Middle podcast feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson,
and since this is our first ever episode, i'll give
you a brief synopsis. On this podcast, We're going to
be looking to tackle one thing from the torrent of
headlines coming out of the Trump White House.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
We're going to go one issue at a time.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Try to break things down in a rational, measured, and nonsensational,
nonpartisan way, no matter how sensational the headline may be.
To start things off this week, a very timely topic,
we're going to be looking at Ukraine, the rapidly shifting
diplomatic landscape between the US, Ukraine, and Russia. President Trump
(00:57):
famously campaigned on bringing a swift end to that conflict,
which is now three years old, but in the last
several weeks the tone from the US has changed a lot,
with Trump claiming falsely that Ukraine started the war and
now demanding a deal that will give the US hundreds
of billions of dollars worth of mineral rights in exchange
for supporting Ukraine. The Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pressured Ukraine's
(01:21):
Vladimir Zelenski on Fox News Sunday over the weekend. Wellsky
should come to the table because this economic partnership is
an important thing for the future of his country, and
we hope that he will very soon. But fair to say,
Russia attacked unprovoked into Ukraine three years ago tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Fair to say, it's a very complicated situation.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
So joining me nout to parse these developments is Dan Behar,
who is the director of the Europe Program at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Piece. He's also the former US
Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
and his book is called The Four Tests What it
Will Take to Keep America Strong and Good. Dan, great
to have you on this first episode of One Thing.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Trump did it to be with you, Jeremy.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
So let's start with the stakes just for our audience.
Why does what happens with Ukraine matters so much to
the US that we have poured so much money into
helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Well, three quick things first, starting with the last part,
we have poured a lot of money into it, but
most of that money has gone into the United States,
into building kit and equipment in the United States, supporting
American jobs, and that equipment has been delivered to Ukraine.
And also, just to put it in context, during the
entire course of this war, in three years now, it's
been about three percent of US defense spending. So just
(02:36):
to put it in context, it is a lot of money,
because the United States spends a lot on defense, but
it's not a lot of money in the grand scheme
of things, and most of that money has been spent
here at home. Why it matters, I mean two big reasons. One,
the United States does better both economically and in a
security sense in a world in which things are more predictable.
(02:58):
And when a big country like Russia breaks the rules
and invades a neighbor, it destabilizes not only that neighbor,
but also the entire world because it sets an example
for others. And so those of us who are concerned
about what arising China means and what China might learn
from this should also be concerned that the rules are
respected and that the rules are enforced, and invading your
(03:19):
neighbor for no reason just isn't allowed. So that's one reason.
The other is economically, I mean, a lot of American
jobs depend on our relationship with Europe. European security matters.
For America, about five hundred billion dollars a year of
exports go to Europe, and those five hundred billion dollars
support two million jobs here at home. And just to
(03:40):
put that in context, during the first Trump administration, he
had a net loss of two point seven million jobs,
and that was with the pandemic. And so to lose
two million jobs, I mean two million jobs is a
lot of jobs that are dependent on our relationship with
Europe and on Europe being safe and secure and prosperous well.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
And so then I guess that's my follow up there
on Europe being safe and secure and prosperous, is that
truly at risk if Ukraine doesn't win this war the
way that they want to win the war, which would
be to get all of their territorial boundaries back to
the way they were before putin even invaded Crimea, does
that really put European security at risk beyond the borders
(04:16):
of Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
I think a deal that doesn't leave Ukraine safe, secure
and independent does put European security at risk. And when
we've seen borders changed by force in Europe twice, in
the last one hundred and ten years. It has resulted
in chaos and mass destruction. And you know, I'm not
terribly fond of the warning of World War three. I'm
(04:39):
not sure it's terribly constructive, but certainly President Trump has
done that repeatedly in recent days. And if he's really
concerned about World War three, the most likely cause, if
we look at World War One and World War Two,
is to allow, you know, undeterred a situation where a
dictator tries to take over other territory without consequences. That
(05:01):
is what caused it in World War One and World
War Two, and we shouldn't be allowing it.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Now you're talking about Vladimir Putin. Trump has started calling
Vladimir Zelensky a dictator.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Why do you think he is doing that?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
I don't know, because it's not true. And I worry
as an American that Trump is that President Trump is
allowing his personal animus to interfere with his advocacy for
American interests. Not only has he called Zelensky a dictator.
Today in the Oval Office with French President Lacron, he
(05:37):
refused to call Putin a dictator when asked by a
duralist and so the fact is one of the two
leaders is actually, by conventional definitions, a dictator. But Zelenski
was elected with seventy four percent of the vote several
years ago. Yes, Ukraine has been under martial law because
of the Russian invasion. Yes, all parties in Ukraine agreed
(05:58):
that there need to be elections as soon as possible, well,
i e. When a peace deal has been met and
they can remove martial law. But Zelensky still has popular
support greater frankly than President Trump or President Biden had
here in this country. So you know, I think it's
not fair to call him the dictator.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Zelenski now says that he would actually stand down. This
is in response to Trump's comments about the elections there
that he would stand down if Ukraine could join NATO.
Is there any chance of that happening right now? It
doesn't look so.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
But I think it's important to recognize that even though
in the last few weeks things have dramatically changed, not
only in terms of the US relationship with Ukraine but
also the US relationship with Europe, joining NATO becomes, you know,
a lightning rod for a lot of folks. But joining
NATO should be understood really as a code or a
stand in for securing Ukraine and for having once a
(06:53):
peace deal is struck, for having assurance that that peace
deal will be respected for not only the short term
but the medium and long term. One of the ways
to offer security guarantees to Ukraine would be to fast
track NATO admission, fast track Ukraine's joining NATO, because that
would provide security guarantees that would give confidence so that
investors could go into Ukraine, so that Ukrainian society could
(07:16):
start to rebuild, so that people could come back from overseas.
The five million I think it is Ukrainians were living
outside of Ukraine's borders now could feel confident coming home.
So joining NATO, yes, it could be on the table
because President Trump and European leaders could decide to put
it on the table. There's nothing that has foreclosed that
option as a n for US policy or European policy
(07:37):
so far. Same thing with supporting Ukraine militarily. I mean,
it feels like it's off the table. But the fact
is President Trump has more power than any American president
probably has had in years, and if he decided tomorrow
that he wanted to go for a new supplementals to
support Ukraine and make sure that President Trump could broker
a good deal. He could announce that and Congress would
(07:58):
get behind that. They would get behind me that, probably
with a bigger majority than Joe Biden ever saw for
a supplemental for Ukraine, because he has such a good
control over his party in Congress, and Democrats would get
on board.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
But Vladimir Putin really doesn't want Ukraine to be a
part of NATO. Why is he so afraid of Ukraine
joining NATO, especially given the fact that obviously there's this
mutual defense deal in NATO where if an attack on
one is an attack on all. But if you look
at what just happened, all of these other NATO countries
did come to Ukraine's aid anyway. So why is Putin
(08:35):
so afraid of Ukraine actually officially being part of NATO?
Speaker 3 (08:40):
I think for him and some in the Russian establishment too,
it has become more a symbol than a reality. I mean,
I am probably not everybody in Washington would agree with me,
but I happen to think that NATO has been on
the whole good for Russia. It has been something that
(09:01):
has kept Russia's neighbors to the West safe and secure.
It has probably been the thing that has prevented, say, Poland,
from seeking nuclear weapons because Poland has felt safe and
secure Ino and so it has actually given Russia more
stable borders that have allowed it to deal with other
kinds of security threats. There is, I believe, zero threat
that comes NATO as a defensive alliance. There is no
(09:25):
threat to Russia that comes from Ukraine or any other
country being part of NATO. The only threat to Russia
is that if Vladimir Putin intends to continue to adventure
beyond his borders and invade countries, it does make it
harder for him to do that. So the only thing
that it forecloses in terms of options for him are
further violations of international law or further destabilizing of the
(09:45):
regional security situation.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Do you think Dan Bher that NATO's existence in general
is at stake in all of what is happening right
now with Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
I don't think it's exists in general is at stake,
but I think it has already changed significantly. The United
States military capacity is the backbone of NATO. It is
part of what makes the NATO deterrent. The commitment that
NATO members have to defend each other a credible deterrent.
(10:19):
And by the way, it's important to remind folks that
the only time that it's ever been invoked, the only
time that a NATO member has ever said we call
on everyone else to join with us and come to
our defense, is September eleventh, exactly. But that credible deterrent
depends on the United States being committed, and I believe
that military leaders, congressional leaders, many Trump officials remain committed
(10:44):
to NATO as an alliance, as being part of the
cornerstone of the US approach to global security. But I
certainly think that there are questions that have been raised
in recent weeks that probably make it less strong than
it was a month ago.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
You know, just for our listeners, a little interesting tidbit.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
One of the countries that always did meet its two
percent GDP spending on defense, even before Trump got angry
about this, was Greece. Because Greece is worried about Turkey,
it really has.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Something to do with anything else besides, and also because
Greece has a huge navy, and maybe that's right, that's right.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
What's going on now with the negotiations, because there's reporting that,
you know, Trump is trying to go around Ukraine and
there were meetings just between the US and Russia and
Saudi Arabia. What's happening with the negotiations at the moment.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Uh, it's hard to say. Obviously there have it's not
only Ukraine but also our European allies who have been
cut out of the Trump conversation. So far, there are
you know, there are worrying reports of President Trump's conversations
with President Putin, and it does feel like some days
it feels like instead of solving the war in a day,
(12:00):
as he promised to on the campaign trail, he actually
has come close to losing the war in a day.
But I don't think it is too late to salvage
a good deal. I do think in the long run,
Ukraine needs to be at the table. They don't have
to be at the table in every meeting. You know,
the fact that they weren't in this first meeting may
be deemed unfortunate, but it's not irreparable. But Ukraine needs
(12:20):
to be at the table because whatever deal is made
needs to be one that can be sold at home
in Ukraine as a decent deal that allows Ukraine the
kind of future that the Ukrainian people want, and you know,
there's wide parameters for what that might look like, but
Ukraine does need to be at the table, and so
do the Europeans because we are going to, as President
(12:41):
Trump has said, we are going to count on the
Europeans to step up and to do more to secure
their own region. And if they're going to have to
step up and do more, then they're going to need
to know what the terms of the deal are that
they're going to have to step up and do.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Support Dan, We talked a little bit about Trump's idea
that you know, the US should get paid back, that
there should be some deal involving money from Ukraine's mineral
rare earth minerals. A Democratic lawmaker was on one of
the Sunday talk shows over the weekend. It said that
reminded of him out of something out of the Sopranos,
(13:16):
that it was like, what the mafia does. What do
you think that does, sort of demanding something from a
democracy that we're trying to defend. What does that do
to America's image around the world. If the US is
doing this, not out of the goodness of its heart,
or not because it's in its interests to help a
(13:37):
fellow democracy, but because we want money.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
Yeah, I mean, there is a nice little country you've
got there. It would be shame if something happened to it.
Subtext all this, I've been trying to stay focused and
not get distracted by the minerals deal. I mean, some
of the numbers that are being thrown around there don't
feel realistic, and the near turn to me in any case,
(14:02):
I think there are I mean, so I see that
more as at this point an opportunity for President Trump
to politically sell something at home, and I think it
is an opportunity, frankly for him to do more to
support Ukraine in the short term, because you can say,
we have an investment there and we need to protect
that investment, et cetera. So maybe it turns out to
be useful politically for him at home. I do think
(14:25):
one of the concerns I would be less focused on
the numbers and more focused on who ends up getting
these financial interests. Are they private American entities or is
it public entities? Because there's also a hint of King
Leopold and the Congo here where things feel like a
kind of a private, privatized form of economic neocolonialism, and
(14:49):
that would make me anxious just from a corruption standpoint.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
We're talking with Dan Behar, who is the director of
the euro Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
on this episode of One Thing Trump Did. We're going
to take a quick break.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
We'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Welcome back to One Thing Trump Did exclusively on the
Middle Podcast Feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson. We're talking about Ukraine.
A lot at stake right now. I'm joined by Dan Bhar,
director of the Europe Program at the Carnegie and Dowma
for International Peace, as well as former US Ambassador to
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Dan, you
mentioned this, but one of the things that comes up
(15:37):
in terms of the stakes of this situation in Ukraine
for the United States is China and Taiwan and whether
China is looking at this and saying, well, if Putin's
gonna get away with this and is going to get
some of the territory, if not all, the territory he's
after in Ukraine after all of this, many years of
(15:57):
war and push back from the West, if he gets
it president, she is just going to say, Okay, Well,
then that means I can take Taiwan and there's going
to be no problem.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
There's gonna be no pushback there.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
Yeah, I mean, I don't think it's quite as simple
as that. And frankly, the interests with respect to China's rise,
obviously Taiwan is one that gets a lot of visibility
in Washington and in Europe, but there are other interests
about China's encroachment in the South China Sea that affects
Southeast Asian neighbors, et cetera. And I think certainly there
(16:28):
are you know, you have to expect that when a
large country is allowed to bully a smaller country without consequences.
And frankly, when the United States, which is the most
powerful country on are is still not relatively as powerful
as we were thirty years ago, but still the most
powerful country on Earth, decides to throw all in with
(16:49):
the bully rather than the victim, that that does make
folks in other capitals wonder whether there will be consequences
for breaking the rules in the future. And that applies
to a whole range of situations. Obviously, the situation with
Taiwan is very complex and not entirely analogous in many
(17:10):
ways to the situation in Eastern Europe, but certainly China's
watching carefully how the States responds and learning about President
Trump's priorities and his proclivities.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
We just did an entire show with the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation about Trump's continued suggestion that the US should take
over Canada as the fifty first state, and in that program,
which was broadcast live across the US and Canada, we
also mentioned, of course that Trump has talked about taking Greenland, Gaza,
(17:46):
and the Panama Canal.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Yeah. I mean here it's again. It's one of the things.
By the way, I've been annoyed at that for petty
parochial reasons, because I had told the editor of Foreign
Affairs last year that I wanted to write a piece
about how the geopolitical play of the twenty first century
would be a voluntary confederation of the US and Canada
(18:10):
because together we would have more natural resources, Canada would
be more easily defended, etc. So the idea itself is
not terribly preposterous to me. Of course, I would envision
it by democratic means, not by a kind of colonial takeover.
Militaristic takeover. But I mean with all of these things,
you know, on the one hand, you can just see
(18:30):
them as what he does so well. President Trump is
very good at controlling the narrative, at shifting the narrative,
and if he reads the political moment, it says a
lot of Americans feel like they're on defense, defense against
global threats, defense against chaos, defense against social media whatever.
Then talking about taking over places is a way to
(18:50):
kind of shift the narrative and make people feel like, hey,
we're on offense again. Our team's on offense again, and
that alone can deliver political dividends. And so on the
one hand, you could look at it that way, or
you could look at it as a genuine kind of
nineteenth century He's enamored with President Putin. President Putin likes
to expand Russia's share of the map, and that's what
(19:10):
he's trying to do in a neocolonial fashion, rebuild the
Russian empire. And President Trump decides he wants to build
an American empire. Or you could look at the deal
that he's trying to broke her in Ukraine with the
critical minerals and the joint investment stuff and you could
look at what he said about Greenland and say, actually,
at heart, he's still just a real estate deal maker,
(19:30):
and these are real estate deals to him, and he's
thinking about it in those terms, with a kind of
businessman's dealmaking behind it, and possibly for the gain of
not necessarily only public offers.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Let's talk about Europe, because the war in Ukraine has
certainly caused upheaval in European politics. We've seen the right
politically rising in Italy, in France, although enough to win
in the country, but in Germany just now with the elections,
the Conservatives won there and the far right actually did
very well as well. What do the Europeans want to
(20:12):
happen in Ukraine? Or is it split right now or
is it splitting in Europe about what people actually would
like to occur?
Speaker 3 (20:22):
I think that. I mean, obviously they're in There are
many countries that make up quote unquote the Europeans, and
within each country there are as in our own, there
are people who lie across a spectrum of political views.
But I think in general, actually the last few weeks,
even if they generated some chaos and panic in the
(20:43):
first instance, I think they've actually been consolidating for European views. Today,
you saw, for instance, the leaders of Spain and some
of the Baltic countries together in Kiev to commemorate the
third anniversary of the war. And Spain hasn't conventionally been
thought of as being kind of on the front end
of the we got to defend Ukraine at all costs
(21:05):
train the Baltics much more so, so you're seeing some
solidarity across the European continent. Certainly, I think that, you know,
the rise of the far right has less to do with,
you know, the Russia's war against Ukraine and more to
do with the fact that Europe has failed to get
back to economic growth in the wake of the two
thousand and eight financial crisis. So one of the priorities
(21:27):
for European leaders is going to be getting enough security,
making sure that Ukraine is secure enough that Europe itself
can get back to growth in the decade to come,
because they really can't afford to have another lost decade.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Yeah, you know, it's interesting.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
I just going back to our trip just now to
Canada for this special that we did, and I was
speaking with Canadians, and you know, one of them was
telling me that their economy is shit, and I'm allowed
to say shit on this podcast. I can't do that
on the radio version of the mid like I say
their economy is shit right now that the that the
Canadian dollar is way down compared to other currencies, it's
(22:05):
so much more expensive, and it reminds me as an
American where we've actually, in the last few years since
the pandemic, had an economy that has really outperformed so
many other places that you think about European countries, their
economies are not as good right now comparatively, and they're
dealing with a huge influx of migrants coming in from
(22:25):
the Middle East and countries that are in the middle
of where in Ukraine of course, so dealing with a
lot of things that we don't really think about as
much here in the US.
Speaker 3 (22:35):
It's absolutely right, and you hear the talking point from
on the left and right in this country that you know,
Europe is a rich place that can afford to do more,
and certainly they can afford to do more, and Europe
is a rich continent when compared to almost all other continents,
but when compared to the United States, I think a
lot of people would be surprised to see what gdpig
per capita in the UK is compared to the United States,
(22:58):
with GDP per capita in fras Is or in Germany,
places that are considered the rich parts of Europe. The
United States has grown since the two thousand and eight
financial crisis, and Europeans have not kept up. And if
you look at the graph of GDP per capita for
the United States compared to major European countries or the
EU as a whole, it tells a very difficult story
(23:20):
for Europe. And by the way, one of the things
that Americans should understand is that that is a problem
for us too, not only because we count on Europe
as a market to export too, but because as we
look forward to the coming decades and the challenges of
artificial intelligence, of new pandemics, of all these problems without passports,
we're going to need the Europeans to help us solve them.
We are not going to be able to solve them alone.
(23:41):
Of further geopolitical conflicts, we want to have a strong
Europe as partners. They are our most reliable democratic partners,
advanced democracies in the world, and we need them to
be strong and so we want them to grow too.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
Let's talk about President Biden, former President Biden's handling of
the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
Trump has been a ti hacking.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
It is saying that it never would have started if
he were in office, or if it did start, it
would have finished very quickly with the caveat that you
worked in the Obama administration. Do you fault Biden at
all for allowing the war to start or do you
have criticism of his handling of the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
For allowing the war to start. Absolutely not. The responsibility
for starting the war lies in Moscow, and in Moscow only.
There was nothing that Ukraine did to provoke this war.
And in fact, the United States, in a relatively novel
way through saw the war coming, saw the Russian war preparations,
and made President Biden and his national security team made
a very innovative decision to declassify a lot of intelligence
(24:45):
in the weeks and months leading up to the Russian
invasion in an attempt both to tell the Russians, look,
we see what you're doing, and we're going to be
prepared to respond with consequences, and also to get Europeans
and others to take seriously this threat. So I mean,
I think there was a real effort diplomatically and with
novel use of intelligence to try to forestall the invasion.
(25:07):
In terms of the conduct of American support for Ukraine
since the war started, it is easy for people on
the outside like me to Monday Morning quarterback every single decision.
But I think there was overall within the Biden administration
a commitment to get Ukraine the equipment and supplies that
(25:29):
it needed to fight back, and to do so in
a way that was attentive to risks of escalation. Do
I personally think that at times they were too attentive
to risk of escalation escalation? Sure, I do. And it's
easy for me to say that I didn't have the
responsibility of making sure that things escalate. I would point
(25:50):
out that from the perspective of the United States, our
support for Ukraine, as I said, has amounted to about
three percent of military spending, and it has absolutely had
critical damage, not fully destroyed, but critical damage on the
military efficacy of one of the greatest potential adversaries, the
(26:11):
Russian Federation. The Russian military has been deeply damaged by
this war. It will take them years to recover. So
from the standpoint of the United States for a low cost,
because Ukrainians have been doing the fighting, not a single
American life life has been lost for a low cost,
we have severely hampered the capabilities of a major potential adversary.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
You think Russia is significantly weaker now than it was
a few years ago when the war started.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Absolutely, they have lost hundreds of thousands in casualties. They've
had a lot of their equipment destroyed. They are working through.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Or we've just seen some of their equipment, which is
like from decades ago.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
And I was going to say, they're working through their stores.
And you know, my colleagues who are analysts of Russian
military forces suggest that they probably have another eighteen months
or so of stuff in storage that they can pull
out and try to fix up and use for spare
parts one machine for another. But they are also struggling
(27:07):
to keep up with the pace of this war, and
so Russia is actually not able to sustain this forever.
Even though Putin has had wartime economy, they're not able
to sustain it forever. And they certainly are less capable
in terms of a fight. If they were to take
on say the United States, they would be less capable
as an adversary than they would have been two or
three years ago.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
And when you look outside of the war in Ukraine,
Russia also just lost this kind of war that it
was really playing a role in Syria. To keep Bashar
al Asad in power, he's had to pull in North
Korean troops to fight in Ukraine with the Russians. It
does seem like it's strange that Putin looks to be
(27:52):
in such a position of power with the negotiations right now,
given how weak you say and how weak we see
that he's become because of the war.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
I mean, President Trump prides himself on being a terrific negotiator.
And it may be that you and I don't have
full information right now, but the last few weeks look
like the United States has played a stronghand poorly and
Vladimir Putin has played a relatively weaker hand quite well.
(28:23):
It doesn't look like he has lost anything. The President
Trump has given President Putin a lot of things that
he wanted without actually having to negotiate for them. I
will also point out you mentioned the Russian involvement in Syria.
You know people who say, Putin can't pull out of
Ukraine or can't you know, can't have a piece in
Ukraine that would be fair to Ukraine because he can't
(28:45):
sell it at home. They got completely routed in Syria.
And the line that President Putin used was we accomplished
all of our objectives. It was a victory for Russian interest,
and we're done there. So he can sell with a
where he wants at home. The fact is, you know,
he needs we need to have real negotiations that get
(29:06):
a fair deal for Ukraine that can be secure, secure
enough to have a real piece that people can have
confidence in so that it can have elections and so
that the Ukrainian people can get back to building the
democratic future that they want.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
So, Dan Behar, what is your prediction about what will
happen now with Ukraine over the next several weeks. It
seems like it's on the front burner in the foreign
policy agenda of the Trump administration right now.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Yeah, it feels like it is on the front burner
of the foreign I mean, one of the things that
President Trump does well and that the people around him
seem to have taken up from him, is that he
makes himself very unpredictable, so I'm loath to hazard of gas.
I would say that I think the departure from facts,
you know, calling Zelensky a dictator when he's not, saying
(29:55):
that Putin didn't start the war when he did. All
of that stuff makes me quite nervous. But there's still
I mean, I reassure myself by saying President Trump actually
still has a good hand to play if he wanted
to make a deal where the Europeans had to make
a long term commitment to buy more American equipment, to
(30:16):
spend more themselves on developing their defense industrial base, taking
on the responsibility for helping fund Ukraine's reconstruction, and in exchange,
the US agreed not to pull out precipitously and to
continue to provide weapons in the short to medium term,
and to help bring the Europeans, Ukrainians and Russians together
to make a deal that could have a peace agreement
(30:38):
and to secure Ukraine's future. That's all within his power.
He could actually make a good deal and sell it
at home and say, look, I've got a peace agreement.
Ukraine's going to be secure, the Europeans are going to
do more, America is going to have to do less
and we have peace in Europe and that's a win
for him, and that is still available to him if
he makes the right decisions going forward.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
That is Dan Bahr, who is the director of the
Europe Program at the Carnegie Endownment for International Peace. He's
also former US ambassador's the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe and his new book is called The Four
Tests What it will Take to Keep America.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Strong and good. Dan, so great to talk to you.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
As always, Thank you so much, thanks for having me,
and thanks you for listening to our first episode of
One Thing Trump Did. It was produced by Harrison Patino.
Our next middle episode will be in your podcast feed
later this week. It's our conversation with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse
Tyson about space exploration, life on other planets and more.
And if you like this podcast, please rate it wherever
you get your podcast, tell your friends. And by the way,
(31:35):
we are only about two thousand dollars away from our
donation goal.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
All donations are maps dollar for dollar right now.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
You can make a contribution at listen to the miiddle
dot com.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Our theme music here was composed by Noah Haidu. I'm
Jeremy Hobson. Talk to you soon.
Welcome to the inaugural episode of One Thing Trump Did.
It's available exclusively on the Middle podcast feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson,
and since this is our first ever episode, i'll give
you a brief synopsis. On this podcast, We're going to
be looking to tackle one thing from the torrent of
headlines coming out of the Trump White House.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
We're going to go one issue at a time.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Try to break things down in a rational, measured, and nonsensational,
nonpartisan way, no matter how sensational the headline may be.
To start things off this week, a very timely topic,
we're going to be looking at Ukraine, the rapidly shifting
diplomatic landscape between the US, Ukraine, and Russia. President Trump
(00:57):
famously campaigned on bringing a swift end to that conflict,
which is now three years old, but in the last
several weeks the tone from the US has changed a lot,
with Trump claiming falsely that Ukraine started the war and
now demanding a deal that will give the US hundreds
of billions of dollars worth of mineral rights in exchange
for supporting Ukraine. The Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pressured Ukraine's
(01:21):
Vladimir Zelenski on Fox News Sunday over the weekend. Wellsky
should come to the table because this economic partnership is
an important thing for the future of his country, and
we hope that he will very soon. But fair to say,
Russia attacked unprovoked into Ukraine three years ago tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Fair to say, it's a very complicated situation.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
So joining me nout to parse these developments is Dan Behar,
who is the director of the Europe Program at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Piece. He's also the former US
Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
and his book is called The Four Tests What it
Will Take to Keep America Strong and Good. Dan, great
to have you on this first episode of One Thing.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Trump did it to be with you, Jeremy.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
So let's start with the stakes just for our audience.
Why does what happens with Ukraine matters so much to
the US that we have poured so much money into
helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Well, three quick things first, starting with the last part,
we have poured a lot of money into it, but
most of that money has gone into the United States,
into building kit and equipment in the United States, supporting
American jobs, and that equipment has been delivered to Ukraine.
And also, just to put it in context, during the
entire course of this war, in three years now, it's
been about three percent of US defense spending. So just
(02:36):
to put it in context, it is a lot of money,
because the United States spends a lot on defense, but
it's not a lot of money in the grand scheme
of things, and most of that money has been spent
here at home. Why it matters, I mean two big reasons. One,
the United States does better both economically and in a
security sense in a world in which things are more predictable.
(02:58):
And when a big country like Russia breaks the rules
and invades a neighbor, it destabilizes not only that neighbor,
but also the entire world because it sets an example
for others. And so those of us who are concerned
about what arising China means and what China might learn
from this should also be concerned that the rules are
respected and that the rules are enforced, and invading your
(03:19):
neighbor for no reason just isn't allowed. So that's one reason.
The other is economically, I mean, a lot of American
jobs depend on our relationship with Europe. European security matters.
For America, about five hundred billion dollars a year of
exports go to Europe, and those five hundred billion dollars
support two million jobs here at home. And just to
(03:40):
put that in context, during the first Trump administration, he
had a net loss of two point seven million jobs,
and that was with the pandemic. And so to lose
two million jobs, I mean two million jobs is a
lot of jobs that are dependent on our relationship with
Europe and on Europe being safe and secure and prosperous well.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
And so then I guess that's my follow up there
on Europe being safe and secure and prosperous, is that
truly at risk if Ukraine doesn't win this war the
way that they want to win the war, which would
be to get all of their territorial boundaries back to
the way they were before putin even invaded Crimea, does
that really put European security at risk beyond the borders
(04:16):
of Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
I think a deal that doesn't leave Ukraine safe, secure
and independent does put European security at risk. And when
we've seen borders changed by force in Europe twice, in
the last one hundred and ten years. It has resulted
in chaos and mass destruction. And you know, I'm not
terribly fond of the warning of World War three. I'm
(04:39):
not sure it's terribly constructive, but certainly President Trump has
done that repeatedly in recent days. And if he's really
concerned about World War three, the most likely cause, if
we look at World War One and World War Two,
is to allow, you know, undeterred a situation where a
dictator tries to take over other territory without consequences. That
(05:01):
is what caused it in World War One and World
War Two, and we shouldn't be allowing it.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Now you're talking about Vladimir Putin. Trump has started calling
Vladimir Zelensky a dictator.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Why do you think he is doing that?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
I don't know, because it's not true. And I worry
as an American that Trump is that President Trump is
allowing his personal animus to interfere with his advocacy for
American interests. Not only has he called Zelensky a dictator.
Today in the Oval Office with French President Lacron, he
(05:37):
refused to call Putin a dictator when asked by a
duralist and so the fact is one of the two
leaders is actually, by conventional definitions, a dictator. But Zelenski
was elected with seventy four percent of the vote several
years ago. Yes, Ukraine has been under martial law because
of the Russian invasion. Yes, all parties in Ukraine agreed
(05:58):
that there need to be elections as soon as possible, well,
i e. When a peace deal has been met and
they can remove martial law. But Zelensky still has popular
support greater frankly than President Trump or President Biden had
here in this country. So you know, I think it's
not fair to call him the dictator.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Zelenski now says that he would actually stand down. This
is in response to Trump's comments about the elections there
that he would stand down if Ukraine could join NATO.
Is there any chance of that happening right now? It
doesn't look so.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
But I think it's important to recognize that even though
in the last few weeks things have dramatically changed, not
only in terms of the US relationship with Ukraine but
also the US relationship with Europe, joining NATO becomes, you know,
a lightning rod for a lot of folks. But joining
NATO should be understood really as a code or a
stand in for securing Ukraine and for having once a
(06:53):
peace deal is struck, for having assurance that that peace
deal will be respected for not only the short term
but the medium and long term. One of the ways
to offer security guarantees to Ukraine would be to fast
track NATO admission, fast track Ukraine's joining NATO, because that
would provide security guarantees that would give confidence so that
investors could go into Ukraine, so that Ukrainian society could
(07:16):
start to rebuild, so that people could come back from overseas.
The five million I think it is Ukrainians were living
outside of Ukraine's borders now could feel confident coming home.
So joining NATO, yes, it could be on the table
because President Trump and European leaders could decide to put
it on the table. There's nothing that has foreclosed that
option as a n for US policy or European policy
(07:37):
so far. Same thing with supporting Ukraine militarily. I mean,
it feels like it's off the table. But the fact
is President Trump has more power than any American president
probably has had in years, and if he decided tomorrow
that he wanted to go for a new supplementals to
support Ukraine and make sure that President Trump could broker
a good deal. He could announce that and Congress would
(07:58):
get behind that. They would get behind me that, probably
with a bigger majority than Joe Biden ever saw for
a supplemental for Ukraine, because he has such a good
control over his party in Congress, and Democrats would get
on board.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
But Vladimir Putin really doesn't want Ukraine to be a
part of NATO. Why is he so afraid of Ukraine
joining NATO, especially given the fact that obviously there's this
mutual defense deal in NATO where if an attack on
one is an attack on all. But if you look
at what just happened, all of these other NATO countries
did come to Ukraine's aid anyway. So why is Putin
(08:35):
so afraid of Ukraine actually officially being part of NATO?
Speaker 3 (08:40):
I think for him and some in the Russian establishment too,
it has become more a symbol than a reality. I mean,
I am probably not everybody in Washington would agree with me,
but I happen to think that NATO has been on
the whole good for Russia. It has been something that
(09:01):
has kept Russia's neighbors to the West safe and secure.
It has probably been the thing that has prevented, say, Poland,
from seeking nuclear weapons because Poland has felt safe and
secure Ino and so it has actually given Russia more
stable borders that have allowed it to deal with other
kinds of security threats. There is, I believe, zero threat
that comes NATO as a defensive alliance. There is no
(09:25):
threat to Russia that comes from Ukraine or any other
country being part of NATO. The only threat to Russia
is that if Vladimir Putin intends to continue to adventure
beyond his borders and invade countries, it does make it
harder for him to do that. So the only thing
that it forecloses in terms of options for him are
further violations of international law or further destabilizing of the
(09:45):
regional security situation.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Do you think Dan Bher that NATO's existence in general
is at stake in all of what is happening right
now with Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
I don't think it's exists in general is at stake,
but I think it has already changed significantly. The United
States military capacity is the backbone of NATO. It is
part of what makes the NATO deterrent. The commitment that
NATO members have to defend each other a credible deterrent.
(10:19):
And by the way, it's important to remind folks that
the only time that it's ever been invoked, the only
time that a NATO member has ever said we call
on everyone else to join with us and come to
our defense, is September eleventh, exactly. But that credible deterrent
depends on the United States being committed, and I believe
that military leaders, congressional leaders, many Trump officials remain committed
(10:44):
to NATO as an alliance, as being part of the
cornerstone of the US approach to global security. But I
certainly think that there are questions that have been raised
in recent weeks that probably make it less strong than
it was a month ago.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
You know, just for our listeners, a little interesting tidbit.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
One of the countries that always did meet its two
percent GDP spending on defense, even before Trump got angry
about this, was Greece. Because Greece is worried about Turkey,
it really has.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Something to do with anything else besides, and also because
Greece has a huge navy, and maybe that's right, that's right.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
What's going on now with the negotiations, because there's reporting that,
you know, Trump is trying to go around Ukraine and
there were meetings just between the US and Russia and
Saudi Arabia. What's happening with the negotiations at the moment.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Uh, it's hard to say. Obviously there have it's not
only Ukraine but also our European allies who have been
cut out of the Trump conversation. So far, there are
you know, there are worrying reports of President Trump's conversations
with President Putin, and it does feel like some days
it feels like instead of solving the war in a day,
(12:00):
as he promised to on the campaign trail, he actually
has come close to losing the war in a day.
But I don't think it is too late to salvage
a good deal. I do think in the long run,
Ukraine needs to be at the table. They don't have
to be at the table in every meeting. You know,
the fact that they weren't in this first meeting may
be deemed unfortunate, but it's not irreparable. But Ukraine needs
(12:20):
to be at the table because whatever deal is made
needs to be one that can be sold at home
in Ukraine as a decent deal that allows Ukraine the
kind of future that the Ukrainian people want, and you know,
there's wide parameters for what that might look like, but
Ukraine does need to be at the table, and so
do the Europeans because we are going to, as President
(12:41):
Trump has said, we are going to count on the
Europeans to step up and to do more to secure
their own region. And if they're going to have to
step up and do more, then they're going to need
to know what the terms of the deal are that
they're going to have to step up and do.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Support Dan, We talked a little bit about Trump's idea
that you know, the US should get paid back, that
there should be some deal involving money from Ukraine's mineral
rare earth minerals. A Democratic lawmaker was on one of
the Sunday talk shows over the weekend. It said that
reminded of him out of something out of the Sopranos,
(13:16):
that it was like, what the mafia does. What do
you think that does, sort of demanding something from a
democracy that we're trying to defend. What does that do
to America's image around the world. If the US is
doing this, not out of the goodness of its heart,
or not because it's in its interests to help a
(13:37):
fellow democracy, but because we want money.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
Yeah, I mean, there is a nice little country you've
got there. It would be shame if something happened to it.
Subtext all this, I've been trying to stay focused and
not get distracted by the minerals deal. I mean, some
of the numbers that are being thrown around there don't
feel realistic, and the near turn to me in any case,
(14:02):
I think there are I mean, so I see that
more as at this point an opportunity for President Trump
to politically sell something at home, and I think it
is an opportunity, frankly for him to do more to
support Ukraine in the short term, because you can say,
we have an investment there and we need to protect
that investment, et cetera. So maybe it turns out to
be useful politically for him at home. I do think
(14:25):
one of the concerns I would be less focused on
the numbers and more focused on who ends up getting
these financial interests. Are they private American entities or is
it public entities? Because there's also a hint of King
Leopold and the Congo here where things feel like a
kind of a private, privatized form of economic neocolonialism, and
(14:49):
that would make me anxious just from a corruption standpoint.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
We're talking with Dan Behar, who is the director of
the euro Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
on this episode of One Thing Trump Did. We're going
to take a quick break.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
We'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Welcome back to One Thing Trump Did exclusively on the
Middle Podcast Feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson. We're talking about Ukraine.
A lot at stake right now. I'm joined by Dan Bhar,
director of the Europe Program at the Carnegie and Dowma
for International Peace, as well as former US Ambassador to
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Dan, you
mentioned this, but one of the things that comes up
(15:37):
in terms of the stakes of this situation in Ukraine
for the United States is China and Taiwan and whether
China is looking at this and saying, well, if Putin's
gonna get away with this and is going to get
some of the territory, if not all, the territory he's
after in Ukraine after all of this, many years of
(15:57):
war and push back from the West, if he gets
it president, she is just going to say, Okay, Well,
then that means I can take Taiwan and there's going
to be no problem.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
There's gonna be no pushback there.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
Yeah, I mean, I don't think it's quite as simple
as that. And frankly, the interests with respect to China's rise,
obviously Taiwan is one that gets a lot of visibility
in Washington and in Europe, but there are other interests
about China's encroachment in the South China Sea that affects
Southeast Asian neighbors, et cetera. And I think certainly there
(16:28):
are you know, you have to expect that when a
large country is allowed to bully a smaller country without consequences.
And frankly, when the United States, which is the most
powerful country on are is still not relatively as powerful
as we were thirty years ago, but still the most
powerful country on Earth, decides to throw all in with
(16:49):
the bully rather than the victim, that that does make
folks in other capitals wonder whether there will be consequences
for breaking the rules in the future. And that applies
to a whole range of situations. Obviously, the situation with
Taiwan is very complex and not entirely analogous in many
(17:10):
ways to the situation in Eastern Europe, but certainly China's
watching carefully how the States responds and learning about President
Trump's priorities and his proclivities.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
We just did an entire show with the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation about Trump's continued suggestion that the US should take
over Canada as the fifty first state, and in that program,
which was broadcast live across the US and Canada, we
also mentioned, of course that Trump has talked about taking Greenland, Gaza,
(17:46):
and the Panama Canal.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Yeah. I mean here it's again. It's one of the things.
By the way, I've been annoyed at that for petty
parochial reasons, because I had told the editor of Foreign
Affairs last year that I wanted to write a piece
about how the geopolitical play of the twenty first century
would be a voluntary confederation of the US and Canada
(18:10):
because together we would have more natural resources, Canada would
be more easily defended, etc. So the idea itself is
not terribly preposterous to me. Of course, I would envision
it by democratic means, not by a kind of colonial takeover.
Militaristic takeover. But I mean with all of these things,
you know, on the one hand, you can just see
(18:30):
them as what he does so well. President Trump is
very good at controlling the narrative, at shifting the narrative,
and if he reads the political moment, it says a
lot of Americans feel like they're on defense, defense against
global threats, defense against chaos, defense against social media whatever.
Then talking about taking over places is a way to
(18:50):
kind of shift the narrative and make people feel like, hey,
we're on offense again. Our team's on offense again, and
that alone can deliver political dividends. And so on the
one hand, you could look at it that way, or
you could look at it as a genuine kind of
nineteenth century He's enamored with President Putin. President Putin likes
to expand Russia's share of the map, and that's what
(19:10):
he's trying to do in a neocolonial fashion, rebuild the
Russian empire. And President Trump decides he wants to build
an American empire. Or you could look at the deal
that he's trying to broke her in Ukraine with the
critical minerals and the joint investment stuff and you could
look at what he said about Greenland and say, actually,
at heart, he's still just a real estate deal maker,
(19:30):
and these are real estate deals to him, and he's
thinking about it in those terms, with a kind of
businessman's dealmaking behind it, and possibly for the gain of
not necessarily only public offers.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Let's talk about Europe, because the war in Ukraine has
certainly caused upheaval in European politics. We've seen the right
politically rising in Italy, in France, although enough to win
in the country, but in Germany just now with the elections,
the Conservatives won there and the far right actually did
very well as well. What do the Europeans want to
(20:12):
happen in Ukraine? Or is it split right now or
is it splitting in Europe about what people actually would
like to occur?
Speaker 3 (20:22):
I think that. I mean, obviously they're in There are
many countries that make up quote unquote the Europeans, and
within each country there are as in our own, there
are people who lie across a spectrum of political views.
But I think in general, actually the last few weeks,
even if they generated some chaos and panic in the
(20:43):
first instance, I think they've actually been consolidating for European views. Today,
you saw, for instance, the leaders of Spain and some
of the Baltic countries together in Kiev to commemorate the
third anniversary of the war. And Spain hasn't conventionally been
thought of as being kind of on the front end
of the we got to defend Ukraine at all costs
(21:05):
train the Baltics much more so, so you're seeing some
solidarity across the European continent. Certainly, I think that, you know,
the rise of the far right has less to do with,
you know, the Russia's war against Ukraine and more to
do with the fact that Europe has failed to get
back to economic growth in the wake of the two
thousand and eight financial crisis. So one of the priorities
(21:27):
for European leaders is going to be getting enough security,
making sure that Ukraine is secure enough that Europe itself
can get back to growth in the decade to come,
because they really can't afford to have another lost decade.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Yeah, you know, it's interesting.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
I just going back to our trip just now to
Canada for this special that we did, and I was
speaking with Canadians, and you know, one of them was
telling me that their economy is shit, and I'm allowed
to say shit on this podcast. I can't do that
on the radio version of the mid like I say
their economy is shit right now that the that the
Canadian dollar is way down compared to other currencies, it's
(22:05):
so much more expensive, and it reminds me as an
American where we've actually, in the last few years since
the pandemic, had an economy that has really outperformed so
many other places that you think about European countries, their
economies are not as good right now comparatively, and they're
dealing with a huge influx of migrants coming in from
(22:25):
the Middle East and countries that are in the middle
of where in Ukraine of course, so dealing with a
lot of things that we don't really think about as
much here in the US.
Speaker 3 (22:35):
It's absolutely right, and you hear the talking point from
on the left and right in this country that you know,
Europe is a rich place that can afford to do more,
and certainly they can afford to do more, and Europe
is a rich continent when compared to almost all other continents,
but when compared to the United States, I think a
lot of people would be surprised to see what gdpig
per capita in the UK is compared to the United States,
(22:58):
with GDP per capita in fras Is or in Germany,
places that are considered the rich parts of Europe. The
United States has grown since the two thousand and eight
financial crisis, and Europeans have not kept up. And if
you look at the graph of GDP per capita for
the United States compared to major European countries or the
EU as a whole, it tells a very difficult story
(23:20):
for Europe. And by the way, one of the things
that Americans should understand is that that is a problem
for us too, not only because we count on Europe
as a market to export too, but because as we
look forward to the coming decades and the challenges of
artificial intelligence, of new pandemics, of all these problems without passports,
we're going to need the Europeans to help us solve them.
We are not going to be able to solve them alone.
(23:41):
Of further geopolitical conflicts, we want to have a strong
Europe as partners. They are our most reliable democratic partners,
advanced democracies in the world, and we need them to
be strong and so we want them to grow too.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
Let's talk about President Biden, former President Biden's handling of
the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
Trump has been a ti hacking.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
It is saying that it never would have started if
he were in office, or if it did start, it
would have finished very quickly with the caveat that you
worked in the Obama administration. Do you fault Biden at
all for allowing the war to start or do you
have criticism of his handling of the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
For allowing the war to start. Absolutely not. The responsibility
for starting the war lies in Moscow, and in Moscow only.
There was nothing that Ukraine did to provoke this war.
And in fact, the United States, in a relatively novel
way through saw the war coming, saw the Russian war preparations,
and made President Biden and his national security team made
a very innovative decision to declassify a lot of intelligence
(24:45):
in the weeks and months leading up to the Russian
invasion in an attempt both to tell the Russians, look,
we see what you're doing, and we're going to be
prepared to respond with consequences, and also to get Europeans
and others to take seriously this threat. So I mean,
I think there was a real effort diplomatically and with
novel use of intelligence to try to forestall the invasion.
(25:07):
In terms of the conduct of American support for Ukraine
since the war started, it is easy for people on
the outside like me to Monday Morning quarterback every single decision.
But I think there was overall within the Biden administration
a commitment to get Ukraine the equipment and supplies that
(25:29):
it needed to fight back, and to do so in
a way that was attentive to risks of escalation. Do
I personally think that at times they were too attentive
to risk of escalation escalation? Sure, I do. And it's
easy for me to say that I didn't have the
responsibility of making sure that things escalate. I would point
(25:50):
out that from the perspective of the United States, our
support for Ukraine, as I said, has amounted to about
three percent of military spending, and it has absolutely had
critical damage, not fully destroyed, but critical damage on the
military efficacy of one of the greatest potential adversaries, the
(26:11):
Russian Federation. The Russian military has been deeply damaged by
this war. It will take them years to recover. So
from the standpoint of the United States for a low cost,
because Ukrainians have been doing the fighting, not a single
American life life has been lost for a low cost,
we have severely hampered the capabilities of a major potential adversary.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
You think Russia is significantly weaker now than it was
a few years ago when the war started.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Absolutely, they have lost hundreds of thousands in casualties. They've
had a lot of their equipment destroyed. They are working through.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Or we've just seen some of their equipment, which is
like from decades ago.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
And I was going to say, they're working through their stores.
And you know, my colleagues who are analysts of Russian
military forces suggest that they probably have another eighteen months
or so of stuff in storage that they can pull
out and try to fix up and use for spare
parts one machine for another. But they are also struggling
(27:07):
to keep up with the pace of this war, and
so Russia is actually not able to sustain this forever.
Even though Putin has had wartime economy, they're not able
to sustain it forever. And they certainly are less capable
in terms of a fight. If they were to take
on say the United States, they would be less capable
as an adversary than they would have been two or
three years ago.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
And when you look outside of the war in Ukraine,
Russia also just lost this kind of war that it
was really playing a role in Syria. To keep Bashar
al Asad in power, he's had to pull in North
Korean troops to fight in Ukraine with the Russians. It
does seem like it's strange that Putin looks to be
(27:52):
in such a position of power with the negotiations right now,
given how weak you say and how weak we see
that he's become because of the war.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
I mean, President Trump prides himself on being a terrific negotiator.
And it may be that you and I don't have
full information right now, but the last few weeks look
like the United States has played a stronghand poorly and
Vladimir Putin has played a relatively weaker hand quite well.
(28:23):
It doesn't look like he has lost anything. The President
Trump has given President Putin a lot of things that
he wanted without actually having to negotiate for them. I
will also point out you mentioned the Russian involvement in Syria.
You know people who say, Putin can't pull out of
Ukraine or can't you know, can't have a piece in
Ukraine that would be fair to Ukraine because he can't
(28:45):
sell it at home. They got completely routed in Syria.
And the line that President Putin used was we accomplished
all of our objectives. It was a victory for Russian interest,
and we're done there. So he can sell with a
where he wants at home. The fact is, you know,
he needs we need to have real negotiations that get
(29:06):
a fair deal for Ukraine that can be secure, secure
enough to have a real piece that people can have
confidence in so that it can have elections and so
that the Ukrainian people can get back to building the
democratic future that they want.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
So, Dan Behar, what is your prediction about what will
happen now with Ukraine over the next several weeks. It
seems like it's on the front burner in the foreign
policy agenda of the Trump administration right now.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Yeah, it feels like it is on the front burner
of the foreign I mean, one of the things that
President Trump does well and that the people around him
seem to have taken up from him, is that he
makes himself very unpredictable, so I'm loath to hazard of gas.
I would say that I think the departure from facts,
you know, calling Zelensky a dictator when he's not, saying
(29:55):
that Putin didn't start the war when he did. All
of that stuff makes me quite nervous. But there's still
I mean, I reassure myself by saying President Trump actually
still has a good hand to play if he wanted
to make a deal where the Europeans had to make
a long term commitment to buy more American equipment, to
(30:16):
spend more themselves on developing their defense industrial base, taking
on the responsibility for helping fund Ukraine's reconstruction, and in exchange,
the US agreed not to pull out precipitously and to
continue to provide weapons in the short to medium term,
and to help bring the Europeans, Ukrainians and Russians together
to make a deal that could have a peace agreement
(30:38):
and to secure Ukraine's future. That's all within his power.
He could actually make a good deal and sell it
at home and say, look, I've got a peace agreement.
Ukraine's going to be secure, the Europeans are going to
do more, America is going to have to do less
and we have peace in Europe and that's a win
for him, and that is still available to him if
he makes the right decisions going forward.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
That is Dan Bahr, who is the director of the
Europe Program at the Carnegie Endownment for International Peace. He's
also former US ambassador's the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe and his new book is called The Four
Tests What it will Take to Keep America.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Strong and good. Dan, so great to talk to you.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
As always, Thank you so much, thanks for having me,
and thanks you for listening to our first episode of
One Thing Trump Did. It was produced by Harrison Patino.
Our next middle episode will be in your podcast feed
later this week. It's our conversation with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse
Tyson about space exploration, life on other planets and more.
And if you like this podcast, please rate it wherever
you get your podcast, tell your friends. And by the way,
(31:35):
we are only about two thousand dollars away from our
donation goal.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
All donations are maps dollar for dollar right now.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
You can make a contribution at listen to the miiddle
dot com.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Our theme music here was composed by Noah Haidu. I'm
Jeremy Hobson. Talk to you soon.
Host
Jeremy Hobson
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com