January 10, 2025 • 49 mins
On this episode of The Middle we're asking you: what should happen now with Ukraine? We're joined by Fox News Chief National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin and Dan Baer, senior vice president for policy research and director of the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Middle's house DJ Tolliver joins as well, plus callers from around the country. #ukraine #russia #war #foreignaid #europe #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 (00:00):
The Middle is supported by Journalism Funding Partners, a nonprofit
organization striving to increase the sustainability of local journalism by
building connections between donors and news organizations. More information on
how you can support the Middle at Listen tooth Middle
dot com. Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson, along
(00:21):
with our house DJ Tolliver and Tulliver. Before we get
into the show, I do want to say it has
been a pretty crazy week for both of us. I
have lived on and off in Los Angeles since I
was an NPR producer twenty years ago, and this week
had to suddenly evacuate because of one of the fires
that started very close.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
To my home.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Thankfully, we are safe, no damage. A lot of people
not as lucky. How are you doing.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
I'm good man, I'm thankful to be safe over here
in Katetown where there's not a lot of damage. Just
trying to maintain and entertain my cats because they have
no idea what's going on.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Right, and I know my dog. Actually, I feel like
you can tell that there's like the sky is smoky,
the era is smoky. I do want to thank everyone
for checking in on us. It is very hard to
see so much devastation in the city that I love.
But it is truly heartening to see so many people
taking care of each other, as they do everywhere in
this country during disasters like this. And for the record, Talvert,
(01:12):
both you and I grew up in Illinois Tornado Alley.
I will say this is way scarier.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Than yeh, it is.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Well, now to our topic this hour, a very important topic.
What should happen now with Ukraine and what's at stake
for the United States. We are getting very close to
the inauguration of President elect Donald Trump, who has said
multiple times that he would end the war within twenty
four hours of becoming president. Here he is in a
town hall with CNN's Caitlin Collins.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
If I'm president, I will have that war settled in
one day, twenty four hours.
Speaker 5 (01:46):
Allan, do you settle on more so?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
I'll meet with I'll meet with Zelenski.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
They both have weaknesses and they both have strengths. And
within twenty four hours that war will be settled. It'll
be over, It'll be absolutely you.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Want Ukraine to win this war.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
I don't think in terms of winning and losing. I
think in terms of getting it settled, so we stop
killing all these people and breaking down this country.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Under President Biden, the US has been a staunch supporter
of Ukraine in their ongoing conflict with Russia, supplying the
nation with billions of dollars in foreign eight and military
assistance ever since Russia invaded in twenty twenty two. Trump,
on the other hand, hasn't made clear what he wants
to see happen other than an end to the war.
So we want to hear from you what should happen
now with Ukraine and what's at stake for the United States. Holliver,
(02:33):
Can you give everybody the number please?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Yeah, it's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four
four four six four three three five three, or you
can write to us to listen to the Middle dot
com and you can also comment on our new livestream
on YouTube, TikTok and Twitch.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Let's meet our panel.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Fox News Chief National Security correspondent Jennifer Griffin is with us. Jennifer,
Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 5 (02:52):
Thank you. Jeremy, glad to be here.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
And Dan Bher, who is the director of the Europe
Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is a
former US ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe. His book is called The Four Test. Dan,
welcome to you.
Speaker 6 (03:06):
Thanks so much. I'm pleased to be here.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Well, before we get to the folks, Jennifer, you've been
covering this very closely. Just give our listeners a sense
of what is going on with the war right now.
It does seem like it's been kind of in a
back and forth stalemate for quite some time.
Speaker 7 (03:20):
Well, I think, Jeremy, first of all, I've been covering
the war since the night that Russia invaded. We were
briefed at the Pentagon in the days leading up to
the war of what to expect. The administration took an
incredible decision to declassify that intelligence.
Speaker 5 (03:35):
It was the same intelligence that was.
Speaker 7 (03:36):
Shared with Vladimir Zelenski and his team, and so we
knew what was coming.
Speaker 5 (03:42):
We were watching it in real time.
Speaker 7 (03:44):
And I've been covering it really ever since I was
in Ukraine after the Bucha massacre a few months after
the Russians invaded. And I think the way to think
about this right now in terms of what a sort
of stalemate they're in, but in terms of, you know,
the amount of destruction is incredible. We just heard from
Defense Secretary of Austin today that Russia has seven hundred
(04:07):
thousand casualties if you get the dead and wounded, that
is an incredible number for the last three years.
Speaker 5 (04:14):
But the way to think.
Speaker 7 (04:14):
Of this is if you looked at a map of Ukraine,
you would see that the Russians have really been only
making the control right now about twenty percent of Ukraine.
But they've been moving forward at a rate of just
about one mile a month. So that means that that
really there in.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
The life would take forever, it would take forever.
Speaker 5 (04:36):
Take ten miles.
Speaker 7 (04:37):
So it's right now pretty stalemated, it's still pretty bloody,
and I can say more about the style of warfare,
but I'll throw it back to you.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Yeah, well, Dan Behar, what's your sense and is there
any way do you think for either side to win
without an agreement and a negotiation.
Speaker 8 (04:58):
In the near to medium terms, there's no prospect I
think of a breakthrough, a serious breakthrough on either side
of the status quo obtains. And as Jennifer said, the
Russians are creeping forward, but very slowly and actually slower,
probably because of the winter weather, and that will stay slow,
likely during the spring, because as things thaw there will
be more mud and that will slow things down as well.
(05:20):
Both sides are really suffering from manpower issues, particularly the Ukrainians,
but both sides. And just to put that number that
Jennifer put out there in context, you know, seven hundred
thousand Russians is probably one and a half percent of
the adult male military fighting age Russians in the country.
That's a staggering number. It would be millions in the
(05:41):
United States the equivalent number. Ukraine is also really suffering
from manpower challenges, and so they are both they're both
at a stalemate and also both feeling the hurt right now.
And in addition to manpower, also on the equipment side,
the Russians are sending mainly referbed Soviet equipment to the
(06:01):
front lines. They have some more of that to work through,
but they will run out of that at some point.
They're burning through it faster than they can make new kit.
And the Ukrainians are obviously highly dependent on the assistance
that they are getting from the United States and forty
nine other countries in that assistance.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Group well, and in terms of that assistant Jennifer Griffin.
Do you have a sense of what Trump plans to
do when he comes into office with this, Well.
Speaker 7 (06:23):
I'm not sure Trump knows what he's going to do
when he comes in because already we've seen him shift
the timeline of when he's going to resolve this conflict.
He said twenty four hours to Kaitlin Collins, but just
last week he said it'll probably take about six months.
And then we heard Keith Kellogg, who is his Special
envoy to Ukraine, say on Fox News just this week
that it would take about one hundred days. So they're
(06:45):
all over the map in terms of timing. I think
what's clear in terms of his choice of National Security
advisor with Mike Waltz, who's a former Army ranger and
who understands the Ukraine situation and is not part of
the isolationist wing of the party, and Keith kellogga three
star Army general retired Army general. I think he is
(07:07):
serious about engaging. I would expect that they are going
to try to escalate before they try to get Putin
and Zelenski to the negotiating table. The Biden administration is
leaving about four billion dollars in military aid that was
passed by Congress last April.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
That wasn't their plan.
Speaker 7 (07:25):
But there are still four billions billion dollars in military
aid that the Trump administration can send weapons that are
badly needed right now by Ukraine.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
Today.
Speaker 7 (07:37):
The Biden administration did announce another half a billion dollars
when Lloyd Austin was in Germany at the Contact Group meeting.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Let's go to the phones because the calls are coming in.
Steve is in Denver, Colorado. Steve, welcome to Laura. What
do you want to happen with Ukraine and the United States?
Speaker 9 (07:55):
Can you hear me?
Speaker 2 (07:55):
I can hear you?
Speaker 9 (07:56):
Go ahead, great turn is American values and what we
stand for. And a Russia has invaded a sovereign country
and is trying to take it over by military force.
As the democracy I think we are, that's that's something
(08:18):
that we just let happen or or and there's all
sorts of that you guys already know about in terms
of the potential down the road of what could happen
in Europe as Russia feels like it can do such things,
let alone China. So number one, as a democracy, we
need to defend Ukraine. And number two is if we
(08:39):
don't want to see American boots on the ground, then
we need to do everything we can to support Ukraine
to maintain the sovereignty of their own borders at any
cost a sieve, And then what do you mean a
financial costs?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (08:59):
Pretty, I would say yes. I would rather enormous financial
cost than lose American soldiers in this war or to
have Russia feel like it's to invade its neighbors in Europe.
And what's that going to lead you down the road?
Speaker 10 (09:14):
Here or later?
Speaker 9 (09:15):
We're going to have American roots on the ground in
Europe if we don't, If this doesn't.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Stop, Steve, thank you very much for that, called dan Vert.
We've heard that from President Biden many times, saying that,
you know, if we don't stop this by supporting Ukraine
to fight back against Russia, eventually the US would be
drawn into a larger war in Europe.
Speaker 8 (09:35):
I mean history, over the last one hundred and twenty years,
we have seen that when countries try to change borders
by force, particularly in Europe, sooner or later America gets
drawn in. And we never get drawn in because we
want to jump. In World War One or in World
War Two, we didn't want to jump in. There were
strong isolationist voices in the United States, but because eventually
(09:57):
it implicates directly American interests, we get drawn in. And
so I think the principle that countries should not be
changing borders by force, that bullies don't get to decide
that borders don't matter, is one that is not just
a kind of nice principle to uphold, but it is
one that history teaches us that when we don't uphold it,
we get chaos, and that chaos has direct implications for Americans.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
And Jennifer Griffin, what about Steve's point about just defending
another democracy.
Speaker 7 (10:24):
Well, it's a really important point, and I think it
can't be understated.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
That President She of China is watching.
Speaker 7 (10:30):
And if there's one bipartisan issue in Washington right now
is concern about China's desire to overtake Taiwan in the
next few years. And so if you want to deter
President She from going into Taiwan, you really have to
show that you're willing to stand up to bullies like
Vladimir Putin. I think it's important to remember, Jeremy, that
(10:51):
Vladimir Putin is hurting and sometimes the US is not
very patient, and we need strategic patients right now because
if you look at the ruble right now, it's lost
half its value since this war began three years ago.
The interest rates in Russia are twenty one percent. They
are bleeding money, and the sanctions are getting tightened, and
(11:12):
you just you really don't know how. If the Ukrainians
are willing to wait this out and keep fighting, then
the US should not pull the rug out from underneath them.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Jeremy, I just stand by Dan because I want to
get with you to the issue of the China Taiwan situation,
how that's connected. But Tolliver, the US obviously has a
lot of power here. Europeans, though, probably have just as much,
if not more, at stake.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Yeah, here's outgoing Belgian Prime Minister Alexander Dacrue talking about
European regional security in November.
Speaker 11 (11:44):
We should be very clear on this. European security is
not something that we outsource to someone else, for example, to.
Speaker 6 (11:50):
Do United States.
Speaker 11 (11:51):
But our security will be better if you work together,
and we are open to discuss the United States on
how we can work better to I hope we can,
but of course we will also define their own interests.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
As we said outgoing Prime Minister Tolliver, a lot of
politics being shaken in Europe as well, and we will
be right back with more of the middle. This is
the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. If you're just tuning, in
the Middle is a national call in show. We are
focused on elevating voices from the middle geographically, politically and philosophically,
(12:25):
or maybe you just want to meet.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
In the middle.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
This hour, we're asking you what should happen now with Ukraine? Tolliver,
what is the number to call in?
Speaker 3 (12:32):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three three five three. You can also
write to us to listen to the Middle dot com
or on social media.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
I'm joined by Fox News Chief National Security correspondent Jennifer
Griffin and former Ambassador Dan Beherr, director of the Europe
Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Piece. Dan Bear,
your book is called The Four Tests, What it Will Keep,
What it will take to keep America strong and good?
And I wonder what do you think is at stake
when it comes to the future.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Of American power with the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 8 (13:03):
Well, I think the future of American power is going
to involve a lot more working with other countries than
perhaps we felt was necessary, say in the nineteen nineties,
when we were living through a unipolar moment, And in
order to be able to build the kinds of partnerships
and alliances that we're going to need to protect American
prosperity and security in the coming years, We're going to
(13:24):
need to have credibility in the world. We need to
stand for something, and people are going to know that
we stand for something that when we say we stand
for something, they can count on us. As the previous
callers said, this is a moment when democracies are called
to defend a former, a fellow democracy against a brutal
invasion without cause. And America's standing with Ukraine right now
(13:47):
is not only standing up for our values, but demonstrating
to the rest of the world that when we stand
with you, we mean it. And I think that is
important for our long term credibility in the coming decades.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
What about Russia, Jennifer, and what is Putin's ultimate goal,
especially all the losses you've talked about that Russia has
taken in this ward, what is an acceptable outcome for him?
Speaker 2 (14:07):
At this point.
Speaker 7 (14:09):
Well, Jeremy, I lived in Moscow in the late nineties,
from ninety six to ninety nine, so, and that is
when Vladimir Putin was coming onto the scene. So I've
been watching him for the last thirty years.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
And really.
Speaker 7 (14:22):
It's very clear that Putin is not going to back down.
He's not going to pull out the Ukrainians. He's not
going to suddenly say, oh, it was a mistake. He's
not going to admit any weakness because that would be
a problem for him back home. He will hold on
to the twenty percent that he has. He's not going
to negotiate on CRIMEA. And so the best way to
(14:44):
protect Ukraine, and Resident Zelensky has said so is he
would like security guarantees if he does go to the
table and agrees to stop the conflict and basically give
up for the time being, twenty percent of his country.
He wants security guarantees and to be a part of
NATO one of the things that has been you know,
that's something that President Trump has said, it is a
(15:05):
red line. He's not he doesn't believe that Ukraine should
be in NATO. In fact, he's blamed that talk of
being in NATO for why Putin invaded. I don't believe
that is the case, having watched Putin for a long time.
Speaker 5 (15:17):
Putin is expansionists.
Speaker 7 (15:18):
He wants to get Ukraine back under the you know,
his imperial designs on it. And it's important to remember
that West Germany was made a part of NATO when
East Germany was still occupied by Russia, so the Soviet
Union at the time, So there is precedent for allowing
a country in when there is still a conflict and
(15:40):
it prevents conflict from spreading.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Frankly, Dan Behart, just on that point about NATO, do
you think that that is the key issue for Putin?
If America and the Europeans said okay, Ukraine is not
getting into NATO, would that make enough of a difference
or does it not really matter?
Speaker 6 (15:56):
No?
Speaker 8 (15:57):
I agree with Jennifer. His design is the full capitulation
of Ukraine. He wants full control of all of Ukraine.
And the reason he will stop is if the United States,
Europe and Ukraine all act together in order to show
him that there is a wall and that he cannot
have what he wants.
Speaker 6 (16:14):
The only way.
Speaker 8 (16:15):
He'll stop is if he is made to believe that
he cannot have what he wants. I agree with Jennifer
that one of the key problems here to solve that
the Trump administration will be tackling and in the next
one hundred days, is how to provide enough security guarantees
to Ukraine so that once an agreement is signed, they
can have confidence, and we can have confidence and the
(16:36):
Europeans can have confidence that it will stick. And that
means that Putin has to believe that there's skin in
the game for all of us if he violates that
agreement down the road.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
Let's go to Gregory, who's in Chicago. Gregory, welcome to
the middle Go ahead.
Speaker 12 (16:50):
Goodsing I as send it to the European nuclear disarment confidence.
In March of nineteen eighty three, when Reagan and Gorbachrov
were going back and forth about the Persian two intermediate
range missiles being based in West Germany, millions of people
rose up and the result was they taunt in Iceland
(17:11):
in Rykovic between gorbet Travi and rig and the agreement
that if he brought down the Iron Curtain and we
ended the Cold War, the division of Germany we left
over from World War Two and opened up Eastern Europe
that NATO would not expand one inch east of East Germany.
Instead of abiding by that, after the Warsaw pack was
(17:31):
dissolved and the Russian USSR collapsed, they have expanded NATO
over the last thirty five years to sixteen seventeen different countries.
And the reason why it is unacceptable for the Russians
to have Ukraine in NATO is because with hypersonic nuclear
(17:51):
missiles being only three hundred and eight miles potentially from
northeastern Ukraine to Moscow, it would destabilize the whole mutual
assured destruction balance of power that has prevailed over the
last seventy five years of the nuclear Cold War age
that we are still in. So therefore what he wanted
to do is to just they wouldn't allow them to
(18:14):
speak Russian in schools or in government, and so they
wouldn't allow the Russians to have an autonomy autonomous region
in the Donbass.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
And Gregory just briefly, what would you like to happen? Now?
Speaker 13 (18:30):
The Ukrainians started the shelling and they were going to
go in and crush the Donbass. So Putin came in
to protect the Damas he went overboard trying to take Kiev.
The treaty offering from the very beginning in February twenty
twenty two from the Putin administration is let us just
keep the one thousand year old Dombas with restaurant. You
don't join NATAL and it's over.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Gregory, thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Jennifer Griffin, what's your response there to Gregory's thought about
they may they should have just accepted that in the
first place.
Speaker 7 (18:58):
Well, there's a few historical facts that I think are
not correct in what Gregory said. The Ukrainians did not
start the shelling against the Russian troops in the Dombas.
The shelling began because the Russians had sent in what
they call little green men who were provoking these kind
of attacks because they were trying to stir up an
(19:19):
uprising and an independence movement as an excuse for Putin
to go in and send Russian troops in back in
twenty fourteen.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
So that's what happened at the start of this. In
terms of.
Speaker 7 (19:33):
You know, there is a way to structure this that
Ukraine could be in NATO and not.
Speaker 5 (19:39):
Have nuclear weapons.
Speaker 7 (19:40):
For instance, Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons, so fearing nuclear
weapons on hypersonic missiles coming from Ukraine. That's fantasy. They
don't have nuclear weapons. And there is precedent also if
you look at Norway. Norway when it joined NATO in
nineteen forty nine, it agreed not to allow nuclear weapons
beyond its territory or to come into its ports. So
(20:02):
there are plenty of ways to structure this so that
Putin feels secure. The group that does not feel secure
is Ukraine. They're the ones who've been invaded. And so
we really have to remember who started this. And even
if there was an excuse or a figment of Putin's
imagination that NATO shouldn't have expanded into NATO is not
an aggressive is not an aggressor.
Speaker 5 (20:24):
NATO is a defense.
Speaker 7 (20:25):
It's hacked and it was designed to protect and it
was desired by countries like Ukraine and the Baltic Stakes
who had been gobbled up in the past. They know
their history and this was their decision. It wasn't NATO
demanding or invading those countries. Those countries came to NATO
and asked to join, and frankly Russia when I was
(20:46):
based in Russia, Russia had a seat for many years
at NATO headquarters.
Speaker 5 (20:50):
In fact, they used it to spy on.
Speaker 7 (20:52):
NATO, but they were given a seat there in good
faith to try and keep the peace in Europe.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Jane is calling from conquered Massachusetts. Jane, Welcome to the Middle.
Your thoughts about what should happen with Ukraine?
Speaker 13 (21:06):
Hi?
Speaker 14 (21:08):
Well, I think if we look at what Trump said
about Greenland recently, that we need it for our economic security,
and then he says, oh for everybody else. He doesn't
support NATO, so why would he use Greenland to help
support Europe and everybody else? And I think we should
have even been more aggressive against Putin in Ukraine from
(21:29):
the very beginning, because it's been like little dribs and
drabs here and they're adding weaponry and that sort of thing,
and Putin needs to be stopped. It's a beginning of
World War three, or at least a war for famine
because he wants to control agriculture in Ukraine. And I
think Trump should be stopped from letting him, letting Putin
have whatever he wants, because if Trump lets Putin have it,
(21:51):
to let other strong men do whatever they want, all
his buddies in North Korea and.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Where have you Jane, thank you for that, Dan Behar,
A way to stop World War three? We have heard
that term thrown around a lot. I mean, does this
What do you think about that? From Jane?
Speaker 8 (22:08):
Well, first of all, I think we should wait and
see what the Trump administration does. There's a lot of
President elect Trump says things a lot, and we should
look at what they end up doing. He himself has
said in recent weeks that you don't get to peace
by abandoning Ukraine. I take encouragement from that that he
and General Kellogg and Mike Waltz are talking and that
(22:32):
they understand that there is a diplomatic and a security
play to make here that they're going to try to
make here, but that they don't think it's a Day
one proposition anymore. So I think we should wait and see.
I think there is a deal if the President elect
and his team can execute it. I think there is
a deal that includes significant burden shifting so that the
(22:55):
Europeans step up and do more, an agreement that the
United States will not precipitously leave Europe or Ukraine out
there hanging in exchange for the Europeans committing to step
up and do more, and the security guarantees that Jennifer
talked about, and if those things can be put together,
that would be a deal in which President Electrump could
(23:16):
stay to the world. Look, I've gotten de escalation on
the table, and I've gotten the Europeans to stand up
and take more responsibility, and that is in the US
interest and it's also a service in terms of putting
de escalation on a path. And so I think there's
a possibility. I'd like to be hopeful right now, it's
(23:37):
a dire conflict, but I think there's a possibility to
look forward to a potential deal. And I think in
that sense, really the most interesting near term deal is
the deal that President Electrump might make with the Europeans,
not the deal that he might make with putin. What
do you mean by that, Well, I think the first conversations,
if they won't ask my advice, I suspect, But if
(23:59):
I were offering advice, I would say, you know, the
first important conversations are going to be with Europeans about
what they're ready to commit to in terms of building
out their own industrial base, investing real money, which is
going to mean solving their inability to raise money through debt.
They're going to have to figure out a way to
solve that, investing real money in European defense and being
able to support Ukraine over the long haul and in
(24:21):
exchange for that, if they are willing to make that commitment,
President Trump could offer that the United States will continue
to offer support, declining over time, but we won't leave
in a hurry.
Speaker 6 (24:31):
Will continue to offer support.
Speaker 8 (24:32):
And then if we can solve the security guarantee piece,
then you have a united front. You go to Putin
and you're able to say you're not going to break
us apart. We are united here. Now is the time
for you to sign a deal. And by the way,
people will say that Putin can't deal with that because
it would be construed as a loss. Putin was bragging
about Syria being a win a few weeks ago. He
(24:53):
can sell right, He can sell any loss. He can
sell anything. If he can sell Syria as a winn, tell.
Speaker 6 (25:01):
A deal that is.
Speaker 8 (25:03):
Realistic and fair to Ukraine as a win at home
as much as he needs to tolliver.
Speaker 7 (25:07):
Right.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
We have to go to you for some comments, because
we're live streaming for the first time. What are people saying?
Speaker 3 (25:13):
Yeah, John and Saint Louis Park, Minnesota says, why are
we only told by the media who the good and
bad guys are in a conflict and never told any
historical detail from both sides that would give us enough
understanding to form a knowledgeable opinion. Jack and Madison, Wisconsin says,
I personally am for unconditional aid to Ukraine. With that,
my question is how do we persuade the American public
at large to continue to support Ukraine? And then Jeff
(25:34):
and Colorado says, just last one, sorry, Ukraine could just
give up some of its territory and stop the war immediately.
If there's a guarantee that Russia will not ever want
any more of their territory or any other land or
territory of any other country, it might be worth it,
you know.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
I want to ask about that. The second one there,
Jennifer Griffin. Public support. It's very split we're going to
talk about between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats are much more
or supportive of Ukraine support than Republicans are at this point.
But what about public support? How important is that in
the United States? In this question? Right now, is Trump
(26:09):
looking at the polls and saying I'm representing the people
that elected me.
Speaker 7 (26:13):
Well, I think what's interesting is there's a lot of
bipartisans support on the Hill. We saw that with the
vote that took place last April, and those members of
Congress are speaking to their constituents back home. I think
there is a distorted picture that Americans are against this war,
and that comes from a few loud voices on the
(26:35):
Internet who are using their platforms frankly to mimic Putin's
talking points, and so there's been some confusion.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
I will say that JD.
Speaker 7 (26:44):
Vance as the Vice President, he has been making the
case against Ukraine because of the cost a financial argument
as well as burning through too much of our inventory
at the Pentagon that we might need down the road
for Taiwan or elsewhere. But I think for President Trump,
(27:05):
this is a real opportunity for an early win in
his administration. There are a lot of conditions that have
been set because of the amount of money the Americans
have given so far, because of the exhaustion on both sides,
because of the stalemate, and so if he plays his
card right, the one thing President Trump does not want
is a loss or an embarrassment or something, and it
(27:26):
would be embarrassing. If the US were to just cut
and run and Ukraine were to lose and Putin were
to win, I think that is going to be a
very strong argument for President Trump. And I think the
American people can be convinced of supporting Ukraine if it's
explained to them, and I think the person to explain
to them is President Trump.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Let's get one more call in before the break. Here.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Dan is in York, Pennsylvania. Dan, welcome to the middle
go ahead.
Speaker 15 (27:51):
Hi there, Thank you for taking my call number one.
I believe that the Ukraine ought to be support and
continuing support. But something that doesn't come up in much
of any of the discussions is why Russia is doing
what it's doing. And if you take away the Ukraine
(28:14):
and the Crimea, Russia does not have a warm weather court.
They are just simply you know, they've got Romansk and
they've got vlad of Us suck. They don't have a
warm weather port for their navy without Crimea, that's Sevastopol.
And I'm not saying they're right, but we need to
(28:38):
understand why where they're coming from before any kind of
issue can be resolved.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Dan. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Dan Barr just quickly about that is that the reason
do you think is that one of the main reasons
that Putin wants to have Ukraine.
Speaker 6 (28:55):
I don't think it's the main reason.
Speaker 8 (28:56):
I mean Crimea is strategic, and so I don't missed
the strategic value of Crimea. I would point out that
Russia was not invaded for the thirty years from the
fall of the Soviet Union, the twenty five years for
the fall of the Soviet Union to the point where
it illegally annexed Crimea. It has not suffered an invasion.
So the requirement of that port is contentious.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Taliver.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
One thing we know, and we talked about this, is
that according to the polls, Republicans are far less like
than Democrats to say the US has a responsibility to
help Ukraine thirty six percent for Republicans, sixty five percent
for Democrats.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
That's according to Pew Research.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Yeah, but in Congress there are members in both parties
committed to supporting Ukraine. His Republican representative Michael McCall on
ABC's This Week.
Speaker 16 (29:41):
I think President Trump does want to end the war.
I have a peaceful negotiation. We're all for that, but
it's got to be on terms that do not throw
Ukraine under the bus. They were thrown under the bus
in the Budapest agreements where they gave all their nuclear
weapons and assurance for secure and guess what happened There
(30:02):
was none and I if there is a deal cut,
we have to have teeth in that enforcement agreement such
that if Russia ever invades again, there will be consequences.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
It's gonna be very interesting to see what happens in
Washington and the politics of this.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
We will be right back with more of the Middle.
This is the Middle.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
I'm Jeremy Hobson. This hour, we're asking you what should
happen now with Ukraine and what's at stake.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
For the United States.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
You can call us at eight four four four Middle
that's eight four four four six four three three five three,
or you can reach out at Listen to the Middle
dot com. I'm joined by former Ambassador Dan Bharr, director
of the Europe Program at the Carnegie and Dowman for
International Peace, and Fox News Chief National Security correspondent Jennifer Griffin.
And Jennifer before we go back to the phones, there
was a Chicago Council survey last summer that found most
(30:54):
Americans believe that if Russia wins the war, there will
be a mass migration of Ukrainians, a military conflict between
Russia and NATO, and, as you mentioned earlier, a Chinese
invasion of Taiwan.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Are those things really being talked about in Washington as
potential consequences.
Speaker 7 (31:10):
Absolutely, I think if you talk to any of the
strategic thinkers, and it's certainly. I think there's going to
be some continuity between the last administration. Jake Sullivan met
with Mike Waltz, and I think there's an understanding of
what's at stake if we get Ukraine wrong. I mean,
one thing you've heard from the Trump administration, from President
Trump is that the way we pulled out of Afghanistan
(31:32):
then led to a Putin invading Ukraine thinking he could
get away with it. Imagine what President she will think
if Putin is allowed to get away with it. The
other thing I want to just mention, one of the
last callers talked about the need for a warm water port.
You know, if Russia were so concerned about its navy
and having a port, they have lost The Black Sea
(31:54):
Fleet has had seventy five warships when this conflict started.
They have lost twenty five of those ships from Ukraine,
which doesn't have a navy, used sea drones to take
out twenty five a third a full third of their navy.
So they are losing ships, They've lost their port in
(32:16):
Syria by allowing Asad to come and take refuge there.
Speaker 5 (32:20):
They're in big trouble.
Speaker 7 (32:21):
And I really think we can't underestimate a little bit
of more patience. And Putin is the one who's had
to turn to North Korea Iran mercenaries. He's gonna run
out of options at some point.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
Yeah, let's go to Isaac, who's in Minneapolis. Isaac, welcome
to the Middle What do you think should happen with Ukraine?
Speaker 17 (32:44):
I personally would like to see peace in Ukraine. It's
horrible to see how you've had millions of people already,
you know, die, They're dead and gone forever. The country
has been completely decimated.
Speaker 18 (33:00):
None of this needed to happen in the first place.
If the United States hadn't gotten itself involved, the war
probably would have been over in weeks. And unfortunately, we
can't turn back the clock, but I think that we
should at this point base the reality that we should
have faced a few years ago, which is that, yes,
(33:20):
Putin is a war criminal. What he's done, you know,
has been barbaric. But our goal should be peace unless
there's something dramatic to be gained that we can say
the cost is worth it. And it's not just the
financial cost of the United States, it's the millions of
Ukrainians who've already lost their lives, the country that's been destroyed.
(33:44):
It's clear from the way the war's going that this
has probably been over for a while now and we
should stop taking the side of the Ukrainians in this
and a fair arbener for peace. And I do think
that it's encouraging to hear incoming President Trump say that,
and I don't say that as a supporter of his,
but it is encouraging to hear.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
Well, Isaac, let me just quickly ask you, what do
you think about the arguments that we've been hearing all
hour that you know, if you were to do that,
it really it will hurt the US in a number
of other ways, including with what President She will see
as a possible, you know, go ahead to take Taiwan
without any consequence.
Speaker 17 (34:23):
I think that if President She sees it that way,
then that's fine as well, we have our own problems
here at home. We've got you know, still rising inequality,
poverty far higher than it was before. Child poverty doubled
after the pandemic. I think that's why this war has
(34:44):
become unpopular among most Americans. And that is confirmed consistent
polling data too. It's not just you know, Internet loudmount
which it also may be.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
Isaac, thank you. Let me just take that to Dan Bear.
Dan Barr, that is a view I'm glad that got
that we got on this program to this hour because
there are a lot of people who believe that.
Speaker 6 (35:07):
Yeah, I mean just two things.
Speaker 8 (35:09):
One, I mean, I think it is really hard to
understand why things happening far away actually have an impact
on Americans here at home.
Speaker 6 (35:17):
I get that.
Speaker 8 (35:18):
And frankly, as the world becomes scarier, there's a totally
understandable instinct to say, let's just pull back and shut
down our connections with the world and just protect ourselves
here at home. Unfortunately, that instinct, well understandable, is almost
exactly wrong, and a moment when the world is becoming
more complicated and complex, we actually have to engage more
and conflicts like the conflict in Ukraine will not stop
(35:41):
in Ukraine. They implicate American interests already. America American jobs
depend on our relationship with Europe. Europe is a huge
trading partner. We need Europe to be safe and secure
in order to support our own economy. Certainly, Taiwan is
also a huge issue for trade and American prosperity, among
(36:01):
other things, as well as security in the region. So
I think it is understandable that it's hard to understand
why these things that seem far away actually affect us
here at home. But they really do, and history shows
that when we don't solve them where they are, then
we get confronted.
Speaker 6 (36:17):
With them closer to home.
Speaker 8 (36:19):
The second point I just want to make is that
we've We've heard from several callers about the expense of
supporting Ukraine, and I want to put it in context.
The spending on Ukraine is less than ten percent of
the Pentagon.
Speaker 6 (36:32):
Overall budget right now.
Speaker 8 (36:33):
We can actually afford it, And yes, there are other
things that we should be spending money on too in
this country. I'm not saying that it doesn't come at
a cost. But also I think sometimes when we talk
about it, it sounds like we're just delivering bags of cash
to the battlefield, and that's not what we're doing. We're
delivering largely American made equipment that is supporting American jobs.
By the way, the deal that we would make with
(36:54):
the Europeans to expand their defense industrial base and their
defense spending would also support American job And so we
should remember that this is not a transfer of wealth
at the numbers that we're talking about. This is actually
stuff that we're making that are supporting people who are
willing to fight for their own country, who are doing
their own fighting, and who are fighting to defend their democracy.
Speaker 7 (37:17):
Well, if I could just pick up on one point
about the defense budget you're talking about, as Dan said
about ten percent, and the last caller mentioned that he
wouldn't care if China took Taiwan because it's not our problem.
I think that is a grave misunderstanding of what Taiwan represents.
(37:39):
First of all, if you use a computer, if you
use a car, if you use any sort of electronics,
and you don't just live in the woods off the
land with candles, you need the super computing chips if
we're going to be competitive in the AI. The next
iteration of AI and really kind of keep our place
(38:01):
in the world. You have to have access to those
supercomputing chips in Taiwan, and so if you just hand
that over to Shi and China, that does have an
impact back home. And trust me, you think we don't
have jobs now in places that have lost jobs, you
lose access to Taiwan, and the job market here will
(38:23):
crater and society will creter.
Speaker 5 (38:26):
So we really have to understand how we're connected to
the world.
Speaker 7 (38:29):
These are not just problems out there, and the US
is not causing this war in Ukraine.
Speaker 5 (38:34):
They're trying to help an ally to prevent more bloodshed.
Speaker 1 (38:37):
Frankly, let's go to Alice in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Alice,
Welcome to the Middle your thoughts on the future of Ukraine.
Speaker 10 (38:45):
I think that if the Ukrainian people want to continue
to fight for freedom for democracy, I think they have
every right to do that, and I don't think other
countries should be telling them what they should do and
have the ability to supply them with what they need
to win this war or continue it. I think that's
(39:07):
what we should do because from what I understand, we've
always been committed to democracy throughout the world.
Speaker 1 (39:14):
Well, I think it's pretty clear, Alice, that the Ukrainians
want to fight for freedom because many of them have
died doing so. So you think that the US should
continue to support them as long as they're willing to fight.
Speaker 10 (39:25):
I think if the US can do that, if they
have that in their power to do that, I think
they should be doing that. I mean, we have always
been committed to democracy throughout the world, and I don't
see why this should be different.
Speaker 1 (39:40):
Alice, thank you for that. Let me go to Brian
and Birmingham, Alabama. Brian, welcome to the middle Go ahead, all.
Speaker 19 (39:46):
Right, thank you. I believe the US should make a
decision to drive towards the end of the war in
favor of Ukraine, but really make a hardline decision and
then see it through to the ID, do all of
a necessary steps, without all the political wavering back and forth,
(40:08):
and just really drive to the ID.
Speaker 1 (40:12):
Wouldn't that be a nice change, to just stick with
something for a while, Brian, great point, Dan Bear. It
makes me think of the Iraq War, which went through
multiple presidents who had their own ideas of what should
happen with that, and of course the war in Afghanistan
where Donald Trump and his administration negotiated the end, and
then Biden had to actually act on it and then got,
(40:33):
of course a lot of criticism for the very end
of the Afghanistan War, But what about that that makes
it very It does make very difficult to go on
with a long war when the United States changes administrations
and changes changes strategy.
Speaker 8 (40:47):
Certainly, the vicissitudes of American politics make executing a sustained
national security strategy difficult. But I agree with Brian and
I think, you know, like I said, I want to
be optimist stick in this moment. What I hear, what
I read from General Kellogg, what I hear from the
incoming administration makes me cautiously optimistic that what they want
(41:13):
to do is identify an end and that they understand
that the way to get to that end is to
solve the burden sharing question with the Europeans, to solve
the security arrangement for Ukraine post conflict, and then to
show a united front to Putin so that he understands
that he's he's not going to get any more than
what he's got, and that this is the end and
(41:35):
that this is the best time to make a deal
and that we will stick to that deal, and we
won't see any kind of embarrassing withdrawal or collapse that
would damage American credibility for the long run.
Speaker 1 (41:47):
Jennifer Griffin. Does the Biden administration like, did they not
want to get to the end of the war in
a strong enough way? I mean we're talking about like, oh,
Trump can come in and we'll you know, he's got
he wants to end the war. Does doesn't the Biden
administration want the war to end as well?
Speaker 7 (42:02):
Of course, the Biden administration didn't want this war and
they didn't want it to drag on. The problem is
that there was an assessment in the first year or
two and even up until this year that Putin could
use a nuclear weapon, and I think that that really
slowed down the decision making, and it was very cautious
decision making about On the one hand, they flooded the
(42:25):
zone in the very beginning, and they saved Ukraine by
providing a intelligence and also a weaponry upfront that helped
them really prevent the capital from being taken in those
initial days, which many thought was likely to happen. President
Trump deserves full credit because frankly, the Ukrainians could not
(42:47):
have fought off those tanks that were heading towards the
capital without the javelin missiles that he had approved at
the end of his administration, and those were absolutely crucial
in those initial days. The US has an interest has
both administrations have an interest in Ukraine winning. I think
we're at a different inflection point where you can actually
(43:09):
talk about coming to a negotiating table. The conditions were
not really right up until now. And so you know
what would be great is if national security in this
country wasn't a big, you know, pendulum swing between administrations,
that there was continuity. And I do believe, as we've said, Jeremy,
that there is some continuity of thinking between Keith Kellogg,
(43:31):
Mike Waltz, Jake Sullivan. But I do think there is
an accelerated timeframe right now because we're at a different
point in the war.
Speaker 1 (43:38):
I know they feel the same way about that at NASA,
where it takes you know, decades sometimes to build these rockets,
and the new president comes in and says, now, let's
do something else. Now with that, Let's go to Jared
who's in Houston, Texas. Jared, welcome to the middle Go ahead.
Speaker 20 (43:54):
Hey, how's it going. Yeah, I think it's been a
lot of really interesting viewpoints so far. I'm confused, honestly
by a couple of callers. It makes me feel like
I'm taking crazy pills or something, because some of the
responses seem to suggest that we could we should kind
of just give up and leave Ukraine to their own devices.
(44:15):
And I just can't imagine pairing that mentality with World
War two and fighting the Nazis. And I mean, where
if we If your if your opinion is that we
shouldn't have gotten involved in World War Two, then fine,
at least you're consistent ideologically. But I don't know. I
it feels like an un American take to just be like,
(44:36):
we should abandon.
Speaker 18 (44:36):
Ukraine and lette putin duit.
Speaker 20 (44:38):
He wants keep the territory that he wants and just
sue for peace.
Speaker 5 (44:42):
Hmmm.
Speaker 9 (44:43):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (44:44):
Let me ask you just quickly, Jared, what did you
think about, for example, Afghanistan, where you know, we were
trying to set up a democracy there. Obviously that didn't
work in the end, But what did you feel the
same way there?
Speaker 13 (44:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 20 (44:57):
I mean, I think the Middle East has its own.
Speaker 13 (45:00):
Sort of problems.
Speaker 20 (45:00):
There definitely is some overlap. I thought the way that
the withdrawal happened was terrible. I think both the Trump
and the Biden administration bear some blame for that.
Speaker 18 (45:11):
Obviously, it was.
Speaker 20 (45:13):
The terms were negotiated during Trump's term and by his
team and him, but you know, Biden definitely shares some
blame for how it went down to and it was
an unacceptable result for sure.
Speaker 1 (45:24):
Jared, thank you, Dan Behar. Let's focus on that issue
of just it's an American Jared says to not support Ukraine,
another fellow democracy in trouble.
Speaker 8 (45:36):
I think that's true, and it speaks to me. Although
I would say that for people who who aren't inspired
by the kind of values argument, that the world will
be more peaceful if we look out for the human
rights and fundamental dignity of people around the world, and
that when a brutal dictator invades a neighboring country that
is a rising democracy, that we should care about that
(45:57):
because we care about democracy. We should also care about
that because it is really really bad for American prosperity
and security, and because it might actually hurt Americans and
hurt American jobs and American security over the long run.
And so there are two reasons. Two sets of reasons
that are both compelling, and if you aren't, if you
aren't persuaded by the values argument, I would still make
(46:19):
the security prosperity argument just as forcefully.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
Jennifer Griffin, I'm going to give you the last word
and ask you this. This is just one of many
issues that you cover in terms of national security. We
just had a major attack in New Orleans by an
isis convert. How important is Ukraine to Trump as he
comes in in terms of all the national security issues
that are.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
On his plate.
Speaker 7 (46:43):
Well, I don't envy him, and I don't envy any
president to have to take on the number of problems
right now. And so the question is which two or
three is he going to focus on first? And he
has made Ukraine a priority, so I think you'll see
that as one of the priorities. But I think think,
I think you know, look, look what's happening tomorrow in Venezuela.
(47:04):
You have a decision point with this next administration. Are
you going to support the Maduro regime or are you
going to support Edmundo Gonzalez, who actually won the election there.
Venezuela is very important to national security for the United States.
If you want to have millions of Venezuelans go back
to Venezuela and not flood the border and come across
(47:28):
into the United States.
Speaker 5 (47:29):
You need to solve the Venezuela problem.
Speaker 7 (47:31):
And then Venezuela also is an energy source, so that's
another issue right on our doorstep. You have the China issue,
or you have Taiwan, you have what's going to happen
in Syria, what's going to happen between Iran and Israel.
This is going to be an incredibly complicated period, a
matrix like you've never seen in terms of national security challenges.
Speaker 5 (47:51):
And I hope that the.
Speaker 7 (47:53):
Strength of this administration coming in and this president who
who does know how to be strong and present strength,
I hope that he'll use it as.
Speaker 5 (48:02):
A force for good and not as a force for isolationism.
Speaker 1 (48:05):
Well, I want to thank my guests Fox News Chief
National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin and Dan Behar, Senior vice
president for Policy Research and director of the Europrogram at
the Carnegie and Dowman for International Piece.
Speaker 2 (48:15):
Thanks so much to both of you for joining us,
thanks for having me, And next week.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
Right before Inauguration Day, we're going to be asking whether
or not democracy is really at risk in Trump's second term.
We're going to be joined by political commentator Andrew Sullivan
and Clemson University history professor Vernon Burton.
Speaker 3 (48:32):
As always, you can call in at eight four four
four Middle. That's eight four four four six four three
three five three, or you can reach out to Listen
to the Middle dot com. Or you can also sign
up for our free weekly newsletter, and don't forget to
check out our new video podcast on YouTube, where you
can watch us as well as hear us.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
We look great, Tulliver, we look great.
Speaker 6 (48:49):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (48:50):
The medal is brought to you by Longnick Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media and Urbana Illinois and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, Sam Burmas, Dawes, John barth On, Akdessler,
and Brandon Cony, Hundreds, our technical directors Jason Kroft. Thanks
to our satellite radio listeners, our podcast audience, and the
more than four hundred and twenty public radio stations that
are making it possible for people across the country to
(49:11):
listen to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson, and I will
talk to you next week.
The Middle is supported by Journalism Funding Partners, a nonprofit
organization striving to increase the sustainability of local journalism by
building connections between donors and news organizations. More information on
how you can support the Middle at Listen tooth Middle
dot com. Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson, along
(00:21):
with our house DJ Tolliver and Tulliver. Before we get
into the show, I do want to say it has
been a pretty crazy week for both of us. I
have lived on and off in Los Angeles since I
was an NPR producer twenty years ago, and this week
had to suddenly evacuate because of one of the fires
that started very close.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
To my home.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Thankfully, we are safe, no damage. A lot of people
not as lucky. How are you doing.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
I'm good man, I'm thankful to be safe over here
in Katetown where there's not a lot of damage. Just
trying to maintain and entertain my cats because they have
no idea what's going on.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Right, and I know my dog. Actually, I feel like
you can tell that there's like the sky is smoky,
the era is smoky. I do want to thank everyone
for checking in on us. It is very hard to
see so much devastation in the city that I love.
But it is truly heartening to see so many people
taking care of each other, as they do everywhere in
this country during disasters like this. And for the record, Talvert,
(01:12):
both you and I grew up in Illinois Tornado Alley.
I will say this is way scarier.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Than yeh, it is.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Well, now to our topic this hour, a very important topic.
What should happen now with Ukraine and what's at stake
for the United States. We are getting very close to
the inauguration of President elect Donald Trump, who has said
multiple times that he would end the war within twenty
four hours of becoming president. Here he is in a
town hall with CNN's Caitlin Collins.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
If I'm president, I will have that war settled in
one day, twenty four hours.
Speaker 5 (01:46):
Allan, do you settle on more so?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
I'll meet with I'll meet with Zelenski.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
They both have weaknesses and they both have strengths. And
within twenty four hours that war will be settled. It'll
be over, It'll be absolutely you.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Want Ukraine to win this war.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
I don't think in terms of winning and losing. I
think in terms of getting it settled, so we stop
killing all these people and breaking down this country.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Under President Biden, the US has been a staunch supporter
of Ukraine in their ongoing conflict with Russia, supplying the
nation with billions of dollars in foreign eight and military
assistance ever since Russia invaded in twenty twenty two. Trump,
on the other hand, hasn't made clear what he wants
to see happen other than an end to the war.
So we want to hear from you what should happen
now with Ukraine and what's at stake for the United States. Holliver,
(02:33):
Can you give everybody the number please?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Yeah, it's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four
four four six four three three five three, or you
can write to us to listen to the Middle dot
com and you can also comment on our new livestream
on YouTube, TikTok and Twitch.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Let's meet our panel.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Fox News Chief National Security correspondent Jennifer Griffin is with us. Jennifer,
Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 5 (02:52):
Thank you. Jeremy, glad to be here.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
And Dan Bher, who is the director of the Europe
Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is a
former US ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe. His book is called The Four Test. Dan,
welcome to you.
Speaker 6 (03:06):
Thanks so much. I'm pleased to be here.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Well, before we get to the folks, Jennifer, you've been
covering this very closely. Just give our listeners a sense
of what is going on with the war right now.
It does seem like it's been kind of in a
back and forth stalemate for quite some time.
Speaker 7 (03:20):
Well, I think, Jeremy, first of all, I've been covering
the war since the night that Russia invaded. We were
briefed at the Pentagon in the days leading up to
the war of what to expect. The administration took an
incredible decision to declassify that intelligence.
Speaker 5 (03:35):
It was the same intelligence that was.
Speaker 7 (03:36):
Shared with Vladimir Zelenski and his team, and so we
knew what was coming.
Speaker 5 (03:42):
We were watching it in real time.
Speaker 7 (03:44):
And I've been covering it really ever since I was
in Ukraine after the Bucha massacre a few months after
the Russians invaded. And I think the way to think
about this right now in terms of what a sort
of stalemate they're in, but in terms of, you know,
the amount of destruction is incredible. We just heard from
Defense Secretary of Austin today that Russia has seven hundred
(04:07):
thousand casualties if you get the dead and wounded, that
is an incredible number for the last three years.
Speaker 5 (04:14):
But the way to think.
Speaker 7 (04:14):
Of this is if you looked at a map of Ukraine,
you would see that the Russians have really been only
making the control right now about twenty percent of Ukraine.
But they've been moving forward at a rate of just
about one mile a month. So that means that that
really there in.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
The life would take forever, it would take forever.
Speaker 5 (04:36):
Take ten miles.
Speaker 7 (04:37):
So it's right now pretty stalemated, it's still pretty bloody,
and I can say more about the style of warfare,
but I'll throw it back to you.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Yeah, well, Dan Behar, what's your sense and is there
any way do you think for either side to win
without an agreement and a negotiation.
Speaker 8 (04:58):
In the near to medium terms, there's no prospect I
think of a breakthrough, a serious breakthrough on either side
of the status quo obtains. And as Jennifer said, the
Russians are creeping forward, but very slowly and actually slower,
probably because of the winter weather, and that will stay slow,
likely during the spring, because as things thaw there will
be more mud and that will slow things down as well.
(05:20):
Both sides are really suffering from manpower issues, particularly the Ukrainians,
but both sides. And just to put that number that
Jennifer put out there in context, you know, seven hundred
thousand Russians is probably one and a half percent of
the adult male military fighting age Russians in the country.
That's a staggering number. It would be millions in the
(05:41):
United States the equivalent number. Ukraine is also really suffering
from manpower challenges, and so they are both they're both
at a stalemate and also both feeling the hurt right now.
And in addition to manpower, also on the equipment side,
the Russians are sending mainly referbed Soviet equipment to the
(06:01):
front lines. They have some more of that to work through,
but they will run out of that at some point.
They're burning through it faster than they can make new kit.
And the Ukrainians are obviously highly dependent on the assistance
that they are getting from the United States and forty
nine other countries in that assistance.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Group well, and in terms of that assistant Jennifer Griffin.
Do you have a sense of what Trump plans to
do when he comes into office with this, Well.
Speaker 7 (06:23):
I'm not sure Trump knows what he's going to do
when he comes in because already we've seen him shift
the timeline of when he's going to resolve this conflict.
He said twenty four hours to Kaitlin Collins, but just
last week he said it'll probably take about six months.
And then we heard Keith Kellogg, who is his Special
envoy to Ukraine, say on Fox News just this week
that it would take about one hundred days. So they're
(06:45):
all over the map in terms of timing. I think
what's clear in terms of his choice of National Security
advisor with Mike Waltz, who's a former Army ranger and
who understands the Ukraine situation and is not part of
the isolationist wing of the party, and Keith kellogga three
star Army general retired Army general. I think he is
(07:07):
serious about engaging. I would expect that they are going
to try to escalate before they try to get Putin
and Zelenski to the negotiating table. The Biden administration is
leaving about four billion dollars in military aid that was
passed by Congress last April.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
That wasn't their plan.
Speaker 7 (07:25):
But there are still four billions billion dollars in military
aid that the Trump administration can send weapons that are
badly needed right now by Ukraine.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
Today.
Speaker 7 (07:37):
The Biden administration did announce another half a billion dollars
when Lloyd Austin was in Germany at the Contact Group meeting.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Let's go to the phones because the calls are coming in.
Steve is in Denver, Colorado. Steve, welcome to Laura. What
do you want to happen with Ukraine and the United States?
Speaker 9 (07:55):
Can you hear me?
Speaker 2 (07:55):
I can hear you?
Speaker 9 (07:56):
Go ahead, great turn is American values and what we
stand for. And a Russia has invaded a sovereign country
and is trying to take it over by military force.
As the democracy I think we are, that's that's something
(08:18):
that we just let happen or or and there's all
sorts of that you guys already know about in terms
of the potential down the road of what could happen
in Europe as Russia feels like it can do such things,
let alone China. So number one, as a democracy, we
need to defend Ukraine. And number two is if we
(08:39):
don't want to see American boots on the ground, then
we need to do everything we can to support Ukraine
to maintain the sovereignty of their own borders at any
cost a sieve, And then what do you mean a
financial costs?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (08:59):
Pretty, I would say yes. I would rather enormous financial
cost than lose American soldiers in this war or to
have Russia feel like it's to invade its neighbors in Europe.
And what's that going to lead you down the road?
Speaker 10 (09:14):
Here or later?
Speaker 9 (09:15):
We're going to have American roots on the ground in
Europe if we don't, If this doesn't.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Stop, Steve, thank you very much for that, called dan Vert.
We've heard that from President Biden many times, saying that,
you know, if we don't stop this by supporting Ukraine
to fight back against Russia, eventually the US would be
drawn into a larger war in Europe.
Speaker 8 (09:35):
I mean history, over the last one hundred and twenty years,
we have seen that when countries try to change borders
by force, particularly in Europe, sooner or later America gets
drawn in. And we never get drawn in because we
want to jump. In World War One or in World
War Two, we didn't want to jump in. There were
strong isolationist voices in the United States, but because eventually
(09:57):
it implicates directly American interests, we get drawn in. And
so I think the principle that countries should not be
changing borders by force, that bullies don't get to decide
that borders don't matter, is one that is not just
a kind of nice principle to uphold, but it is
one that history teaches us that when we don't uphold it,
we get chaos, and that chaos has direct implications for Americans.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
And Jennifer Griffin, what about Steve's point about just defending
another democracy.
Speaker 7 (10:24):
Well, it's a really important point, and I think it
can't be understated.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
That President She of China is watching.
Speaker 7 (10:30):
And if there's one bipartisan issue in Washington right now
is concern about China's desire to overtake Taiwan in the
next few years. And so if you want to deter
President She from going into Taiwan, you really have to
show that you're willing to stand up to bullies like
Vladimir Putin. I think it's important to remember, Jeremy, that
(10:51):
Vladimir Putin is hurting and sometimes the US is not
very patient, and we need strategic patients right now because
if you look at the ruble right now, it's lost
half its value since this war began three years ago.
The interest rates in Russia are twenty one percent. They
are bleeding money, and the sanctions are getting tightened, and
(11:12):
you just you really don't know how. If the Ukrainians
are willing to wait this out and keep fighting, then
the US should not pull the rug out from underneath them.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Jeremy, I just stand by Dan because I want to
get with you to the issue of the China Taiwan situation,
how that's connected. But Tolliver, the US obviously has a
lot of power here. Europeans, though, probably have just as much,
if not more, at stake.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Yeah, here's outgoing Belgian Prime Minister Alexander Dacrue talking about
European regional security in November.
Speaker 11 (11:44):
We should be very clear on this. European security is
not something that we outsource to someone else, for example, to.
Speaker 6 (11:50):
Do United States.
Speaker 11 (11:51):
But our security will be better if you work together,
and we are open to discuss the United States on
how we can work better to I hope we can,
but of course we will also define their own interests.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
As we said outgoing Prime Minister Tolliver, a lot of
politics being shaken in Europe as well, and we will
be right back with more of the middle. This is
the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. If you're just tuning, in
the Middle is a national call in show. We are
focused on elevating voices from the middle geographically, politically and philosophically,
(12:25):
or maybe you just want to meet.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
In the middle.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
This hour, we're asking you what should happen now with Ukraine? Tolliver,
what is the number to call in?
Speaker 3 (12:32):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three three five three. You can also
write to us to listen to the Middle dot com
or on social media.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
I'm joined by Fox News Chief National Security correspondent Jennifer
Griffin and former Ambassador Dan Beherr, director of the Europe
Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Piece. Dan Bear,
your book is called The Four Tests, What it Will Keep,
What it will take to keep America strong and good?
And I wonder what do you think is at stake
when it comes to the future.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Of American power with the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 8 (13:03):
Well, I think the future of American power is going
to involve a lot more working with other countries than
perhaps we felt was necessary, say in the nineteen nineties,
when we were living through a unipolar moment, And in
order to be able to build the kinds of partnerships
and alliances that we're going to need to protect American
prosperity and security in the coming years, We're going to
(13:24):
need to have credibility in the world. We need to
stand for something, and people are going to know that
we stand for something that when we say we stand
for something, they can count on us. As the previous
callers said, this is a moment when democracies are called
to defend a former, a fellow democracy against a brutal
invasion without cause. And America's standing with Ukraine right now
(13:47):
is not only standing up for our values, but demonstrating
to the rest of the world that when we stand
with you, we mean it. And I think that is
important for our long term credibility in the coming decades.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
What about Russia, Jennifer, and what is Putin's ultimate goal,
especially all the losses you've talked about that Russia has
taken in this ward, what is an acceptable outcome for him?
Speaker 2 (14:07):
At this point.
Speaker 7 (14:09):
Well, Jeremy, I lived in Moscow in the late nineties,
from ninety six to ninety nine, so, and that is
when Vladimir Putin was coming onto the scene. So I've
been watching him for the last thirty years.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
And really.
Speaker 7 (14:22):
It's very clear that Putin is not going to back down.
He's not going to pull out the Ukrainians. He's not
going to suddenly say, oh, it was a mistake. He's
not going to admit any weakness because that would be
a problem for him back home. He will hold on
to the twenty percent that he has. He's not going
to negotiate on CRIMEA. And so the best way to
(14:44):
protect Ukraine, and Resident Zelensky has said so is he
would like security guarantees if he does go to the
table and agrees to stop the conflict and basically give
up for the time being, twenty percent of his country.
He wants security guarantees and to be a part of
NATO one of the things that has been you know,
that's something that President Trump has said, it is a
(15:05):
red line. He's not he doesn't believe that Ukraine should
be in NATO. In fact, he's blamed that talk of
being in NATO for why Putin invaded. I don't believe
that is the case, having watched Putin for a long time.
Speaker 5 (15:17):
Putin is expansionists.
Speaker 7 (15:18):
He wants to get Ukraine back under the you know,
his imperial designs on it. And it's important to remember
that West Germany was made a part of NATO when
East Germany was still occupied by Russia, so the Soviet
Union at the time, So there is precedent for allowing
a country in when there is still a conflict and
(15:40):
it prevents conflict from spreading.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Frankly, Dan Behart, just on that point about NATO, do
you think that that is the key issue for Putin?
If America and the Europeans said okay, Ukraine is not
getting into NATO, would that make enough of a difference
or does it not really matter?
Speaker 6 (15:56):
No?
Speaker 8 (15:57):
I agree with Jennifer. His design is the full capitulation
of Ukraine. He wants full control of all of Ukraine.
And the reason he will stop is if the United States,
Europe and Ukraine all act together in order to show
him that there is a wall and that he cannot
have what he wants.
Speaker 6 (16:14):
The only way.
Speaker 8 (16:15):
He'll stop is if he is made to believe that
he cannot have what he wants. I agree with Jennifer
that one of the key problems here to solve that
the Trump administration will be tackling and in the next
one hundred days, is how to provide enough security guarantees
to Ukraine so that once an agreement is signed, they
can have confidence, and we can have confidence and the
(16:36):
Europeans can have confidence that it will stick. And that
means that Putin has to believe that there's skin in
the game for all of us if he violates that
agreement down the road.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
Let's go to Gregory, who's in Chicago. Gregory, welcome to
the middle Go ahead.
Speaker 12 (16:50):
Goodsing I as send it to the European nuclear disarment confidence.
In March of nineteen eighty three, when Reagan and Gorbachrov
were going back and forth about the Persian two intermediate
range missiles being based in West Germany, millions of people
rose up and the result was they taunt in Iceland
(17:11):
in Rykovic between gorbet Travi and rig and the agreement
that if he brought down the Iron Curtain and we
ended the Cold War, the division of Germany we left
over from World War Two and opened up Eastern Europe
that NATO would not expand one inch east of East Germany.
Instead of abiding by that, after the Warsaw pack was
(17:31):
dissolved and the Russian USSR collapsed, they have expanded NATO
over the last thirty five years to sixteen seventeen different countries.
And the reason why it is unacceptable for the Russians
to have Ukraine in NATO is because with hypersonic nuclear
(17:51):
missiles being only three hundred and eight miles potentially from
northeastern Ukraine to Moscow, it would destabilize the whole mutual
assured destruction balance of power that has prevailed over the
last seventy five years of the nuclear Cold War age
that we are still in. So therefore what he wanted
to do is to just they wouldn't allow them to
(18:14):
speak Russian in schools or in government, and so they
wouldn't allow the Russians to have an autonomy autonomous region
in the Donbass.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
And Gregory just briefly, what would you like to happen? Now?
Speaker 13 (18:30):
The Ukrainians started the shelling and they were going to
go in and crush the Donbass. So Putin came in
to protect the Damas he went overboard trying to take Kiev.
The treaty offering from the very beginning in February twenty
twenty two from the Putin administration is let us just
keep the one thousand year old Dombas with restaurant. You
don't join NATAL and it's over.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Gregory, thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Jennifer Griffin, what's your response there to Gregory's thought about
they may they should have just accepted that in the
first place.
Speaker 7 (18:58):
Well, there's a few historical facts that I think are
not correct in what Gregory said. The Ukrainians did not
start the shelling against the Russian troops in the Dombas.
The shelling began because the Russians had sent in what
they call little green men who were provoking these kind
of attacks because they were trying to stir up an
(19:19):
uprising and an independence movement as an excuse for Putin
to go in and send Russian troops in back in
twenty fourteen.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
So that's what happened at the start of this. In
terms of.
Speaker 7 (19:33):
You know, there is a way to structure this that
Ukraine could be in NATO and not.
Speaker 5 (19:39):
Have nuclear weapons.
Speaker 7 (19:40):
For instance, Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons, so fearing nuclear
weapons on hypersonic missiles coming from Ukraine. That's fantasy. They
don't have nuclear weapons. And there is precedent also if
you look at Norway. Norway when it joined NATO in
nineteen forty nine, it agreed not to allow nuclear weapons
beyond its territory or to come into its ports. So
(20:02):
there are plenty of ways to structure this so that
Putin feels secure. The group that does not feel secure
is Ukraine. They're the ones who've been invaded. And so
we really have to remember who started this. And even
if there was an excuse or a figment of Putin's
imagination that NATO shouldn't have expanded into NATO is not
an aggressive is not an aggressor.
Speaker 5 (20:24):
NATO is a defense.
Speaker 7 (20:25):
It's hacked and it was designed to protect and it
was desired by countries like Ukraine and the Baltic Stakes
who had been gobbled up in the past. They know
their history and this was their decision. It wasn't NATO
demanding or invading those countries. Those countries came to NATO
and asked to join, and frankly Russia when I was
(20:46):
based in Russia, Russia had a seat for many years
at NATO headquarters.
Speaker 5 (20:50):
In fact, they used it to spy on.
Speaker 7 (20:52):
NATO, but they were given a seat there in good
faith to try and keep the peace in Europe.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Jane is calling from conquered Massachusetts. Jane, Welcome to the Middle.
Your thoughts about what should happen with Ukraine?
Speaker 13 (21:06):
Hi?
Speaker 14 (21:08):
Well, I think if we look at what Trump said
about Greenland recently, that we need it for our economic security,
and then he says, oh for everybody else. He doesn't
support NATO, so why would he use Greenland to help
support Europe and everybody else? And I think we should
have even been more aggressive against Putin in Ukraine from
(21:29):
the very beginning, because it's been like little dribs and
drabs here and they're adding weaponry and that sort of thing,
and Putin needs to be stopped. It's a beginning of
World War three, or at least a war for famine
because he wants to control agriculture in Ukraine. And I
think Trump should be stopped from letting him, letting Putin
have whatever he wants, because if Trump lets Putin have it,
(21:51):
to let other strong men do whatever they want, all
his buddies in North Korea and.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Where have you Jane, thank you for that, Dan Behar,
A way to stop World War three? We have heard
that term thrown around a lot. I mean, does this
What do you think about that? From Jane?
Speaker 8 (22:08):
Well, first of all, I think we should wait and
see what the Trump administration does. There's a lot of
President elect Trump says things a lot, and we should
look at what they end up doing. He himself has
said in recent weeks that you don't get to peace
by abandoning Ukraine. I take encouragement from that that he
and General Kellogg and Mike Waltz are talking and that
(22:32):
they understand that there is a diplomatic and a security
play to make here that they're going to try to
make here, but that they don't think it's a Day
one proposition anymore. So I think we should wait and see.
I think there is a deal if the President elect
and his team can execute it. I think there is
a deal that includes significant burden shifting so that the
(22:55):
Europeans step up and do more, an agreement that the
United States will not precipitously leave Europe or Ukraine out
there hanging in exchange for the Europeans committing to step
up and do more, and the security guarantees that Jennifer
talked about, and if those things can be put together,
that would be a deal in which President Electrump could
(23:16):
stay to the world. Look, I've gotten de escalation on
the table, and I've gotten the Europeans to stand up
and take more responsibility, and that is in the US
interest and it's also a service in terms of putting
de escalation on a path. And so I think there's
a possibility. I'd like to be hopeful right now, it's
(23:37):
a dire conflict, but I think there's a possibility to
look forward to a potential deal. And I think in
that sense, really the most interesting near term deal is
the deal that President Electrump might make with the Europeans,
not the deal that he might make with putin. What
do you mean by that, Well, I think the first conversations,
if they won't ask my advice, I suspect, But if
(23:59):
I were offering advice, I would say, you know, the
first important conversations are going to be with Europeans about
what they're ready to commit to in terms of building
out their own industrial base, investing real money, which is
going to mean solving their inability to raise money through debt.
They're going to have to figure out a way to
solve that, investing real money in European defense and being
able to support Ukraine over the long haul and in
(24:21):
exchange for that, if they are willing to make that commitment,
President Trump could offer that the United States will continue
to offer support, declining over time, but we won't leave
in a hurry.
Speaker 6 (24:31):
Will continue to offer support.
Speaker 8 (24:32):
And then if we can solve the security guarantee piece,
then you have a united front. You go to Putin
and you're able to say you're not going to break
us apart. We are united here. Now is the time
for you to sign a deal. And by the way,
people will say that Putin can't deal with that because
it would be construed as a loss. Putin was bragging
about Syria being a win a few weeks ago. He
(24:53):
can sell right, He can sell any loss. He can
sell anything. If he can sell Syria as a winn, tell.
Speaker 6 (25:01):
A deal that is.
Speaker 8 (25:03):
Realistic and fair to Ukraine as a win at home
as much as he needs to tolliver.
Speaker 7 (25:07):
Right.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
We have to go to you for some comments, because
we're live streaming for the first time. What are people saying?
Speaker 3 (25:13):
Yeah, John and Saint Louis Park, Minnesota says, why are
we only told by the media who the good and
bad guys are in a conflict and never told any
historical detail from both sides that would give us enough
understanding to form a knowledgeable opinion. Jack and Madison, Wisconsin says,
I personally am for unconditional aid to Ukraine. With that,
my question is how do we persuade the American public
at large to continue to support Ukraine? And then Jeff
(25:34):
and Colorado says, just last one, sorry, Ukraine could just
give up some of its territory and stop the war immediately.
If there's a guarantee that Russia will not ever want
any more of their territory or any other land or
territory of any other country, it might be worth it,
you know.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
I want to ask about that. The second one there,
Jennifer Griffin. Public support. It's very split we're going to
talk about between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats are much more
or supportive of Ukraine support than Republicans are at this point.
But what about public support? How important is that in
the United States? In this question? Right now, is Trump
(26:09):
looking at the polls and saying I'm representing the people
that elected me.
Speaker 7 (26:13):
Well, I think what's interesting is there's a lot of
bipartisans support on the Hill. We saw that with the
vote that took place last April, and those members of
Congress are speaking to their constituents back home. I think
there is a distorted picture that Americans are against this war,
and that comes from a few loud voices on the
(26:35):
Internet who are using their platforms frankly to mimic Putin's
talking points, and so there's been some confusion.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
I will say that JD.
Speaker 7 (26:44):
Vance as the Vice President, he has been making the
case against Ukraine because of the cost a financial argument
as well as burning through too much of our inventory
at the Pentagon that we might need down the road
for Taiwan or elsewhere. But I think for President Trump,
(27:05):
this is a real opportunity for an early win in
his administration. There are a lot of conditions that have
been set because of the amount of money the Americans
have given so far, because of the exhaustion on both sides,
because of the stalemate, and so if he plays his
card right, the one thing President Trump does not want
is a loss or an embarrassment or something, and it
(27:26):
would be embarrassing. If the US were to just cut
and run and Ukraine were to lose and Putin were
to win, I think that is going to be a
very strong argument for President Trump. And I think the
American people can be convinced of supporting Ukraine if it's
explained to them, and I think the person to explain
to them is President Trump.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Let's get one more call in before the break. Here.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Dan is in York, Pennsylvania. Dan, welcome to the middle
go ahead.
Speaker 15 (27:51):
Hi there, Thank you for taking my call number one.
I believe that the Ukraine ought to be support and
continuing support. But something that doesn't come up in much
of any of the discussions is why Russia is doing
what it's doing. And if you take away the Ukraine
(28:14):
and the Crimea, Russia does not have a warm weather court.
They are just simply you know, they've got Romansk and
they've got vlad of Us suck. They don't have a
warm weather port for their navy without Crimea, that's Sevastopol.
And I'm not saying they're right, but we need to
(28:38):
understand why where they're coming from before any kind of
issue can be resolved.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Dan. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Dan Barr just quickly about that is that the reason
do you think is that one of the main reasons
that Putin wants to have Ukraine.
Speaker 6 (28:55):
I don't think it's the main reason.
Speaker 8 (28:56):
I mean Crimea is strategic, and so I don't missed
the strategic value of Crimea. I would point out that
Russia was not invaded for the thirty years from the
fall of the Soviet Union, the twenty five years for
the fall of the Soviet Union to the point where
it illegally annexed Crimea. It has not suffered an invasion.
So the requirement of that port is contentious.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Taliver.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
One thing we know, and we talked about this, is
that according to the polls, Republicans are far less like
than Democrats to say the US has a responsibility to
help Ukraine thirty six percent for Republicans, sixty five percent
for Democrats.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
That's according to Pew Research.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Yeah, but in Congress there are members in both parties
committed to supporting Ukraine. His Republican representative Michael McCall on
ABC's This Week.
Speaker 16 (29:41):
I think President Trump does want to end the war.
I have a peaceful negotiation. We're all for that, but
it's got to be on terms that do not throw
Ukraine under the bus. They were thrown under the bus
in the Budapest agreements where they gave all their nuclear
weapons and assurance for secure and guess what happened There
(30:02):
was none and I if there is a deal cut,
we have to have teeth in that enforcement agreement such
that if Russia ever invades again, there will be consequences.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
It's gonna be very interesting to see what happens in
Washington and the politics of this.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
We will be right back with more of the Middle.
This is the Middle.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
I'm Jeremy Hobson. This hour, we're asking you what should
happen now with Ukraine and what's at stake.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
For the United States.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
You can call us at eight four four four Middle
that's eight four four four six four three three five three,
or you can reach out at Listen to the Middle
dot com. I'm joined by former Ambassador Dan Bharr, director
of the Europe Program at the Carnegie and Dowman for
International Peace, and Fox News Chief National Security correspondent Jennifer Griffin.
And Jennifer before we go back to the phones, there
was a Chicago Council survey last summer that found most
(30:54):
Americans believe that if Russia wins the war, there will
be a mass migration of Ukrainians, a military conflict between
Russia and NATO, and, as you mentioned earlier, a Chinese
invasion of Taiwan.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Are those things really being talked about in Washington as
potential consequences.
Speaker 7 (31:10):
Absolutely, I think if you talk to any of the
strategic thinkers, and it's certainly. I think there's going to
be some continuity between the last administration. Jake Sullivan met
with Mike Waltz, and I think there's an understanding of
what's at stake if we get Ukraine wrong. I mean,
one thing you've heard from the Trump administration, from President
Trump is that the way we pulled out of Afghanistan
(31:32):
then led to a Putin invading Ukraine thinking he could
get away with it. Imagine what President she will think
if Putin is allowed to get away with it. The
other thing I want to just mention, one of the
last callers talked about the need for a warm water port.
You know, if Russia were so concerned about its navy
and having a port, they have lost The Black Sea
(31:54):
Fleet has had seventy five warships when this conflict started.
They have lost twenty five of those ships from Ukraine,
which doesn't have a navy, used sea drones to take
out twenty five a third a full third of their navy.
So they are losing ships, They've lost their port in
(32:16):
Syria by allowing Asad to come and take refuge there.
Speaker 5 (32:20):
They're in big trouble.
Speaker 7 (32:21):
And I really think we can't underestimate a little bit
of more patience. And Putin is the one who's had
to turn to North Korea Iran mercenaries. He's gonna run
out of options at some point.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
Yeah, let's go to Isaac, who's in Minneapolis. Isaac, welcome
to the Middle What do you think should happen with Ukraine?
Speaker 17 (32:44):
I personally would like to see peace in Ukraine. It's
horrible to see how you've had millions of people already,
you know, die, They're dead and gone forever. The country
has been completely decimated.
Speaker 18 (33:00):
None of this needed to happen in the first place.
If the United States hadn't gotten itself involved, the war
probably would have been over in weeks. And unfortunately, we
can't turn back the clock, but I think that we
should at this point base the reality that we should
have faced a few years ago, which is that, yes,
(33:20):
Putin is a war criminal. What he's done, you know,
has been barbaric. But our goal should be peace unless
there's something dramatic to be gained that we can say
the cost is worth it. And it's not just the
financial cost of the United States, it's the millions of
Ukrainians who've already lost their lives, the country that's been destroyed.
(33:44):
It's clear from the way the war's going that this
has probably been over for a while now and we
should stop taking the side of the Ukrainians in this
and a fair arbener for peace. And I do think
that it's encouraging to hear incoming President Trump say that,
and I don't say that as a supporter of his,
but it is encouraging to hear.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
Well, Isaac, let me just quickly ask you, what do
you think about the arguments that we've been hearing all
hour that you know, if you were to do that,
it really it will hurt the US in a number
of other ways, including with what President She will see
as a possible, you know, go ahead to take Taiwan
without any consequence.
Speaker 17 (34:23):
I think that if President She sees it that way,
then that's fine as well, we have our own problems
here at home. We've got you know, still rising inequality,
poverty far higher than it was before. Child poverty doubled
after the pandemic. I think that's why this war has
(34:44):
become unpopular among most Americans. And that is confirmed consistent
polling data too. It's not just you know, Internet loudmount
which it also may be.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
Isaac, thank you. Let me just take that to Dan Bear.
Dan Barr, that is a view I'm glad that got
that we got on this program to this hour because
there are a lot of people who believe that.
Speaker 6 (35:07):
Yeah, I mean just two things.
Speaker 8 (35:09):
One, I mean, I think it is really hard to
understand why things happening far away actually have an impact
on Americans here at home.
Speaker 6 (35:17):
I get that.
Speaker 8 (35:18):
And frankly, as the world becomes scarier, there's a totally
understandable instinct to say, let's just pull back and shut
down our connections with the world and just protect ourselves
here at home. Unfortunately, that instinct, well understandable, is almost
exactly wrong, and a moment when the world is becoming
more complicated and complex, we actually have to engage more
and conflicts like the conflict in Ukraine will not stop
(35:41):
in Ukraine. They implicate American interests already. America American jobs
depend on our relationship with Europe. Europe is a huge
trading partner. We need Europe to be safe and secure
in order to support our own economy. Certainly, Taiwan is
also a huge issue for trade and American prosperity, among
(36:01):
other things, as well as security in the region. So
I think it is understandable that it's hard to understand
why these things that seem far away actually affect us
here at home. But they really do, and history shows
that when we don't solve them where they are, then
we get confronted.
Speaker 6 (36:17):
With them closer to home.
Speaker 8 (36:19):
The second point I just want to make is that
we've We've heard from several callers about the expense of
supporting Ukraine, and I want to put it in context.
The spending on Ukraine is less than ten percent of
the Pentagon.
Speaker 6 (36:32):
Overall budget right now.
Speaker 8 (36:33):
We can actually afford it, And yes, there are other
things that we should be spending money on too in
this country. I'm not saying that it doesn't come at
a cost. But also I think sometimes when we talk
about it, it sounds like we're just delivering bags of cash
to the battlefield, and that's not what we're doing. We're
delivering largely American made equipment that is supporting American jobs.
By the way, the deal that we would make with
(36:54):
the Europeans to expand their defense industrial base and their
defense spending would also support American job And so we
should remember that this is not a transfer of wealth
at the numbers that we're talking about. This is actually
stuff that we're making that are supporting people who are
willing to fight for their own country, who are doing
their own fighting, and who are fighting to defend their democracy.
Speaker 7 (37:17):
Well, if I could just pick up on one point
about the defense budget you're talking about, as Dan said
about ten percent, and the last caller mentioned that he
wouldn't care if China took Taiwan because it's not our problem.
I think that is a grave misunderstanding of what Taiwan represents.
(37:39):
First of all, if you use a computer, if you
use a car, if you use any sort of electronics,
and you don't just live in the woods off the
land with candles, you need the super computing chips if
we're going to be competitive in the AI. The next
iteration of AI and really kind of keep our place
(38:01):
in the world. You have to have access to those
supercomputing chips in Taiwan, and so if you just hand
that over to Shi and China, that does have an
impact back home. And trust me, you think we don't
have jobs now in places that have lost jobs, you
lose access to Taiwan, and the job market here will
(38:23):
crater and society will creter.
Speaker 5 (38:26):
So we really have to understand how we're connected to
the world.
Speaker 7 (38:29):
These are not just problems out there, and the US
is not causing this war in Ukraine.
Speaker 5 (38:34):
They're trying to help an ally to prevent more bloodshed.
Speaker 1 (38:37):
Frankly, let's go to Alice in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Alice,
Welcome to the Middle your thoughts on the future of Ukraine.
Speaker 10 (38:45):
I think that if the Ukrainian people want to continue
to fight for freedom for democracy, I think they have
every right to do that, and I don't think other
countries should be telling them what they should do and
have the ability to supply them with what they need
to win this war or continue it. I think that's
(39:07):
what we should do because from what I understand, we've
always been committed to democracy throughout the world.
Speaker 1 (39:14):
Well, I think it's pretty clear, Alice, that the Ukrainians
want to fight for freedom because many of them have
died doing so. So you think that the US should
continue to support them as long as they're willing to fight.
Speaker 10 (39:25):
I think if the US can do that, if they
have that in their power to do that, I think
they should be doing that. I mean, we have always
been committed to democracy throughout the world, and I don't
see why this should be different.
Speaker 1 (39:40):
Alice, thank you for that. Let me go to Brian
and Birmingham, Alabama. Brian, welcome to the middle Go ahead, all.
Speaker 19 (39:46):
Right, thank you. I believe the US should make a
decision to drive towards the end of the war in
favor of Ukraine, but really make a hardline decision and
then see it through to the ID, do all of
a necessary steps, without all the political wavering back and forth,
(40:08):
and just really drive to the ID.
Speaker 1 (40:12):
Wouldn't that be a nice change, to just stick with
something for a while, Brian, great point, Dan Bear. It
makes me think of the Iraq War, which went through
multiple presidents who had their own ideas of what should
happen with that, and of course the war in Afghanistan
where Donald Trump and his administration negotiated the end, and
then Biden had to actually act on it and then got,
(40:33):
of course a lot of criticism for the very end
of the Afghanistan War, But what about that that makes
it very It does make very difficult to go on
with a long war when the United States changes administrations
and changes changes strategy.
Speaker 8 (40:47):
Certainly, the vicissitudes of American politics make executing a sustained
national security strategy difficult. But I agree with Brian and
I think, you know, like I said, I want to
be optimist stick in this moment. What I hear, what
I read from General Kellogg, what I hear from the
incoming administration makes me cautiously optimistic that what they want
(41:13):
to do is identify an end and that they understand
that the way to get to that end is to
solve the burden sharing question with the Europeans, to solve
the security arrangement for Ukraine post conflict, and then to
show a united front to Putin so that he understands
that he's he's not going to get any more than
what he's got, and that this is the end and
(41:35):
that this is the best time to make a deal
and that we will stick to that deal, and we
won't see any kind of embarrassing withdrawal or collapse that
would damage American credibility for the long run.
Speaker 1 (41:47):
Jennifer Griffin. Does the Biden administration like, did they not
want to get to the end of the war in
a strong enough way? I mean we're talking about like, oh,
Trump can come in and we'll you know, he's got
he wants to end the war. Does doesn't the Biden
administration want the war to end as well?
Speaker 7 (42:02):
Of course, the Biden administration didn't want this war and
they didn't want it to drag on. The problem is
that there was an assessment in the first year or
two and even up until this year that Putin could
use a nuclear weapon, and I think that that really
slowed down the decision making, and it was very cautious
decision making about On the one hand, they flooded the
(42:25):
zone in the very beginning, and they saved Ukraine by
providing a intelligence and also a weaponry upfront that helped
them really prevent the capital from being taken in those
initial days, which many thought was likely to happen. President
Trump deserves full credit because frankly, the Ukrainians could not
(42:47):
have fought off those tanks that were heading towards the
capital without the javelin missiles that he had approved at
the end of his administration, and those were absolutely crucial
in those initial days. The US has an interest has
both administrations have an interest in Ukraine winning. I think
we're at a different inflection point where you can actually
(43:09):
talk about coming to a negotiating table. The conditions were
not really right up until now. And so you know
what would be great is if national security in this
country wasn't a big, you know, pendulum swing between administrations,
that there was continuity. And I do believe, as we've said, Jeremy,
that there is some continuity of thinking between Keith Kellogg,
(43:31):
Mike Waltz, Jake Sullivan. But I do think there is
an accelerated timeframe right now because we're at a different
point in the war.
Speaker 1 (43:38):
I know they feel the same way about that at NASA,
where it takes you know, decades sometimes to build these rockets,
and the new president comes in and says, now, let's
do something else. Now with that, Let's go to Jared
who's in Houston, Texas. Jared, welcome to the middle Go ahead.
Speaker 20 (43:54):
Hey, how's it going. Yeah, I think it's been a
lot of really interesting viewpoints so far. I'm confused, honestly
by a couple of callers. It makes me feel like
I'm taking crazy pills or something, because some of the
responses seem to suggest that we could we should kind
of just give up and leave Ukraine to their own devices.
(44:15):
And I just can't imagine pairing that mentality with World
War two and fighting the Nazis. And I mean, where
if we If your if your opinion is that we
shouldn't have gotten involved in World War Two, then fine,
at least you're consistent ideologically. But I don't know. I
it feels like an un American take to just be like,
(44:36):
we should abandon.
Speaker 18 (44:36):
Ukraine and lette putin duit.
Speaker 20 (44:38):
He wants keep the territory that he wants and just
sue for peace.
Speaker 5 (44:42):
Hmmm.
Speaker 9 (44:43):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (44:44):
Let me ask you just quickly, Jared, what did you
think about, for example, Afghanistan, where you know, we were
trying to set up a democracy there. Obviously that didn't
work in the end, But what did you feel the
same way there?
Speaker 13 (44:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 20 (44:57):
I mean, I think the Middle East has its own.
Speaker 13 (45:00):
Sort of problems.
Speaker 20 (45:00):
There definitely is some overlap. I thought the way that
the withdrawal happened was terrible. I think both the Trump
and the Biden administration bear some blame for that.
Speaker 18 (45:11):
Obviously, it was.
Speaker 20 (45:13):
The terms were negotiated during Trump's term and by his
team and him, but you know, Biden definitely shares some
blame for how it went down to and it was
an unacceptable result for sure.
Speaker 1 (45:24):
Jared, thank you, Dan Behar. Let's focus on that issue
of just it's an American Jared says to not support Ukraine,
another fellow democracy in trouble.
Speaker 8 (45:36):
I think that's true, and it speaks to me. Although
I would say that for people who who aren't inspired
by the kind of values argument, that the world will
be more peaceful if we look out for the human
rights and fundamental dignity of people around the world, and
that when a brutal dictator invades a neighboring country that
is a rising democracy, that we should care about that
(45:57):
because we care about democracy. We should also care about
that because it is really really bad for American prosperity
and security, and because it might actually hurt Americans and
hurt American jobs and American security over the long run.
And so there are two reasons. Two sets of reasons
that are both compelling, and if you aren't, if you
aren't persuaded by the values argument, I would still make
(46:19):
the security prosperity argument just as forcefully.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
Jennifer Griffin, I'm going to give you the last word
and ask you this. This is just one of many
issues that you cover in terms of national security. We
just had a major attack in New Orleans by an
isis convert. How important is Ukraine to Trump as he
comes in in terms of all the national security issues
that are.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
On his plate.
Speaker 7 (46:43):
Well, I don't envy him, and I don't envy any
president to have to take on the number of problems
right now. And so the question is which two or
three is he going to focus on first? And he
has made Ukraine a priority, so I think you'll see
that as one of the priorities. But I think think,
I think you know, look, look what's happening tomorrow in Venezuela.
(47:04):
You have a decision point with this next administration. Are
you going to support the Maduro regime or are you
going to support Edmundo Gonzalez, who actually won the election there.
Venezuela is very important to national security for the United States.
If you want to have millions of Venezuelans go back
to Venezuela and not flood the border and come across
(47:28):
into the United States.
Speaker 5 (47:29):
You need to solve the Venezuela problem.
Speaker 7 (47:31):
And then Venezuela also is an energy source, so that's
another issue right on our doorstep. You have the China issue,
or you have Taiwan, you have what's going to happen
in Syria, what's going to happen between Iran and Israel.
This is going to be an incredibly complicated period, a
matrix like you've never seen in terms of national security challenges.
Speaker 5 (47:51):
And I hope that the.
Speaker 7 (47:53):
Strength of this administration coming in and this president who
who does know how to be strong and present strength,
I hope that he'll use it as.
Speaker 5 (48:02):
A force for good and not as a force for isolationism.
Speaker 1 (48:05):
Well, I want to thank my guests Fox News Chief
National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin and Dan Behar, Senior vice
president for Policy Research and director of the Europrogram at
the Carnegie and Dowman for International Piece.
Speaker 2 (48:15):
Thanks so much to both of you for joining us,
thanks for having me, And next week.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
Right before Inauguration Day, we're going to be asking whether
or not democracy is really at risk in Trump's second term.
We're going to be joined by political commentator Andrew Sullivan
and Clemson University history professor Vernon Burton.
Speaker 3 (48:32):
As always, you can call in at eight four four
four Middle. That's eight four four four six four three
three five three, or you can reach out to Listen
to the Middle dot com. Or you can also sign
up for our free weekly newsletter, and don't forget to
check out our new video podcast on YouTube, where you
can watch us as well as hear us.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
We look great, Tulliver, we look great.
Speaker 6 (48:49):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (48:50):
The medal is brought to you by Longnick Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media and Urbana Illinois and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, Sam Burmas, Dawes, John barth On, Akdessler,
and Brandon Cony, Hundreds, our technical directors Jason Kroft. Thanks
to our satellite radio listeners, our podcast audience, and the
more than four hundred and twenty public radio stations that
are making it possible for people across the country to
(49:11):
listen to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson, and I will
talk to you next week.
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