Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com. All right, hello everybody, Happy Saturday. It is
Speaker 1: Ryan and I here to break down the everything that's
Speaker 1: gone on in the news. And you may have noticed
Speaker 1: that we actually have a very special guest who we're
Speaker 1: very honored to be joined by, Professor John Meerscheimer the
Speaker 1: University of Chicago, an intellectual hero of mine and a
Speaker 1: great friend of the show. Sir, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us.
Speaker 3: We really appreciate it. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 4: It's my pleasure to be here with you and Ryan.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, sir, So we are going to go through with
Speaker 1: you everything that happen yesterday at the Trump Putin summit,
Speaker 1: as well as some of the information that is now
Speaker 1: coming out as a result. So just for everybody purposes,
Speaker 1: we're recording this around nine am Eastern time. Things could
Speaker 1: obviously change with the diplomatic situation, but this is generally
Speaker 1: where things stand as of right now. So Griffin, could
Speaker 1: we go ahead and start to kind of the show
Speaker 1: of the summit where Trump made a big grand gesture
Speaker 1: at the in Alaska. At that summit, greeting Putin with
Speaker 1: the red carpet lined with US fighter jets, he flew
Speaker 1: a B two bomber escort over Putin's head as a
Speaker 1: show of a tremendous military might. That seemed to kind
Speaker 1: of be the tone that Trump wanted to set a
Speaker 1: reminder to Putin quote whose boss? But things very quickly
Speaker 1: changed from their professor. What we started to see was
Speaker 1: a nearly three hour three on three meeting between Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: Secretary Rubio, Steve Wikoff, two of Putin's advisors, and their translators.
Speaker 1: There was a scheduled lunch which they eventually missed, and
Speaker 1: they announced in a flurry of changes of press conference
Speaker 1: at that press conference. It really isn't even fair to
Speaker 1: call it a press conference, is more of a press announcement.
Speaker 1: Lasted about twelve minutes. Putin actually spoke first, So Griffin,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and take a listen to putin what
Speaker 1: he had to say, specifically his framing of an agreement
Speaker 1: that they had had the Trump later rejects, but the
Speaker 1: contours of what the setting piece is for what follows
Speaker 1: after the summit. Griffin, let's go ahead and take a listen.
Speaker 3: Please.
Speaker 5: I expect that today's agreements will be the starting point
Speaker 5: not only for the solution of the Ukrainian issue, but
Speaker 5: also will help us bring back business like and pragmatic
Speaker 5: relations between Russia and the US. And in the end,
Speaker 5: I would like to add one more thing. I'd like
Speaker 5: to remind you of twenty twenty two. During the last
Speaker 5: contact with the previous administration, I tried to convince my
Speaker 5: previous American colleague, we should not the situation should not
Speaker 5: be brought to the point of no return when it
Speaker 5: would come to hostilities.
Speaker 1: So Professor, he initially framed things as an agreement, but
Speaker 1: the real top line was that there was no ceasefire
Speaker 1: that was announced, and it appears that he rejected the European,
Speaker 1: Ukrainian and US position for an immediate ceasefire, just broadly.
Speaker 1: Having watched Putin's full eight minute statement and everything, as
Speaker 1: well as some of the positions that the United States
Speaker 1: tried to force onto Putin in the head of this summit,
Speaker 1: what's your reaction so far just to putin the way
Speaker 1: that he handled himself there with Donald Trump, and what
Speaker 1: does it tell us about the broader situation.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that Putin obviously did a brilliant job
Speaker 4: of handling himself in yes day's meeting.
Speaker 3: There's just no question about that.
Speaker 4: And that's really all he had to do was come
Speaker 4: and look diplomatic, look smart, look respectful of President Trump,
Speaker 4: and it would do a great deal to put an
Speaker 4: end to his isolation in the West and give him
Speaker 4: real legitimacy. And he came in and is I think
Speaker 4: almost everybody expected. He did the job, and he was
Speaker 4: very effective in that way. And then there's the whole
Speaker 4: question of the ceasefire, which you raise just for the
Speaker 4: audience's purposes or for clarification for the audience. It's important
Speaker 4: to understand that there's a difference between a peace agreement
Speaker 4: and a ceasefire. And really, what the Russians want is
Speaker 4: not a cease fire, because they're winning on the battlefield.
Speaker 4: What they want is a peace agreement. And what the
Speaker 4: West wants and the Ukrainians want.
Speaker 3: Is a ceasefire.
Speaker 4: And Trump tried to convince Putin that what we need
Speaker 4: here is a ceasefire. And what resulted is that Putin
Speaker 4: said there will be no ceasefire. We have to have
Speaker 4: a peace agreement. And in fact, Trump has now backed
Speaker 4: off from demanding a ceasefire. And he said to someone
Speaker 4: after the meeting that the best solution to this problem
Speaker 4: is to go directly to a peace agreement, in other words,
Speaker 4: putting the ceasefire that the Ukrainians and the Europeans and
Speaker 4: many people in the United States want aside. He's saying
Speaker 4: that's a non starter after having talked to Putin. So
Speaker 4: I think, in terms of the clip that you just showed,
Speaker 4: that's the most important subjective point.
Speaker 6: And can you impact for people why Ukraine would be
Speaker 6: reluctant to reach a peace agreement versus an immediate ceasefire, Like,
Speaker 6: what is the advantage of one over the other to Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Well, the advantages of a ceasefire are mainly that Ukraine
Speaker 4: is losing on the battlefield and the West cannot do
Speaker 4: much to help it at this point in time. So
Speaker 4: if you can create a ceasefire, put an end to
Speaker 4: the fighting on the battlefield, that gives the Ukrainians a
Speaker 4: respite Number one and number two, it allows them to
Speaker 4: get more arms from the West to build up their
Speaker 4: forces and then put up a better fight against the
Speaker 4: Russians moving forward once the fighting restarts, in other words,
Speaker 4: once the ceasefire ends. But the Russians are not dumkoffs,
Speaker 4: and they understand if they're winning it would be nuts,
Speaker 4: to put it bluntly, them to stop the war when
Speaker 4: they're winning, allow the Ukrainians to recover and then fight
Speaker 4: more effectively at some point down the road. So the
Speaker 4: Russians have no interest in a ceasefire. Ukraine and the
Speaker 4: West really like the idea. What the Russians want is
Speaker 4: they want a peace agreement. They want to settle this one,
Speaker 4: but they want to settle it on their terms. It's
Speaker 4: very important to understand this. The Russians view Ukraine joining
Speaker 4: NATO as an existential threat. This war for them is existential,
Speaker 4: and they have a set of demands that they will
Speaker 4: not compromise on near three principal demands. One is that
Speaker 4: Ukraine and the West recognize that Russia has a next
Speaker 4: those four oh blosts that they now partially occupy four
Speaker 4: oh bloss in Ukraine plus Crimea. That's demand number one.
Speaker 4: Number two is that Ukraine be a neutral state. That
Speaker 4: means it can't be a NATO and there can't be
Speaker 4: Western security guarantees, especially a security guarantee from the United States. Ukraine,
Speaker 4: from the Russian perspective, has to be neutral. Third demand
Speaker 4: is that Ukraine has to disarm, not completely, but disarmed
Speaker 4: to the point where it has no offensive military capability,
Speaker 4: i e. It can't threaten Russia. Now, these are three
Speaker 4: harsh demands from the Ukrainian point of view and from
Speaker 4: the West point of view, these are unacceptable demands to
Speaker 4: the Ukrainians and to most people in the West, and
Speaker 4: this is why you can't get a peace agreement. So
Speaker 4: what we have here is the Russians want a peace agreement,
Speaker 4: the Ukrainians in the West have no interest in a
Speaker 4: peace agreement. The West and the Ukrainians want to cease fire,
Speaker 4: and the ru Ussians have no interest in a ceasefire,
Speaker 4: and the end result is you have a very short
Speaker 4: meeting and you have no agreement.
Speaker 6: Very well, said sir.
Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and take a listen to Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: because with that context, everything that he says begins to
Speaker 1: make no sense. There's no deal until there's a deal.
Speaker 1: I need to get on the phone with NATO and
Speaker 1: with Ukraine, which has now happened, and we're going to
Speaker 1: give everybody the results. But it's still actually really the
Speaker 1: framework that I want people to go into with the
Speaker 1: Trump press conference again, press announcement is, I have never
Speaker 1: known this man not to take an extraordinary amount of questions.
Speaker 1: Even in the Helsinki summit of twenty eighteen, it's three
Speaker 1: minutes roughly that he speaks. It's clear that he is
Speaker 1: incredibly muted, both emotionally, you know, after his meeting with Putin,
Speaker 1: and I think what he's realizing in real time is
Speaker 1: the mistake you know that he made in agreeing to
Speaker 1: these European and Ukrainian quote red lines, going into the
Speaker 1: summit itself and starting to understand the exact puzzle that
Speaker 1: you just laid out. So with that guy, let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and take a listen to Donald Trump and what
Speaker 1: he had to say.
Speaker 7: We've made some headway. So there's no deal. Until there's
Speaker 7: a deal. I will call up NATO in a little while,
Speaker 7: I will call up the various people that I think
Speaker 7: are appropriate, and all of course call up Presidents Olynsky
Speaker 7: and tell him about today's meeting.
Speaker 3: It's ultimately up with them. They're going to have to
Speaker 3: agree with what Marco.
Speaker 7: And Steve and some of the great people from the
Speaker 7: Trump administration who've come here, Scott and John right, thank
Speaker 7: you very much. We have some of our really great leaders.
Speaker 7: They've been doing a phenomenal job. We also have some
Speaker 7: tremendous Russian business representatives here and I think you know,
Speaker 7: everybody wants to deal with us. We've become the hottest
Speaker 7: country anywhere in the world at a very short period
Speaker 7: of time, and we look forward to that. We look
Speaker 7: forward to dealing. We try and get this over with.
Speaker 7: We really made some great progress today. I've always had
Speaker 7: a fantastic relationship with President Putin. With Vladimir we had
Speaker 7: many many tough meetings, good meetings. We were interfered with
Speaker 7: by the Russia. Russia Russia host.
Speaker 1: All right, Griffin, you can go ahead and come out
Speaker 1: of this, because that's effectively everything that we do need
Speaker 1: to know, which is he said there's no deal in
Speaker 1: heres the deal I need to get on the phone
Speaker 1: with the Ukrainians and the Europeans. And now, Professor, we
Speaker 1: actually do have the result of that. Can we go
Speaker 1: ahead and put Donald Trump's truth please up on the screen,
Speaker 1: because this lays out exactly what you said, and I
Speaker 1: can go ahead and read from it. It says a
Speaker 1: great and very successful day in Alaska. The meeting with
Speaker 1: President Putin went very well, as did a late night
Speaker 1: phone call. But he says, quote, it was determined by
Speaker 1: all that the best way to end the horrific war
Speaker 1: between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a
Speaker 1: peace agreement which would end the war and not a
Speaker 1: mere ceasefire agreement often does not hold up. President Zelenski
Speaker 1: will be coming to DC the Oval Office on Monday afternoon.
Speaker 1: If it all works out, we will then schedule a
Speaker 1: meeting with President Putin immediately. Sir, we also got Zelenski's
Speaker 1: reaction and kind of the laying out of where I
Speaker 1: think things are going to trip up, So let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and put that up there as well, because it's
Speaker 1: very similar to the ceasefire demand that was made initially.
Speaker 1: He says killings must stop as soon as possible. The
Speaker 1: fire must cease both on the battlefield and in the sky,
Speaker 1: as well as our poor infrastructure. All Ukrainian POWs and
Speaker 1: civilians must be released. Pressure must be maintained with the
Speaker 1: aggression and occupation. In my conversation with President Trump, I
Speaker 1: said that sanctions could be strengthened if there's no trilateral
Speaker 1: meeting with Russia. Sanctions are an effective tool, and then
Speaker 1: security must be guaranteed reliably and in the long term
Speaker 1: with the involvement of both the europe and the US.
Speaker 1: All important to Ukraine must be discussed with Ukraine's participation.
Speaker 1: So it appears, you know, given the context serve everything
Speaker 1: that you've laid out here, that we see that Trump
Speaker 1: is now dropping the initial ceasefire demand, which effectively, as
Speaker 1: you said, wouldn't make a lot of battlefield sense for Russia.
Speaker 1: But on the peace agreement terms, he's accepting this. European
Speaker 1: or at the very least, the European and the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: are effectively demanding the same ceasefire that Putin just rejected,
Speaker 1: as well as a laundry, list of other things that
Speaker 1: are unacceptable to the Russian So how do you expect
Speaker 1: then the Monday meeting to go with President Zelenski in
Speaker 1: the Oval office.
Speaker 4: Well, I think there's one very important dimension to what
Speaker 4: Trump said that we don't want to lose sight of,
Speaker 4: and that is I think he's passing the torch to Zelensky.
Speaker 3: Yes, I think in.
Speaker 4: A very important way, Trump has come to understand that
Speaker 4: he can't settle this one right. There's no way he
Speaker 4: can agree Trump to a peace agreement and convince the Ukranians,
Speaker 4: the Europeans, and the Western foreign policy establishment that that's
Speaker 4: the smart thing to do, right, And he can't convince
Speaker 4: Putin to agree to a ceasefire.
Speaker 3: So what can Trump do?
Speaker 4: And of course what Zelensky says he should do is
Speaker 4: put secondary sanctions on Russia. And we could talk about that,
Speaker 4: because this meeting was in good part about secondary sanctions
Speaker 4: and Trump's interest in secondary sanctions in the past. But
Speaker 4: Trump understands, he was asked afterwards, what this means for
Speaker 4: secondary sanctions. There's going to be no secondary sanctions at
Speaker 4: least at this point, says Trump. So the sanctions are
Speaker 4: off the table. The cease fire is off the table,
Speaker 4: and Trump is basically agreed with Putin that you got
Speaker 4: to go directly. He said this, you got to go
Speaker 4: directly for a peace agreement. So Zelensky comes to the
Speaker 4: White House. What does this mean. He's basically saying, I
Speaker 4: that Zelenski and the Europeans can now sit down with
Speaker 4: Putin and they can work this out. If they need me,
Speaker 4: I'll be there, but it's up to them. I'm not
Speaker 4: going to cut a deal and then try and force
Speaker 4: it down the throats of the Ukrainians and the Europeans
Speaker 4: because they don't want to go along with me. So
Speaker 4: if you listen to the press conference, this is what
Speaker 4: you were playing. He's said, it's ultimately up to them.
Speaker 4: He said he's going to call NATO, He's going to
Speaker 4: call the Ukrainians. But what happens is and these were
Speaker 4: his words and the clip that you played it is
Speaker 4: ultimately up to them. Very important words. Yes, And I
Speaker 4: think Trump just understands he can't solve this one, and
Speaker 4: he's correct, he can't.
Speaker 3: Solve this one.
Speaker 4: He might have been able to solve it if he
Speaker 4: had been strategically smart from the get go, but since
Speaker 4: he talked, took office on January twentieth. Up to now,
Speaker 4: he has behaved in a remarkably foolish and uninformed way
Speaker 4: in terms of dealing with the Russians. What he finally
Speaker 4: figured out yesterday after talking to Putin he should have
Speaker 4: figured out before he moved into the White House on
Speaker 4: January twentieth. The Russians have had one position on this
Speaker 4: issue since at least last June fourteenth. Last June fourteenth,
Speaker 4: this is June fourteenth, twenty twenty four. Right, Putin said
Speaker 4: very clearly what the Russian demands were. They were consistent
Speaker 4: with what he had said before June fourteenth.
Speaker 3: Twenty twenty four.
Speaker 4: And he has not changed those demands at all since
Speaker 4: June fourteenth, twenty twenty four. So why didn't Trump and
Speaker 4: company understand exactly what those demands were and work around
Speaker 4: them starting on January twentieth. I don't know what the
Speaker 4: answer is, but they didn't. So and the end result
Speaker 4: is he finally figured it out yesterday.
Speaker 6: And so from your perspective, it was the like the
Speaker 6: Vladimir stop, we need to stop this on day one,
Speaker 6: like that was all that was all a mistake, and
Speaker 6: he needed to understand that he had to approach this
Speaker 6: through the context of a broader peace agreement. Is that
Speaker 6: is that what you would say was the mistake that I.
Speaker 4: Think the fundamental mistake Ryan, is that the vast majority
Speaker 4: of people in the foreign policy establishment refused to accept
Speaker 4: the argument that the Russians see Ukraine in NATO.
Speaker 3: As an existential threat.
Speaker 4: It's an existential threat for Putin and the people around him,
Speaker 4: and given it as an existential threat, they are willing
Speaker 4: to fight a war, a major league war, to prevent
Speaker 4: Ukraine from joining NATO or having security guarantee from the West.
Speaker 4: We can't get it through earth thick skulls here in
Speaker 4: the West that Russia views Ukraine and NATO as an
Speaker 4: existential threat, and we continue to play this game where
Speaker 4: we have continued to play this game up until yesterday,
Speaker 4: where we thought that Ukraine could have security guarantees from
Speaker 4: the West, or maybe it could even join NATO, that
Speaker 4: Ukraine could get that territory back that it's lost.
Speaker 3: And so forth and so on.
Speaker 4: We've been delusional up to now. And I believe that
Speaker 4: the Ukrainians and the Europeans, and huge chunks of the
Speaker 4: national security establishment here in the United States will remain
Speaker 4: delusional until the situation on the battlefield makes it impossible
Speaker 4: to continue along that foolish path.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: It's very tragic the result that you're laying out, but
Speaker 1: it obviously, it is obviously the most likely. One of
Speaker 1: the things Sarah I want to talk about is the
Speaker 1: last grasp of the maximal pressurists is these secondary sanctions,
Speaker 1: because Russia is already the most sanctioned country in the
Speaker 1: world by the United States, and as Putin pointed out
Speaker 1: actually in his press conference, he's like, yeah, our GDP
Speaker 1: is up by twenty percent, you know, like we're actually
Speaker 1: doing fine. Trump has tried his hands roughly at some
Speaker 1: sort of these secondary sanctions with India. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's very interesting that the Indian government has not changed
Speaker 1: his position a single iota. And in fact, it was
Speaker 1: a talking point of the Western security establishment that the
Speaker 1: secondary sanctions on India were the reason that Putin agreed
Speaker 1: to this summit in the first place. There does not
Speaker 1: seem to be hard evidence of that, given you know,
Speaker 1: now necessarily how the result of the peace talks happened,
Speaker 1: and especially because they didn't change their position. But does
Speaker 1: that factor into how you say that the West has
Speaker 1: handled itself foolishly in believing that there's one more secret
Speaker 1: trick they might be able to pull to change the
Speaker 1: strategic calculus of the Russians.
Speaker 4: Yes, I mean secondary sanctions are of enormous importance, and
Speaker 4: I believe this meeting was all about secondary sanctions. Now
Speaker 4: you're saying to yourself, what exactly does John mean? You
Speaker 4: want to remember that Trump in the weeks before this
Speaker 4: meeting was threatened name secondary sanctions on Russia, and what
Speaker 4: that means is that you're effectively not going to sanction Russia, because,
Speaker 4: as you pointed out, the Russians are so sanctioned at
Speaker 4: this point that there are no more direct sanctions you
Speaker 4: can put on the Russians that are meaningful. Secondary sanctions
Speaker 4: mean that you're going to put sanctions on India and
Speaker 4: China and a few other countries, but mainly India and
Speaker 4: China if they continue to trade with Russia. In other words,
Speaker 4: if they continue to import Russian oil, well, they're not
Speaker 4: going to work. We cannot put secondary sanctions on the Chinese.
Speaker 4: They have too much leverage over us because of rare
Speaker 4: earths and magnets, and as you pointed out, the Indians
Speaker 4: have made it clear that secondary sanctions are not going
Speaker 4: to work with them, and if anything, it's going to
Speaker 4: drive the Indians closer to the Russians. Just completely counterproductive.
Speaker 4: So secondary sanctions don't work. So what happened here was
Speaker 4: Trump got himself into a real pickle. He had promised
Speaker 4: that he was going to put secondary sanctions on the
Speaker 4: Russians by August eighth, So what does he do? A
Speaker 4: few days before August eighth? He sends Steve whitcoff Off
Speaker 4: to Moscow to talk with Putin about having a meeting
Speaker 4: the beating that took place yesterday. So if you have
Speaker 4: that meeting, then you don't have to put sanctions on
Speaker 4: the Russians secondary sanctions, which are again effectively sanctions on
Speaker 4: India and China. On August. What happens is Witkof goes
Speaker 4: talks to Putin. Of course agrees to a meeting, because
Speaker 4: a meeting is mona from heaven for Putin, for reasons
Speaker 4: we talked about at the start of the show, right,
Speaker 4: he agrees, and Witkoff comes back tells Trump. Trump announces
Speaker 4: that they're going to have this meeting and he doesn't
Speaker 4: have to put secondary sanctions on the Russians on August eighth,
Speaker 4: he gets out of the pickle, and it's this meeting
Speaker 4: yesterday that does the trick. So one could argue that
Speaker 4: the meeting yesterday wasn't a way of victory for Trump
Speaker 4: because he got away from that promise. And furthermore, as
Speaker 4: we talked about before, it's very important to.
Speaker 3: Understand that he was asked after the.
Speaker 4: Meeting whether or not secondary sanctions would be put on
Speaker 4: the Russians, and he basically said that ship has sailed.
Speaker 4: So he has taken at least up to now. You
Speaker 4: can never know for sure with Trump, but he has
Speaker 4: at least for now solved that big problem that he had. Yeah, well,
Speaker 4: just to say, guys, the fact is that we have
Speaker 4: no cards to play.
Speaker 3: Here, right.
Speaker 6: He solved the problem, but as you pointed out, it
Speaker 6: was a problem of his own making.
Speaker 3: Solutely.
Speaker 6: Since with Ukraine coming next week, I want to ask
Speaker 6: you from Ukraine's perspective, and I'll put up I think
Speaker 6: this is roughly a fairly recent sense of where where
Speaker 6: the front lines are. You know, Ukraine, you know, still
Speaker 6: has access to the to the Black Sea along these
Speaker 6: if these lines were frozen from what I hear from Ukrainians,
Speaker 6: they say, okay, what it's actually just going to give
Speaker 6: Russia a chance to regroup and then they're going to
Speaker 6: attack again and completely cut us off from the Black Sea,
Speaker 6: and we will just be instead of a eighty percent
Speaker 6: rump of a country, will be a forty percent rump
Speaker 6: of a country, landlocked and just a dual client of
Speaker 6: both Russia and the EU. So, if you're the Ukrainians,
Speaker 6: what's your what are you fighting for here and what's
Speaker 6: your best case scenario?
Speaker 4: Well, I have been arguing for a long time. I think,
Speaker 4: as you know, Ryan, that the best case from Ukraine's
Speaker 4: point of view is to settle this war immediately, because,
Speaker 4: as you point out, they're going to lose twenty percent
Speaker 4: if they agree to give up those four ro Oho
Speaker 4: blosts plus Crimea, about twenty two percent of pre two
Speaker 4: thy fourteen Ukraine will be lost. Is this a tragedy
Speaker 4: for Ukraine? Absolutely, there's no question about it. I fully
Speaker 4: understand why no Ukrainian would want to agree to give
Speaker 4: up twenty two percent of the territory of the country. However,
Speaker 4: the question you always have to ask yourself as a
Speaker 4: good strategist is what is the alternative and the alternative
Speaker 4: is to continue fighting, and as you pointed out, if
Speaker 4: you continue fighting, you're likely to lose probably about half
Speaker 4: the country.
Speaker 3: You're likely to.
Speaker 4: Lose Odessa and that would be catastrophic. You're likely to
Speaker 4: lose Harkiev, You're likely to use a lose a handful
Speaker 4: more o bloss as well, So you will end up
Speaker 4: in that scenario as a dysfunctional rump state. It seems
Speaker 4: to me the least bad alternative, and I'm choosing words
Speaker 4: carefully here, it's not a good alternative. It's the least
Speaker 4: bad alternative is to cut a deal now and minimize.
Speaker 3: How much territory you lose and.
Speaker 4: Also minimize the number of Ukrainians who are going to
Speaker 4: die if you continue to fight on. The other thing
Speaker 4: is if you continue to fight on and you continue
Speaker 4: to insist it you're going to be in NATO, and
Speaker 4: you continue to insist you need security guarantees from the West,
Speaker 4: and the West flirts with you about security guarantees. You
Speaker 4: just give the Russians greater incentives to take more territory
Speaker 4: and to make you a truly dysfunctional rub state. What
Speaker 4: the Ukrainians should want to do, and I understand this
Speaker 4: is hard to swallow. Is to survive as a rump state,
Speaker 4: but not as a dysfunctional rum state, and try to
Speaker 4: come up with some sort of modus vivendi with the
Speaker 4: Russians so that the Russians don't feel threatened, so that
Speaker 4: they're not bent on wrecking your country. This is the
Speaker 4: best alternative for the Ukrainians at this point of time.
Speaker 4: But getting that point through to Zelenskian company and to
Speaker 4: the Europeans especially, but also to huge chunks of the
Speaker 4: American national security establishment is almost impossible to do. It
Speaker 4: really is, sir.
Speaker 1: It's mystifying because it's like they live in an alternative
Speaker 1: reality where this status quo is somehow good for Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I mean, let's go ahead and put the battlefield reality
Speaker 1: tear sheet please up there on the screen. Literally days before,
Speaker 1: they made huge gains on the Ukrainian front line, one
Speaker 1: of the biggest breakthroughs by the Russians so far. They
Speaker 1: have a manpower advantage, obviously, you know the average age
Speaker 1: of the Ukrainian military. We still, you know, it remains unclear.
Speaker 1: And this is my main question is about inside of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Because Zelenski is wedded to this maximalist position, which again
Speaker 1: we all emotionally understand. But the Ukrainian people, we recently
Speaker 1: had a poll on our show that we showed had
Speaker 1: some you know, a major support actually for some sort
Speaker 1: of negotiation, but there's no elections, and in fact, you know,
Speaker 1: he's been cracking down on domestic dissension from the beginning
Speaker 1: of the war, on top of recently signing this you know,
Speaker 1: anti corruption law, which drew massive protests to the streets.
Speaker 1: So in that time, in this initial timeframe, it appears
Speaker 1: that the most likely scenario is Zelenski will reject outright
Speaker 1: some sort of meeting. Trump remains in his pickle about
Speaker 1: secondary sanctions, doesn't know what to do. The war will
Speaker 1: continue fighting on, at the very least with European support.
Speaker 1: Trump seems happy to send you know, weapons to the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians as long as the Europeans buy them, and it'll
Speaker 1: be like some sort of semi frozen conflict where the
Speaker 1: frontline moves daily. Now, how long does Ukraine, the polity,
Speaker 1: like the people left inside of Ukraine tolerate that situation,
Speaker 1: as you said, as long as these thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: of their you know, they're men, increasingly elder men begin
Speaker 1: to keep dying on the battlefield.
Speaker 4: It's very hard to answer that question. I mean, the
Speaker 4: only sort of analogous case that I know is Germany
Speaker 4: and World War One, and what happened is that the
Speaker 4: Americans entered the war in April of nineteen seventeen. And
Speaker 4: what happened was that by the spring of nineteen eighteen,
Speaker 4: the Americans were beginning to come in in huge numbers,
Speaker 4: and this meant that the balance of power on the
Speaker 4: battlefield in terms of man power, was shifting against the Germans.
Speaker 4: This is over the course of nineteen eighteen. At the
Speaker 4: same time, what was happening in Germany is.
Speaker 3: That support for the war on the home front.
Speaker 4: Was collapsing, and it was because of the blockade that
Speaker 4: the West had put on Germany and on Austria Hungary.
Speaker 4: Those countries were starving. It was a total disaster. So
Speaker 4: support for the war on the home front evaporated. At
Speaker 4: the same time, the coming of the Americans on the
Speaker 4: battlefield shifted the balance of power in ways that made
Speaker 4: it apparent that Germany was going to lose. And the
Speaker 4: end result is that by October nineteen eighteen, Germany was through.
Speaker 4: It was all over with and you got a peace agreement.
Speaker 4: And you want to remember that the Allies never set
Speaker 4: foot during the combat on German territory. Germany collapsed on
Speaker 4: the home front. So just to go to Ukraine today,
Speaker 4: if you look at what's happening on the battlefield, it's
Speaker 4: very clear, and you were hinting at this that Ukraine
Speaker 4: does not have enough manpower. They do not have enough infantry,
Speaker 4: and infantry is of enormous importance for pairying those Russian offensives.
Speaker 4: The Russians have a huge manpower advantage. Looks a lot
Speaker 4: like World War One in nineteen eighteen. Is the Americans
Speaker 4: come in, the balance of power on the ground is shifting.
Speaker 4: And then if you look at what's happening on the
Speaker 4: home front, is you just describe support for the war
Speaker 4: is evaporating. Huge numbers of people have left or leave
Speaker 4: the country. Public opinion has turned against the war. So
Speaker 4: it does look like the situation is going to end
Speaker 4: in disaster for Ukraine. It's hard to imagine this going
Speaker 4: on for another year, given the balance of power and
Speaker 4: given public opinion at home. So all of this is
Speaker 4: to say the Ukrainians are doomed. And by the way,
Speaker 4: I think Trump and his advisors understand this, and they
Speaker 4: are telling the Ukrainians and the Europeans, Okay, you want
Speaker 4: to continue the fight, We'll give you the weaponry. As
Speaker 4: you pointed out, We're going to continue to give the
Speaker 4: Ukrainians the weapons, not directly, they're going to go through
Speaker 4: the Europeans. The Europeans are going to pay for them.
Speaker 4: But American weaponry will go to the Ukrainians. It won't
Speaker 4: be enough. But the real problem here is manpower. And
Speaker 4: so my view is that Ukraine is doomed, and Zelinski
Speaker 4: will soon figure that out, and they'll have to reach
Speaker 4: some sort of accommodation with the Russians, and you'll get
Speaker 4: a frozen piece.
Speaker 6: Do you have a sense of where this goes from here? Like,
Speaker 6: how much of the World War One analogy can you
Speaker 6: draw out? I mean, obviously, a post war Ukraine would
Speaker 6: not have the kind of industrial capacity of a post war,
Speaker 6: post World War One Germany. And so even if it
Speaker 6: if it's far right did feel that it was quote
Speaker 6: unquote stabbed in the back and forced into this bad agreement,
Speaker 6: it wouldn't really have the capacity to create some monster
Speaker 6: over the next thirty years. But what kind of knock
Speaker 6: on effects could you expect from a piece of the
Speaker 6: kind you're talking about.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is a great question. I mean, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 4: Germany was a monster, right. You went from nineteen fourteen
Speaker 4: to nineteen eighteen fighting that monster and defeating it, and
Speaker 4: involved the Russians, the French, the British, and then the
Speaker 4: Americans took four countries to take the Germans down. And
Speaker 4: the Germans key ally was Austria Hungary, which one could
Speaker 4: argue was an albatross around the Germans neck. So Germany
Speaker 4: was very powerful and when the war ended, the question
Speaker 4: is what do you do with that monster? And of
Speaker 4: course again we had World War II against that monster
Speaker 4: starting in nineteen thirty nine, But this is a completely
Speaker 4: different situation that regard. The smart thing for the Ukrainians
Speaker 4: to do, as I said before, is, except the fact
Speaker 4: that they've lost, right, try to settle it now and
Speaker 4: then work out a modus vivendi with the Russians. Do
Speaker 4: I think that's going to happen.
Speaker 3: No. And the reason is not simply.
Speaker 4: The Ukrainians, right, who will have powerful incentives to want
Speaker 4: to get back that territory. It's also because the West,
Speaker 4: and this includes the United States will not accept defeat,
Speaker 4: and we will go to great lengths. We in the
Speaker 4: West will go to great lengths to cause the Russians
Speaker 4: trouble in those areas of Ukraine that they incorporate into Russia,
Speaker 4: and the Ukrainians will do the same, and the Russians,
Speaker 4: of course will retaliate. And furthermore, you have all sorts
Speaker 4: of other potential flash points in Eastern Europe where trouble
Speaker 4: could start. Belarus, the Baltic, Arctic, Moldova, the Black Sea,
Speaker 4: and so forth, and so on. The potential flash points
Speaker 4: are numerous, right, And the end result is I think
Speaker 4: you're going to have poisonous relations between the Russians on
Speaker 4: one side and the Ukrainians and the West on the
Speaker 4: other side. For as far as the eye can sing.
Speaker 4: You're not going to have that modus vivenda that I
Speaker 4: was talking about. And again I have to say, I
Speaker 4: do not understand why people cannot come to grips with
Speaker 4: the fact that's settling this war and creating decent relations
Speaker 4: between Russia and Ukraine is in Ukraine's interest, right, It
Speaker 4: just boggles my mind.
Speaker 6: Is is it ultimately? Before is it ultimately because it's
Speaker 6: not up up to Ukraine. Victoria Newland said, you know,
Speaker 6: as I think Russia was launching its invasion. Okay, if
Speaker 6: they succeed in going to Kiy, they can look forward to,
Speaker 6: you know, decades of guerrilla war inside Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 6: And it wasn't as if this was a generous offer
Speaker 6: to Ukraine. This was a we are going to see
Speaker 6: this goerrilla war, whether Ukraine likes it or not. So
Speaker 6: maybe it's just as simple as if it was up
Speaker 6: to Ukraine, they would make a more strategic choice.
Speaker 3: But it's not.
Speaker 4: Well, you want to remember Ryan that immediately after the
Speaker 4: war started, Putin put out peace fielers to the Ukrainians
Speaker 4: to come to sort of come to some sort of
Speaker 4: peace agreement so that they could end the war.
Speaker 3: Then remember the.
Speaker 4: War starts in February twenty twenty two, and they're negotiating.
Speaker 4: This is the Ukrainians and the Russians. They're negotiating to
Speaker 4: end the war almost immediately after it starts, the famous
Speaker 4: Istanbul negotiations. And they don't reach an agreement, but they're
Speaker 4: making major league progress towards reaching an agreement. And what
Speaker 4: happens is that the Americans and the British in the
Speaker 4: form of Boris Johnson come in and tell the Ukrainians
Speaker 4: to walk away from the negotiations and to continue the war.
Speaker 4: So this supports your basic point that we have been
Speaker 4: more enthusiastic about this war at different points than the
Speaker 4: Ukrainians have, and I think a lot of that has
Speaker 4: to do with the fact and I think this reflects
Speaker 4: Victorian Newlands thinking that we don't have to do the fighting,
Speaker 4: we don't do the dying, and we can use the
Speaker 4: Ukrainians for that purpose. We can use the Ukrainians to
Speaker 4: bleed the Russians white. The Russians are now a great
Speaker 4: Russia is now a great power. This is a problem
Speaker 4: for us in their mind, and we have to weaken Russia,
Speaker 4: and Ukraine is the perfect opportunity to do that.
Speaker 1: My last question for you, sir, concerns grant strategy. I've
Speaker 1: been inspired by your work, you know, intellectually and more.
Speaker 1: I cannot you know in this moment, I'm just shocked
Speaker 1: at especially with a lot of the people in the
Speaker 1: Trump administration. I know them personally. I know you do
Speaker 1: as well. And we heard for years about the folly
Speaker 1: of being obsessed with the Middle East of American security doctrine,
Speaker 1: just having this religious devotion you know, to NATO, to Europe,
Speaker 1: to the Middle East, and as I watch, you know,
Speaker 1: are the consumption of US weaponry, of US attention and
Speaker 1: diplomacy on Israel. Uh uh, you know, an obsession really
Speaker 1: with Israel. And then also similar session here with Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and then even you know, determining our relationship with India
Speaker 1: and with China on the basis of Ukraine. It just
Speaker 1: seems so counter to any grand strategics of the United
Speaker 1: States and of our Asia, which will compromise on fifty
Speaker 1: percent GDP, you know, in the next couple of years.
Speaker 1: So just at a very you know, fifty thousand foot level,
Speaker 1: does this just confirm really that not only will we
Speaker 1: have the twenty twenties be a Chinese decade, but of
Speaker 1: one where you know, the US really is just choosing
Speaker 1: the last bastions of this Cold War and nineteen nineties
Speaker 1: you know, mentality, and when we had the opportunity, which
Speaker 1: it seems to be right now, we just decided not
Speaker 1: to take it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that's an accurate description of what's happened here.
Speaker 4: I mean, the Trump administration and the Biden administration both
Speaker 4: argued that the principal contingency the United States should concern
Speaker 4: itself with is a war against China and East Asia,
Speaker 4: and that their principal goal should be to contain China
Speaker 4: in East Asia. That was the consensus opinion inside both administrations.
Speaker 4: But what's happened is that we can't get out of Ukraine.
Speaker 4: We're pinned down from Ukraine. And the situation in the
Speaker 4: Middle East is even worse if you look at what
Speaker 4: happened in the war that we picked with the Houthis.
Speaker 4: Remember Trump said We're going to go out and beat
Speaker 4: the Houthis, and after about a month, Trump said, We're
Speaker 4: quitting this war. Those Houthis are mighty formidable. But of
Speaker 4: course the real reason that we quit the war is
Speaker 4: that we were running through our inventories of weapons at
Speaker 4: record pace, and our inventories are not very deep.
Speaker 3: And then we get in.
Speaker 4: The wars that Israel, get involved in the wars that
Speaker 4: Israel's fighting, especially their war with Iran, and there again
Speaker 4: we're using up all sorts for American weaponry, and we're
Speaker 4: pinned down in the Middle East. Right, the Biden administration
Speaker 4: at least had the good sense not to get sucked
Speaker 4: into a war with Iran. The Israelis, of course, we're
Speaker 4: trying to suck us into a war with Iran in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four, but the Biden administration, which did a
Speaker 4: few smart things strategically at least in this case, avoided
Speaker 4: a war in Iran. But Trump foolishly on June twenty
Speaker 4: second of this year, decided to go to war against Iran.
Speaker 4: So we're stuck in that situation now, and the question
Speaker 4: is how do we get out? So I think from
Speaker 4: a strategic point of view, what's going on with regard
Speaker 4: to Ukraine and what is going on with regard to
Speaker 4: the Middle East as disastrous. And then there's the moral dimension.
Speaker 3: We don't want to.
Speaker 4: Lose sight of the fact that the United States is
Speaker 4: complicit in a genocide in the Middle East, that what
Speaker 4: is happening in Gods is a genocide. And for those
Speaker 4: people who don't want to call it a genocide, I
Speaker 4: would think you would least have to acknowledge that this
Speaker 4: is mass murder on a scale that we haven't seen
Speaker 4: in a long time, and certainly it's mass murder on
Speaker 4: the scale we would never accept or should never accept
Speaker 4: from a close ally. But nevertheless, here we are supporting
Speaker 4: Israel hook line and sinker as it executes a genocide.
Speaker 4: So from both a strategic point of view and a
Speaker 4: moral point of view, when you look at the behavior
Speaker 4: of the Biden administration and now the Trump administration, it
Speaker 4: leaves me at least with a sick feeling in my stomach.
Speaker 1: I couldn't agree with you more, sir. It's always just
Speaker 1: such an honor to talk to you, So thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us and giving us your time
Speaker 1: to break down this summit.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much to the two of you for
Speaker 4: having me on, asking excellent questions and letting me give
Speaker 4: these lengthy answers.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what you always have a platform here to do,
Speaker 1: so so we look forward to seeing you.
Speaker 4: Again next time.
Speaker 1: Likewise, all right, we're going to go to the second
Speaker 1: half of our show now, which is available to premium subscribers.
Speaker 1: I hope you guys enjoyed that. And if you want
Speaker 1: to be able to watch things like that as well
Speaker 1: as Ama on our Friday shows Breakingpoints dot com, you
Speaker 1: can become one today.
Speaker 6: Let's get to it.