What should happen now with Ukraine?

Published Jan 10, 2025, 10:00 AM

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

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 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.

To my home.

Thankfully, we are safe, no damage. A lot of people not as lucky. How are you doing.

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.

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, both you and I grew up in Illinois Tornado Alley. I will say this is way scarier.

Than yeh, it is.

Okay.

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.

If I'm president, I will have that war settled in one day, twenty four hours.

Allan, do you settle on more so?

I'll meet with I'll meet with Zelenski.

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.

Want Ukraine to win this war.

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.

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, Can you give everybody the number please?

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.

Let's meet our panel.

Fox News Chief National Security correspondent Jennifer Griffin is with us. Jennifer, Welcome to the Middle.

Thank you. Jeremy, glad to be here.

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.

Thanks so much. I'm pleased to be here.

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.

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.

It was the same intelligence that was.

Shared with Vladimir Zelenski and his team, and so we knew what was coming.

We were watching it in real time.

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 thousand casualties if you get the dead and wounded, that is an incredible number for the last three years.

But the way to think.

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.

The life would take forever, it would take forever.

Take ten miles.

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.

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.

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. 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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.

That wasn't their plan.

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.

Today.

The Biden administration did announce another half a billion dollars when Lloyd Austin was in Germany at the Contact Group meeting.

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?

Can you hear me?

I can hear you?

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 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 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?

Yeah?

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?

Here or later?

We're going to have American roots on the ground in Europe if we don't, If this doesn't.

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.

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 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.

And Jennifer Griffin, what about Steve's point about just defending another democracy.

Well, it's a really important point, and I think it can't be understated.

That President She of China is watching.

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 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 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.

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.

Yeah, here's outgoing Belgian Prime Minister Alexander Dacrue talking about European regional security in November.

We should be very clear on this. European security is not something that we outsource to someone else, for example, to.

Do United States.

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.

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, or maybe you just want to meet.

In the middle.

This hour, we're asking you what should happen now with Ukraine? Tolliver, what is the number to call in?

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.

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.

Of American power with the war in Ukraine.

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 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 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.

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?

At this point.

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.

And really.

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 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 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.

Putin is expansionists.

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 it prevents conflict from spreading.

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?

No?

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.

The only way.

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 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.

Let's go to Gregory, who's in Chicago. Gregory, welcome to the middle Go ahead.

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 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 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 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 speak Russian in schools or in government, and so they wouldn't allow the Russians to have an autonomy autonomous region in the Donbass.

And Gregory just briefly, what would you like to happen? Now?

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.

Gregory, thank you for that.

Jennifer Griffin, what's your response there to Gregory's thought about they may they should have just accepted that in the first place.

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 uprising and an independence movement as an excuse for Putin to go in and send Russian troops in back in twenty fourteen.

So that's what happened at the start of this. In terms of.

You know, there is a way to structure this that Ukraine could be in NATO and not.

Have nuclear weapons.

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 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.

NATO is a defense.

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 based in Russia, Russia had a seat for many years at NATO headquarters.

In fact, they used it to spy on.

NATO, but they were given a seat there in good faith to try and keep the peace in Europe.

Jane is calling from conquered Massachusetts. Jane, Welcome to the Middle. Your thoughts about what should happen with Ukraine?

Hi?

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 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, to let other strong men do whatever they want, all his buddies in North Korea and.

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?

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

Will continue to offer support.

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 can sell right, He can sell any loss. He can sell anything. If he can sell Syria as a winn, tell.

A deal that is.

Realistic and fair to Ukraine as a win at home as much as he needs to tolliver.

Right.

We have to go to you for some comments, because we're live streaming for the first time. What are people saying?

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 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.

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 looking at the polls and saying I'm representing the people that elected me.

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 Internet who are using their platforms frankly to mimic Putin's talking points, and so there's been some confusion.

I will say that JD.

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, 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 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.

Let's get one more call in before the break. Here.

Dan is in York, Pennsylvania. Dan, welcome to the middle go ahead.

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 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 understand why where they're coming from before any kind of issue can be resolved.

Dan. Thank you.

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.

I don't think it's the main reason.

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.

Taliver.

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.

That's according to Pew Research.

Yeah, but in Congress there are members in both parties committed to supporting Ukraine. His Republican representative Michael McCall on ABC's This Week.

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 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.

It's gonna be very interesting to see what happens in Washington and the politics of this.

We will be right back with more of the Middle. This is the Middle.

I'm Jeremy Hobson. This hour, we're asking you what should happen now with Ukraine and what's at stake.

For the United States.

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 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.

Are those things really being talked about in Washington as potential consequences.

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 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 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 Syria by allowing Asad to come and take refuge there.

They're in big trouble.

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.

Yeah, let's go to Isaac, who's in Minneapolis. Isaac, welcome to the Middle What do you think should happen with Ukraine?

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.

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, 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. 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Yeah, I mean just two things.

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.

I get that.

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 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 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.

With them closer to home.

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.

Overall budget right now.

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 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.

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. 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 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 crater and society will creter.

So we really have to understand how we're connected to the world.

These are not just problems out there, and the US is not causing this war in Ukraine.

They're trying to help an ally to prevent more bloodshed.

Frankly, let's go to Alice in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Alice, Welcome to the Middle your thoughts on the future of Ukraine.

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 what we should do because from what I understand, we've always been committed to democracy throughout the world.

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.

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.

Alice, thank you for that. Let me go to Brian and Birmingham, Alabama. Brian, welcome to the middle Go ahead, all.

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, and just really drive to the ID.

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, 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.

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 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 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.

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?

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 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 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 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, 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.

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.

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. 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, we should abandon.

Ukraine and lette putin duit.

He wants keep the territory that he wants and just sue for peace.

Hmmm.

Uh.

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?

Yeah?

I mean, I think the Middle East has its own.

Sort of problems.

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.

Obviously, it was.

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.

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.

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 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 the security prosperity argument just as forcefully.

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.

On his plate.

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. 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 into the United States.

You need to solve the Venezuela problem.

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.

And I hope that the.

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.

A force for good and not as a force for isolationism.

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.

Thanks so much to both of you for joining us, thanks for having me, And next week.

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.

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.

We look great, Tulliver, we look great.

Sure.

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 listen to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson, and I will talk to you next week.

The Middle with Jeremy Hobson

The Middle with Jeremy Hobson is a national call-in talk show focused on bringing the voices of Amer 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 82 clip(s)