Nadia Shadlow is on your screen this morning as she's a foreign policy senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and also former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy with the first Trump administration.
Nadia Shadlow here to talk about the future of NATO and Trump foreign policy agenda.
Let's begin with the headline on Ukraine and Russia.
This is from CBS News.
Vladimir Putin backs Trump's push for Ukraine's ceasefire in principle, but says there are issues to discuss with the United States.
Nadia Shadlow, what do you think about your reaction to the Russian president saying there are issues that need to be worked out?
What's the strategy here?
unidentified
Hi, Greta.
Well, it's great to be here.
Thanks so much.
Well, you know, I think that the devil is in the details, right?
I think yesterday was a great sign.
The meeting between the new NATO Secretary General Mark Route and President Trump went really well, I think.
You know, you really saw a lot of personal rapport, which, as we know, with the president, that's important.
You saw enthusiasm for NATO and for what the Europeans are doing in terms of increasing their contributions to NATO, which has been a key theme of President Trump since his first term, and it's continued into his second term.
And you saw, I think, what Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, which is essentially, you know, now it's in Russia's court.
Now it's up to Russia in many ways to respond and to do its part in creating a sustainable ceasefire.
Now, whether or not that happens, that's the question, right?
I mean, President Trump and his team are not naive about this.
They understand that the details will matter.
The Europeans and the Ukrainians are concerned, as far as I understand, that a ceasefire means time for Russia to regroup, to attack again.
So we want to avoid that, and we want to set conditions to avoid that.
But overall, I was encouraged yesterday by the turn of events, and it's pretty remarkable how different things look, you know, a week after the initial, you know, a week or 10 days after the initial Oval Office blow up with President Zelensky.
Speaking of Zelensky, the Ukrainian president reacted to Putin's response saying that this is typical and he's slow walking this.
Ukraine has agreed immediately to this 30-day ceasefire, but by not doing the same, the Ukrainian president is arguing that Russia is just dragging its feet to no.
unidentified
We'll see.
I think it's important to see how things play out.
As I said, I think the Americans are really committed to working to find a deal that is sustainable, that will hold in the long term.
The Russians right now, I think, are waiting.
They want, as far as I understand, to see a complete secession of aid to Ukraine to prevent the Ukrainians from regrouping should Russia continue its aggression.
So I think we'll see all of these details play out, hopefully behind the scenes, which is really where negotiations should take place.
Although, of course, obviously I understand the public side of negotiations also creates a set of conditions that's important too.
But yeah, I think we just need to wait and see and know that now at least the Ukrainians, the Russians, and the Americans are talking, and the Europeans are doing the planning that they should be doing to create a sustainable settlement as well.
You originated the fact that in Europe we are now spending, when you take it to aggregate, 700 billion more on defense than when you came in office in 2016, 2017.
unidentified
But that was TRM 45.
But then when you look at TRM 47, what happened the last couple of weeks is really staggering.
The Europeans committing to a package of 800 billion defense spending.
The Germans now have potentially up to half a trillion extra in defense spending.
And then of course you had Kier Starmer here, the British Prime Minister and others all committing to much higher defense spending.
But I really want to work together with you in a run-up to the DeHag Summit to make sure that we will have a NATO which is really reinvigorated under your leadership.
unidentified
And we are getting there.
We also discuss defense production because we need to produce more weaponry.
We are not doing enough.
And not in the US, not in Europe.
And we are lacking behind when you compare to the Russians and the Chinese.
Nadia Shadlow, what did you hear there from the NATO Secretary General about defense spending in Europe?
unidentified
Yeah, I heard a lot of good things, a lot of excellent trends and trends that President Trump has been pushing for since 2016.
If you go back and look at his statements since that time, and I have, a consistent theme has been sort of shared responsibility and NATO increasing its contributions to NATO defense spending consistently.
He has consistently said he supports NATO.
He believes NATO is important, but he's also just as clearly said he expects the Europeans to do more.
And now we are really seeing the Europeans do more.
The circumstances are unfortunate in that partly it took a war in Europe to do that, but it's a good thing.
I think the Europeans are serious this time.
The Germans, for the first time, are going to spend billions of dollars on defense and increase their defense budget substantially.
The Poles have already doing a lot, I think 5% of GDP on the Polish side.
But I think it was a very positive meeting.
I think Mark Rutte is really a good Secretary General to have at this time with President Trump.
They get along quite well.
The president was clear in his meeting about how he had preferred Mark Rutte above other candidates.
So I assume behind the scenes, the Americans were really pushing for him.
So I think it's positive.
I think the developments are positive.
Now, as in anything in government, we need to see execution, right?
We need to see implementation in real time.
The problem with government is that it takes so long for the U.S. government, but also the Europeans, if not more, to get things done.
So we need to measure these accomplishments, you know, in months, in years, but not too many years.
Oh, I just want to show our viewers, BBC put together the percentage of GDP by NATO countries in Europe and how much they were spending on defense.
And as you noted, Poland was one of the countries that was spending the most.
I think you said 5%.
They're listed here as 3% and above.
You can see, along with Latvia and Estonia, that they're spending more than the bigger countries, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, they're around 2.5% to almost 3%.
And so are we hearing from the NATO Secretary General that those countries are stepping up?
unidentified
They are stepping up.
And if you look at why, in some ways, to your point, Greta, about the Baltics and the Nordic states, you know, look at a map and look why.
They're worried.
They're really worried with good reason, right?
Russia has a history of aggression, especially toward that region of Europe.
So they're worried.
They're stepping up.
They're planning.
They're looking at their operational plans.
They want to be able to defend their countries should they need to, and hopefully they will not need to.
But they're taking it seriously.
And they also are taking seriously, you know, the weaknesses over the past few years.
So the Estonians, for instance, have been quite open about saying, look, we need to do better.
We could be overrun in a matter of days or weeks should the Russians decide to act.
So I think all of these trends are good trends.
They're the kinds of trends that will be important for keeping the transatlantic alliance intact, which is something I think this administration does want to do.
I think just on different terms, being more realistic and asking the Europeans to do more and to be more realistic as well.
So I'm feeling positive actually.
And I think if I could just say, you know, it's important for your listeners to know, it's not as if the U.S. has, I bet, you know, I don't know, do you know how many troops we have in Europe, Greta, American troops?
I'll mention it.
It's about 100,000, right?
That's not that much, right?
That's less, about 9%.
The U.S. has about 1.1 million active duty military, over 770,000 reserves.
Nato's Deterrence Challenge00:10:37
unidentified
So 100,000, give or take, is not a huge amount in terms of American troops on the ground.
Follow-up is with Trump's pretty much derision of NATO as an organization, why should Ukraine really trust anything Donald Trump says in terms of having a peace treaty when without NATO's protection, Russia's just going to keep gobbling up more of Ukraine as soon as maybe the next president comes in.
Yeah, I mean, I would dispute the point about derision of NATO.
As I said, since 2016, and you really can go back and look on the record, all the statements, many, most all of the statements Trump has made has focused on support for Ukraine, provided, I'm sorry, support for NATO, provided that the Europeans do more.
Not even provided, that sounds like a quid pro quo, support for NATO, but wanting the Europeans to do more.
And I think that has been consistent, and I think that's where we're now, where we've seen we're ending up, right?
So I think that's a good thing.
And as I've said, I think the meeting yesterday reaffirmed Trump's support for NATO and for having a good relationship with the Europeans, but wanting the Europeans to do more of their fair share.
I don't think Ukraine is headed toward being part of NATO.
That has not been the position of the Europeans either.
So looking for a way to keep Ukraine strong and secure in different formulas and different approaches, I think that's the challenge now going forward.
Ms. Shadlow, your response to this Axios reporting Trump's stunning string of Putin-friendly moves.
President Trump's decision to suspend all military aid to Ukraine is the latest in a string of moves that could have plucked, that he, that could have been plucked from Vladimir Putin's personal wish list.
Trump is also considering sanctions relief for Moscow and hinting at regime change in Kiev.
The Moscow-friendly streak comes as he seeks to foster peace in Ukraine and better relations between nuclear-armed superpowers.
Your reaction to that.
unidentified
Yeah, I think it's overstated.
We saw a two-day suspension, essentially, we saw a short period of suspension of satellite coverage for the Ukrainians.
Continued aid is now part of the whole negotiation process.
I think it's an exaggeration.
I think that we're now looking, as I said, as the Ukrainians and the Russians coming to the table to talk about a ceasefire in a way that hasn't happened before.
I think Trump wants to see peace in Europe.
I think he does want to end the killing in Europe.
He made that clear yesterday again.
I think his relationship with Putin is one driven by a sense that he can negotiate, he can get the deals that he thinks are the best for the United States.
We'll see.
I hope so.
But, you know, as other presidents have tried, they've often been duped.
When Trump demands and forces the NATO and other allies to constantly spend more and more for their military, the phrase, be careful what you wish for, comes to my mind.
Because I tell you, when the U.S. allies become more and more militarily strong, at some point, you know, they're not going to follow along with the leader of the U.S. because the whole idea behind creating NATO was to keep Europe weaker than U.S.,
okay, so that U.S. will have the leverage and the power for any kind of conflict that may arise.
Let's take that point, Kerry, because we haven't talked about it yet.
This back and forth over trade and what that does to an alliance like NATO.
unidentified
I think Trump is seeking fair and reciprocal trade, right?
He's seeing, he is looking around the world and working to create new trading alignments.
His view is that the playing field is not level for trade, that the Europeans, the EU, have tariffs on American goods that should not exist, right?
So that's, I think, I think looking at Trump's trade policies, the term fair and reciprocal is really important in understanding that.
And I do actually suggest that viewers look at his February, his recent February statement.
It's on the White House about fair and reciprocal trade to give you a sense of how he's thinking about trade.
Alliances always have tensions.
It's a natural part of alliances.
British Prime Minister, I think, Harold McMillan said, you know, alliances are not held together by love.
They were held together by fear, meaning that we have shared threats.
We need to work together to counter those threats.
So there are differences, of course, in the U.S.-European relationship.
I think Vice President Vance created a bit of a stir in Europe with his speech in February at the Munich Security Conference.
But overall, I think the transatlantic alliance is a strong one.
It can overcome perceived slights and arguments.
And Trump has a lot of good relationships with leaders across Europe, including Prime Minister Maloney, in a good relationship with Macron, with the British PM who came recently, was in Washington, and they had excellent meetings as well.
So I think the picture is actually a good one.
And I think he's looking to build on that.
There will be, as I said, blips.
There will be tensions over tariffs, over looking at how that will all unfold.
But we're looking at now a set of new trading alignments and relationships.
And hopefully, the Europeans can come to the table to help create those new structures.
I think that's the key.
Coming to the table to help us as we work to create these new alignments.
From NBC's reporting, the President considering major NATO policy shifts, the President has discussed possibly favoring members of the alliance that spend a set percentage of their GDP on defense.
What would that do to the alliance?
unidentified
I think there's lots of room in NATO for reconfiguring NATO in all different ways, thinking about where troops should be deployed across the alliance, thinking about which allies should bring which capabilities to bear across the alliance.
I think all of that is good, right?
The alliance shouldn't look today as it did in 1960, as it did in 1970 or 1980.
There's room to maneuver within the alliance to create the best possible configuration so that we can deter Russia.
So I think all of that remains open, and that's a good thing.
We want to be talking about how to best modernize NATO to keep it relevant and to keep it capable.
We'll go to Andres in Gates Mills, Ohio, Republican.
Welcome to the conversation.
unidentified
Oh, thank you very much for allowing us to speak once in a while on these subjects.
Major Trade Deficit with China00:06:06
unidentified
And this one in particular for your wonderful guest.
I have a couple of questions for her.
One of them has already been touched, but if you're a European and you're dealing with a Mr. Trump that throws 25 and then 50 and then 100 and then 200% terrorists out of thin air, okay, you talk about a new trading relationship.
Our major trade deficit, if you haven't noticed, happens to be with China, okay, not our European allies.
Okay?
And the urinating contest that's going on right now is between the U.S. President, who claims a mandate of all of 1.5% of 50% to the vote that he needs to rearrange trading strategies.
What does that have to do with our trade deficit?
What does European defense spending as opposed to the misnomer your ex-boss likes to use, which is they need to pay more?
They need to pay more.
need to contribute to their defense to a certain level.
I think from the day Trump was elected, there's always been a discussion and a debate about taking every single thing he says literally versus looking at the full range of a full range of activities that unfolds after.
So I believe that Trump's using tariffs and threats of tariffs as points of negotiation, as points of leverage, to create what he believes is a fairer and more reciprocal set of arrangements for the United States.
So from his point of view, for instance, he questions, which he did yesterday in Mark Rutez meeting, but also in this February statement that I mentioned about fair and reciprocal trade, that the U.S. doesn't sell cars to Europe, right?
And why is that?
He points out that the Europeans have high tariffs on American cars.
So he's seeking to bring down some of those barriers using tariffs and threats of tariffs as negotiating points of leverage.
I think it's important to keep that in mind and watch what arrangements actually unfold.
I think in terms of increased spending, he wants shared responsibility.
He wants shared responsibility among the U.S. and the Europeans.
He sees there is a trade imbalance with Europe, not as much as with China, of course, to your point.
But he sees the U.S. initially spending more on Europe, but getting a trade imbalance for that.
He just wants to create a fairer, more level playing field across the U.S. and its various allies and partners.
Nadia Shadlow is our guest this morning, former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy in the First Trump administration.
And a headline to share with all of you, CNN out with a new poll today.
Most Americans disapprove of President Trump's approach to the Ukraine war, doubt it will yield peace from CNN's reporting.
Half of Americans think that Trump's approach to the war between Russia and Ukraine is bad for the United States compared to only 29% who think it's good.
Now, this breaks along party lines with the majority of Republicans supporting the president while the majority of Democrats saying they do not think peace is a likely outcome.
Andy in Arlington, Virginia, and Independent, we will hear from you next.
unidentified
Good morning to you both.
Thanks very much for C-SPAN for 40 years of wonderful service to the country.
I want to make a comment and ask a question.
I think your guest's statement earlier that essentially President Trump is supportive of NATO is almost laughable on its face, given the record, his record.
He in recent days has said that the European Union is hostile to the United States.
Yes, Vice President Vance goes to Munich and chides the Europeans for their enemy within.
I think the Axios reporting that you cited earlier is absolutely on the mark.
Look at the record.
Look at President Trump's actions in office.
Yes, we do take our president literally, and that is contrary to the essential suggestion by your guest that it's okay for presidents to lie 30,000 times in his first term in office.
My question is this.
Earlier this week, Senator Merkley of Oregon asked a guest, I believe in the Senate Armed Services Committee, with a very straight face, very seriously, is President Trump a Russian asset?
And I think, I can't believe that I'm saying this, but it certainly appears that way that President Trump somehow is coerced by Russia to act in their interest.