CSPAN - Washington Journal Matthew Kroenig

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 14, 2025 01:16-01:58 - CSPAN

41:57

Washington Journal Matthew Kroenig

Participants

Main

mimi geerges

cspan 06:57

Appearances

tammy bruce

01:43

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		who disappeared and is believed to have been abducted while reporting in Syria 13 years ago.
		You can also watch all of these programs on the C-SPAN Now app or online at c-SPAN.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including MidCo.
		Where are you going?
		Or maybe a better question is, how far do you want to go?
		And how fast do you want to get there?
		Now we're getting somewhere.
		So let's go.
		Let's go faster.
		Let's go further.
		Let's go beyond.
		Midco supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Joining us now to talk about foreign policy in the Trump administration is Matthew Kroenig.
		He is strategy and security vice president and senior director at the Atlantic Council.
		Matthew, welcome to the program.
unidentified		It's great to be here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's start with the Trump-Putin meeting happening on Friday in Alaska.
		What are the end goals of this meeting?
		What are both sides trying to get out of it?
unidentified		Well, Trump has been very clear that his goal is to try to end the war in Ukraine and stop the killing.
		And there's been a lot of focus on that over the past several months.
		And so I think this meeting is to try to advance that diplomacy.
		I think expectations are pretty low, unlikely that we get a breakthrough in Alaska.
		But with the two leaders meeting face to face, perhaps they can feel each other out and get a better sense of where we go from this point forward.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, the Wall Street Journal has this headline that says, Russia has high hopes for a Trump-Putin summit.
		Peace isn't one of them.
		What is it that Russia wants from the United States?
unidentified		Well, Trump's strategy has been to first really kind of try carrots with Putin.
		And I think he was getting frustrated and seeing that wasn't working.
		And he was getting ready to turn to tougher measures, threatening tariffs, deciding to increase military support to Ukraine.
		And I think Putin was maybe afraid of what might be coming next.
		And so Putin may have agreed to these negotiations as a way to try to forestall those tougher measures from the United States.
		So that report about what Putin hopes to achieve, I think that is what he's hoping to achieve to buy some time and to avoid the more punitive measures from the United States.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You know, President Trump not too long ago famously said that all we get from Putin is BS.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is there any thought that we might get something other than BS from Putin this time?
unidentified		I don't have high hopes for the meeting on Friday because really there's a fundamental conflict of interest here.
		The U.S., Ukraine, Europe's goal is to ensure that Ukraine can survive as an independent state.
		Putin's goal is to make sure that that doesn't happen, to ensure that he has effective political control of Ukraine one way or another.
		And so I think what we've seen so far is that Putin believes he can win on the battlefield at very high cost, but we've seen no interest that he's wanting to wind down the war.
		And so ultimately, I do think it's going to take more pressure from the United States and Europe through tariffs and other measures to show Putin that things only get worse from here, that you're better off looking for off-ramps, that you can't win on the battlefield.
		But I don't think we've convinced him of that yet.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, Ukrainian President Zelensky is not going to be at the meeting.
		Do we know why that is?
		And did the U.S. push for him to be at the meeting?
		Or did they want it to just be bilateral between Putin and Trump?
unidentified		Unclear how that exactly came about.
		And I think ultimately any peace agreement is going to have to have Ukraine and Zelensky's buy-in.
		It affects the security of our European allies, so they're going to have to be on board.
		And Trump did say, I think just yesterday or the day before, that ultimately Zelensky will be brought in, that he'll be the first person that Trump calls after the meeting with Putin.
		But this meeting is just one-on-one between the United States and Russia.
		And so that's another reason that they're not going to be able to comprehensively solve the issue on Friday, because, again, for this to work, the Europeans and the Ukrainians are going to have to support it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And President Trump has said that there is going to be some land swapping.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do we know any details of that and what he is expecting Ukraine to give up in exchange for ending the war?
unidentified		Yes.
		Well, there are two possibilities here, one that would make sense and one that wouldn't.
		Well, and actually, for the sake of completeness, maybe three.
		You know, best case scenario first would be if Ukraine could take back all of its territory recognized under international law.
		Given the realities on the battlefield right now, though, that looks very unlikely.
		And so the other two remaining options would be, you know, one option would be, and when people hear land swaps, they sometimes think that we're going to say, okay, Putin, congratulations, you've invaded Ukraine.
		You now get to keep half the country.
		I think that would be unacceptable to the Ukrainians.
		And personally, I don't think that makes sense.
		So the third option, and what I hope Trump is talking about with land swaps, would be essentially to say, okay, Russia, we realize you're occupying large parts of Ukrainian territory.
		We're not going to try to contest that militarily, but we don't recognize that under international law.
		That's still illegally occupied territory.
		But let's stop the fighting.
		Let's stop the killing, as Trump has called for.
		So I hope what it means is a ceasefire along the current lines, recognizing that Russia is occupying parts of Ukraine, but not legally recognizing that as Russian territory.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And as far as security guarantees for Ukraine, what do you think would be the best outcome in that case?
unidentified		Well, this is critical because Trump doesn't just want a ceasefire.
		He wants a sustainable ceasefire.
		He doesn't want a position where Russia can simply restart the war in the near term, use the ceasefire to rearm, rebuild, and reattack.
		And so you would want a situation where Ukraine is strong enough that it could defend itself from future Russian attack.
		NATO membership might be the best way to deter Putin.
		We've seen that he's unwilling to attack NATO members for a variety of reasons.
		I think that's probably off the table politically.
		And so then the other measures that could make sense would be Ukraine building up its own defense industry and ability to defend itself.
		And that's something that's taking place already.
		But then also there's been discussion of security guarantees from European allies, getting a coalition of countries, say maybe the UK, Sweden, or others, to put forces on the ground as kind of a tripwire deterrent.
		But these are all things that would still need to be worked out.
		And getting the ceasefire, I think, is the first step.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, the outgoing State Department spokesperson, Dami Bruce, was asked about that at a conference.
		She was asked about Friday's meeting.
		So here's what she said, and then I'll have you react to it.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		The president's not calling this a negotiation.
		He is not the one that asked for it.
		This is what, as I've equated to you before, his remarks were that this is to see what's happening, to see what's possible.
		So the negotiation, I think, is certainly not the right word.
		How he expects to get to where he gets, I won't have details for you in that regard, but there's a reason why he's the one there, and we aren't.
		He is clearly, the list that I read out to you regarding being the president of peace is an astounding one.
		Perhaps it's situations around the globe that just didn't interest other people.
		But for President Trump, everyone matters.
		He sees these dynamics, which his presence and the power of the United States is able to change, and he knows that.
		He has many tools in his tool chest.
		We know, of course, that he had remarked about secondary sanctions on those who are buying Russian oil.
		That's one thing of many that can happen.
		We know, of course, of NATO's commitment regarding defensive weapons and helping and assisting Ukraine.
		There's many things that are moving that should have an impact that President Trump, again, I don't know what his approach will be.
		What I do know is that I'm grateful that he's the president, that I'm able to be here, read to you a list of ceasefires and peace agreements, and know that he's meeting with Putin in regard to one of the most outrageous dynamics that we've experienced.
		I will also remind people that he has met alone with President Zelensky.
		He has met alone with European leaders.
		This is a man who is doing everything possible and fairly to get an end to this carnage.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Matthew Kroenig, she mentioned the secondary sanctions on those buying Russian oil.
		That was placed on India because India was buying Russian oil.
		Where does that stand and has that been put in place?
		And do you think that's having an effect?
unidentified		Well, this would be one of the best coercive tools the United States could use against Russia because part of the way Russia has been financing its war machine is even though there's sanctions against Russia from the West, Russia has been allowed to sell energy, oil and gas to India, China, other countries.
		And so the idea of secondary sanctions would be essentially to sanction those countries and say if you do business with Russia, then you can't do business with the United States.
		Or another version that's been floated are 500% tariffs, which would essentially be the same thing, that you'd have to pay 500% tariffs to export something to the United States, which would essentially make them cost prohibitive.
		The U.S. Senate has legislation ready to go right now that could put this in place.
		Last I checked, I think it had something like 93 senators in support, so almost unanimous support.
		And so really all they're waiting for now is the green light from the White House.
		And so they're holding off for now, but this is a sword of Damocles hanging over Putin's head.
		And I think one of the things negotiating him to come to the negotiating table to try to forestall these tougher efforts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you'd like to join our conversation with Matthew Kroenig on foreign policy from the Atlantic Council, you can do so.
		Our lines are bipartisan.
		So Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202748-8002.
		Turning now to the war in Gaza.
		Last week, Israel's Security Cabinet approved plans to take over Gaza City.
		Where does that leave a push for a ceasefire in that conflict stand?
unidentified		Yes.
		Well, great question because Trump's goal coming in, as you know, was to try to get a ceasefire between Israel and Gaza, was to try to get Hamas to release the hostages.
		And we haven't seen much progress there.
		And in fact, in recent weeks, Hamas has seen to be more intransigent.
		And so I think what this is from Netanyahu is an attempt to try to coerce Hamas to threaten to go in and occupy Gaza City.
		And this would really undermine Hamas's position of trying to show that it's still in a leadership position, that momentum is on its side.
		It does raise big questions, though.
		Occupying an urban area like this would be very dangerous.
		The United States has experience with that from its counterinsurgency operations in Iraq.
		And then also we still have this big unanswered question of what comes the day after.
		Netanyahu has said he doesn't want to occupy Gaza City forever, but then once Israeli forces leave, how do you make sure that Hamas just doesn't come back to power?
		There have been discussions about maybe Arab country sending in peacekeepers, although nothing really concrete there yet.
		So I think that's what explains this trying to coerce Hamas, but a lot of unanswered questions still.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And regarding humanitarian aid, President Trump has committed to taking the lead on getting that humanitarian aid distributed in Gaza.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How would that work if the Israelis occupy Gaza City?
unidentified		Well, the humanitarian suffering of the Palestinians is tragic.
		And so I think what the United States and Israel are trying to do are both to advance their diplomatic and military objectives while at the same time trying to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians.
		And so the Trump administration just in recent days has announced plans to ramp up its support to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a non-governmental group that's there on the ground providing aid to the Palestinians.
		And so that's the strategy.
		But there are many challenges, of course, delivering aid to a war zone.
		Hamas is stealing some of the aid as a tool to gain resources to advance its aims.
		But that's the goal to try to look after the suffering of the Palestinians while also advancing military and diplomatic objectives.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's bring callers into the conversation.
		Fritz is an independent.
		He's in Clarksville, Tennessee.
unidentified		Hello.
		I just got back to Russia last week.
		And I can tell you, the sanctions are a big fail.
		You can get anything you want in Russia.
		There's new construction everywhere.
		Every block in St. Petersburg, you're renovating a new building.
		And the Ukrainian, my wife is actually born in Ukraine and still has relatives there.
		And we get a whole different story about what's going on than we hear on the media.
		She says her brother-in-law was almost impressed in the service, and it cost us $2,000 to get the Ukraine.
		We're happy to get him out of it.
		And this has happened everywhere.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I was going to say, what were you doing in St. Petersburg?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Were you on vacation in Russia?
unidentified		Yeah.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And do you have a specific?
unidentified		I'll go there.
unidentified		I've been going there every year for at least 12 years now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And you're saying that you're not seeing any impact of sanctions that the economy seems to be doing well in Russia?
unidentified		Yes.
		I mean, like I say, you see new construction going up everywhere, renovations.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's ask our guests, Matthew, the effect of sanctions and how the Russian economy is doing right now.
unidentified		Yeah, well, I think you're right that the sanctions have been less effective than the West had hoped.
		And I think there are a number of reasons for that.
		One, as we were discussing before, that Russia still is able to export energy to other countries like India and China.
		Second, Russia is getting a lot of economic assistance, especially from China.
		And even though China is not providing military aid, it's providing essentially everything else Russia needs to sustain its war effort, super heavy-duty trucks, excavation equipment, etc.
		And then also this is a priority for Putin.
		So even though I think the sanctions have taken some toll, he's willing to devote resources to the military effort, to his attempts to rearm, which are his highest priority.
		So I think the solution, therefore, is to turn to some of these tougher economic measures that we still have on the table, including these secondary sanctions or tariffs, or seizing frozen Russian assets.
		There are billions of dollars of seized Russian assets or frozen assets that could be seized.
		So I think we'll see how the meeting goes with Putin and Alaska.
		If it doesn't go well, I think you might see the United States and its allies turning to some of these tougher economic measures.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And just so everybody's aware, CNN is reporting that talks between, these are online talks between Trump, Zelensky, and EU leaders are now underway, according to the French presidency.
		That was printed 13 minutes ago.
		So we expect that those talks are underway as we speak.
		We'll give you more information if we see anything.
unidentified		Could I make a quick comment on that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yes, sir, of course.
unidentified		Yeah, I think that that's a good sign because the Allies would be worried, I think are worried of Putin and Trump going into these one-on-one meetings.
unidentified		So touching base with the Allies first before the Putin meeting, I think is a good diplomatic sequencing for managing the Allies.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, here's Charlotte, Washington, D.C., Independent Lines.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Charlotte, you're on with Matthew Kroenig.
unidentified		Hi, I have a two-part question.
		The first is about getting in the way of a state's national security objectives.
		So like Israel controlling Mount Hermon.
		Those are the source waters of the Jordan River.
		It's the snows of Mount Hermon that feed the Jordan River and provide fresh water to Israel.
		So Israel's got this national security objective about controlling Mount Hermon.
		It's not a matter of political party or policy within that country.
		Russia's been saying they want a land route to the Black Sea.
		You know, is there really a way to stand in the way of a state's national security objectives?
		And then the second part is about the land swapping.
		Do you think it's possible they'll recognize the old Polish border from 1939 when the Soviets invaded Poland, this city Lviv that they broadcast from so much, that used to be part of Poland?
		There's a huge portion of Ukraine that used to be Poland.
		Poland's a member in NATO.
		Do you think it's possible they'll recognize the old Polish border and have a border between Russia and NATO in the country?
		Thank you so much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Matthew.
unidentified		Yes, well, thanks for that.
		And I think you're right that Putin sees the political control of Ukraine as important for his ambitions, which I think really are trying to restore the old Russian empire and to make sure that Moscow has a sphere of influence and a veto over the foreign and defense policies of countries on its border, including Ukraine.
		I think in your comment, you said, how can you stand in the way of a country's national security interest?
		You know, the problem, of course, in international politics is that often interests collide.
		And Ukraine's interest in surviving as an independent country capable of defending itself.
		The U.S. and NATO's interest in preventing Russia from gobbling up its neighbors by military force butts up against that.
		And so I think that's why you're seeing this conflict.
		On the old Polish borders, good points on history, but I think that's unlikely at this point.
		And what we often see in international history is that borders often reflect an underlying military situation.
		And so the underlying military situation right now has Russia controlling parts of the Donbass, but Ukraine able to defend much of the country.
		And so I think any kind of ceasefire, you're likely going to see a reification of these current lines of contact.
		And again, I hope not recognizing that under international law, but just essentially recognizing that as the facts on the ground now for a potential ceasefire.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here is Rennie in Lakewood, New Jersey, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Rennie.
unidentified		Good morning, everyone.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Sir, we all know Putin is a war criminal.
		The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for him.
		I'm wondering, how is he going to be allowed on U.S. soil without him being arrested?
		If Trump wants to prove that he is not Putin's puppet, the minute he sets foot in Alaska, he'd be arrested.
		Thank you for my call.
		Yes, good question.
		And there is a dilemma here.
		You're right that Putin is a war criminal wanted by the ICC.
		At the same time, getting an end to this war requires doing diplomacy with Putin.
		And so how do you square that circle?
		And I think essentially the calculation that the Trump administration has made that I think makes sense is let's try to get peace in Ukraine.
		That's the more important objective here.
		And so this is one reason why the meeting may have been held in Alaska because the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court and so would not be obligated to arrest Putin and turn him over.
		If the meeting were held in, say, Switzerland, a neutral location that some people had floated, that could be an issue.
		So you're right, he's a war criminal, but I think the decision has been made.
		Let's get peace in Ukraine first, and we can deal with the justice issues later.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You wrote a piece, Matthew, in foreign policy with the headline, Trump State Department reforms are necessary.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you explain the reforms that you feel were necessary?
unidentified		Yes, well, management and reform of the State Department has been recognized as a problem for many years.
		There's been a huge explosion in the number of staff at the State Department from 60,000 in the W. Bush years to 80,000 currently.
		There's been the creation of a number of new offices, functional offices, reporting directly to the Secretary of State.
		So you have, before the reorganization, had 25 direct reports to the Secretary of State, which doesn't make sense as a span of control.
		You had all these layers of approval to where sometimes 40 people would need to approve a memo before it went to the Secretary.
		And so this is something, again, that outside groups have recognized for some time.
		My center at the Atlanta Council published a report in 2017, a bipartisan group of experts on how to improve the management of the State Department to streamline it and make it more efficient.
		And so I think that was the main motivation of the Trump administration's reorganization that was announced a few weeks ago to streamline the Bureau, eliminate redundant and consolidate redundant offices and functions to empower the embassies overseas and the regional offices and to make the organization work more efficiently.
		So I know it was controversial, but I do think there was a logic.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So you write also in that piece that the department is no longer the diplomatic powerhouse it once was.
		What happened?
		Why is it no longer like that?
		And do these reductions and consolidations that are happening address that concern?
unidentified		Yes, that's also part of the motivation.
		So if you think back to the early Cold War era, the State Department was really an intellectual force driving a lot of American strategy and policy.
		You had legendary policy planning directors like George Kennan and Paul Nietzsche.
		Over the years, the Defense Department and the National Security Council staff have taken on more of these responsibilities.
		And I think a couple of reasons for that.
		One, the Defense Department has a lot of resources, so it just makes them a major player in foreign policy debates.
		And then I also think presidents have wanted to centralize foreign policy decision-making at the White House to give them more control.
		And so you've seen a great expansion of the National Security Council staff over the years.
		And so this was another reason for the reforms is to try to return some power to the State Department because the State Department, instead of formulating strategy and policy, was often just kind of doing foreign relations, literally relating with foreign counterparts, relaying messages from the White House and elsewhere, but not driving strategy and policy.
		And Marco Rubio, when he came in, I think, had a different vision.
		He was the chair of Senate Foreign Relations or a member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee and had an idea of what he wanted to do.
		And so that's what he announced as the logic of these reforms to put the State Department back in the center of the way the United States formulates its foreign policy, not just the way it executes it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Kevin in Charlotte, North Carolina, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		During Trump's first term, he met with Putin.
		And, you know, he didn't allow anybody from the State Department.
		I don't even think he had an interpreter in there.
		Is this the same kind of meeting?
		Is it just going to be him and Putin and maybe somebody from Russia or somebody from our State Department going to be there?
		And, you know, I'm pretty cynical.
		You know, the fact that Putin asked for this meeting, I'm thinking that he's wanting to get Trump straight because Trump has been a little bit out of bounds when it comes to Putin here lately.
		You know, I noticed that Epstein spent a lot of time in Russia.
		Trump spent a lot of time in Russia.
		I know the KGB, you know, they tape everybody.
		I'm thinking that this has something to do with the reason for the meeting.
		I don't think it has nothing to do with Ukraine.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Kevin.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Matthew.
unidentified		Yes, well, you're right.
		In the first Trump administration, Trump met with Putin without an American interpreter.
		And I think part of the logic for that and for this upcoming meeting is, and we heard this from Tammy Bruce, the State Department spokesperson.
		I think Trump does put a lot of faith in his own ability to read somebody in a negotiation.
		I think he said yesterday that he'll know in Alaska within two minutes if Putin is serious or not.
		But I do think it makes more sense to have an American interpreter there, American experts there, because these issues are so deep.
		And you don't want to rely on a Russian interpreter to make sure that you're communicating exactly what you want to communicate to Putin.
		So in terms of who will be there, I don't know that I've seen that.
		Mimi, I don't know, maybe you and your team would know, but I hope he's there with an American interpreter and experts to help guide the conversation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Don is calling us from Madison, Ohio.
		Democrat.
		Hi, Don.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		Good morning, America.
		Good morning, Matthew.
		My question to Matthew is this, and to the rest of the Americans.
		If we were invaded from the north or from the south or from the east or from the west, would this army take so much of our land and then say, well, we'll stop if you give us this land?
		As an American, I can tell you what I would say, not one square inch would I give them.
		I would fight them tooth and nail and push them back out of my country.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I like your talk, Matthew.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Matthew.
unidentified		Well, thanks for the compliment.
		And your comment, I think, is absolutely right.
		And we have seen that when the United States has been attacked historically at Pearl Harbor or 9-11, we have fought back.
		And that was Ukraine's initial response.
		I think there were people who thought that they might roll over to the Russian invasion.
		You may remember that Zelensky was offered an option to get out of Ukraine.
		And he famously said, I want ammunition, not a ride.
		They've decided to fight back heroically.
		But just looking at the military situation right now, it just seems unrealistic that Ukraine is going to be able to take back all of its territory.
		We've seen the front lines essentially stalemated in recent months and years.
		And the Ukrainians are running out of people.
		So Russia does have the advantage in terms of size.
		And so I would love to see Ukraine take back all of its territory.
		But I think the maybe unfortunate reality is that some kind of ceasefire along the current lines may be the best that we can do right now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And wanted to bring to your attention the Wall Street Journal article, State Department issues human rights report reflecting Trump priorities.
		It says that overhauled report softens criticism of Trump administration allies such as El Salvador and adds criticism of Brazil and South Africa.
		I wonder if you have seen that, Matthew, and what you think that reflects as far as Trump administration priorities when it comes to human rights around the world.
unidentified		Well, I haven't seen the report yet, but I can make a couple of comments.
		One, I did see Senate Foreign Relations Chairman James Risch tweeted the report and praised it.
		And so it does seem like leading Republicans in the Senate thought it was a strong report.
		Second, with the State Department reforms in the Trump administration, some of the big changes were made to the Bureau doing human rights, and that was part of the controversy.
		But what a senior State Department official I spoke with said is that they think that essentially what happened is that often Democrats in particular would kind of push progressive agendas controversial in the United States, DEI and issues like that, on more traditional societies overseas, essentially exporting America's culture wars in a way that was actually hurting our foreign policy, you know,
		assessing a country's compliance with DEI before approving arms sales to allies, for example.
		And so that was part of the purpose of the reforms as well, to eliminate what they saw as some of that harmful social justice work.
		And so I haven't seen the report, but I guess that that may be reflected in that.
		And Rish's statement seemed to suggest something along those lines saying that Rubio has returned to more traditional human rights reporting with this new report.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		On the Republican line in New Jersey, Albert, you're on the air.
unidentified		Hi, good morning, everybody.
		I just want to say I love America.
		I love President Trump.
		And my question was, I heard information on the internet.
		I don't know if it's true, but I wanted to ask Matthew.
		They said America was going to put nuclear missiles at the border in Ukraine, at the border of Russia.
		And that's what started this conflict.
		And I wanted to know if that was true.
		I'll listen.
		Thank you.
		Yes, well, thanks for that question.
		And I've thought a lot about nuclear issues over the years.
		I've written five books on nuclear weapons.
		And so the short answer is that's not true.
		The United States has nuclear weapons deployed on the territory of some Western European allies.
		But in an agreement with Russia at the end of the Cold War, the United States agreed that it would not deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new NATO members, countries like, say, Poland or Estonia.
		And so certainly not a country like Ukraine that's not even a NATO member.
		Now, some experts, including me, have said, well, maybe we should rethink this given everything that's going on.
		Might it make sense for nuclear weapons to be in a place like Poland?
		But so far, that hasn't been the case.
		Again, they're in countries in Western Europe, and there were no plans to put nuclear weapons in Ukraine and still are no plans to put nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Matthew, a lot was said during the last administration about not giving certain weapons to Ukraine in the fear that that would escalate the war and maybe push Vladimir Putin too far.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		At what point, I mean, do you think it's possible that he could be pushed to the point that he would use a tactical nuclear weapon?
unidentified		The short answer is yes.
		And Russia's nuclear strategy, it's been referred to as an escalate to de-escalate strategy.
		But essentially, the idea is if they were losing a war with NATO on Russia's border, that using a nuclear weapon or two or six to try to force the other side to back off would be better than losing a humiliating war on their border that could lead to the collapse of the regime or to Putin being killed in the streets.
		And so I do think that if Ukraine were to have major success on the battlefield, if Russia's military turn and ran and Putin was facing this kind of humiliating defeat and agree or disagree, but I think from his point of view that using a nuclear weapon or six to see what happens would be better than losing for sure.
		So there was this moment in October 2022 where Ukraine was having its most success in counteroffensives.
		And the Biden administration has publicly said since then that they estimated that the chance that Putin used nuclear weapons in that moment was about 50-50.
		So he didn't do it, of course, but I think it's a real risk.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Which is awfully high for a nuclear weapon, 50-50.
unidentified		Awfully high, and probably the closest we've come to seeing a nuclear weapon being used since the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early 1960s.
		One other comment on this, though, I do think that you're right that the Biden administration was thinking, oh, if we provide this weapon, that's maybe going to go too far and Putin's going to respond with nuclear weapons.
		I think that was the wrong way to think about it.
		I really think it is more about is Putin going to lose in a humiliating fashion or not?
		I think that's what would drive him to use nuclear weapons, not did we provide X weapon or Y weapon.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to Terry, Independent Line, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Terry.
unidentified		I meant to call on the Republican line.
unidentified		I apologize.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Terry, you've got to call on the right line.
unidentified		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, go ahead.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead with your question.
unidentified		The Trump administration does not have a foreign policy.
		They have antics.
		It just is all their policies.
		They're really not policies.
		They're Trump antics.
		That's all I have to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's talk to Martin, Louisville, Kentucky.
		Democrat, good morning, Martin.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I just would like to mention that it used to be back in the day, all we were ever told was that the Soviets, the one thing we have that Soviets are afraid of is our technology.
		An example of what I'm talking about is in 1986, on my birthday, November 20th, Reagan and Gorbachev met for the first time, and they had met for like four hours and making tremendous progress on things in years.
		And all of a sudden, out of the blue, Gorbachev looked over his glasses at Reagan and said, now, I hope you understand all this depends on you signing an agreement to keep that Star Wars research program in the laboratory.
		And Reagan didn't expect that, and the meeting ended with no agreement.
		Now, but I just don't think it's true anymore.
		I just don't, it may be because of the way the information is shared on computers and the fact that the Russians have been very effective in getting people in our government system to give them information like the John Walker spider ring.
		But I just don't think the Russians are afraid of us at all anymore.
		And I'd like to hear what the guest says.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Matthew.
unidentified		Yes, well, a couple of comments.
		I do think that the Russians are afraid of some of the things we can do, including ramping up sanctions and tariffs, seizing frozen assets.
		There are other political or military things that we could do as well.
		On missile defense, I think this is something where Russia does worry.
		It's one of the things that they complain about.
		And Trump has made this Golden Dome initiative one of his signature defense priorities.
		And it's really kind of trying to revive Reagan's space-space missile defense program.
		During the Reagan years, it was unrealistic, probably too visionary.
		But the technology has changed.
		Cheap space launch that we see from SpaceX and others has made it possible and affordable to put a large numbers of sensors and interceptors in space.
		So early days still, but I think that is going to be a major priority.
		I did want to return to the point about Trump's antics, because I think the caller is right to a point that Trump is an unusual president, doesn't follow the same policy processes that other presidents have in the past.
		Yet I will say that it works for him, and we have seen some successes in the past six months.
		NATO allies, spending 5% of defense is an important achievement.
		And I know it's controversial, but I think striking Iran's nuclear program to set that program back was also a success.
		So I think he's trying to oversee a system that works for him.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Matthew, I want to ask you about the closure of USAID and it being used as an arm of American soft power.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe that the closing of that department will impact American diplomacy in any way or the power that America is able to project around the world?
unidentified		Yes, I do.
		And I think two things are true at the same time.
		One, there was a lot of waste and inefficiency.
		But at the same time, this is an important tool of American power.
		And we see, as the United States has pulled back with some of our assistance to other countries, China and adversaries are rushing in to assert influence.
		And so what we need to do is take those functions that USAID did, and it's going to be moved to the State Department now, and turn the programs that were effective back on.
		And my understanding is that some of those programs have already been turned back on.
		But it's certainly the case that U.S. aid is not just charity, but something that can be used to advance America's national security interests.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We have a post here on X. Mr. Kroenig, based on the U.S. vote at the United Nations in favor of Russia in terms of voting against Russia being named the aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine war, should Americans expect that this will be a transactional type meeting that has nothing to do with international law?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		First, if you could remind us about that UN vote.
unidentified		Yes.
		So, you know, in the early phases, I think over the past few months, I think Trump's strategy for getting peace in Ukraine was kind of taking more of a carrots approach with Putin, trying to show that they had a good relationship and they could work something out.
		And so there was a UN vote that was going to blame Russia as the aggressor.
		And the Trump administration didn't want that tough language there and so didn't support it.
		Now I do think that we're seeing a shift, though.
		I think that we see that Trump himself seems personally fed up with Putin.
		And we have seen him already approve the sale of patriots to Ukraine, talking more about these sanctions.
		So I do think that the main purpose of the meeting on Friday is to discuss peace in Ukraine.
		I think that Trump's been very clear that stopping the killing is a major goal.
		And we'll all be watching to see what comes out of that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		That's Matthew Kroenig from the Atlantic Council Strategy and Security Vice President and Senior Director there.
		You can find out more at atlanticcouncil.org.
		Thanks so much for joining us today.
unidentified		My pleasure.

▲