CSPAN - Washington Journal Evelyn Farkas

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 25, 2025 12:09-12:48 - CSPAN

38:55

Washington Journal Evelyn Farkas

Participants

Main

evelyn farkas

25:23

Appearances

greta brawner

cspan 02:32

jd vance

admin 00:39

sergey lavrov

01:08

Clips

kristen welker

nbc 00:14

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity.
		Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
		Join Political Playbook Chief Correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns as host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue to find common ground.
		Ceasefire this fall on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		And we are back here this morning.
unidentified		Evelyn Farkas is joining us.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		She's the executive director of the McCain Institute here to talk about the future of Russia-Ukraine and the war that is happening there.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		I just want to share the front page this morning of the Wall Street Journal.
unidentified		The Pentagon has quietly blocked Kiev's missile strikes on Russia.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What do you know about this policy?
unidentified		What impact do you think this is having?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I think it's horrible.
unidentified		We should not be tying Ukraine's hands behind their backs.
		Their people are being targeted every day at an increased volume by Russia.
		And what Ukraine is doing in retaliation is targeting military and economic assets that the Russians have in the hinterlands of Russia that are fueling, literally, because many of them are fuel depots, fueling their military war.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		So they're viable and they're very important strategic assets that Ukraine is hitting.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		So we are hindering Ukraine in winning the war if we tell them that they can't strike those targets.
unidentified		JD Vance was on Meet the Press yesterday, NBC Sunday show, and here's what the vice president had to say about sanctions against Russia.
kristen welker ▲ ● ▼		I had the opportunity to interview Secretary Rubio last week, and he said he actually doesn't think that new sanctions would force Putin into a ceasefire.
kristen welker ▲ ● ▼		Are sanctions now off the table, Mr. Vice President?
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		The sanctions aren't off the table, but we're going to make these determinations on a case-by-case basis.
		What do we think is actually going to exert the right kind of leverage to bring the Russians to the table?
		Now, you said sanctions were not going to lead to a ceasefire.
		I think that's obviously correct.
		If you look at the way the Russians have conducted themselves, they don't want to ceasefire.
		They don't want to ceasefire for complicated reasons.
		We, of course, have pushed for a ceasefire, but again, we don't control what Russia does.
		If we did, the war would have been over seven months ago.
		What we do believe, though, is that we continue to have a lot of cards.
		The President of the United States has a lot of cards left to play to apply pressure to try to bring this conflict to a close.
		And that's what we're going to do.
unidentified		Evelyn Farkas, do you believe the administration has cards to play?
unidentified		And if so, what are they?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, the vice president is correct.
		The administration has cards, and we're the only ones with these cards.
		We have the strongest cards, and sanctions are one of them.
		Sanctions alone will not bring the war to an end.
		But the threat of sanctions actually brought Vladimir Putin to Alaska because it was in response to President Trump saying, I'm going to slap sanctions, increase sanctions, and the so-called secondary sanctions, which means if other countries buy oil and gas from Russia, they will be sanctioned.
		And he slapped them on India already and threatened to do so with other countries.
		So that threat alone was enough for Vladimir Putin to say, okay, okay, why don't we meet in Alaska?
		Which is what the president did.
		President Trump met with President Putin, except the problem was he didn't get a ceasefire, which is what he went in to get.
		And we've made no progress.
		So we should put sanctions on Russia now because we know that pressure works.
		It motivates them.
		On top of that, of course, we should arm Ukraine further because it's really going to be a defeat on the battlefield that forces Vladimir Putin to understand this aggressive foreign policy isn't working.
unidentified		You said we've made no progress since France.
unidentified		What do you mean?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Well, unfortunately, what the Russians wanted was time to continue fighting on the battlefield.
		They're making incremental gains on the battlefield.
		But mind you, meanwhile, Ukraine is developing missile technology.
		And as you indicated with your first question, they're hitting targets in the rear in Russia proper.
		So, you know, it's not that Russia's winning, but Vladimir Putin's convinced himself if he has time, he can gain advantage on the battlefield.
unidentified		Maybe Russia can win militarily.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Again, that's an open question.
unidentified		And so he's trying to get time.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		He doesn't want to negotiate yet.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		He doesn't want to ceasefire.
unidentified		Where do talks stand between the Ukrainian president and the Russian president?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Well, the Russian president has made it clear that he is not meeting with the Ukrainian president.
		And we heard, you know, on NBC interviewed foreign minister, Russian foreign minister Lavrov over the weekend.
		You're probably going to ask me about it.
		And, you know, he said, oh, the Ukrainians and the Russians can meet, but the two presidents won't meet.
		And I'll tell you why, because Vladimir Putin does not consider Vlodymir Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, his equal.
unidentified		He wants Ukraine to be part of Russia.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		And he wants to control what happens in Ukraine.
		He's not going to meet with Zelensky unless Russia is defeated.
		And even then, I don't think Putin would sit down with him.
		And you don't need the heads of state to sit down to negotiate a final treaty.
unidentified		Let's listen to the Russian foreign minister on Meet the Press on Sunday.
sergey lavrov ▲ ● ▼		Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky when the agenda would be ready for a summit.
		And this agenda is not ready at all.
		President Trump suggested, after anchorage, several points which we share.
		And on some of them, we agreed to show some flexibility.
		When President Trump brought those issues to the meeting in Washington with Zelensky present together with his European sponsors, he clearly indicated, it was very clear to everybody that there are several principles which Washington believes must be accepted, including no NATO membership,
		including the discussion of territorial issues.
		And Zelensky said no to everything.
		He even said no to, as I said, to canceling legislation, prohibiting the Russian language.
		How can we meet with a person who is...
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Evelyn Farkas, what do you make?
unidentified		He says the agenda is not ready.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, because the two sides are too far apart.
		And the biggest issue are these security guarantees.
		Because for Ukraine, it means they need a guarantee that Russia will never reinvade.
		Russia will never challenge their sovereignty.
		They can't have a ceasefire and then the people are every day thinking we're going to get reinvaded.
		That's not tenable.
		And so what is a security guarantee for the Ukrainians?
		It means having the United States say, if you get attacked by Russia or any other power, we're going to go in militarily.
		So it's either bilateral or the United States as part of NATO.
		And anything short of that, I don't think the Ukrainians can and should accept.
		And the Russians are saying, well, we won't let NATO troops into Ukraine.
unidentified		You know, why don't we just have a great power agreement?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		We already had that.
		There's something called the Budapest Memorandum.
		In 1994, it was signed.
		The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Ukraine signed it.
		And we said, Ukraine, thank you.
		Give us your nuclear weapons.
		And in exchange, if anyone invades you, we didn't think Russia would invade Ukraine, but anyway, we will come to your military aid.
		Now, the United States did kind of, because of course we sent military assistance to Ukraine.
		And when President Obama was in office with the first invasion in 2014, I was in the Pentagon.
		We defended Ukraine's sovereignty.
		But it wasn't exactly what Ukraine had in mind, I think, when they signed that Budapest memorandum.
unidentified		And this time around, they're going to want U.S. troops to guarantee.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		And frankly, if we guarantee, the Russians won't invade.
		That's the whole point of having that security guarantee.
		It's so robust that the Russians won't invade.
		We won't go to war with Russia.
		We're not going to go to war with Russia.
		They're not going to try to go to war with the United States.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What is the McCain Institute?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		We are a nonprofit.
		We focus on promoting democracy, human rights, leadership, national security.
		We are working globally.
		We support, frankly, individuals making change in their societies.
		We help our policymakers in the United States in articulating why we should support Ukraine, for example, or Taiwan, why we should stand up to China and Russia, why it's important to defend our way of life, and frankly, human rights for people all over the world.
		Because John McCain, for those who knew him, he was somebody who was unafraid.
		He would be standing right now in the well of the Senate saying, we need to do more for Ukraine.
		Let's not tie their hands behind their backs.
		Let's actually give them more arms.
		And let's unfreeze $300 billion that we can unfreeze together with the Europeans and give the Ukrainians more weapons.
unidentified		Evelyn Varkas is our guest this morning.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		She's the executive director of the McCain Institute here to take your questions and your comments about the Russia-Ukraine war.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Here's how you can join the conversation this morning.
unidentified		Republicans 202-748-8001.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Remember, you can text if you don't want to call at 202-748-8003.
		Front page of the New York Times this morning, below the fold.
		Donbass's future is pivotal to the fate of Ukraine war.
		Would you agree with this news analysis?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Yes, because that is where the fortification line is right now.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		That's where the Ukrainians are holding the line against the Russians.
unidentified		It's also really has always been the industrial heartland going back to the Soviet times.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		So munitions and other, all of the mineral wealth that President Trump is interested in obtaining.
		We have an agreement now with the Ukrainian government to get some access to the minerals and the revenue that will come from selling those minerals.
		That's all there in Donbass.
unidentified		And so what is the status then?
		I mean, where could there be, should there be middle ground when it comes to the Donbass region?
		Or whatever you think.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		So the Russian military is only in part of Donbass.
		But of course, Vladimir Putin will demand what isn't his and what he doesn't deserve.
		And so he's saying, I want all of Donbass.
		I mean, rather than trying to compromise, he's actually asking for more.
		So it's a non-starter for the Ukrainians.
		If anything, the Ukrainians might be willing to give some territory, not officially, not under international law, but sort of see, you know, accept the reality that Russians occupy Crimea, for example, or that Russians do occupy part of Donbass and part of Lugansk, which is another area, right?
		They might say, okay, you're there now.
		You've been there for a while.
		We'll accept that.
		And in exchange, we want security guarantees.
unidentified		And talk about Crimea, because we're showing our viewers a map right now.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		And talk about when this was taken over and what it means for Russia, Russia's economy, and also Ukraine if they were to say, okay, you can keep Crimea.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Well, so Crimea, let's go back in history.
		Catherine the Great, you know, this is under the empires, she was the one who actually captured it because you will know that Crimea has a lot of Turkic people there originally.
		And so it's a mishmash of people.
		But the Russian Empire took it over and they fortified it.
		They understood that it had strategic value.
		And when the Soviet Union fell apart, so then the Soviet Union, of course, was the successor to the Russian Empire.
		And this is why Vladimir Putin talking about the Soviet Union, it's all very imperial.
		So when the Soviet Union fell apart, the international community recognized that Ukraine was a sovereign state.
		The Ukrainians voted in a referendum for independence in 1991.
		In fact, they're just about to celebrate their independence on the 24th.
		I don't even know what day it is today.
		Maybe it's a good question.
		They did celebrate.
		Yeah, they did celebrate.
		So Crimea remained part of Ukraine.
		But the Ukrainians and the Russians came up with an agreement whereby the Navy, the Russian Navy could use Crimea.
		So there was a power, you know, there was a sharing agreement of the naval facility.
		That's actually, you know, in an ideal world, what you would go back to.
		But you can't if the Russians are imperial.
		So at this point in time, now, since 2014, when the Russians invaded for the first time and shocked all of the Ukrainians, they essentially took over Crimea very quickly because none of us were ready for this.
		And frankly, if the Ukrainians had fought back, it would have been quite bloody.
unidentified		This is a little bit controversial, but certainly the Russians took it over, occupied it.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		There was always a high ethnic component of Russians because of the history of the military, et cetera.
		It was a kind of a playground for people taking vacations in Crimea because it's on the Black Sea.
		So Crimea can be potentially ceded, again, not in law by the Ukrainians, but they might be willing to make a deal if they can get a guarantee that they'll never get invaded again.
		I can't speak for the Ukrainians, of course, but that to me seems like it might be not fair, but at least sustainable.
		And they want a durable peace, and they want justice for the people who have been murdered, raped, the children who have been kidnapped.
		You know, something will have to be done about that as well.
		But in exchange, maybe, even though it's so unlawful, the fact that the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine and seized their territory the first time since Hitler did it to Austria, which, by the way, is reconsidering whether they should be neutral because of all of this.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We'll go to calls.
		Bobby is up first in Portsmouth, Virginia.
		Republican caller.
		Hi, Bobby.
unidentified		Hey.
		I just wanted to clear the air about why we are there in Ukraine.
		Obama let the Russians in there when he was in office in Crimea.
		Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright went over there, I remember, and told them if they give the nuclear weapons up, we would take care of them.
		If the Russians invaded them or anybody else, so okay, so Bobby's referring to the Budapest 1994.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		He jumps forward to President 2014, the Obama administration.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What's your take on Crimea and the Obama administration, how they reacted to that?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I think there's something there in terms of what Bobby's saying.
		So as I said, I personally don't think we should have encouraged, at that point in time, a fight between the Ukrainians and the Russians.
		I went to bed at night really afraid for the people, the Ukrainian military folks who were in the bases encircled, thinking if they put up a fight, they would be killed overnight.
		And so I was afraid of that bloodbath.
		And I'm guessing that that's also what was going on in the White House.
		I was in some of the conversations, but obviously not at the highest level.
		I will say, however, when he says Obama allowed, there were things that we could have done, and I was part of that administration, and I was fighting hard for us to do more to help Ukraine fight back and push back the Russians when they armed their proxies in another part of eastern Ukraine, so the Donbass and Lugansk areas.
		There, we could have done more.
		We could have been less risk-averse.
		And so I do agree with him there that, again, but that then follows all the way through the Obama administration, the first Trump administration, and the Biden administration, where all along we could have done more to help Ukraine in the war, because ultimately it's really going to be the war that's going to win this.
		Sanctions alone, diplomacy alone, won't do it.
unidentified		So what needs to happen on the war front then from the United States?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		We need to arm the heck out of Ukraine.
		The Ukrainians need to be given, of course, I mean, we shouldn't be holding their hands behind their backs in terms of telling them how they should or shouldn't fight the war.
		Getting back to your first question.
		And we should make sure that they have the money to buy the weaponry, which, by the way, most of it will be purchased from the United States.
		Although, of course, the Europeans now, with President Trump's urging, are ramping up their own defense industries.
		But we need to make sure that we can get arms quickly to Ukraine.
		So there's also some element of the United States government and industry doing everything it can to get on a war footing, frankly.
unidentified		We'll go to Thomas, who's in Maine, Democratic Caller.
		Hi, Thomas.
		Yes, good morning, and thank you for C-SPAN.
		My question regarding the origins or reasons why Russia or Vladimir Putin are invading Ukraine, obviously beginning with the takeover of Crimea.
		If you could explain more about why politically, economically, militarily, this is something they're doing.
		And thank you.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so Vladimir Putin essentially from the beginning has been clear that he wants to remake the Soviet space.
		Not at the very beginning of his term.
		So he came to power in 2000.
		He's been in power now, obviously, 25 years.
		In the beginning, he was more willing to work with the United States, and he wasn't so clearly neo-imperial.
		That increased over time.
		He became irritated at the United States for not recognizing Russia as an equal, a la the Soviet Union, decided that he was going to have to rebuild the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire.
		And so there was some tension between the states who were former Soviet states who wanted to become part of the West.
		So they wanted to become economically allied with the European Union.
		The Ukrainians in particular saw the Poles next door.
		During the Cold War, the Poles had been smaller, poorer.
		They were also under the Iron Curtain under communist rule.
		And the Ukrainian people, especially the young people, saw, wow, it's better economically for us if we're part of the European Union.
		Then there was the democracy part.
		The Ukrainians have always been, really since the 90s, struggling to have more democracy, way ahead of the Russian people, the Russian Federation.
		And Vladimir Putin sees that as a threat.
		He does not want democracy in Russia because that would be the end of his power, the end of his rule.
		And so in 2014, there was a struggle, and the Ukrainian government at the time, which was controlled by the Kremlin, said they were being courted by the European Union, but also Russia was saying, no, no, you should continue to be economically allied with us.
		Yanukovych, who was the Kremlin puppet at the time, basically lost his nerve.
		He said, first of all, he told the Ukrainian people, well, we're not going to join the European Union.
		They went to the street.
		They demonstrated.
		His forces shot at the people.
		The international community intervened because it looked like there was going to be a civil war, including the Russian ombudsman.
		There was a Russian representative.
		And the United States, the European Union, Russia essentially said, okay, we're going to have a provisional government and you're going to go to elections as soon as possible.
		In that timeframe, the Russian puppet lost his nerve, like I said, fled to Moscow.
		The Russians then pretended they had nothing to do with this interim agreement, but they went to elections.
		They elected, you might remember, Petro Poroshenko.
		He was the chocolate magnate oligarch.
		He was the first president before President Zelensky.
		And the Ukrainians were very clear that this time they weren't going to lose their democracy.
		They actually stayed on the square demonstrating for a long time to make sure that the government put into law the things that they wanted.
		They were very much anti-corruption.
		That had been a long time, long-standing problem, continues to be a problem in Ukraine, but they made a lot of progress against it.
		And even more recently, when President Zelensky looked like he was going to backpedal on corruption, the people went to the street.
		So the roots are really the desire for the Ukrainian people to have their own democratic way of life, to have an economic system that was competitive, that's not a communist system or not a crony system.
		And then also, finally, the desire to have their own state, because what the Russians are trying to do is erase the idea that there is a Ukrainian ethnicity and a Ukrainian state.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Going back to Russia's motivations, Politico's headline out of that Alaska summit, Sergei Lavrov's Alaska Outfit hints at Soviet nostalgia.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		The foreign minister shows up in Anchorage ahead of his leader, wearing a t-shirt with the letters CCCP, Russian for USSR.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
		I mean, he was essentially reminding everyone that we, the Russian Federation, are the modern day, or he was trying to, equivalent of the USSR.
		In some sense, they are.
		They're repressive.
		They put their opponents in jail.
		They're not quite as bad as Stalin was, right?
		But they are a repressive society.
		They are not as powerful, though, as the Soviet Union.
		So I think sometimes our president likes to also be nostalgic about the 1980s and see things through that prism.
		It's important to remember that the Russian Federation has an economy, I think, about the size of Italy's now, maybe Texas.
		It's not powerful.
		Yes, they have nuclear weapons, and in that respect, they're on par with the United States, although the Chinese and others are working hard to catch up.
		But the Russian Federation is not the USSR.
		This is Lavrov pretending that they're a big power, pretending that this is a summit like the Soviet days.
		That's not the reality.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We'll go to Potomac, Maryland.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Mary, independent.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yes.
		Putin is like a playground bully.
		And would it help if America gave more offensive weapons that could penetrate Russia and hit Moscow?
		Would that help him to back off?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I think that's a very good question.
		And I think a lot of Russia experts, a lot of people who have met Putin, a lot of people who deal with the Russians understand this kind of Russian leader is absolutely a bully.
		And the way you deal with a bully is not by giving in.
		You have to hold your ground.
		And even better, give them offensive weapons.
		So she's absolutely right.
		And that's what I was getting at earlier when I said we need to arm Ukraine even more.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We'll go to California.
		Tom is watching there.
		Independent.
		Hi, Tom.
unidentified		Hi, yeah, Evelyn.
		This is Tom.
		I'm glad to hear from you.
		I think that the meeting between Putin and Trump was just such a farce.
		It was amazing how Putin had Trump's number all the way and pandering to his ego.
		It was just unbelievable.
		And he talked about how Trump won the 2020 election, and he was certain of that, and that Trump, the war would have never started had Trump been in office.
		And he just, it was amazing how he fed Trump's ego to the hilt, and Trump gave in to him.
		And also, I'm curious if you have heard of the North Koreans working in construction in Russia for slave wages, and the wages themselves go to Kim Jong-un as well as manning their factories and things in Russia.
		Thank you very much for your support.
		And Ukraine, I'm half Danish and half Norwegian myself, but I think Finland has got their number and their arm to the teeth.
		And Russia doesn't want to mess with them because they know what they'd be up against.
		And I think we should do the same for Ukraine.
		Thank you very much.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Tom.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, Tom.
		You made a lot of really good points.
		So I think what Tom points out there is, first of all, that the North Koreans are working to help Russia.
		They have had this slave labor working in forestry and other areas.
		But what's more important and disconcerting is, of course, the fact that the North Koreans have sent thousands of troops to Russia to fight.
		The North Koreans pushed the Ukrainians out of this part of territory in the Russian Federation that Ukraine had seized in order to have a bargaining chip.
		The North Koreans are providing ammunition as well.
		And they're gaining technology, technological capability.
		And as we know, the South Korean president is in Washington today to meet with President Trump.
		North Korea continues to be a threat, and it's a greater threat today because of their work with Russia.
		So I think that's another case where we have to stand up to the North Koreans as well.
		With regard to Finland, you know, again, this is a loss.
		This is why Russia is not winning.
		Finland, Sweden, they were neutral before.
		They're now part of NATO.
		As I mentioned before, there are very few neutral countries now in Europe.
		Austria is one of them.
		Austria is now thinking maybe we shouldn't be neutral.
		I don't know about the Swiss.
		So the map has changed because of Russia's aggression, but also because Russia is working with North Korea, with China, and with Iran.
		And that array makes it really global in terms of the stakes in Ukraine.
		It's not just about Europe.
unidentified		Describe the threat to Poland here, and how is the United States addressing that threat and working with Poland?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		So those of us watching Putin are much more nervous now that he might try some sort of a probe, some sort of something that looks less than military, you know, little green men, something the Europeans call sabotage, you know, blowing something up in Poland or in a Baltic state to test the political will of the NATO alliance.
		What he really wants after Ukraine is free will to take Republic of Georgia or the Georgian country, to take Moldova, to really solidify that neo-imperial, that former Soviet space.
		And the Poles are in the way, and of course NATO's in the way because NATO says you can't have the Baltic states, they're part of us right now, and you can't invade your neighbors.
		And we are the only collective alliance that's actually operational.
		And by the way, I should say the Ukrainians are probably the strongest European state outside of that alliance, so we should let them in quickly before they go on the other side.
		But the Poles are nervous because, first of all, there have been drones that have fallen.
		Last week, a drone fell on Polish territory.
		That's not the first time something like that happened.
		And as long as there's no great loss of life, our European collies have kind of shrugged these things off.
		I'm not sure whether that's the right approach because we need to deter Russia.
		We need to make sure that Russia is careful and does not violate NATO airspace, NATO territory, because that could be war.
		And we need to deter Russia from even thinking about war against the NATO allies.
		But if Putin thinks we don't have enough will or somehow there's a split between the United States and Europe because he's trying to create one, then he might actually be tempted to attack a European state.
		Probably not, like I said, with tanks, but some kind of operation, and he'll pretend that he's protecting Russian-speaking citizens in the Baltic states or something like that, similar to the justification, the fake justification in Ukraine.
unidentified		Let's go to Lou, who's in New Jersey.
		He sends us this text.
		Good morning.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		To what extent are you willing to go spending hard-earned American money to provide for Ukraine?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		This type of escalation will lead to World War III and perhaps nuclear catastrophe.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		So it's very inexpensive.
		Senator Graham himself, who has, by the way, a big sanctions bill hanging out there waiting for President Trump to give the green light.
		Senator Graham himself said I think it's about 3% of the annual DOD budget is what we give Ukraine annually, we, the United States, in military assistance.
		It's not a lot.
		It's pennies on the dollar because look what Ukraine has been able to do to reduce the threat posed by Russia to NATO and the United States.
		Because let's not forget, in the global context, we face adversaries, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran.
		The Ukrainians have severely degraded Russia, which makes them also a weaker ally for the Chinese, although the Chinese like what Russia is doing to distract us from what they're doing all over the world.
		But these things are interconnected, and so I think it's really important to hold the line against all of them simultaneously.
unidentified		We'll go to New York.
		Peter's there, Republican.
		Yes, good morning.
		I'd like to take issue with a few things that were said.
		The original agreements with Russia that there would only be nine members, now there are over 30.
		So Putin doesn't trust that.
		Secondly, if we give any guarantees to the Ukrainians that they won't be invaded, that is a de facto membership in NATO because that is the whole purpose of NATO, I guess, without them having to pay the 3% fee that NATO members have.
		And thirdly, as far as the $300 billion that are in European banks and the United States, that's not going to happen.
		This is not a new idea.
		And the banking industry will be against that because the whole banking system is based on trust that if you put money in those banks, that money is guaranteed because then other countries will feel, well, if I fall out of favor with the powers that be, they're going to take my money.
		So I'm not going to put my money in those banks.
		That's about it.
		Please comment.
		Thank you.
		Okay.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		There was a lot there.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to try to remember.
unidentified		First of all, there was no agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States and its allies about the number of NATO allies.
unidentified		Once the Soviets decided the Warsaw Pact would dissolve, there was no agreement.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		There's been a lot of controversy about whether NATO agreed not to put forces in the eastern part of the territory of NATO.
unidentified		There was also no agreement.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		There may have been a hope and an assumption on the part of the Soviets that we wouldn't do that, but there was no agreement that was violated.
		And you can read everything that James Baker and the Bush administration people, you know, George H.W. Bush administration people wrote who were there at the time.
		And I think Gorbachev himself.
		So there was no agreement.
		And the reason that NATO expanded didn't have only to do with Russia.
unidentified		It was also for stability.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		It expanded southward and eastward in order to create the conditions of military stability.
		Neighbors would not fight one another so that economic development could occur.
		I remember that very clearly.
		I was sort of in that mix.
		I'm old enough to remember that firsthand.
		The other component.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		He talks about 3% GDP.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		So there's no fee.
		There is an agreement, though.
		Article 3 says you must invest in your country's defense, meaning you can't be a slacker.
unidentified		And President Trump has put pressure on the countries so that they increase how much they're going to do.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Ukraine is at like 35% of their GDP.
		So forget about it.
		I mean, they have invested away a ton, and they're going to continue investing.
		So there's no problem there.
		And in fact, as I mentioned, Ukraine is probably the best armed, equipped, capable military force in Europe today.
		I think, you know, maybe the Russians, you could argue the Russians are larger, but certainly if they joined NATO, they'd be the best ones there, minus the United States.
		So, you know, I think it would be to our benefit to include Ukraine.
		And yes, Article 5, if we gave an Article 5-type agreement, if we gave a bilateral agreement to Ukraine, if Russia invades, the United States will come to your defense.
		It's not going to be like NATO Article 5 because it's just the United States giving that agreement.
		What it would resemble, though, is the agreement we have for South Korea or Japan, where if China invades South Korea or Japan, we will come to their aid.
		And so the same would happen for Ukraine.
		And ostensibly, you would guess we would station troops there because we did that for North Korea, sorry, for South Korea and for Japan.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		He also talked about the banks and trust in the banks.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		The banks, yes.
unidentified		Okay.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry, but if you invade your neighbor counter to international law, counter to the UN Charter, as they did in 2014, and then re-invade and rape, murder, kidnap children, all of that means you have forfeited your rights to enjoy banking.
		And we already, the international community already decided we kicked them out of the G8.
		We kicked them off of the SWIFT banking system.
		We froze their assets.
		They're already frozen.
		I mean, they should have written them off.
		And frankly, they are going to be targeted anyway for reconstruction of Ukraine.
		So we may as well use some of them to buy weapons because $300 billion is a lot.
unidentified		I want to go to a text here from Rob, who's in West Virginia.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Russia isn't going to enter into a peace agreement right now when they have the upper hand.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		They gained momentum on the battlefield after Trump's temper tantrum and temporary suspension of military aid to Ukraine early this year.
unidentified		Do you agree?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I heard reports, and I, you know, I'd have to verify that, I think, with people who really know, but I heard reports that when we suspended intelligence sharing to Ukraine with Ukraine, that that was when the North Koreans and the Russians kicked Ukraine out of that part of territory that Ukraine had seized in order to have a bargaining chip.
		So they certainly took away that advantage.
		And yes, any time that President Putin gets to fight on the battlefield another day is a loss, frankly, for us and for the Ukrainians.
		And it's a tragedy, frankly, also for the Russian people.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Clyde's in Atkin, Minnesota, Independent.
unidentified		Yes, good morning, and thank you.
		I wrote a piece about this, and I know I don't have time to get it all through, but I want to draw just a couple of three very important points.
		The World War II was one of the most horrific events in our history, in our recent history, of what, may I say, good against evil.
		And the price that was paid by all of the blood and treasure of soldiers, Marine, Navy, even Russian citizenry that has died to create NATO and the Marshall Plan, the European Recovery Program is vital.
		And I think Trump has dishonored all these lives by this awfully suspicious relationship with Putin.
		I almost call it treasonous in a way.
		I just can't stand it.
		I think we should have put Putin on notice from the get-go.
		You don't stop, you're going to, we're coming after you.
		We have to stop him like we stopped Hitler, or this is going to continue.
		You don't see any of the equalities in Trump that they teach in West Point or Annapolis.
		This man is not the right man to do this.
		Obama dropped the ball, and Biden was a little bit too slow and a little bit too late.
		But Trump has got a relationship with Putin that just makes me want to vomit.
		I can't stand it.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Clyde, we'll take your comments.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Evelyn Varkas.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think, look, it is mystifying to me that President Trump oftentimes will dismiss what Russia is doing and doesn't seem to understand the history when he tries to say that there should be territorial swaps as if people aren't involved and history isn't involved.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		So there is some sort of lack of understanding there.
unidentified		And yes, the relationship with Putin, the fact that he likes him so much, I don't know.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Putin is a war criminal.
		There's an arrest warrant out for him.
		The International Criminal Court has called for his arrest.
		We didn't arrest him because we're not required to because we're not a treaty to the International Criminal Court.
		We haven't signed the treaty.
		Had we signed the treaty, we would have been required to arrest him in Alaska.
		So, you know, someone like him should not be welcomed to the United States with a red carpet.
		Having said that, it is important to speak to the adversary and to have negotiations, but probably not at the presidential level, not until you have a baked deal.
		So it is regrettable.
		And I will say that the caller is correct, that World War II, we lost so many people there.
		And we said never again.
		And by the way, this also applies to the Middle East because people say, well, we carpet bombed in the Middle East.
		After World War II, we said never again will we have a Holocaust, a genocide of the Jews, a Holocaust.
		You know, Stalin carried out millions of murders as well of communists and others, not just Jews.
		And we said we're not going to allow that again.
		And we're going to make sure whether we like the borders or not, the borders are going to stick because that will mean that we're secure.
		And whoever has control over this territory, they're responsible for basic human rights.
		Yeah, you can be a kingdom.
		You don't have to be a democracy.
		As long as you make sure that people have basic human rights, the UN guarantees you the right to your boundaries.
		And again, for the first time since World War II, the Russians are challenging this.
		They want to go back to the sphere of influence system.
		They want to scrap the United Nations.
		That's a very dangerous world.
		Why does Viktor Orban like Vladimir Putin and what he's doing?
		Because Hungary, after World War I, and I'm Hungarian-American, lost their territory to five different states.
		And Viktor Orban would like a greater Hungary again.
		You know, he's neo-imperial.
		That is highly dangerous.
		We would have more war in Europe then.
		And of course, we know the ramifications in Asia.
		Just look at China threatening Taiwan right now.
		There are all kinds of territorial disputes in the South China Sea as well.
		We don't want to open that can of worms again.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We'll go to Georgia.
		Walter is watching there, Democratic caller.
		You're up.
unidentified		You're up, Walter.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		I agree with the previous caller.
unidentified		Mr. Trump or President Trump is the biggest stumbling block to helping Ukraine fight for freedom because all he has to do is encourage Congress to free up the money and pass whatever bills are necessary to get the aid to Ukraine.

▲