 Welcome back to State Tech. I'm Jay Fidel and this is Global Connections and we can talk about it. The war against Ukraine is actually the invasion against Ukraine. An update on what's going on there was Carl Baker, a senior advisor for our Pacific Forum. Welcome to the show, Carl. Nice to have you. Yeah, good to be back Jay. It's been a while since we've brought up this subject and unfortunately it's still a subject that doesn't seem to be going away. Well let me give you sort of an immediate reaction on the whole topic is that the U.S. for its own political reasons is not giving weapons or money to Ukraine. The EU, thanks to Viktor Orban, is kind of stuck about giving money and weapons to Ukraine and Ukraine is having trouble recruiting soldiers and it's having trouble in terms of the morale of the soldiers and the Russia is through Putin, is still being aggressive, still finding soldiers in prisons, still bombing and attacking civilian facilities and residences in at least eastern Ukraine but expanding that and in violation of all international law as war crimes. And there you go. It doesn't look particularly encouraging. How much of that is right and how much of it is wrong? Yeah, it's a good question but I'm afraid it's mostly right and certainly there's room for interpretation about what's happening but I think you pretty well summarize it is that as we expected you know from the beginning the longer this strikes on the more advantage there is to Russia simply because of size and because of the ability to sustain a war machine that is basically the heart and soul of what's happening here and you know it's more and more difficult for Ukraine as it continues to depend on the West which is a fairly fickle society when it comes to sustaining a war effort where as you said Putin has certainly solidified his position within Russia and he certainly has been able to sustain the Russian economy in the context of selling oil to India and not in China and maintaining some level of relationship with the Middle East and the rest of the global south. So I think you know certainly it is advantage Russia at this point and it's not looking real good in terms of how much longer the United States is going to be willing to support Zelensky as a hardline of the position of Russia must be defeated. What's the effect? Let's assume just this discussion I hate to make this assumption but let's assume that Ukraine is lost you know either the Donbass or or more yeah and then Ukraine you know could collapse here you know the Zelensky government could collapse and then all of Ukraine collapses so let's assume for this discussion anyway that that Ukraine cannot prevail does not prevail and the Ukrainian government is gone what happens? Well then then Ukraine is part of Russia again it's part of it's again part of the Russian Empire and certainly the rest of the of the former Soviet Union states in Eastern Europe have to be really concerned about the willingness of NATO to defend them those that have joined NATO and and those that haven't are certainly much more vulnerable than than they were the day before of Ukraine collapse. What happens to the Ukrainian people if you put a former KGB officer in charge of it and who is going to be in a knee-jerk reaction is I have to find anybody who will oppose me and the best test of that is the people who supported Zelensky who opposed the Russian invasion in the past wouldn't there be a lot of Gestapo type of tactics in Ukraine? That's possible you know but as I was thinking about this you know I mean let's let's sort of shift to just a little bit here and what's happening in Donbass you don't really hear now this is of course a function of how much the medium manipulates or might be manipulating the stories but in Donbass where Russia has in fact maintained control you don't really hear a lot about civil dissent you don't really hear a lot about people being killed for supporting Zelensky or for for being Ukrainian nationalists or you know some version of of that sort of scenario that you're painting so I don't know I mean I don't think it's quite as apocalyptic as the western media at least portions of the western media are portraying that that it's an either or if if if the Zelensky government fails the Ukrainian people die in large numbers because of a draconian administration that's put in place by the Russians. I mean I mean you know in Central Asia next to Armenia there's one dictator who struck me as Gestapo like he said I have a little list and when I take over this area I am going to go through my list and I'm going to take care of all the people that oppose me so that's part of autocracy isn't it you always have that to some degree sure yeah so I mean there's certainly there's there's some people I mean look at the ministers in the in the current government they would certainly be vulnerable to some sort of a purge by by a Russian Russian what's where I'm looking for a dictator that gets put in place in Kiev you know in this event that that Ukraine collapsed but I don't I don't want to keep talking about Ukraine collapse because I think there's a lot of ways to prevent that from happening and it may not be full on full throated support for Zelensky it may be trying to find some compromise here that allows Ukraine to survive that was the story I saw the other day that said and are obviously arguing for some sort of negotiating settlement you said how much better would it be to have 80 percent of what is Ukraine today a European state that has the prospect for joining the EU and joining NATO at some point in the future rather than sustaining this this rather difficult situation where you're fighting over over the Donbass and Crimea for the sake of the 20 percent that are in that region you know so I think I think I would like to frame it that way rather than rather than has the either or you know the the sort of manichean view of one or the other well let me add some fuel to that fire though and point out that you know not only as as Putin taken steps to insinuate power his power into other countries Belarus is a prime example but you know there are four or five others all the way to Romania and where he has you know put his agents in done done misinformation of the media social media especially where he has fomented unrest if not chaos and where he has signaled directly or indirectly that he wants that country and he wants to turn them in favor of Russia without firing a shot and you know that's been clearly the case in a number of those countries which would would be next on the list so to speak wouldn't should be concerned that if a deal is made if Ukraine goes soft in some way that those countries would be next I mean if he's going to resurrect you know either the monarchy or the USSR he's going to be after them next it's all Eastern Europe at risk well yeah I mean I accept that that that is a risk but what I'm suggesting is that to mitigate that what is what is the best way to mitigate that risk is is is to to continue to fight for the the the peace of Ukraine that's east of the Donbas or is it to actually you know develop some resilience in those in those regions that you can control that you're not fighting a ground war against against a Russian military that almost by its nature is always going to be superior because you have a bigger population you have a bigger industrial base you have you have an economy that that has maintained its integration into the into the global economy you know or you know do you continue to to put all your marbles in the Zelensky objective of returning all the territory that was at one point Ukraine yeah well and I mean I think that nothing yeah yeah I think I think that's really the dilemma that I see and that's why I'm of the of the mind that you know I think we need to start being a little more realistic about what are our objectives you know and that of course is is what's coming out of you know the the debate the the funding debate in the United States is is what exactly is our objective yeah that or that you because what happens here has a huge if not just positive effect then what happens there and but the same you know the same analysis what happens in the EU and Western Europe also has this positive effect and I'm reminded and I want to come to American the American political situation in a minute but it's Victor Orban who is Putin's friend and an autocrat all by himself done a really good job of becoming an autocrat vetoed and moved by the EU to give x billions of dollars to Ukraine and I get two reactions on that the first reaction is you know it's so predictable but it reflects a lack of unity among the countries in the EU it's a moral choice and it and he is predictably going to oppose a moral choice the other aspect of it is if Russia if Germany and France and others feel so strongly about it why don't they just write a check why do they a Victor Orban to write a check I'm not sure they did that your thoughts yeah no I agree that that that it certainly is is the case that that there is there's not consents consensus in the European Union and the European Union of course is an economic focused organization it's not it's not a security focused organization so you know yeah I mean Germany and France they have the capacity to provide military assistance the UK does you know so there's there's European countries that can can fill that security assistance role the real the real issue though is to what end are you know are you going to go back and and and you know try to try to take the symbolic and line you know are you try are you going to try to sever that bridge between Crimea and and and the Russia you know what what are your military objectives let's let's let's deal with that first because I think that that's what's becoming the important problem here the money that the money problem is is almost secondary at this point because right now what's what's happening is you you're you're stuck in a military stalemate now there's some who say oh it's not a stalemate there's it's just going to take another two years before we get the Ukrainian military up to the capacity to actually execute its counter offensive you know well boy those are a long two years you know and and so you know so it becomes more and more difficult to see how do you get past this military conflict and and when you start talking about the the the EU really the EU is about the economic support but but Ukraine's problem right now is not economic support it's it's really about me being able to maintain some sort of security apparatus what about technology you know technology is a moving target and I keep thinking of the use of AI Israel is is reportedly using AI and dealing with the fight in Gaza and for that matter Israel also has at least the experimental laser equipment that will you know burn something out of the sky cheap it's not as expensive as a missile it's just a beam of light so you know anything could happen on technology and you know the world is always interested in technology and the stakes are high when you know the technology can be weaponized and I'm I'm wondering if that that might happen within you know less time than two years which would change the focus of all this what do you think but what technology would change the the situation on the ground in Ukraine is a bit of a puzzle to me I mean because I mean we've seen we've seen technological innovation you know just the whole idea of how they've been utilizing drones you know both both see drones by the by the Ukrainians as well as as well as you know air drones by by Russia and and to some extent in Ukraine you know so so those kinds of technology advances are there but I don't I don't really see how I'll some technological advance in the next two years is going to change the security situation in the territory that we call Ukraine today you know I mean there's there's just some some facts that are there that that aren't going away and one is that it's going to be very difficult for Ukraine to to penetrate that defensive line the the sovereign line that's been created to to maintain that land bridge between Russia and in Crimea so if that's your objective your objective is to is to take back all that territory that's a problem that you have to deal with and I don't see a technological solution to that next if you look at you know the the the whole idea of long-range attacks on Russian territory you know you've you've seen you know Ukraine trying to attack Russian cities developed around on the on the on the border and and then in response you know the Russians have been attacking as far away as you know I don't see how the technology you maybe have hypersonics or something that might be able to to penetrate the air defense is better than than what you have now but again that's not that's a technological advance that that could affect you know specific battles but I don't see it again affecting the broader security situation on the ground where you you ultimately have a ground offensive steel and they'll make you know that the operative word the stalemate means that both sides are in stalemate it assumes that and so and both sides are in a water attrition I think I mean I don't think Putin is really gaining you know beyond the attrition and certainly Ukraine is is experiencing the attrition in many ways in terms of soldiers and in terms of supplies and in terms of the the morale of the army and the people it's this is very hard on them the country has been largely you know damaged already and they're not getting the kind of support they want it must be a very hard on the individual Ukrainian yes so so and so my question is are they are ready to deal are they both ready to reach an agreement well I think I think the the Ukrainians are certainly more ready I I think I I think the Russians I think Putin is is ready but there's some assumptions there and and that is that he is going to gain territory I mean I think on based on that I think that's where Russia is ready that that he does he does get his win in the sense that he basically maintains the territorial conquest in the Donbas and and and I think that that and then that's that that's the unpalatable unpalatable part to to Zelensky and a lot of people in the west who say this sets the bad precedent and then and then we get the narrative that you provided recent just just a few minutes ago about well then what's next in in Romania and and all the other Eastern European and this is just reminds me of Israel because if I were at that table trying to make a deal representing Ukraine I would say what what assurance do we have that you won't do this again because you know there are many indications that you will do it again to us and to others and I suppose part of that could be and this would depend on third party agreement that that the remaining part of Ukraine becomes a part of the EU that it is an even part of NATO but that that depends on the members of the EU including Viktor Orban and NATO which may or may not be agreeable and Turkey for example may not be agreeable so clearly I mean what assurances could Russia give or could Ukraine demand that it won't happen again and could could that demand include these points yes it could I mean no those are the those are the two obvious points now of course how those are becoming forcible is a is a fair question because now obviously it's going to be very difficult to to provide that guarantee without without some sort of force on the ground so but I think you know I think the way that would have to work is that there would have to be the implicit understanding that Ukraine then is offered the deterrent effect of becoming part of NATO you know and so it's not it's not necessarily explicit in the agreement itself but it's implicit in the sense that it is now covered under Article 5 by by joining NATO and I think that that would be that would be the part that would be the enforceability aspect of that of that kind of agreement so I wonder about it wouldn't be direct it could be an indirect so if you wonder about Article 5 these days you know everybody refers to Article 5 you would attack me I attack them whatnot but you know a lot of time has gone by since Article 5 was originally written down and I and you have to wonder whether Article 5 would actually in fact come into play I mean whether the members of NATO would really respect it your thoughts oh yeah I mean if you think about a small town in Latvia somewhere close to the Russian border are we really prepared to to fulfill our obligation in Article 5 well maybe this is just a little bit of a bad example you know yeah I mean the red lines are always are always dangerous aren't aren't they yeah especially if they're historical and you know and impractical too yeah yeah you're you know I know I fully agree with you that that the whole the whole Article 5 argument gets you know and this of course this this this is the argument from the beginning from the 90s when we started talking about which Eastern European countries really should be included in NATO given given the ironclad guarantee that we keep offering in the context of Article 5 and but what about people you know Zolensky disappeared off the table assassination what have you or vice versa you know Putin maybe he is sick maybe he becomes you know incapable how would that change things I mean is there a successor to either of them well no I that that's a a very good very good point is especially I mean with Putin yeah I don't I don't know enough what is happening in Russia you know what would really happen if Putin was suddenly gone you know I mean I'm guessing that there's probably somebody somebody in the wings that could could take over it wouldn't be provision but you know it could be it could be someone someone out looking in the in the background but yeah as far as Zolensky you know what I see is a real vulnerability for the West right now is is the full acceptance of Zolensky as the as the only partner who can deliver Ukrainian freedom you know and and you know one of the things I think that Ukraine should be doing right now is they should be working very hard at building a narrative about how they are actually engaging in reform and and working on some of the some of the corruption that we know is still there and and building some resilience in their democratic institutions and you know and so I right now I don't think that's there and so I think both sides are vulnerable to the sort of iconic strong man that have that has been the focal point of of the country. Before we leave Europe and go to the US here in this discussion I want to mention I saw an article criticizing the EU criticizing NATO for not anticipating that that they should be producing more more ammunition and they haven't and they're unable to even if they were even if they decided to provide you know unlimited amounts of ammunition to Ukraine they don't have it because apparently this kind of war uses a lot of ammunition they they they just fire up thousands of shells and rockets all the time then the other aspect is if Russia doesn't have it either Russia has to get it from Iran and also from North Korea and maybe elsewhere and so the ammunition becomes an issue and just to touch on the US the US doesn't have it either we we have not planned this war we have not planned to support this war and our military industrial establishment doesn't have the ammunition here either we may have a lot of troops we may spend $800 billion a year on the military but we don't have enough ammunition to actually get into a shooting war so how does that affect things well I mean again I mean it it plays into the stalemate because neither side has the capacity to to make a decisive strategic move that would require war of that munition war of those munitions that they don't have so you end up with the you know with the skirmishes around the towns you you move you know and you move the you move the line of control a few meters a few kilometers over the span of a month you know I mean that's and that's why you know you look back at what happened in Korea you know we spent we spent basically two to three years doing that sitting sitting you know moving moving one mountaintop you know one hill to the next hill and you know and in some ways that's where we are in Ukraine right now it's just that the land is a little bit flatter but but I mean basically we're in this stalemate where yeah you use the munitions you have but you can't really make a decisive move because you don't have the sustainability on both sides it's true for both sides okay let's move moving to the United States which is probably the most interesting part of our discussion because the United what the United States does or doesn't do will have a profound effect on how this plays out and I'm not sure they you know as as opposed to the Middle East I'm not sure the United States is actively involved in trying to negotiate a settlement it it could be should be might be but right now no right yeah there's there's been a lot of questions about about how much we are and I mean I've seen stories that says we are and and reason that you don't hear about it because they've been very unsuccessful and so we'd rather not portray ourselves as being unable to pursue that and so yeah I mean there's a lot of questions about what's what's happening in the United States and you know I I know that you know the Republican the Republican version is is not unsurprisingly sort of two-faced where on the one hand it says Biden's not being strong enough and on the other hand they're the ones that are responsible for not providing more more money for for them for the musicians that you're talking about because they want the deal on the on the border you know so so I think that there's a lot of uncertainty in the United States and again I'll go back and say you know I think that we have really sort of hitched ourselves to Zelensky's uh maximal demands and it's going to become more and more difficult for us to to move away from those those demands as we begin to realize that this is a stalemate and stalemates don't play to Ukraine's failure. This hurting Biden I mean everything that happens in all of these 10 months now to follow before the election everything he does or doesn't do is going to have you know it's going to present a target for the Republicans but it's also you know objectively going to have an effect on public opinion and thus the vote so query is this helping him but my my thought is maybe not no I don't think it is you know like you said I mean the Republicans they can they can attack on on several different fronts and they have you know I mean you can't be strong enough and yet you're you're not we're not great to give you the money because you're not compromising with us on something else and so you know so he's completely vulnerable to the opposition which is understandable but also to the broader general uh public opinion you know it's it's the it's the great fear that we had from the beginning about the weariness of the United States feeling like they're the ones who are having to defend Ukraine Europe isn't providing enough you know it's all that same rhetoric and all that same narrative that's coming back to us again and so yeah it hurts it hurts the the incumbent president in in a situation where you were you were caught up in in a stalemate that has no clear resolution without clear objectives yeah the background is as you say uh when Trump was speaking to this issue he was saying let's let's be isolationist let's stop funding NATO let's stop funding the war and let's be realized I mean I think Trump or Trump's thinking has a huge effect on Mike Johnson and and the Democrats in the House and so forth but you know you you you wonder if that's a good idea for the United States because we will be affected by the result and the isolationism that that Trump uh was was you know was selling back at the beginning of his term um and later during his term and and now indirectly Trump is controlling I think the republican policy on this this is his position we see expressed through like Johnson um you know that um and then his statement Trump's statement is you you you know you you you elect me and I will stop this war immediately yeah right with with a you know a golden golden platter to Vladimir Putin he'll stop it all right um but I think people buy that because they don't want troops our troops to be on the ground they don't want us to spend our international capital you know and um and be the world's policeman yeah well yeah I think that's true although you know I think you're giving credit a little too much credit for to Trump for having thoughts and ideas thank you I'm not sure that I'm quite willing to buy that I mean you know in some ways you know the Republicans have been fairly fairly nihilistic about this whole thing I think where where like I said they argue they argue two ways you're not being strong enough and I think I think Trump's response would probably be I'll eliminate it because I'll they'll be afraid of me because I'm I'm I will present this this great strong America that everyone will fear and so people will drop their guns and come and be beholden to me because I'm I'm also powerful figure that I am you know and and then you have the other side that says well we want to get something out of you guys for the border so we're not going to provide funding you know so I mean that there's real that's really two different different approaches uh and and then and then you're right then the third approach that says well as long as you're doing it we don't want to support American adventures yeah well it's interesting that the what's happening in the border is similar in its own way it's a it's a mirror image of what's happening you know in Ukraine what I mean is and this goes to Joe Biden's statement the other days you want me to do something at the border but you won't give me any money to do it I do have a policy I do have a plan but you're blocking that and then you're blaming me for not blaming me for not doing anything this is not the way to shape American policy and I and I wonder your thoughts about the notion of hitching the Ukraine wagon to the border issue it sounds to me is disingenuous at the least well I mean that's that's part of the reason why I use the word nihilistic because that oh there's no connection there's there's literally no connection between those two it's it's really just a matter of of taking a problem that you have and saying well we have a problem and we want you to solve that problem first you know I mean there's no there's no there's no connection it's it's it's it's completely nihilistic to just to try to connect those two or to connect it to two I mean in some ways to to Israel you know I mean to try to connect the three is there's there's no there's no rational basis for doing this is something new in American foreign policy if you will in other words you you hitch a domestic issue to a foreign policy issue and you and you force the other side to have to consider that before you do what is obviously the right thing on foreign policy am I right you know what has happened before as well but the the broader the broader issue that you're talking about that you're right it's new but what's happened is you know we've sort of let this norm of don't let domestic politics influence foreign policy you know that was very much a strong norm and remember early in the trumpet the first Trump administration people were talking about this we said this is a very dangerous way we're moving here where we're connecting domestic politics with foreign policy you know at one point you know I remember there was a statement that said no one has ever made a derogatory statement about a foreign policy issue on foreign soil and someone in the early in the Trump administration did exactly that you know and and so I think yeah this is this is what happens when you destroy those norms is now now it comes back and and it becomes a a policy approach in the politics of America and that's why we don't we shouldn't have done that and yeah now you see the unprecedented situation where you do have a domestic issue or a foreign policy issue being helped hostage to a domestic hostage it's a world of hostages these days and it's also a world of stalemate you know in this conversation seems to me we have stalemate between Russia and Ukraine we have stalemate in Congress we have stalemate on the border issue everything is stalemate everything and you can't run a railroad that way or a country I think so that's why I'm asking you could run two echo chambers that way yeah stalemate yeah yeah and it just exacerbates the stalemate so my my final question to you is from a foreign policy point of view an American policy point of view a global world order and a liberal global world order point of view what is in a perfect world without holding issues domestic issues hostage for international foreign policy what is the proper foreign policy on on Ukraine what should the United States do yeah I'm gonna go back and say it again the United States should be thinking about how to develop a solution to the problem that allows Ukraine to maintain some level of independence a sovereign state that is associated with Western democracy and Western institutions through the European Union through NATO the security and economic institutions of Europe that that provides some resilience in Central Europe to to support the the global international order that the United States desires to ensure that we don't lose other countries to Russian adventures and we we maintain a status in Ukraine that demonstrates the value of aligning with the European countries and showing that there are benefits associated with that that global liberal order and the way we do that is we build a agreement a resolution to the conflict that does support an independent Ukraine that that isolates Russian's Russian's gains because there's going to be Russian gains at this point short of of annihilating Russia and I don't see that happen so I think that the the realistic foreign policy goals should be to salvage what we can in Ukraine and then work to build that resilience by demonstrating the value of maintaining a relationship to in very broad in very broad terms and and that has to do with how we do the reconstruction it has to do with how we how we allow Ukraine to integrate into the Western economy you haven't mentioned the United Nations and I think that's for a good reason and we just let that one hang in the air there's nothing the United Nations can do with the Security Council formed up the way it is no that's a whole separate that's a whole separate foreign policy issue that the United States can can tackle once it's done with more existential problems but you know clearly clearly what we need is we need serious attention to reform of the of the United Nations and specifically the Security Council and last question in terms of American policy to Ukraine in the interim while we're working to the goals you described what about sending them money what about if you had the perfect world what about sending them money what about sending sending them arms which we which Joe Biden wants to do would you do that sure yeah I mean you have you can't you can't just cut off funding and say no settle settle settle for peace or settle for for some compromise either has to be there has to be some demonstration that Ukraine can sustain the stalemate I mean I think that's the concern that's the immediate concern I would have is that Russia believes that it it can prevail in the stable and that's you can't you can't let that happen you have to you have to provide some level of support to Ukraine to allow them to to sustain stalemate and to convince Russia that it really is in Russia's interest to to settle and accept the fact that there going to be compromises in that settlement that include a very close alignment of Ukraine with with European law of interest I mean wow so many issues Carl Baker see your advisor Pacific Farms thank you so much for this discussion and your thoughts on so many issues appreciate it thanks a lot