 And this episode inquires, what will it take to reverse things in Ukraine? And the implication is that things are not going well in Ukraine. How long can this war of attrition last in Ukraine? And for this discussion, we have co-host Tim Apachele. We have Gene Rosenfeld, our esteemed guest, and our another esteemed guest, Manfred Hennigson. Thank you very much for being here, all of you. So let me just say that the news most recently is that Sweden has now been officially admitted into NATO. And the question is whether that affects any of this. Is that too little too late? Or is it somehow relevant to the question of whether we can reverse things in Ukraine? Gene, what are your thoughts? Sweden is a historical rival of Russia. But Sweden in the modern world has been largely neutral. It was neutral during World War Two, along with Switzerland. Two countries in Europe that sort of stood on the sidelines and watched. But I'm sure they were somewhat involved, like Raul Wallenberg, in certain instances of trying to do something about the Nazi menace. As for its importance today, I think the most important thing about it is the symbolism that a state that we have known in our lifetimes as standing aside and being neutral has deemed this so important to its own national security that it has joined NATO. What does this mean symbolically? It means that perhaps in Europe's view, and Manfred could give us a better idea of this, the threat posed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine is much, much greater than it has been for the last 80 years in terms of any other threat to the integrity of Europe. And Manfred, how does Europe feel about this? Because, and I'll ask Tim, after a while, how does the United States feel about this? But is Europe behind Ukraine? Is Europe actively supporting Ukraine? Is Europe providing weapons and perhaps soldiers to Ukraine? Is Europe as excited as it was two years ago about what's happening in Ukraine? The support of Europe, I think, is solid, unlike the support of the United States. And the admission of Sweden and Finland to NATO is another sign of really the defeat of Putin's strategy. It's not only that for two years now, you have the Ukraine fighting Russia, which had this image of being really a strong military power, but the war has shown that it's not true. The weaknesses, the losses, the unbelievable failure of Russia to defeat Ukraine in two years has strengthened, I think, the support that the rest of Europe had initially given to Ukraine. And in Germany, you know, is now next to the United States, the strongest supporter militarily and financially. But you have this support in the EU as a whole. So it has strengthened the EU and it has strengthened NATO. And that, I think, contributes to the defeat of Putin's strategy. Now, the only problem that you could say we have at this point is the support that Putin indirectly gets by the behavior of the American Republicans. I want to ask Tim about that. Tim, you know, to the extent that the EU continues to support Ukraine, the real problem here is that the eight hundred pound military force, military power, economic power is the United States. Now, the United States, let me put it this way, is not supporting Ukraine. Sorry. Your thoughts. My thoughts immediately go to the, you know, you you hear the term that elections have consequences. Well, that's very true because elections put in leaders in place. And here in the United States, the case that Donald Trump is still a leader, although he's not president, but he's still, in fact, a leader of the Republicans. And certainly, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, these are leaders. And these two leaders alone have shaped opinions and values of other Republicans to back away from their support for Ukraine. I think Congress still enjoys even a lot of Republicans still enjoy and still support Ukraine, regardless of what Trump says and what Mike Johnson doodly follows his instructions. But you do have converts in Congress, specifically Lindsey Graham, who was a stalwart, you know, anti-communist and believed very much in the military interventions abroad and United States to be proactive abroad. But we've seen a complete 180 from Lindsey Graham. So their their leadership is influencing the ranks of the the mega and and normal Republicans. And certainly that's not good for Ukraine. You know, bottom line, let me add the thought that the bottom line is what the country does, what the country does in terms of weapons, what the country does in terms of money. So you can have all kinds of various public opinion, you know, from one side to the other. But at the end of the day, it's what the country does. And right now, the country is doing nothing. This must have an effect on on Europe. Man, let me let me go back to you for a minute. This must have an effect on on on Europe. They they they have relied on the U.S. as Ukraine has relied on the U.S. for support of Ukraine. And now they look to the West, they look to the United States and they find nothing. How does this affect them? Well, I think it helps to unify Europe in a way that was not anticipated before. It pushes Germany, you know, in the leadership position where it didn't want to be, didn't want it to be for a long, long time. And it has made Europeans aware of the weakness of its defense system. And people are nervous in Europe about Russia. The threat is seen by not only in the Baltic states and Finland, but all over Europe. On the other hand, you could say the lack of military success of the Russian military in the war against Ukraine has also been seen as a hopeful sign, you know, so you don't have this guerrilla in the neighborhood being as guerrilla like as people may have felt before. But I think overall the American that the threat of Trump becoming president and leaving NATO has reinforced tendencies in Europe, you know, to unify. And somehow create also a military attachment to the EU, which you didn't have until this point. OK, from your lips to God's ears. Jean, let me ask you about the dynamics going on here. Trump, it seems clear, does not want Ukraine to win. He doesn't want it to prevail. And I think he's been consistent that he owes something to Putin, whether it's compromise or golden showers or some kind of thing under the hood that he owes. You maybe that hotel he wants to build in Moscow. It's transactional. You can see it unfolding as a transactional process. He is always favored Russia and seems increasingly so. And he has control of Mike Johnson. Johnson works for him and Johnson is the speaker. So where is this going? What is this dynamic? You know, as we get closer to the election, it gets more pronounced and Trump gets bolder as he wins, you know, the nomination in the various states. How does that affect the ultimate result of the ultimate result being stasis in the United States until November? And if Trump wins a whole new ballgame, remember what he said? He is going to be a dictator and he is going to solve the Ukraine problem on day one, I think he said. And the implication was he was going to hand it over. Your thoughts about this dynamic? I've been studying the dynamic of the rise of Trump for eight years because I recognize that he's a fascist personality. And how does that happen in the United States? Well, it usually does happen in democracies, unfortunately. So I went back to Max Weber's theory of charisma. And there have been a lot of improvements on that theory by social scientists since he raised it. Charisma is the power to compel devotion. And it's a magical power. It sets the individual apart. The individual has certain characteristics. And one of them is to be counter to the prevailing social hierarchy that's in place, the bureaucracy, to challenge institutions. And he does this by gathering followers, devoted followers whose devotion is almost to being seen as semi-divine. And for this reason, the need of the charismatic leader is to continue to maintain and grow his power, which is why Trump is more interested in aligning with Putin because Putin, you see, is a greater charismatic leader than he was at the outset. And so the theory is that one way you amass more power in the eyes of your devoted followers and your incredulous onlookers is to align yourself with someone who's scale of power and charisma is greater than your own. So who could be greater than Putin? Arguably the richest man in the world through corruption and the head of a major state, the chief rival of the United States. It's all about personal power. It's not about national security. He is more interested in holding rallies for his movement than he is in being the bully pulpit of the United States because he is amassing power. He must keep power. He has to win. He needs his devoted followers. He needs his incredulous onlookers like the media who keep giving him the oxygen he needs. And he aligns himself with these colossal players like Putin and even Kim Jong-un, who has an enormous nuclear inventory. He does this to increase his own power and status. I what I hear from what you say is that this is not static, that this is going to increase as we get closer to November. And in November, it's going to increase again. You know, it's the emboldening process. He would be emboldened. He has been emboldened by a success in these various state primary elections and it would be further emboldened as and when he wins. So the result is he's going to be looking for that power and he's going to be undermining Ukraine or giving it away. It seems clear that with Trump the way he is now, he's going to be following the same path further emboldened going forward. You agree? Yes, because that's the only thing he knows how to do wants to do and needs to do. He is totally self-concerned, but he projects upon a movement exactly what they want to hear, which is why they are so so strong in their devotion to him. The way in which you depose a charismatic leader, they always incite rivals. And what they do with their rivals is they make them into unworthy challengers and by humiliating them or giving them nicknames or just striking the right note to try to tear them down so that they seem less than what they are. Anything that shows the relative power and status of the charismatic leader is what the charismatic leader does. And this is why you have to always kiss his ring and give him the right to make the decisions. It's it's an incredible study of the of the of the interjection of personality into politics and history. We know that certain individuals have had an outsized impact on history and we wonder why they inspire this this devotion among a critical mass of individuals. The way you take them down is you have a champion who can defeat them. You know, a Navalny type, for example, as came up in Russia and who may be in more danger to Putin dead than alive. If if Putin weakens that he is someone to rally around. We don't like that in the United States right now. Nikki Haley tried, but she doesn't have what it takes and she can't inspire it. The charismatic leader depends upon his followers. More than anything else. Let me read you something that's very, very funny. I really have to read this. I'm sorry. A little comic relief here, Jean. Yeah, yeah. OK, this is an example of charisma. If a man runs naked down the street, proclaiming that he alone can save others from impending doom. And if he immediately wins a following, then he is a charismatic leader. If he does not win a following, he is simply a lunatic. But I think I mean, look, I find it very interesting what you have said. But you are a grandisement of of Trump's charisma is a little bit. I think of the mark because the lunacy dimension of that guy. The madness that Mary Trump, I mean, the clinical lunacy, not only the social lunacy is so obvious also to people who have not become followers, that I think this will be playing the role against him. And whatever you may have said about Nikki Haley as being not successful, she has proven that at least 15 to 20 percent, if not more, of the Republicans will not vote for him. Now, in addition to all of the others, you know, who certainly will not vote for this lunatic, I think the exaggerated presentation of the charismatic Trump that you have given us is, I think, as I said, it's a little exaggerated. But it's very interesting what you said about Trump. It's being presented through all of these court cases. He's not acting like a guy who was naked in the street. He's acting like a lunatic and he's working for him. It's working for him. No, you can't touch the man in the long run. It will work partially for him. But I think in the long run, there are not rational, reasonable Americans left. Whatever you may think about this country, I still believe and that as a reality and that these reasonable this reasonable majority will not let the lunatic get into the White House. Yeah, we may need to make a side bet about that, but not on the air. While you're testifying, I would like to ask you one question that came up. You know, so I think we have agreed that Trump is going to continue to do this. He's going to control Johnson. And unless something remarkable happens, Johnson is going to is going to control the Congress and there won't be any support from the Congress for Ukraine. OK, that's that's OK. That's that's the static approach. It will stay the same between now and November or January when Trump takes office. But there's another thing here. There's another part of this dynamic I want to ask you about. You know, we have been assuming that the the country, the United States will continue down the same path with Trump. It's a reasonable assumption. But suppose we have an assumption that is much worse. Suppose we have Trump affirmatively taking steps to give Ukraine affirmatively back to Putin. Now that has a different effect on Europe, doesn't it? That is a betrayal of major magnitude, isn't it? And how does Europe react to that? Well, in the way I indicated earlier, it will get closer. It will, I think, put up a fight. And there's one other thing that you have to remember. I mean, Trump is not able of handing the Ukraine over to Putin. The Ukraine is not capable. I mean, is not manipulatively is not capable of being manipulated that way by Trump. But there's one other thing I mentioned that earlier when she talked about Putin Navalny. You know, one of the interesting things about the the death of Navalny and the circumstances of his funeral that Putin has underestimated that a dead Navalny is as dangerous, maybe even more dangerous than Navalny alive. I mean, he has not been. He has not anticipated this impact of his death. I like to ask, I like to ask Tim about that, because we've seen a certain amount of press about it. And we had that strange negotiation about whether the funeral would be secret or public or what have you. And, you know, Tim and I have often compared notes on the news cycle. And I give you two weeks, maybe, because Putin has great skill in propaganda and in controlling the news cycle. Is Navalny a real threat going forward? Or will Putin arrest anyone who speaks, you know, of him as a martyr and and stop that process? What do you think, Tim? My initial thoughts is I was extremely surprised that Russia or Putin turned over the body to his to his wife. I thought I thought Putin was smart enough to know just a threat that Navalny was live or a dead. And certainly now that he's dead, I think that I agree with Gene and and Manfred that that thread much larger today. And so I was completely surprised the body was turned over. So the more you crutch, but then finish, Manfred. The more you try to tap down a martyr, the greater the strength starts to bubble up, comes up top, comes from the sides and people will they will maybe directly confront Putin and his regime, but they'll do it in ways that are just as damaging. I hope so. But, you know, the reality there was an article in The Times yesterday with all the photographs of the of the funeral and the police were arresting people and you can feel the cold hand of Putin all over it, trying to suppress. He does know how to do that. And he does know about how to how to intervene with other news in the news cycle. And let me let me go to you, Tim, also for a discussion of what is going on in the battlefield? Because what you have here is this attack on Odessa, which narrowly missed Zelensky and the prime minister of Greece. You have the Russians taking new territory. You have the Russians continue. It's a war of attrition and Putin, I believe, is taking advantage of the vacuum that he sees in the American Congress. But what what is the state of affairs? He there was a really, really interesting article on NBC News about how the Ukrainians did not have ammunition that, you know, in addition to the fact that they have morale problems and recruitment problems, how's it going? And what does that mean in terms of finding a way to reverse this process? Well, first off, as far as munitions, a lot of that is coming from South Korea and Turkey right now. So they are getting munitions. They have to be, you know, used a little more sparingly than than in the past. Then we haven't heard anything about the cluster bombs for a long time because there was some push pushback about the the ethical use of or moral use of cluster bombs. But as cluster bombs, that that ensures a stalemate within the trench warfare that we're now seeing in Ukraine. We also have an update that the Netherlands is going to send those F 16s there's a delay in that delay will be the end of spring early summer. But those F 16s are very, very crucial for for Ukraine to try to balance the power of air, air support. And so I just see continued stalemate here. I think that the fifty four billion dollars of that, which Europe has committed, Wilkes continue to supply munitions to Ukraine so that they don't, you know, completely run out of munitions. They may not have as much as before. But I don't I don't think that interrupts the stalemate that we currently see. And I think it's as business as usual that Russia may make some territorial gains here and there. And there may be some counteroffensives from Ukraine that, you know, make a few headlines here and there. But until November 6th, 2024, I don't think Putin is going to move one inch of his his desire to continue to take Ukraine. We'll see who's elected president that may shift the board. And, you know, that that suggests, doesn't it, that Putin is not going to be interested in settlement of this matter. He's not going to be interested in peace negotiations. He's got the upper hand in the American Congress and in terms of maintaining an attrition. Your thoughts about the possibility of peace negotiations, you know, I suspect that there is a an offer on the table that was put on the table before the war started. And Putin has actually detailed that in a recent speech. If there was a movement on the part of Trump that people were elected to implement that peace agreement. Then I think Putin would jump at it. If Biden is reelected, I really don't know what his generals and emissaries would accept in terms of a negotiation. But I do feel there's been a rift between Zelensky and Biden. I mean, his wife refused to come to the State of the Union address. So that and I think that's important. I think that the Ukrainians are feeling betrayed, alone, fearful and despair. They are looking to European allies for support. They are, in essence, wanting to commit to Biden because they're afraid Trump will win. Again, this is the power of charisma on the part of those who are outside of his movement, like the media, who are doing exactly the wrong thing and covering him. We forget that January 6th took place here. There was a similar thing that took place in Brazil against Lula's administration. Bolsonaro would not concede defeat and they stormed. I think it was their parliament building. They have taken steps legally to punish these people and to basically sideline Bolsonaro, who is a very Trump-like threat in Brazil. We have been totally ineffective in doing that. We have basically followed the theory of charisma in terms of how we reacted to Trump because it takes that kind of reaction to keep him in power and to keep him as a player, just as in Germany, after the Munich Putsch and Hitler was put into prison, he wrote, Mein Kampf came out with this narrative, formed a greater army, personal army of his own through REM, and then he gained little by little. He took advantage of the institutions and he gained power. So we see this happening. That was a weak Weimar Republic. Trump is characterizing the United States as American carnage. He's continuing to do that. He did it in his latest speech. He has to present the notion of the opposite of the city on the hill and get everybody into a sense of despair so he can be the savior. And this is working in the United States. And that is the big thing, not necessarily all of the I mean, ammunition is important, but narrative is more important. And so is power and status. Well, from what you say, you know, the the lock up in Congress is going to continue because Trump wants to use it as as a as an element in beating Biden in the presidential election. He doesn't want Biden to succeed either in supporting Ukraine or in making peace. He wants the whole thing to be in chaos until he gets into office. So my and and thereafter, he wants to, you know, fix it one way or the other. I won't trust him in any way. But but let me ask you this, though, and I'm going to ask the same question to Manfred, assuming the U.S. never gets its act together between now and November. I think it's a good assumption. I I firmly believe that assumption. Can Zelensky continue? Can he avoid a defeat? Can he win without the United States? Look, I'm not as pessimistic as all of you are. I think this war has shown that. Manfred, answer the question. The big answer. If you wish to answer it, answer it. The big loser is Putin. And whatever you, you know, Jean has said about charisma, the most charismatic person in this war is Zelensky. I mean, he has really made it possible for the Ukraine to defeat Russia for two years. I mean, the losses that Russia, the military losses in in personally has really gone through are extraordinary. So for that reason, I think the Ukraine will not become defeated by the Republicans and the Putin. You will have you called a stalemate. I think this will continue and the stalemate will in the end lead to the success of the Ukraine and the defeat of Putin. I'm very sorry. I think Putin is the loser in this war because he has lost all of the charismatic imagery that surrounded him and he has not succeeded. And I think I don't believe that Trump will become president. I'm sorry. I still believe in the majority of reasonable Americans who will keep this lunatic out of the White House. OK, OK, let me go to Tim. Tim, the same question for you. Can Zelensky prevail or at least hold the line without help from the United States? Until November 6, yeah, I think he'll rely heavily on Europe and their commitment of the fifty four billion dollars. You have again, as I said, South Korea and tricky outside of the EU, supplying weapons and munitions. You'll see the the delivery of the F-16s. The pilots are being trained in Arizona. They're being trained in Europe. So that will help Zelensky hang on. So it's it's not for how it's not if it's just for how long. And I think he gets through our election in 2024 and see where the playing field leads. He may, you know, if it doesn't go well for him, he may have to go to the negotiation table with hat in hand. But this depends on who's the president and how funds will be forthcoming to supply the war effort in Ukraine. What can Joe Biden do in the circumstances? You know, there's been suggestions in the press that he finds ways, you know, to provide at least some support under the table to to Zelensky. And what can he do? You really want my answer on that? Yes, the thing Joe Biden to do is commit that he won't become the next president for a second term. He has no charisma. He has his credibility is is is faltering like a rock. Um, it's time to a different nominee for the United States for the Democratic Dicot. OK, let's assume there's another nominee for president. Let's assume that I'll give you that point. And this nominee has charisma. OK, he has charisma or she question. Then is what does that person do in order to reverse this problem in Ukraine? Look, be it 2015 election, be it the 2020 election, it's not that people voted for Trump. They voted against Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Yeah, I agree with Gene. There's a charisma of Donald Trump that hits maybe 33 to 40 percent of of Republicans, but there's a lot of Republicans. This this can't they're holding their nose as they support the Republican ticket. It's not Donald Trump that they like. So anyone who has some charisma that can the synergy of a different candidate with some charisma on the Democratic Dicot will be more than enough to break open the the logjam of funding and support by both Republicans and Democrats to support Ukraine. And then Putin goes, that's it, I'm not going to get any further. OK, well, he got that person just got to go to Congress and make a bigger impression on Congress. Gene, I want to ask you a larger, a larger look at this. You know, the word betrayal came up in that in that article on NBC and betrayal is a word I used earlier because if you if you look at this, the average person outside the United States and many people in the United States would see our initial commitment to help Ukraine at the outset, all of the rhetoric we were going to help Ukraine. And that's Joe Biden's rhetoric. We have we have left an impression on the world, I think, of betrayal. And we have lost credibility. Even if you stop this ball game right now, we have lost credibility in so many places with so many people around the world. Do you agree with that? And what can we do if anything? Don't agree with that completely. I think we always have to form our opinion through the filter of the press. And I don't think the press really gets it all the time. My father used to say, as Manfred has been telling us, that, you know, it's it. It's a great world for the dumb guy and never underestimate the common man. He believed in the voting power of the common man in the United States. But that was not under the pressure of a charismatic leader. Trump has fulfilled all of the sequential steps that a charismatic leader of a malevolent type. There are good, good charismatic leaders, too. Needs to gain power, legitimate power with and status within the United States. I have changed my mind. I changed my mind based on data and what I can summarize from data. And that is, I thought that the theory of charisma after Trump lost and then he lost in 2022 with his candidates that this losing would. Would basically overturn him as a charismatic leader, but it didn't. And I see that the press and in other ways, his followers are devoted to him. He has made a specific outreach to Hispanic theocrats in the evangelical movement. I you should watch the speech he gave in Miami about four or five years ago. It's amazing the way he controlled that audience. And that's one area in which he's slipping is with his that Biden is slipping with Hispanics. And there are other areas in which he's slipping. If we have Joe Biden step aside, there's no guarantee that somebody would emerge and would be nominated. That could be a foil to Trump. Everybody so far has failed. All of our other leaders have failed. But it would give some place for the people who are unhappy in the Democratic Party and in the Republican Party to go. Other than Joe Kennedy. Yeah, no, you're focusing in on the country, but I'm asking you about the world. I'm asking you whether we have lost credibility and to what extent and what we can do to resume our credibility. Not through Ukraine. It's through Gaza and and the. Long term campaign of the Palestinian terrorists to go to legitimate venues like the International Court and paint Israel like Nazi Germany, basically. Manfred, you know, what could happen with Europe? I mean, you describe Europe as in a very I shouldn't say very, but in an optimistic way that it is stalwart. It is going to maintain its support. Although, you know, I have to ask you, I mean, does Europe manufacture ammunition? NATO hasn't been called on to do any fisticuffs in a long time. Is is is Europe prepared to do boots on the ground? Is you're prepared to give that fifty four billion dollars that Tim was speaking of? And what could change those things? Assuming again that the United States will be locked up until November or after. What can what can happen to make Europe be more supportive or possibly less supportive? All these factors, all these variables are in play. The only thing that's unchangeable is change itself. No, I think that the European support, including the German support for the Ukraine is very strong. It will not change. And you have to remember that after the unification of Germany, the pacifist and image of Germany grew. Germany had become a very, very pacifist country. And I think the invasion of Russia in Ukraine has changed that. It has in most parts of Germany, there are some parts, the East Germany, the former five states of the former GDR of East Germany are still closer to being sympathetic to Putin than the rest of Germany. But you know, you know, the problem is that people get tired and the press does the media doesn't help. They get tired of hearing about Ukraine. They turn to other things. The new cycle, it's not that they don't get tired of the Ukraine. They are aware of Putin's Russia being a threat. And for that reason, there's a difference between the American attitude and the European attitude. And this becomes even strengthened now by the admission of Finland and Sweden. They reinforce, you know, the fears that the Baltic states have and Poland has. So for that reason, the European response to the war in the Ukraine is psychologically, existentially different from the United States. In that regard, you could say the ocean still is different, makes the difference between your United States attitudes and European attitudes. Absolutely. Absolutely. OK, we're almost out of time. I'd like to ask you guys to make your summary statements what you want to leave with our viewership. Tim, can you go first? What can you add to that? What would you like to stress and emphasize from that? What bothers me is it's not so much the Congress's lack of support for Ukraine and funding. What bothers me more are key members of Congress that think all things are great with Putin and that kind of thinking is very disturbing and is starting to gather steam. Yes, a man for your thoughts. What additional points would you like to leave with our viewership? I'm not as pessimistic as my American friends are in this discussion. I do not think that Trump will make it back into the White House. How do you say, in Swedish, how do you say from your lips to God's ears? I don't say it. I don't speak Swedish and I will not try to do it. OK, Jean, up to you. Maybe you can say it in Swedish. No, I'm not speaking. I want to add to what Vicky Cayetano said on this program recently, and we sort of all agreed with her that it might take a catastrophe on the scale of Pearl Harbor to bring the United States to its senses, whether or not Trump is elected. And that could be the fall of Ukraine. Unfortunately, I don't want to say that, but it could be the fall of Ukraine. May I add that it also could be the the reversal of fortune positively for Ukraine if it wakes this country up just like Pearl Harbor. Yeah, we're going to say something. Yeah, yes, before you wrap up, I just want to say something in Swedish. Who's going to do? Who's going to do? Do you remember? That's a serious statement. We do. We try right here on Think Tech. Thank you all. Tim Epichella, Jean Rosenfeld, Manfred Heddingson for a very interesting and thoughtful discussion. Aloha.