From WXXI news.

This is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Our connection this hour was made three years ago today when Russia launched a war and invaded Ukraine.

Russia wanted to remove the Ukrainian government and expected to march into Kiev within just three days.

Vladimir Putin has said he doesn't recognize Ukrainian sovereignty and he wanted to subsume the entire country, erasing Ukrainian identity.

He badly miscalculated and has been stuck in a long stalemate.

But things are changing quickly.

President Donald Trump took Putin's side last week when Trump blamed Ukraine and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for the war.

Trump said that the United States has spent too much money helping Ukraine.

He wants control over Ukraine's rare earth minerals, and Trump called Zelensky a dictator because there haven't been new Ukrainian elections.

Trump ignored the fact that Russia continues to bomb Ukrainian cities, including the launch of a record 267 drones in the Ukraine overnight into Sunday, destroying infrastructure and killing multiple people.

So how has Russia reacted to the new American government?

Russia's top political commentator said it was a dream.

Finally, hearing an American president echo Moscow's talking points.

Russia's foreign minister said that Trump is right, that the blame for the war should somehow fall on Zelensky in Ukraine.

And now Russia is preparing for a Trump.

Putin meeting, while Ukraine continues to be kept out of direct negotiations regarding its own territory.

I thought that one exchange on CNN really stood out over this weekend.

Jake Tapper was interviewing Steve Wyckoff, one of the president's special envoys, who will work on negotiations.

Tapper pointed out that Ukraine is being asked to give up its territory that Russia has occupied.

Ukraine has to give up its goal of joining NATO.

Ukraine has to give up on calls for Russia to be held accountable for war crimes, including either reparations or international court prosecution.

So Tapper wondered, what does what is Russia have to give up anything?

Here's the exchange.

Been putting a lot of pressure on Ukrainian President Zelensky, as you just noted, and laying out the concessions Ukraine will have to make to end of the war.

What concessions will Russia have to make?

Well, I think in any peace deal, each side is going to make concessions, whether it's territorial concessions, whether it's economic concessions.

I think there's a whole array of things that happen in a deal.

And you'll see concessions from both sides.

And that's the president's, that's what he does best.

He brings people together.

He gets them to understand that, the pathway to peace is concessions and consensus building.

That's word salad.

Woodcock could not name a single thing that Russia is being asked to concede.

President Trump was at CPAC, the conservative political action Conference, this weekend, where Zelensky's name was regularly booed, by the way.

Here's Trump talking about his demands for Ukraine.

Europe gave it in the form of a loan.

They get their money back.

We gave it in the form of nothing.

So I want them to give us something for all of the money that we put up.

And I'm going to try and get the war settled, and I'm going to try and get all that death ended.

So we're asking for rare earth and oil.

Anything we can get.

But we feel so stupid.

His Europe and you know, it affects Europe.

It doesn't really affect us.

Except we don't like to see two things.

Number one, how Biden got us into this thing in the first place.

Terrible.

But why is it that he didn't ask for equalization?

Europe should put up more money than us.

But even if you said the same thing, how come we went so far out front?

And he didn't know that Europe gets his money back?

They did it in the form of a loan.

We don't get our money back.

We get nothing.

So we're getting our money back.

We're going to get our money back because it's not.

It's not fair.

It's just not fair.

Meanwhile, Zelenskyy is now responding to the slur that he is somehow a dictator.

He said on Sunday he's willing to step down if it means peace in Ukraine and specifically, Zelensky says if Ukraine can join NATO, he will resign the presidency.

NPR reports that, quote, Zelensky said he was still not ready to sign the United States latest proposal, which would require Ukraine to pay the United States $500 billion using revenues from its natural resources.

I am not signing something that will be paid by ten generations of Ukrainians, Zelensky said, noting that negotiations would continue.

Our guests are here at this hour to discuss it in studio.

Let me welcome Elena Procopio, associate professor of political science, director of the political science undergraduate program in history, politics and law at Nazareth University and a native, if I'm remembering of Chernihiv.

Is that during your journey in Ukraine?

Yes.

Thank you for being back here.

Thank you for having this conversation.

Welcome to Kind Humans.

Who is hind is the author of War and Punishment and professor of political science and director of the Peter D Watson Center for Conflict and Cooperation at the University of Rochester.

Professor Cummins, thank you for being back with us.

Very happy to be here.

And Mikhail Gerstein is with us, a native of Ukraine.

A documentary filmmaker, senior operations technician and external client services manager, and our colleague at WXXI.

Welcome back.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you for having me again.

Your film is showing tonight.

Is that right?

That's right.

Where is it shown?

Right there on down at 630 at night.

630.

This is a film that Mikhail went in in that first fall.

Now, back in 2023, you went in there and.

222.

My goodness gracious.

I'm losing track to three years.

We'll talk more about the film coming up here.

Let me start with Professor Povich.

When you hear President Trump, when you hear Steve Whitcomb unable to name a single thing that Russia will be asked to concede here.

Is this a piece that you want?

What do you want to see?

no, Evan, this is not a piece that I and a Ukrainian would want, but I would argue much further.

This is not the piece that European allies would want.

This is not the piece that the United States would ultimately want.

I think everything that is happening is really harmful to so many elements of the international order, to so many security guarantees and institutions.

And ultimately, I think it is signaling a very, you know, a very serious weakness and lack of commitment by the United States.

very, danger.

It swings in our foreign policy that cannot harm this country, not even in the long run.

I really think rather soon.

are you at all surprised, though, with any of the speed of which this second Trump administration is pivoted directly toward Putin?

It.

Does any of that surprise you?

It depends on how we think about it.

The speed has been shocking.

absolutely shocking.

But there is a well-developed theory that explains why such haste and why the speed.

It is really a technique of overwhelm of the opponents, and the creation of the, ramp and feeling of emergency, that allows authoritarian bent kind of leaders, parties, movements to impose their will to create the sense of widespread panic.

and so there's logic to it.

I'm shocked.

I am very upset, but I'm not surprised.

It it makes sense for the goals that I think are being pursued in the name of the American people, which I don't think are at all in the interest of the American people.

I've watched a kind of disturbing amount of Russian state television and propaganda, and the chief propagandist who has been saying for three years that he wants the Kremlin to authorize nuclear strikes on Western capitals, is now saying it's time to celebrate in the Kremlin that we have an American president who's saying exactly what the talking points coming out of the Kremlin are.

What do you think we should make of that?

Well, what we should make of this is that conversation is as much as I would like to focus on Ukraine, I'm a native of Ukraine.

I have very strong personal connections in Ukraine.

I really, really care about the nation and the culture and its place in the world.

However, I think the problem is much larger than Ukraine at this point.

what has been really threatened is NATO itself, European Union.

We're going to add to that.

And both are very important for consolidating, European nations into a block that can rival in power economically.

And, you know, negotiation wise, diplomatically, the other great powers of the world.

And so the main and frontal attack, is on NATO, secondarily on the European Union.

And does not Ukraine per se have been the long standing goals, of, Russian Federation, Putin regime, in particular, the goals of destroying those institutions in order for Russia to become relative stronger, be able to negotiate much more effectively with each one of the fragmented small European nations.

And, of course, to deprive them of the effective nuclear umbrella that has guaranteed peace, prosperity, cooperation in Europe for all these decades.

So you think even after three years in which clearly Putin miscalculated about how quickly he could subsume Ukraine, he still would want Russian boots on the ground in other countries, including NATO members.

Do you think that could happen?

I am not sure that the boots on the ground is necessarily the main goal.

Rather, I think the main goal is to be able to assert power economic, political, military over a fragmented and weakened and exposed Europe.

That's, I think, the goal.

The boots themselves are, I think Putin regimes knows that there are limits to their population, their military capacity.

That is not the most important thing.

I think the most important thing is to change the power balance and then to squeeze European nations for all sorts of concessions, starting with economic and going to diplomatic, military, alliance wise.

He can and he can do that whether they invade Lithuania, Latvia or whatever.

Just just some demonstrations of sabotage, of devastating economic or, or, you know, or digital blows these days to any of the smaller countries, panic, inability of the European nations to respond and come to the aid of specific countries and their infrastructures.

I think that would that might just be enough to break the common will of the European nations, to stick together and to resist.

So I don't think it will take boots on the ground, some smaller operations, economic, digital, you know, virtual influence operations might just suffice, because Europeans are feeling very, very exposed right now, and it's very hard to predict how European electorates are going to react to this new and very difficult reality.

they may not be as wise as it is as is necessary at this moment.

Let me turn to Michael yourself, a Ukrainian as well.

And President Trump has said he's going to end the death.

He wants to end this war because he wants to end the suffering, and that all Ukrainians should cheer in any deal that he and his team put together.

What do you think of the deal he was putting together?

We don't know what the deal is.

Apparently.

You certainly.

He wants Russia to continue to hold land.

Well, the Russian propaganda, if you listen, that, you probably know that what they want is what the Putin already proposed, which means to give up the territories which are already partially under control of Russia.

Forget about Crimea.

No.

Ukraine, NATO and and there's a list.

Big pretty long list.

I don't think Ukrainian people will agree on that.

at least my friends, I know they want, President Zelensky just said that he won't sign anything.

That will.

We will have ten generations of Ukrainians to pay off.

yes.

The war is exhausting.

And it brings a lot of pain.

every Ukrainian person here around the world, in Ukraine, specifically at first in Ukraine.

So explain for listeners, though, Mikhail, who I think there's a lot of bad faith political discourse happening, but to the extent that there are people sort of in the middle who say, look, I don't blame Zelensky or Ukraine, but it's now been three years and people are dying.

And shouldn't you just cut a deal and give them that eastern part of your country?

Just give it.

Just go.

Just make it stop.

What do you say to that?

quite often I give an example of me is an invader.

And you see, Ukraine and I invaded your house, so I took the background backyard of your house.

Which is Crimea.

Then I slowly took part of the kitchen, part of the one bedroom, another bedroom and you pick garage, a basement.

And then we decided to do the peace talk and I tell you, oh you can have your living room in the front, front yard, but the rest of the house of mine.

What do you do?

Doesn't sound like real peace.

You're probably going to fight with the same standard.

Take your home back.

Yeah, and I think this.

What's going on in Ukraine right now?

I'd probably wonder when you're coming for the rest of my house if I go.

That's right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So, Professor Cummins, we have spoken about your work analyzing how war's end and the conditions necessary and the pressures on both sides.

What are you seeing here?

Well, if you forgive me, I want to tap into some of the comments that, Mike made earlier.

Yeah.

first of all, so, you know, Russia is a main security international competitor of the United States and for 5% of its defense budget, not its overall GDP for 5% of the United States defense budget.

They managed to significantly weaken Russia.

That's a bargain.

You know, any great power is a realist like John Mearsheimer or somebody else would say would take that, you know, for that, for that cheap of price to, to fundamentally weaken, one of your great competitors.

That's a great deal.

So, if Trump says we want our money back, you got a lot of value for that money, and it's very little.

And you, mate, you had you had great success.

Russia is much weaker now than it was before.

And to follow up on that, it's kind of interesting that one of the sources that I generally follow on the, the for the details, of what's happening on the ground, is the Institute for the Study of War.

They're very good.

They're very detailed.

They really know what they're talking about.

And, you know, they've been saying for a while that this, you know, this coming year is more or less a turning point, slightly in favor of Ukraine because Russia has been launching these massive, massive offensives.

They gained, you know, about 1500 square kilometers, but they had no breakthroughs, no war of maneuver.

And the Ukrainians have learned how to kind of stop them.

And and the losses of the Russians, as everybody know, have been totally atrocious, have been, you know, hundreds of thousands of people.

And they even had to import some North Koreans.

and this year was going to be the year that the material superiority of the Russians would finally more or less come at its end.

So to at this moment when the tide is slowly turning in favor of Ukraine, because Russia cannot sustain these kind of losses for the medium term to at this point, at that point yanked the support out from under the Ukrainians is, is beyond tragic.

It's like it's very poor, but it's very poor decision.

It's very ill informed.

It's counterproductive.

It has hurt.

Going to hurt the United States, very much in the long run.

for a host of reasons, not only will be a stronger Russia, but if you know if Europe as well, then I suggest it gets its act together.

then there will be another major competitor the United States has to face.

So instead of just Russia and China, they will have Russia, China and the United Europe.

I mean, I do not understand how this can be in the interest of the United States itself.

It's it's very shortsighted.

So let me follow that point.

And with the caveat, we don't see the the final outlines to Mike's point of what a so-called deal is going to look like.

Maybe the Trump team convinces Russia to give up, to give Crimea and all of the Donbas to take no territory, restored the full borders, you know, agree to pay reparations.

I know we're living in a fantasy land here.

I mean, the look on a Lana's face tells everything there.

Okay, so we know we're probably not going there.

Likely a deal is going to be forced on Ukraine or attempted to be forced on Ukraine with giving up significant territory, saying goodbye to Crimea, forever, giving away.

I don't know, an eastern third of the country, whatever mineral deal that Donald Trump wants, etc.

and people who are appalled at this are raising the specter of Neville Chamberlain.

Do you see it that way?

it's a that's an interesting kind of analogy there, which we use in different ways.

first of all, the peace deal that probably Putin seeks is to first, administrative units has on, Zaporizhzhia, on this Luhansk.

those for he hasn't completely occupied them yet.

one of my graduate students did a very interesting survey experiment in Russia where he asked what, what versions, individuals, citizens would accept and many of them indeed insist on these administrative frontiers rather than just some, you know, line of control.

I see an interesting parallel there with, 1938 and, if you if you forgive me, I'll have to maybe go on a little bit of depth here.

you know, of course it but most people might know that France and, Great Britain had more or less guaranteed the security of Czechoslovakia.

But Czechoslovakia in the east had a large population of German speaking people.

And the Sudeten land and, Hitler claimed that he wanted unified all the German speaking people into one land.

And this is an essential part of the story, because, Neville Chamberlain, a lot of people and the guilty man, so-called in the Indian kingdom, have been accused of failing to understand that Hitler had unlimited aims because you can impose somebody who has limited names.

If you just want one piece of territory, you can give him an it will be over.

The problem with Hitler as is the problem with Putin at the moment, is that they do not have, limited aims, to have unlimited aims.

I mean, Putin would gladly take the rest of Ukraine, would gladly take the Baltics, would gladly take Moldova.

There's very little doubt in my mind about that.

So the question then becomes, why did the United Kingdom signed and France signed that peace deal in 1938?

And for a long time, the argument is like it has been made at, oh, you know, the Brits were stupid to fail to recognize that Hitler had unlimited names.

But if you look at the capitals and I've spent a couple of months on just looking at in great detail, that's not true.

The majority view they understood.

They understood that Hitler had unlimited arms.

Chamberlain might have been wavering.

He might have thought, I don't know, the first force of his personality.

He could convince Hitler.

But remember, it's a parliamentary system.

He was pretty much into power, as he was the first among equals, and the others could force him to change his mind and his position, as they did at several times.

So, the fundamental alternative argument for what what happened in 1938 was that, the Brits needed to buy time, and people have derided that argument.

But I found an argument in the I found the paper in and archives, which I haven't seen cited before of the chief of the staff, general inlay, making, weighing the case for fighting now or later.

And this is in September 1938.

And I know that to at least two of the cabinet members read it, because the signatures on the, on the documents on the check out list were like you used to have.

And, the argument there is made that yes, if Germany gains Sudetenland, the will be stronger and they'll be strong in the short run.

But on the other hand, we are completely defenseless at the moment against the Luftwaffe and the German Air Force.

If they come, there will be bedlam in the streets.

London will be bombed to smithereens.

We cannot fight now, so we will be better off fighting a year from now.

If in that time we build our anti-aircraft defense, which they did.

And of course, the Brits made it to the Battle of Britain.

Now, that long story that I've just told you is relevant here because, you know, concessions to Ukraine, to Russia in Ukraine might be necessary and might be okay, but only only if the Europeans finally get their act together and build a munitions industry, get rid of all the paperwork and, well, they're talking about that right away.

Are they talking?

But they have been talking for a while.

So they must do it because, I mean, you know, Olena was very, very kind to to speak positively, of the Europeans, but they bear a large part of the, of the, of the blame here.

I mean, they should have gotten their act together 2 or 3 years ago.

They should have built the munitions, they should have ramped up production.

And they didn't do it.

You're saying they can't be naive about what they might be facing?

Well, they're no longer naive.

But the question is, will they actually get the paper and the red tape?

Will they actually do it?

Okay.

And they have to do it.

They have to do the next 2 or 3 years.

Because one last point.

Yeah.

Putin has, you know, those reports on this just credible evidence that Putin is building up the army in the next five years to take on NATO.

So in five years, the Russian army should be ready to take on NATO.

Now, there's problems with the training because all the NCOs are being killed, and the people who train the next generation have to be killed.

But that's the plan to have in five years an army that can take on NATO.

Okay.

And do you see what the Trump team.

You're right to say that they're maybe a little bit more nuanced than history gives Chamberlain credit for.

Do you see any nuance what's going on with the Trump team?

What do you think is motivating this?

There may be some short term deals that are in the interest of either the country or the individual leaders.

I cannot see that as any long term gain to be had by giving power to a competitor.

And, and, and unless your intention is that they're not always going to be a competitor unless you view them as a kindred spirit.

Now, you don't think so?

No.

That's just I mean, like, you know, the so-called realist Keith Kellogg, you know, the so-called realists in the, in the Trump administration, they don't believe in these kind of abiding endurance, enduring ties.

I'm mostly saying if Donald Trump views autocrats as the people that he relates to, best, then he doesn't view alliances as having sort of any real value beyond just transactional leverage.

Well, let me I think that is probably true.

But autocrats, the for him did the values that that they're also transactional, purely transactional.

And you know, if an autocrat changes his position and decides like, oh, we're going to combine it together with, with China and take on, the United States, even if he's an autocrat.

Too bad for Donald Trump and his administration.

Yeah.

so let me just turn back to our other two panelist, and then we'll take some feedback from the audience here.

Professor Prokop, can I ask you for your view on the possible roots here?

Because a lot of the discourse is, well, this deal is going to get negotiated, maybe without even Ukraine being in the room, and Ukraine is just going to have to accept it.

If Zelensky and Ukraine don't accept it, what happens?

And what do you see?

The Ukrainian election is this galvanizing Ukraine, which you know, I mean, Ukraine is not a monolith.

There's plenty of people who at this point probably would like an election or maybe don't love Zelensky as much as they did three years ago, but now all of a sudden, they seem to be rallying from what I can tell.

What are you seeing?

I'm seeing, various processes.

I don't think the line separating, supporters of Zelensky and opponents have changed substantially.

Nor do I think this situation is changing them.

There maybe a bit of rallying, around the president, but, again, I'm not basing this on any, you know, reliable sociology.

This is just from conversations with my own connections.

So what happens then, if they don't like the whatever deals try to be forced on them?

Right.

it seems to me that it's very much in the interest of Europe to insert itself.

United Kingdom and Europe to insert themselves into the process.

if they, are successfully sidelined from the process, they stand a lot to lose reputationally economically, militarily, diplomatically, all sorts of things.

So I don't think the process will involve only Ukraine accepting or not accepting the decision.

It is my hope that European leaders, the European Union, as a whole and the United Kingdom are are trying to become, involved.

and try I'm trying to, you know, insert themselves as, as they should because the European continent, after all, is the most exposed to the threat from Russia.

So this is my hope that, Europeans will come together.

and, and, articulate their own positions and offer Ukrainians help so that Ukrainians are not choosing between only one deal.

after all, if you are not signing the deal with the United States about rare earth metals, then you can consider other, you know, powers as, as, as as possible, coming to your side in a different way if you offer to sign similar deals with them.

Okay, professor, you wanted to jump in before I turn the mic there.

Yeah.

I mean, I wanted to follow up on, what the professor just said because, unless you.

I agree with, like you said, but unless you assume extreme bad faith on the part of the administration where, they say we're going to make a deal, Russia and the United States over the head of Ukrainians.

And it's a take it or leave it.

And, if NATO members, other native members said, we can't do it, we won't accept it, then Trump has the perfect excuse to pull out of NATO, which may indeed, as you suggested earlier, be part of the overall strategic goal.

Scary thing, right?

At the at this point, I if this is where it's going to end up, this is an entirely, entirely new and scary world in which Larry and I wanted to get back to something that you were saying, and that is and that is the assumption that somehow somebody in the Trump administration is, sort of a principled realist and in fact, is thinking clearly about, interest of the United States in this, in this world, you know, down the road five years, ten years, 20 years from now, I'm not sure I will, give the benefit of the doubt to most members of this very unusual administration and regime.

Maybe we can call it, I there's no reason to think that leaders, national leaders necessarily either know or care about broadly national interests of their people.

We would like to think so.

and that that especially in regard to democracies.

But I'm not sure, this is the case here.

And so I actually do think that the national interests of the United States can easily be harmed short term, medium term, vis-a-vis Russia and possibly even China, for specific goals of of of, you know, of, of our administration and people who are now in power and stand to gain economically and otherwise from everything that is going on.

and relationship with Russia can go in interesting ways.

It doesn't it doesn't have to be some kind of a friendship.

It could be simply transactional use of which other, Trump and others may feel that they can manage and handle that relationship to at least their personal advantage, as opposed to the asserted advantage, advantage of this nation.

And, that's maybe what's driving the process.

and it is right that the assumption that these people are realistic is was was a heroic assumption.

I don't think that, Secretary of Defense Texas is a very long term strategic thinker.

Well, I, I feel like that's correct.

Michael, what when you and I have talked about this idea that even people who are nervous who were watching this play out in the early days and they were really worried about the, the nuclear, the bellicose nuclear rhetoric, which has a paralyzing effect.

I mean, it's used very well.

It's very well documented how Putin has used that to try to to bully people and citizens re citizenry.

You've told me that Ukrainians aren't just going to give up the Donbas and say, okay, it's over.

You know, the Ukrainians don't want to just give up land and walk away from it.

So now, same question for you.

If if the deal is no good, what do you think can happen?

What do you want to happen?

Well, first of all we're talking about the the deal from the person with the six bankruptcies behind him.

So that's a hell of a deal.

Put it this way, if he cannot calculate that in most of those minerals right now are on occupied territories but occupied by Russia territories.

So the deal right at the beginning is already fragile, because in order, for example, Zelenskyy agreed on his 500 crazy billion dollars money.

in order to get those money, Trump will have to agree to take back Donbas region.

Yeah, Zaporizhzhia and here, so on.

And if he gives it to Russia, how is Ukraine supposed to pay him back there.

So there's not that that's the deal maker.

Okay.

So maybe Zelensky should just say like here.

Yes.

We give it to you.

You can have it.

Zelensky can negotiate.

I mean, I read somewhere today that, I think both the person who wrote it with both Putin, who is a former KGB, which is never former and the Trump who is a somewhat some sort of, businessman, pretty much obsessed with the stand up comedian who's standing up to them.

and yeah, he, he does have his, his 55, 7 to 62% supporters in Ukraine.

And here that's in addition.

So he he's his cards are pretty strong at this moment I think.

So now talking about the the Trump's administration I, I doubted that they have any reasonable, outcomes for the future of the United States.

But I really hope that the GOP congressmen and and the senators will put the interests of United States democracy and the world of democracy and in front of the party interests, and they will stop being afraid of Trump and his group.

And we'll stand up.

And we've seen parts of it like 1 or 2 people spoke out.

But I think it's time for, our politicians to stand up and to defend and democracy of the United States.

unless the democracy of the United States is not important anymore.

Well, we're seeing Congress entirely cede its any authority, just happily shoving all power towards the executive branch and ignoring that article one was them for a reason.

Dan Crenshaw, congressman from Texas, recently said that, you know, that Trump makes fun of people he likes, and so he's going to pick on Zelensky.

But Zelensky should probably not just criticize Trump because Trump doesn't like that.

So Zelensky would be do best just to not talk right now.

That's an amazing thing to say.

And we're talking about territorial sovereignty, and I mean a war of the dictating to the independent democratic country leadership.

I think that's that's outrageous, you know, and, again, peace talks without Ukraine, it's not acceptable at all.

Yeah.

No, I mean, that's right.

So that, these peace talks are pretty much plain to, you know, to Russia.

So.

But what's the alternative, Mike?

I mean, what happens if you say, you know, well, we're not going to give you any more weapons.

What's the alternative?

You can say it's unacceptable.

Then this is I'm going to repeat what I keep saying.

Kept saying since 2022.

Europe.

Europe must stand up.

And you restart.

Should have been start.

Should have been given more support to Ukraine.

They they're starting from the first days of this invasion.

They should have.

And they did.

So what did they think of this gas coming from Russia, and other goods that Russia would keep supplying to, to Europe that they decided, like, we're going to watch what's going to happen.

I mean, the whole world was watching for, what, 96 hours?

But I think part of it would bring Venezuelans is saying is that's idealistic.

Europe didn't really arm up.

They didn't increase spending on military defense.

And they may not be in a position immediately.

Yeah.

To say, okay, the United States is pulling the pulling the plug.

We've got your back.

You're saying I don't you don't think Europe can do it.

They can do it for a year.

Okay.

At the moment, but if they don't go and gear up, not much afterwards.

And, and and the and the.

You have to be.

I'm sorry to say this.

You have to be a realist in this.

Yeah.

Because if Ukraine doesn't have the weapons, it can't fight it.

It just will be overrun.

Okay.

And that's the last thing that anybody at this table wants.

No.

I'm very I'm very late for a break.

I want to ask Elaine if you agree with, professor humanizes analysis there.

I agree with basic sort of facts and the logic that that in fact, if the weapons, supplies to Ukraine are drastically diminished, you know, of course, Ukraine will be overrun.

It's just very, very basic now, you know, the question is whether Europeans and and ultimately even the United States, its people and its politicians will settle for that, kind of a result.

We will have to see.

Not there.

There are no guarantees and, and, and history of what we're living through can develop along different trajectories.

I do think it's a very dangerous moment.

And I think of regaining territory is much harder than, not losing it in the first place.

I think it would be a grave mistake to allow Russian troops and Russian power to extend further than it already has.

but but we'll we'll we'll have to see.

we'll have to see what happens.

we have to take this break.

Professor Procopio, which is joining us from Nazareth University, professor, humans from the University of Rochester and my colleague Mikhail Gerstein.

works with us here at Sky and is a documentary filmmaker who spent, a number of weeks in his native Ukraine in the fall of 2022 into the winter.

Let's take this only break.

We got your feedback on the other side.

Coming up in our second hour, we're joined by Valerie Perry of the Democratization Policy Council.

She's located in the Balkans.

She focuses on democracy building in Europe.

And she's talking to us about how many European leaders are already feeling adrift from the United States.

They feel the fraying or breaking of alliances.

We'll talk about what it means next.

Our.

Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Labella associates, dedicated to the pursuit of partnership for more than 40 years, offering services in the development of buildings, infrastructure, environmental and energy projects.

Labella powered by partnership Labella PCD, Aecom.

This is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson, John and grease has been waiting first.

Hey John go ahead.

Jack.

Oh, hi.

I bet you it's Jack.

Hi, Jack.

Go ahead.

That is it is I thank you real, Well, I got a lot of thoughts, so let me try to get through quickly enough for you here.

First thing is that the US 2024 elections where we elected the MAGA movement.

so this is no surprise.

We got what we got.

We saw it coming.

And this is the result, we have, you know, we took the conversation about NATO.

The US is the backbone and NATO.

So without the US, NATO is it is nowhere near going to be what it is.

And, and with the U.S backing out of their support, that's it we have though, in Trump's first administration, we had the famous conversation, if you want to call it that, between Trump and Putin.

And his comment was, well, why would he?

So he accepted Russian propaganda over U.S. intelligence, or the U.S. intelligence community, comparing this to Chamberlain at World War Two.

Really, the difference there is that the United States is the superpower.

United States is the most powerful military in the world.

We're not exactly, a small European country that's going to get run over by Russia.

as far as the plenty of people that talked about emboldening China to now take Taiwan, if Russia can get Ukraine, and this is what's happening.

So it's not just Ukraine and Europe, it's more than that.

It's China.

U.S. election.

So World War two talking about the U.S. didn't have elections, which is just a joke.

United States was not under attack other than Pearl Harbor.

Our country was basically pretty peaceful during World War two.

At home.

Yes, World War Two was raging, but there was nothing holding the United States from having elections.

That's just, on a huge untruth by Trump, which is quite a surprise.

Our Congress and Senate, with the Republican Congress and Senate in the hands of the market movement, there was actually, you know, there was no we shouldn't expect and I don't expect to see any open and honest debate, happened.

they're just going to roll over some do whatever they want, to listen to Donald Trump talk about minerals.

We're talking about, you know, using the US military basically as a protection racket.

We have Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada, same thing.

They want the minerals or the resources from Canada.

and now the Ukraine, and, the Gaza Strip, we're going to double up the water.

Okay.

Yeah.

No, you know, with all of this, what do we expect to happen?

the some of the Republicans, if the Republicans don't stand up and do something, we're going to watch the destruction of Europe and the Pacific next.

It's just a disgrace to do this.

Just so that they can put billions of dollars in the pockets of billionaires is a joke.

Well, let me just jump in, Jack.

I appreciate the call.

JD Vance, as a senator and then the vice presidential candidate said multiple times he doesn't care about Ukraine.

He doesn't care what happens to Ukrainians, and he doesn't think Americans should either.

That's the vice president.

That's the vice president.

So, that disposition is not just lower staffers.

That is what this administration has come to power thinking about a conflict that, as Jack believes, this goes the way it looks like in Ukraine.

What does this portend for Taiwan?

What does portend for other places?

Do you think that that's fair?

Yeah, I mean, I do think it's fair.

I mean, I think that the current administration is short term thinking in the extreme.

They are not aware that the benefits of this alliance and this, you know, that has brought both economically and militarily, I'm just I want to say for a moment that I talk about this stuff with my friends here in the Tokyo, with my contact with Mike Violet, who's a brilliant kind of guy in many aspects, but I'd like to hear from some people in Greece or elsewhere who are strong Trump supporters and who are Ukrainian.

I would like to hear what they think and what their perspective on this is, because perhaps they can help me understand how this makes sense.

Do you want to add to that Professor Procopio, which You know, I, I'll just come back to, to the point that there have been leaders in the world who have wrecked their countries, that we should not be putting the United States in some kind of exceptional category in which this cannot happen.

I do think that what is happening is the wholesale, destruction of our alliances and goodwill, cooperation and trade around the world.

we're apparently not just don't care about Ukraine, we don't care about Canada.

We don't care about Mexico.

We don't care about the European Union.

By the way, United Kingdom doesn't think right now that there is any special relationship left with them either.

Apparently what we care about is Saudi Arabia right now.

That's where a lot of economic investment seems to be headed, right?

and I think, I think they care about Ukraine's rare metals, not Ukraine per se.

and also, I think what they care about is staying in power.

A lot of what is happening, I think, is, a discourse that has meant, first and foremost for the domestic audience that might get energized, excited, and supportive of this kind of a stance of this kind of, politics.

We saw it at CPAC this weekend.

Yes.

The Zelensky, the booing of you.

Exactly, exactly.

So I think a lot of it is the performance, aid for the consolidation of the base that can become, you know what, what allows this increasingly authoritarian and bullying kind of regime to stay in power and probably, destroy various guardrails and checks and balances in, in the nation?

I think it's for them.

and briefly, Mikhail, do you think that what happens in Ukraine is the kind of dominoes the wrong word?

But does it have do you view the Jack's point about whether it's Taiwan, whether it's other parts of Europe as important here has been happening in Ukraine for hundreds of years, actually the Ukraine for hundreds of years, being a shield to the Europe, pretty much holding all these aggressions from all over.

a friend of my and the classmate in me from university when I was back studied, and he's a history professor right now.

And he said a pretty, pretty.

Better than me.

But it's in the film.

But he said that, Europe needed to remember that the development of Europe happened because it was Ukraine or Kievan Rus holding all these hordes of Tatars or whoever and preventing them from going deep into into Europe.

and this is what's going on right now.

Ukraine stands against huge empire with the last military with some support and dignity and big implications beyond that.

Yeah.

Andrew, in around the quite, let me get that call there.

Hey, Andrew.

Go ahead.

Hey.

Okay.

When Israel got attacked by Iran, they sent 300 missiles or something over, and then Israel sent missiles into Iran.

What I don't understand, when Putin sends missiles into Ukraine, which is awful, why doesn't the Europeans and the Ukrainians and the Americans send missiles right back into Russia?

I mean, Andrew, it's because if NATO attacks Russia, the concern is now you're in a war between nuclear powers and Ukraine doesn't have missiles.

Yeah, but I mean, but but Andrew's saying, why don't European nations on behalf of Ukraine?

And I think Putin has tried to paralyze NATO, Ukraine's allies with the threat of, you know, a big, big escalation.

What do you think, Andrew?

I think Putin would have been forced to back off, is they?

I mean, I don't think he's as strong as people think he is.

I agree.

well, we're about to give we're about to attempt to give him just about everything he wants.

Trump is insane.

I can't stand the guy.

I'm a Republican, but he's a not.

I don't get the guy at all.

and thank you, Andrew.

Andrew, thank you for the phone call.

I mean, I just briefly hear the notion of missiles from Europe into into Russian targets.

I mean, I understand Andrew's point.

He thinks Putin was bluffing.

I think the concern was that he wasn't.

But Putin couldn't back down.

Right.

We talked about this a couple of months ago.

He can't back down for his for his own people, because then he loses all his credibility as the charismatic great leader.

Then all this talk about standing up to NATO is tone to be hot air.

He he can't, he can't.

He could not he could not back down to that moment.

At least that's what I think.

All right.

Briefly tonight here, Mikhail, tell people again what is happening tonight that you want them to to attend.

Well, tonight at the Strength alone hotel, the ballroom at the first floor will be premiering the full version of my film.

I mean, you saw the short version last year.

Yeah.

Now it's a full, complete.

And, thanks to a few friends who, helped me with correcting some grammar errors and mistakes.

it is done.

It's an outstanding film.

What's the title of the of the film?

I called The War in Ukraine The View from inside.

It's more like, you can call it The Travel notebook.

While I was traveling in Ukraine, visiting France and, schools and volunteer meeting with volunteers, being next to the, near the front lines, pretty close.

battlefield, one to, seen President of Ukraine Zelenskyy when he was in there.

So when he was in Kherson, which was just liberated when I just arrived to Ukraine, it was a couple days after his son was liberated and and make a life, administration offered me like, literally they call me, like, late night and said, hey, you want to go to Kiev soon?

I was like, of course.

Yeah, yeah, I remember, so but that's that's tonight.

That's what time?

630 at night, 630 at the street.

It's a free screening.

But as I say, keep saying that, donations to help Ukraine, Ukrainian people are always welcome.

So, I'm not sure what's going to happen because the managers at the hotel, just Rafael and I work in some sort of, possibility to.

There's a bar nearby, like, there's a ballroom on the first floor, and there is a bar, so they're working some sort of deal.

All right, well, you'll be there tonight at 630, and you can see the film.

And I would certainly recommend it about 30s.

Professor Prokop, which do you want to leave with the audience?

What are you looking for next year?

I'm looking to, ask Americans to take care of our own politics to, really put our focus into returning us back to democratic practices, not only for ourselves, for future generations, for the whole world.

It is not about Ukraine anymore.

The issues are so much larger, and the wisdom and resolve of American people can determine the history of the entire world.

20s professor, I can't top that.

Yeah.

I want to thank our guests for a very difficult and engaging discussion.

Everyone at the table, which circumstances were different?

but thank you very much, Professor Elena Popovich, professor of political science and director of the political science undergraduate program in history politics at Nazareth University.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you for the conversation.

And answers.

Author of War and Punishment, professor of political science, director of the Peter de Watson Center for Conflict and Cooperation at the University of Rochester.

Thank you.

It's a very good experience.

Thank you.

And Mikhail Gerstein.

Thank you.

My friend will see you tonight to the strengthen.

Thank you.

All right.

More connections coming up in just a moment.

And.

This program is a production of WXXI Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station.

Its staff, management, or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience, any rebroadcast or use in another medium without express written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the connections link at WXXI news.

Org.