Haviv suggets that the Trump Admin might be working on a deal to de-couple Russia from Iran by giving Putin 20% of Ukraine it currently controls. This is not a long podcast but Haviv goes into some detail about the benefits of such a strategy. Would love to get your thoughts on this. I wrote the following to Haviv and I am waiting for a response:
I have much respect for you Haviv, but I am not sure about the “Ukraine for Iran” strategy. Say we give Russia 20% of Ukraine it currently controls. What is to say Putin keeps his end of the bargain either to de-couple from Iran or not try and take 100% of Ukraine later and then the Baltics and then who know what else in Europe?
Why not put Putin back in a box with heavy sanctions on the Russian energy sector plus more and more weaponry for Ukraine AND take our Iran’s nuclear program militarily while Iran is “blind” to weaken both Iran and Russia simultaneously. The U.S. should weaken both, not strengthen Russia in hopes that we can trust Putin to live up to his word and decouple from Iran. Why is what I am suggesting not a better strategy than trading Ukraine for Iran?
Would it be constitutional to enact a statute eliminating executive grants of security clearance, or any means of gaining security clearance besides the standard review process, and any person who is elected to office requiring security clearance and fails to obtain such clearance by standard review is declared incapacitated for the office? Obviously it couldn't pass now, but if the composition of Congress were to change so as to make it politically feasible, would the Constitution remain an obstacle?
I always learn more about our country every time I listen. I appreciate your closing comments on NIH. I am a former Nurse Practitioner of 30 years, and am very concerned about the whole healthcare system. The brain drain and interruption of medical research will take time to be felt, but then will be devastating. Just like in many areas of government it will take time to get research up and going again, and recruiting young people to to Medicine, Research and Nursing.
There is also Bird Flu and Measles and vaccines. Manufacturers do not like to make them. Some years I was working in the aughts we had a very difficult time getting any flu vaccine. We vaccinated many fewer people that year 04/05 was a very long and severe season. I saw people with flu from early October until almost May and I am in South Carolina where spring is early FEB/MAR.
Thank you for such an informative, worthwhile discussion. And letting us hear Alex Vindman's always enlightening thoughts on Ukraine battle to oppose Russia's war of aggression. How this will end/evolve seems almost anyone's guess. But I also appreciated Eric and Eliot's discussion of what damage our foreign policy infrastructure will undergo in this administration, with likely lasting fallout. It's terrible to picture our offices in this realm becoming filled with a middling mediocrity. After we willingly sacrificed our best. My question always remains: who, exactly, is all of this being done for? Why are we choosing to do this much damage to our country? My silent thinking on some possible answers is not encouraging, not good.
TRUMP’S PRINCIPLE MOTIVATION IN ALL THINGS IS MAKE OTHERS SUFFER
Trump's fundamental motivation is to fuck things up for the sake of fucking things up. This is most obviously the case with: tariffs, massive layoffs, reduction in critical services to people like veterans, the destabilization of Europe, the abandonment of Ukraine and deliberately throwing the US economy into a recession. This is the only meaningful explanation for his otherwise cruel and bizarre behavior and dipshit rationalizations.
TRUMP WAS DEEPLY, DEEPLY TRAUMATIZED AS A CHILD BY BOTH HIS MOTHER WHO PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY ABANDONED HIM AND HIS FATHER WHO REPEATEDLY MENTALLY ABUSED HIM. HE NOW DOES TO EVERYONE WHAT WAS DONE TO HIM AS A CHILD.
THUS, TRUMP CONSTANTLY LIVES WITH THE MENTAL CHAOS AND MADDNESS HE GREW UP WITH. HE ACTS OUT TO BRING ABOUT CHAOS AND MADDNESS IN OTHERS TO GAIN TEMPORARY RELIEF FORM THOSE DEEPLY PAINFUL INTERNAL STATES. THIS WILL NEVER END.
Trump has an infantile personality. He has the 3-year old’s belief that disobeying and being oppositional makes him powerful. It obviously doesn’t since all his actions are reactive and therefore dependent on opposing others.
He is also deeply paranoid and sadistic consistent with a Psychopathic (not Narcissistic) Personality Disorder. His narcissism is a feature of his psychopathy. Alternatively we could just say that Trump is a sick, sick motherfucker.
Fascinating conversation, and now Vindman's book is in the bullpen as I am in the process of completing "Intent to Destroy" by a recent guest of yours, Eugene Finkel.
The one thing I would like to say about the US History with Ukraine has to do with Ukraine's and Russia's history itself, but also of the way we Americans deal with foreign policy.
Right or wrong, Russia and Russians have seen Ukraine as a part of Greater Russia for centuries. I say that as an historical comment, not as an argument for US or Western abandonment of Ukraine. In fact, I am in favor of supporting them, to quote Former President Biden "as long as it takes".
But given that history, it will take very long indeed--maybe forever. In fact, I don't think Putin can survive if he is ever truly defeated here. So, as it should have been in Afghanistan and never was, it would be useful now and in the future if honest assessments could be given to the American people about what exactly we are getting ourselves into.
Great show, both as to the conversation with Alex Vindman and your own exchange that followed. Vindman’s historical analysis
was not only cogent but remarkably complete, as was hid analysis of the unknowns going forward; or unsettling more to the point.
And on your discussion of the consequences of squeezing out the collective knowledge of roughly the middle-third of the country’s national security national security establishment, it’s worth adding that it wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. The most recent example bring the “Peace Dividend” following the collapse of the USSR, in which so many professionals with expertise in Russia/Eastern Europe and/or their respective language found themselves without viable career opportunities in the government. And in the process laying the groundwork for some of the policy blunders of both the GW Bush and Obama Administration.
With the key distinction that in the first case the US left the field in victory, however prematurely. While the current circumstances can only be described as tragic.
Good point about the Obama administration or at least Obama, I'd forgotten that a frequent complaint about Obama was that he hadn't either formed or built on our national relationships which rely heavily on the President's relationships and direction. The Russian invasion of Crimea was treated more like a blip rather than a significant event. That was clearly a big mistake.
I always thought even though I did not want Hillary riding Clinton as my first choice that she would have been a better choice than Obama because she not only had her own relationships she had built but those of her husband as well and she had the deep connections that came along with their long government existence.
With current facts, historical references, and personal experience making the case for your opinions, this is my favorite of the Bulwark's offerings. And I so appreciate your measured humor, dark or otherwise, and your humility.
Thank you for including links to your articles. I will be buying Vindemann's book. I've been calling my representatives daily and recently have been focused on one topic only - asking them to support Ukraine. You help confirm my belief in the primacy of that topic. My representatives are all Republicans. I believe that a daily call is like a daily vote. Maybe not, but I know, at least, that I would not be making daily calls if I lived in Russia.
I noticed that the University of Virginia ranked number one in the most recent college free speech environment rankings of FIRE. That's a superb accomplishment.
I guess where I struggle with Eliot’s discussion of basically “Russia weak” is that all of it is true but Ukraine is (1) weaker and (2) utterly dependent. That’s the fundamental problem. Even if Harris would have won there was almost no chance that the republicans senate would have provided more aid.
Eric’s comments on Obama are funny. That street goes both ways. Why didn’t Europe ever step up on defense after they signed a treaty to 2 percent?
I despise what Trump is doing but at some point Europe actually needs to own up and put cash where its mouth is.
Migs, can you describe how this administration could have, or should have, done to get Europe to act as they now have? Or are you of the mindset that only this shock and awe campaign on the part of our government was likely to work?
It’s a great question. Honestly I don’t think there was a way to get Europe to act on its defense without this type of behavior (the fact that a president has to be this stupid and obnoxious is a sad fact for all of us to ponder). In the end, I’m not sure it’s even good for America not to have Europe dependent on the US but it’s pretty clear they weren’t ever going to do it. They bitched and moaned about Obama pivoting to Asia. Same for Trump and Biden. There strategy has always been wait this president or that president out. Even now they still aren’t doing what is needed. Some are but most aren’t.
I'm known for good questions. :-) Not necessarily for any good answers, but I ask a damn good question! Seems too soon to say that Europe still isn't doing what is needed I think. From what I can glean from the news it seems they need to figure out where the money is going to come from. I'm staying hopeful for now that they will rally collectively, but if they manage to 'get er done' my concern then would be that they will collectively give a big FU to the United States when it is all said and done.
I guess but this war started 10 years ago and then ramped up again 3 years ago and they still haven’t done enough.
The problem with them doing “more” is that fundamentally they are going to have to make really, really hard choices. They will either have to decrease social services or increase taxes and I have a feeling Europe is almost as selfish as we are. The. People. Will. Rebel.
Fiscally most of Western Europe (France, UK, Italy, spin, Portugal, etc) are in a far worse fiscal place then we are. The eu and debt can’t solve this problem. Sure in the short term it will plug the gap (maybe 2 years) but after that those hard choices are going to be presented to the public and my guess is they go for the far right when their social services get cut and taxes go up. Guns versus butter. Butter always wins…now I guess
Fascinating conversation. Thank you for sharing.
Eric and Eliot
I hope you see this. I listened to this podcast by Haviv Rettig Gur (Israeli journalist).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boT1r6KTcT4
Haviv suggets that the Trump Admin might be working on a deal to de-couple Russia from Iran by giving Putin 20% of Ukraine it currently controls. This is not a long podcast but Haviv goes into some detail about the benefits of such a strategy. Would love to get your thoughts on this. I wrote the following to Haviv and I am waiting for a response:
I have much respect for you Haviv, but I am not sure about the “Ukraine for Iran” strategy. Say we give Russia 20% of Ukraine it currently controls. What is to say Putin keeps his end of the bargain either to de-couple from Iran or not try and take 100% of Ukraine later and then the Baltics and then who know what else in Europe?
Why not put Putin back in a box with heavy sanctions on the Russian energy sector plus more and more weaponry for Ukraine AND take our Iran’s nuclear program militarily while Iran is “blind” to weaken both Iran and Russia simultaneously. The U.S. should weaken both, not strengthen Russia in hopes that we can trust Putin to live up to his word and decouple from Iran. Why is what I am suggesting not a better strategy than trading Ukraine for Iran?
Would it be constitutional to enact a statute eliminating executive grants of security clearance, or any means of gaining security clearance besides the standard review process, and any person who is elected to office requiring security clearance and fails to obtain such clearance by standard review is declared incapacitated for the office? Obviously it couldn't pass now, but if the composition of Congress were to change so as to make it politically feasible, would the Constitution remain an obstacle?
You guys are great. Consistently.
I always learn more about our country every time I listen. I appreciate your closing comments on NIH. I am a former Nurse Practitioner of 30 years, and am very concerned about the whole healthcare system. The brain drain and interruption of medical research will take time to be felt, but then will be devastating. Just like in many areas of government it will take time to get research up and going again, and recruiting young people to to Medicine, Research and Nursing.
There is also Bird Flu and Measles and vaccines. Manufacturers do not like to make them. Some years I was working in the aughts we had a very difficult time getting any flu vaccine. We vaccinated many fewer people that year 04/05 was a very long and severe season. I saw people with flu from early October until almost May and I am in South Carolina where spring is early FEB/MAR.
Thank you for such an informative, worthwhile discussion. And letting us hear Alex Vindman's always enlightening thoughts on Ukraine battle to oppose Russia's war of aggression. How this will end/evolve seems almost anyone's guess. But I also appreciated Eric and Eliot's discussion of what damage our foreign policy infrastructure will undergo in this administration, with likely lasting fallout. It's terrible to picture our offices in this realm becoming filled with a middling mediocrity. After we willingly sacrificed our best. My question always remains: who, exactly, is all of this being done for? Why are we choosing to do this much damage to our country? My silent thinking on some possible answers is not encouraging, not good.
TRUMP’S PRINCIPLE MOTIVATION IN ALL THINGS IS MAKE OTHERS SUFFER
Trump's fundamental motivation is to fuck things up for the sake of fucking things up. This is most obviously the case with: tariffs, massive layoffs, reduction in critical services to people like veterans, the destabilization of Europe, the abandonment of Ukraine and deliberately throwing the US economy into a recession. This is the only meaningful explanation for his otherwise cruel and bizarre behavior and dipshit rationalizations.
TRUMP WAS DEEPLY, DEEPLY TRAUMATIZED AS A CHILD BY BOTH HIS MOTHER WHO PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY ABANDONED HIM AND HIS FATHER WHO REPEATEDLY MENTALLY ABUSED HIM. HE NOW DOES TO EVERYONE WHAT WAS DONE TO HIM AS A CHILD.
THUS, TRUMP CONSTANTLY LIVES WITH THE MENTAL CHAOS AND MADDNESS HE GREW UP WITH. HE ACTS OUT TO BRING ABOUT CHAOS AND MADDNESS IN OTHERS TO GAIN TEMPORARY RELIEF FORM THOSE DEEPLY PAINFUL INTERNAL STATES. THIS WILL NEVER END.
Trump has an infantile personality. He has the 3-year old’s belief that disobeying and being oppositional makes him powerful. It obviously doesn’t since all his actions are reactive and therefore dependent on opposing others.
He is also deeply paranoid and sadistic consistent with a Psychopathic (not Narcissistic) Personality Disorder. His narcissism is a feature of his psychopathy. Alternatively we could just say that Trump is a sick, sick motherfucker.
Dr Strangelove
Stanford-trained Clinical Psychologist
Thank you for having Vindman on today. It's so good to hear from him and from you at this time.
For more historical context, please include a link to this interview earlier this year on Ukraine history with Russian aggression. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/russias-long-history-of-subjugating
Yes, that was pretty informative, although I cannot think of a single Shield of the Republic podcast here that isn't.
Fascinating conversation, and now Vindman's book is in the bullpen as I am in the process of completing "Intent to Destroy" by a recent guest of yours, Eugene Finkel.
The one thing I would like to say about the US History with Ukraine has to do with Ukraine's and Russia's history itself, but also of the way we Americans deal with foreign policy.
Right or wrong, Russia and Russians have seen Ukraine as a part of Greater Russia for centuries. I say that as an historical comment, not as an argument for US or Western abandonment of Ukraine. In fact, I am in favor of supporting them, to quote Former President Biden "as long as it takes".
But given that history, it will take very long indeed--maybe forever. In fact, I don't think Putin can survive if he is ever truly defeated here. So, as it should have been in Afghanistan and never was, it would be useful now and in the future if honest assessments could be given to the American people about what exactly we are getting ourselves into.
Great show, both as to the conversation with Alex Vindman and your own exchange that followed. Vindman’s historical analysis
was not only cogent but remarkably complete, as was hid analysis of the unknowns going forward; or unsettling more to the point.
And on your discussion of the consequences of squeezing out the collective knowledge of roughly the middle-third of the country’s national security national security establishment, it’s worth adding that it wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. The most recent example bring the “Peace Dividend” following the collapse of the USSR, in which so many professionals with expertise in Russia/Eastern Europe and/or their respective language found themselves without viable career opportunities in the government. And in the process laying the groundwork for some of the policy blunders of both the GW Bush and Obama Administration.
With the key distinction that in the first case the US left the field in victory, however prematurely. While the current circumstances can only be described as tragic.
Oh, yes, if only they listened to you. Illuminating listen, as ever - what a wonderful education you give us.
Good point about the Obama administration or at least Obama, I'd forgotten that a frequent complaint about Obama was that he hadn't either formed or built on our national relationships which rely heavily on the President's relationships and direction. The Russian invasion of Crimea was treated more like a blip rather than a significant event. That was clearly a big mistake.
I always thought even though I did not want Hillary riding Clinton as my first choice that she would have been a better choice than Obama because she not only had her own relationships she had built but those of her husband as well and she had the deep connections that came along with their long government existence.
With current facts, historical references, and personal experience making the case for your opinions, this is my favorite of the Bulwark's offerings. And I so appreciate your measured humor, dark or otherwise, and your humility.
Thank you for including links to your articles. I will be buying Vindemann's book. I've been calling my representatives daily and recently have been focused on one topic only - asking them to support Ukraine. You help confirm my belief in the primacy of that topic. My representatives are all Republicans. I believe that a daily call is like a daily vote. Maybe not, but I know, at least, that I would not be making daily calls if I lived in Russia.
I noticed that the University of Virginia ranked number one in the most recent college free speech environment rankings of FIRE. That's a superb accomplishment.
May I suggest that all articles you link to be freely available to all subscribers to the Bulwark? You could link to pdf files.
I guess where I struggle with Eliot’s discussion of basically “Russia weak” is that all of it is true but Ukraine is (1) weaker and (2) utterly dependent. That’s the fundamental problem. Even if Harris would have won there was almost no chance that the republicans senate would have provided more aid.
Eric’s comments on Obama are funny. That street goes both ways. Why didn’t Europe ever step up on defense after they signed a treaty to 2 percent?
I despise what Trump is doing but at some point Europe actually needs to own up and put cash where its mouth is.
Migs, can you describe how this administration could have, or should have, done to get Europe to act as they now have? Or are you of the mindset that only this shock and awe campaign on the part of our government was likely to work?
It’s a great question. Honestly I don’t think there was a way to get Europe to act on its defense without this type of behavior (the fact that a president has to be this stupid and obnoxious is a sad fact for all of us to ponder). In the end, I’m not sure it’s even good for America not to have Europe dependent on the US but it’s pretty clear they weren’t ever going to do it. They bitched and moaned about Obama pivoting to Asia. Same for Trump and Biden. There strategy has always been wait this president or that president out. Even now they still aren’t doing what is needed. Some are but most aren’t.
I'm known for good questions. :-) Not necessarily for any good answers, but I ask a damn good question! Seems too soon to say that Europe still isn't doing what is needed I think. From what I can glean from the news it seems they need to figure out where the money is going to come from. I'm staying hopeful for now that they will rally collectively, but if they manage to 'get er done' my concern then would be that they will collectively give a big FU to the United States when it is all said and done.
I guess but this war started 10 years ago and then ramped up again 3 years ago and they still haven’t done enough.
The problem with them doing “more” is that fundamentally they are going to have to make really, really hard choices. They will either have to decrease social services or increase taxes and I have a feeling Europe is almost as selfish as we are. The. People. Will. Rebel.
Fiscally most of Western Europe (France, UK, Italy, spin, Portugal, etc) are in a far worse fiscal place then we are. The eu and debt can’t solve this problem. Sure in the short term it will plug the gap (maybe 2 years) but after that those hard choices are going to be presented to the public and my guess is they go for the far right when their social services get cut and taxes go up. Guns versus butter. Butter always wins…now I guess
You should have included a link to Casey Michel's recent review of Vindman's book for The Bulwark:
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/how-years-of-american-policy-bumbling-boosted-putin-alexander-vindman-review