Republicans for Ukraine

Welcome to Shield of the Republic Secret Podcast sponsored by the Bulwark and the Miller Center Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, and dedicated to the proposition articulated by Will Saletan Men during World War II, that a strong and balanced foreign policy is a necessary shield of our Democratic Republic. Eric Edelman, a Council at the Center for Strategic and budgetary assessments, a Bulwark contributor, and a non resident fellow at the Miller center. My normal partner in all things strategicory Elliot Cohen, the Robert Eazgood professor of strategy at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in the Arleigh Burke chair and Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies is traveling. But he will report back on his travels, after Labor Day, but I’m pleased to have as our special guest and sheilda the Republic this week, Bill Crystal, the editor at large of the Bulwark, and the founding editor in chief of the late weekly standard. Bill, welcome to shield of the Republic.

Thanks, Eric. Good to be with you. Good to be pinching for Elliot, and, it’s good to see you.

Well, it’s it’s it’s great to have you sort of as we kind of reach the, you know, end of the summer and heading into a very complicated and busy fall. Particularly on on matters affecting Ukraine. We will have a a supplemental vote on additional funds for Ukraine. United States has provided almost forty billion dollars worth of aid. The Biden administration is proposing an additional twenty four billion in aid to Ukraine.

And, the it’ll be interesting to see how that supplemental goes. I mean, there were seventy Republicans who have voted to strike aid for Ukraine from the budget in the House of Representatives There’s been a lot of discussion about this, including during the recent, debate in Milwaukee among Republican presidential candidates. So How do you see the the fight for the supplemental going, Bill? I mean, it it seems to me that this is going to be a bit of a rorschach test for, you know, where people stand on conservative internationalism as a foreign policy among Republicans but it’s a pretty, you know, it’s a pretty dicey situation. I mean, putting aside the question of whether we’ll actually know, have a government shutdown or a budget or a continuing resolution, all of which would be problematic just on the Ukraine side.

I mean, as with all things congressional or many things congressional, it’s it gets complicated because there will be some up or down votes on ate to Ukraine, you know, either to strike it from, supplemental or from an overall, CR continuing resolution, which probably is how they end up with the end up passing on September thirtieth. That gets complicated because there are a million other issues in that that Republicans will or won’t like, Biden spending, and a portion provisions, you can imagine. And the government could get shut down on any of those, and the Ukraine aid is kind of sitting out there It could go separately out of supplemental, but could also be be wrapped up in one thing. So I guess I would step back a little from the minutiae of the congressional stuff, which I don’t have a great handle on. And say this.

I mean, I’m very much of two minds. On the one hand, all things if you had told me, Trump runs on America first, Trump is president for four years. Trump is generally isolationist and doesn’t care about enemies and generally pro Putin.

And hostile to Ukraine.

And hostile to Ukraine added some peach over his behavior on Ukraine, not convicted. And then January six happens, but trump amazingly and terribly remains the leader of the Republican Party and, now is way ahead in the congressional. In the in the primary ballots, balloting and like the likely nominee in a certain way, the party is is better from my point of view, and I think yours a new claim that one might have expected, you know, one might have just expected. Okay. I guess the whole party’s gonna be, you know, America first, you know, by, at this point.

And in fact, either the, the kind of old fashioned strength of the Mitch McConnell, Michael McCall, wing of the party Hey, Romney Bush Wing. Turns out there are people who still believe that. Or and or the drama of Newgrader. I can put it that way. The kind of amazing character of what Putin has tried to do and has done, the brutality of it, the, the uncomplicated good and evil question, frankly.

All of that has cut the other way. And so I think we’re in a very fluid situation. I was thinking about this before. Getting on the air here or getting on the on the audio here with you. And for most of our adult wise, the foreign policy lines were pretty well drawn.

And and there were divisions between the parties, of course. There were divisions within the parties. No but they were fairly predictable. I mean, from year to year, you said there was a wing of the Democrats. It was a government.

There was a wing of the Democrats that was Scoop Jacksonite. There was a in between group. And on the Republican side, there were a few people, and especially maybe more joined than IDs in two thousands. Who were kind of hard headed and national interest. We shouldn’t get involved in the Balkans.

And then people like us who thought we should. But, you know, it was it was not it didn’t change that much. Here, you might say, wasn’t that volatile. The balance of power was kind of fairly constant between these different wings. I do feel like now, in the last, with seven years, I’ve been so unprecedented with Trump, that it’s it’s really hard to know where the momentum is.

I mean, clearly on Ukraine, there was such a rallying to Ukraine after February twenty fourth, of last year that There was huge support even among Republican members. That’s faded some, no question, apparently, just war awareness partly because the natural weight of the trump wing of the party, so to speak, is has has just worn down some of the people who have started off at a good place. On the other hand, the polls still show the Republican electorate is kind of fifty fifty ish, really. Republican house conferences kind of fifty fifty ish. Republican senators better.

And so I guess I’m mildly optimistic that after all the zigs and zags happen in September, the eight will be there for Ukraine. Then there’ll be another vote probably in December if they go to an omnibus from the CR. If the CR only lasts for two or three months, I still think we’ll be okay, but it’s it’s it’s worrisome. I think it’s highly dependent on, events and progress in Ukraine would help, obviously, Ron DeSantis that it’s not a minimalist war. Somewhat contingent on the presidential race, which on the one hand has been bad in the sense that Trump, DeSantis, and Ramaswami, DeSantis being less bad than those other two, but not great.

Have what? Seventy five percent of the Republican electorate at this point and and the ones who were good in the debate, the the other night, Christie, Haley and Pence of fifteen percent. So it’s so if it in a way, given that it’s that lopsided, things on the hill are better than what might have expected, don’t you think?

I think that’s fair. And the public opinion, element of this is worth sort of pausing on for a second, which is I think public opinion, overall, considering that we’re eighteen months into this now almost, has been relatively robust. And, you know, just anecdotally, I know that, when, you know, when I drive down to our place, you know, on the Eastern Shore, as you drive down, and a lot of that’s trump country. Right? It’s rural Sarah Longwell and, you know, rural, you know, eastern shore, Virginia.

You see a lot of Ukrainian flags hanging from doorways, which, you know, frankly, when I first saw them kind of gob smacked me, I was like, are kidding? I mean, where where did they even get these things? It’s been relatively robust and pretty at the top line steady But as you say the kind of worrisome kind of troubling part has been pretty clear decline over time among Republicans to support. As you say it’s kind of split now, kind of nobody has a majority. It’s really kind of split pluralities, you know, forty eight forty eight something like that or low forties maybe on each side.

Ten percent who don’t know. But it has declined, and and that is a bit worrisome because it looks like it could be normalizing a bit around the Trump, Ramaswamy, sort of side of things. Now you and our publisher, Sarah Longwell, have started a an effort to bolster support for Ukraine, in the public with the Republicans for Ukraine. Can you tell us a little bit about that? What prompted you?

And how’s it going? And what are your plans?

Happy to. I I would just add to what you were saying, though, it is. It’s so interesting. It was on the one end when, you know, it looks at it in a sort of, level of congressional votes. And, you know, we’ve gotta hang on.

We gotta get them another twenty four billion at the level of you’ve spoken about this eloquently. We’ve done conversations on it and written about it for the Bulwark. I know this is two. I mean, on the other hand, this is a huge moment in a way. I mean, and and you the whole Putin’s invasion and what’s happening in Ukraine could be a defining moment for the twenty first century.

I think when you go to Europe, they real they feel that way, and they have certainly changed a lot. And, we’ve all argued, is it really an exciting vendor in Germany or not? But I mean, it it’s big, I think. And it’s big here. And incidentally, the democratic party, which someone talks about, has in fact changed, I think, a fair amount, partly because of Ukraine.

I mean, if you had told us that they would be, you know, we have our quarrels of what they’ve done and they haven’t quite been they haven’t been as they’ve been a little more cautious than we would recommend and so forth. On this and other things, and try to us well. They’re even the Fed spending were again, they’re not quite where we are. This is not the McGovern Democrats, you know. It doesn’t feel like it.

So I think a lot is going on. There’s a lot of moving parts, you know. Europe is a moving part. The democratic party is a moving part. Public parties with regard for now in the short term, the key for for for me, for me, and this is why Sarah and I did this is we gotta keep Republican support so the Ukrainians have a chance to I mean, that’s really crucial.

And then we can all have long discussions in a year about, you know, how to build on that and how to form new alliances for the twenty first century and so forth. And so we’ve started out for a republicans for Ukraine. The ad we didn’t add that was shown during the debate. We’ve done the usual medley of digital stuff and billboards and other ads on television stations and some key areas, just making but do we’ve done it in the way that Sarah has done the other efforts of the Republican accountability project and defending democracy together have been down, which is, Republican voters speaking to their cell phones, and saying, Hey, I’m a Republican, and I’m from, you know, Atlanta, Georgia or something. And I’m we gotta support Ukraine, and I don’t and and those, we tested this way back in twenty eighteen, nineteen and really discovered that having regular people saying what they truly believe, and these are real people, and you their names, and they’re putting themselves on line.

Some of their neighbors wanna agree with them and so forth. And saying either I can’t vote again for Trump for a second term or saying, We need to uphold the rule of law or in this case saying we need to stand with Ukraine seems to have an effect. Now we don’t have enough money to change you know, you have to spend tens of billions of dollars if not more to change, you know, public sentiment appreciably. But you can bolster public sentiment when it’s uncertain, you can bolster members of Congress. They see, they go home when there’s an ad in their district and someone from there district or their state is saying this.

It makes them feel less lopsided. I mean, the one thing that happens is people who go to the town halls are the Trump supporters. They are the America firsters. They’re not the, you know, people who are kind of traditional Republicans and think, yeah, we have to do the right thing here or there less. So This bolsters that side of the equation.

So we’re gonna continue this effort. It’ll be the usual mix of paid media and or media and so forth. We’re gonna focus on some key players here in September, who seem to be sort of, you know, swing players, you might say on this on this issue and with advertising, with persuasion of other kinds, we’re working with other groups, somebody from you know, too, and other individuals. To do stuff privately behind the scenes as well. You know, let’s make sure that people, these Republican members of Congress respect, are going up and briefing them and talking to them, and they’re And so they can’t just say, oh, this is the Biden administration, or this is a few never trumpers.

But in fact, there are plenty of people who serve in the Trump administration, plenty of people who voted for twice for Trump, who believe you have to stick with Ukraine. And so getting those people in front of these Republican members, we’re helping others do that behind the scenes. So I think it’s very important. It’s, SSA. This isn’t the Republicans of Ukraine is not the place where we’re gonna have the, you know, the the full board discussion of what the deep significance of this war is for for the next twenty years or the last twenty years, and and may and all the lessons that have to be learned.

But I am struck, but I will say this. Since we’ve had our young guys there and, you know, we had a woman at, devoted democracy together, helping with all these videos. And, you know, this takes a lot of time to recruit these people get them comfortable doing it, telling, you know, helping them a little bit if they need some technical assistance. It’s not very hard getting their approval for the ad, once it’s done, These people are very sincere and very it’s very impressive how many people that sort of like your as you were saying driving down to to your place there. I mean, it’s these are these are not you know, professional foreign policy people.

These are not people who served in NATO in twenty seventeen in training Ukrainian troops. That’s great too. And there are a couple like that, but mostly, these are people who just are looking at this situation with Putin and Russia and Ukraine and saying, you cannot. We cannot let this stand. We cannot live in a world in which he gets away with the invasion and in which he gets away with the brutality in which we bug out of the largest war in Europe in eighty years and let the brutal aggressive dictator win.

I mean, that common sense attitude you know, which you could argue is a cold war attitude and and now a post cold war attitude. I think it’s I’ve been sort of heartened that it it’s out there and it’s pretty strong among regular voters of both parties here in the US. Even though it’s a long way away, it’s not like being, you know, when I discuss this, like you go to Central Europe. I mean, Ukraine is right there. Ukrainians are right there, but but it’s it’s it’s it’s in people’s minds that they do not want to live in a world in which, and they understand the implications for China and the implications for other dictators.

And other aggressors. So I I’ve been somewhat heartened as we put this project together.

Yeah. And, I mean, I’ve I’ve found the ads you know, actually in many cases, really quite moving, and great from my point of view antidote to, some of the effort on, the other side. I was thinking of heritage, which has been putting money into ads saying, well, you know, Biden wants to send more money to Ukraine instead of sending it to wide to deal with the wildfires, which, you know, the kind of we need to do nation building at home kind of stuff that you would have anticipated not coming from you know, the center right, you know, a few years ago, but but from the, you know, McGovernite left as you were saying. So at at a minimum, I think it it does that. Who who do you see as the key players on the Republican side?

I mean, you mentioned McConnell and Jonathan Last had a big piece on McConnell in the in politico about how Senator McConnell sees it as sort of his you know, defining kind of maybe legacy effort at, you know, as he is moving on in years, to try and preserve conservative internationalism in the Republican Party, and he’s trying to bring along a, you know, group of younger Republican senators, many of whom we took with him on, you know, to Munich, and then beyond, in Codell’s, What other voices do you think are crucial? Obviously, you had the, pretty impassioned, comments by Nikki Haley during the debate, which I thought were great and that you had pence and Chris Christie, both of whom have gone to Keith met with president Zelensky But who are the other key voices and, you know, and what voices would you like to see, you know, coming out there?

Mean, so to begin with the debate, since you mentioned it, yeah, I think I I was struck in the debate. On the one hand, you could say, as I said earlier, that seventy five percent of the voters seem to be with the non pro Ukraine candidates, and I think that’s true. Of course Trump wasn’t at the debate. So we didn’t see him have to defend his position. But I did the I thought the exchange between basically Rameswame and Ron DeSantis, pretty much stayed out of it.

Rameswame on the one hand, and I guess all three of them, right, Pence Haley and Christie. On the other was good. I mean, I have to say even if you aren’t four, Christy Benson, and most Republican voters at this point aren’t, You had to sort of realize these were pretty serious people making pretty serious arguments. This was not the normal, you know, I’m positioning myself a little bit on one side or the other. And it wasn’t, and they didn’t, and they made it in a way that was neutral on Trump, you might say.

It wasn’t sort of we need to repudiate trump and Putin and therefore support Ukraine. It was just, look, this is a foreign policy challenge, a big one, and saw a couple of them, you say, have been there, and others, I think, you know, those are fair amount of attitude you’re an oppressor. And they were pretty I thought strong in making the case, why it’s both the right thing to do in a national interest. So I think a debate may have had a marginally good effect, actually, on the dynamic. So that’s on the one hand.

On the Hill McConnell, Senator McConnell has been excellent, and I think has done a very good job of keeping senate Republicans solidly for it. I assume they got a pretty good vote in the Senate. For, Ukraine aid as part of the package, maybe as part of the of a CR that would begin in the Senate. It’s gonna be complicated to still be people who want to vote against the CR and final passage, but they won’t like domestic spending or they won’t like this or they want it to fund, you know, god knows the, special counsel or something. But it’s very important if there’s a vote clean vote on Ukraine A, which it could be, right, to strike the Ukraine aid, let’s say, from the back.

Very important for McConnell, I think to be able to show, you know, thirty five Republican Ron DeSantis. Standing with Ukraine. I think it has some effect over in the house. So I think the Senate’s worth focusing on. I sort of McConnell knows what he’s doing and fine.

Doesn’t need much help for us, but we were in touch with them and if it turns out some senators could use some reinforcement in their states, that would be fine. In the house, know, it’s a little more complicated. The development committee chairs are good. Some a lot of the Freedom caucus and most aggressive trumpy types are bad. McCarthy has been straddling.

I want to assume he doesn’t. He wants to keep it going, but has doesn’t wanna endanger his own political future or you know, cause a huge rift in the conference on it if possible. That’s gonna be very tricky for him to manage. I think I think he’s very important, and I think it’s very important. Honestly, if there are major Republican donors or influencers, listen listen to this, They need to call McCarthy is very important to say to him, look.

Do what you want. Make all the accommodations with Trump. The meeting people like me don’t like it all. Vote on domestic policy, whatever you want to start an investigation of Hunter Biden or the fifteenth investigation of Hunter Biden, but you cannot this is serious. I mean, you cannot sell out Ukraine is you got a bunch of yahoos in your conference who don’t know but think about it.

And don’t care about it, honestly. They just wanted to be Biden on every front, you know. It’s that’s not only they’re not. I mean, I I feel bad. It was when we call them a governance.

But government had a view of the world and a foreign policy, which he cared about. It wasn’t what we agreed with. These people don’t have a view of anything, except, you know, that Biden’s doing it. So we’re against it, and plus it’s an easy thing. It’s a demigod.

I think regardless is very important. I think Stefanic is very important. She’s been a huge disappointment the last, seven years really well. You know, you know, five years, I guess, certainly since twenty eighteen. Totally gone, in the in the tenant for Trump, in in a pretty bad way.

I’ve gotta say. But she’s been pretty good on Ukraine, and I think she does you know, she worked with us years ago and some foreign policy stuff and maybe some of that, she still believes it or or whatever reason. I don’t think she’s sizzles stuck her neck out there that way, but I think it would be damaging if she went in a trump y direction and started to really, come out against the aid package. So I think keeping Stefanic kind of at least neutral and and and non not leading the opposition is is important practically. And then there are other members who were influential in different, obviously, among different parts of the conference and different regions and so forth.

It is a but but I don’t think this is one where I think this is one where for Charlie Sykes Skalese and Stefanic wanted to happen They may not stick their necks out. They may give people a lot of votes to make them feel better and make them look better or where they don’t approve of this and we need to have much more auditing of the aid here and we have to do this and time, but I think basically, if they want it to happen, I think it will happen.

You know, one of the things that’s struck me about this has been the voices that are absent. You know, and and you know, what I think represents a, you know, a real sad set of of changes in the Republican Party. One, of course, is John McCain, and and, you know, where right around the anniversary of his passing, so, you know, five years ago. I think you can really see how much this debate misses his voice. There are other voices though that, you know, that are missing, you know, Ben Sass, for instance, you know, at one time, you you could have counted on to, you know, make this case.

Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney. You know, and so a lot of those voices are just not there and, you know, you get the sense that, you know, Mitt Romney is maybe thinking about not running again. He’s certainly, you know, not out there, but banging a drum to raise a lot of money. He’s gonna have primary. I can, you know, at his age, imagine him.

And I I wouldn’t, you know, at all, begrudge it to him, say it might, you know, you know, age station of life. I don’t really need this anymore, you know, but it does it does worry you that, you know, a lot of voices that won would hope would be in this debate or just for a variety of reasons, now not not there anymore. You know, one thing you hear from some of McConnell’s people, I’m really interested in your view of this, is that they really would like Biden to really make the case. Publicly for aid to Ukraine in a way that he hasn’t done. I mean, you know, he’s he’s made comments you know, to reporters at gaggles coming on or off Air Force One or, you know, when he’s on a bicycle ride in Delaware, but there’s been no kind of concerted speech to the nation about what you were saying earlier.

This is a really important point in time, you know, to some degree, the future character of international relations can be set by how this conflict comes out. Here’s why we have to do it, and we can’t be part isn’t about it. You know, I know we’ve got Republicans and Democrats who both wanna do this. And Republicans and Democrats who are opposed to it. So it’s not a partisan issue.

You know, you you could, you know, I think imagine that that could be a very powerful speech if he if he gave it. On the other hand, I’ve had some people argue to me, well, you know, things are so polarized that if he makes a speech, it’ll just drive you know, some Republicans crazy and maybe get them not to vote for it. Where do you come down? I mean, my view is just fundamental presidential leadership. He needs to make that speech.

Yeah. I mean, I’m inclined to be where you are, and I I do think at some point we, yeah, I pay a price for not having that speech or set of speeches made or, by him or by other very senior people or op eds written by jointly by former president, you know, Bush Obama, whatever. And the rationale against whether it’s the Bush Obama type thing or against the Biden speeches is we’re so the case of Biden’s speeches were so polarized that it’s better. Honestly, if we can just get this through with bipartisan votes without making it bidens war, but it’s America’s war, where America’s effort to help Ukraine instead of Biden’s effort to help Ukraine. And I that’s good.

And I I take that point. I’m not just, you know, better to make it, America’s effort and having Biden be way out front is a problem, fine. But but then other people need to step up and make the case. And I some of us have tried, but so I think that’s a reasonable point of view, but then I do think that it’s just that it’s just someone making the case, and that gets to the other set of people, which would be your former Secret Podcast state, former presidents, or current ones, or recent ones, or people who don’t agree on anything before I mentioned Mike Pompeo, along with I don’t know, one of the Obama’s, president Obama’s secretary of state or so forth, not hillary Clinton. That would be a bridge too far, but, you know, and, or national security advisors and so forth.

And that there hasn’t really been. And I I don’t think that probably doesn’t happen spontaneously. Unless the administration does it behind the scenes. And we’d, you know, you would, but I remember the cold war days. And even when I was in the white house there, and and and with Quail in eighty nine to ninety three, we did stuff with Democrats that didn’t have two j w bushings with Danquale’s name on it, obviously.

It was a joint joint op ed by, you know, I don’t know. Then representative Les Aspen and there were Steve Solars as for the Democrats or then congressman, whoever the kind of equivalent respectable republicans where I can’t remember anymore. For the Republicans, but we help them do it, and we help provide information, and we help, you know, push for it and so forth. These things tend to happen with executive branch, energy behind them. And I don’t know.

Maybe the Biden administration is doing this, incidentally. I really assume they’re doing some of it, but I generally feel there’s been a slight failure of, Yeah. A sense that we they need to keep the country really on board on this and not just assume that, Putin’s doing their work for them. Putin is doing a fair amount of their work for be honest. I mean, Putin has been such a horrible.

I mean, he’s such a cartoon villain. He’s not a cartoon if you live in Ukraine, obviously, or in Russia itself. And, you know, in a way, it’s made made it easier than it used to be to maybe rally people. But again, it it does need to be a little more of an articulation. It’s certainly going into to to to twenty twenty four, and certainly it’s Donald Trump’s Republican nominee because he’s gonna make the case the other way.

And and it wouldn’t hurt for Biden to kind of prepare lay the groundwork to make that harder for Trump to do. Six months from now.

Do you think of something maybe that president Bush and, president Clinton might be able to do jointly. I mean, they’ve done a whole bunch of stuff on disaster relief, or, you know, around the world at different times. But what about what about something as fundamental as this? I mean, seems to me if the two of them would make some appearances, you know, supporting this, it might have a positive effect.

Yeah. I think so. No. I think among Republicans, maybe, you know, just towards w Bush being a nice guy with Clinton again and stuff. Maybe there, it’s better to have more of a you know, recent Republican, the secretaries say maybe that is more of a Mcmaster Pompeo, you know, John Bolton, Mark Esper.

Right.

Yeah. Jasper’s been very good. Yeah.

Yeah. If the real Trump has had problems with all those people because they didn’t go along with January six, they didn’t go along with the worst excesses of Trump, but but, nonetheless, they have some personal connection with people on the hill and credibility, and they did serve for with Trump and so forth. They’re not, you know, associated with the push administration, the war in Iraq, and all those terrible things. So I I or not as much. So I think yeah, I’d be for any mix, any versions.

There are many ways to mix and and match these different leaders but I do think having more of that happen. I think McConnell’s tried to do some, but, maybe he can make some stuff happen here in September. But, you know, having people who are not yeah, having just the case being made. I also think, you and I talked about this, not on this, I guess, but in other places. You know, I was very struck when I was in Europe more in the when was that?

So that was in the, late spring, early summer. With Jeff Gedman, They, there are very good people in Europe. Who really are terrific. Yeah. It leaders a lot of them young, a lot of them from the Nordic.

Countries, you know, those people very well in the baltz, check the new Czech President who’s not quite as young, but who who’s very impressive. Just won an election, defeated a kind of trump y like incumbent, and, he’s center right. Some of the others are more central left. I don’t think the administration’s done a very good job of bringing them over and highlighting them and taking the bit of the steam out of the typical Republican talking point of Oh, the Europeans aren’t doing anything. Hey, it’s not really quite true this time.

There’s I’m there’s some legitimate complaints about the Europeans, but it’s not true. And again, people just have the sense that Europe is Germany and France, so we do have legitimate beast to some degree with with those two, I suppose. More France maybe. But, but in general, I just I don’t think the Biden administration’s done particularly well. They haven’t been terrible, but they just haven’t done particularly well in sort of thinking of the public diplomacy side of this whole effort here at home and and how again Europe could not just be a sort of a burden that they have to kind of defend, you know, or tastes say it’s good that the alliance is strong, but to really make a big deal, a sweet in Finland, you know, an infinite amount about this, having been ambassador are in NATO.

And that’s an achievement, and it’s a testimony to them, and it’s a testimony of sadly to Putin, but a testimony to Ukraine to fight so well. Zilinsky has done a lot of good public diplomacy on this. Personally, but it’s really there’s a lot more they could do to make clear to some of those voters mean, the American public to its credits has sort of gotten this anyway so far with these Republican voters, for Ukraine, have kind of, gotten it so far, but there’s probably more that can be done to make clear how big a deal this is and how important it is for the US to stand for

I agree. And your comments, Bill, I think, highlight the degree to which I think the administration to to, you know, in in some ways, has, seem to underplay and underestimate the information space in in which this conflict is is playing out. You know, last week, There was this whole spade end of, you know, last weekend in the, middle of last week. There was this whole spate of stories that appeared in the Financial Times, New York Times, Washington Post, which basically highlighted, disagreements that the US Department of Defense, has had with Ukrainian strategy, and the counter offensive isn’t moving fast enough, and they’re not making enough of the equipment and they’re using too much artillery and this and that, the other thing. And Frank Miller and I published a piece on Friday in the Bulwark and yesterday, Jack Keene or friend had a piece in a similar vein.

Basically saying, look, none of these military critics in the United States has ever had to fight kind of fight that the Ukrainians are in. Some of the things that people have been advocating are just silly. I mean, you know, David Ignatius had a column the other day in which, he was quoting someone as saying, well, you know, the the Ukrainians are putting too much effort into using, UAVs for reconnaissance. They ought to have dismounted people doing reconnaissance. I think some of those people out of volunteering go over to be part of those human terrain reconnaissance teams walking into some of the most heavily land mind, you know, territory in the world.

You know, it’s it’s just this kind of, you know, armchair quarterbacking that, you know, not only is it sort of offensive, I think, to the Ukrainian. So you could see some various Arabic responses from various Ukrainians But it it seems to me that the whole thing was undercutting their own case for the supplemental on the hill and with the public at large. You know, is making it seem like the Ukrainians or just, you know, headed towards a stalemate. It’s gonna be an endless war. I mean, we we may be headed towards a stalemate, but why would you be saying that at this, you know, at this point when it’s still relatively early, you know, in conflict, and any number of people have made the analogy to how long it took us to break out of Normandy after the D Day invasion.

You know, the these are, you know, tough fights as as chairman Millia said. This is gonna be a tough fight, but they they seem to be kind of oblivious to the you know, to the information side of this, both here at home and, you know, internationally. I mean, Jake Sullivan ultimately had to come out and say, no, we don’t think it’s you know, a stalemate right now, etcetera. But am I the only one who thinks they’re a little bit clueless in Gaza when it comes to to the information space?

No. I think you’re I think that you’re you’re right. And some of I mean, what’s particularly annoying, obviously, is when their administration officials quoted on background, saying this stuff. Obviously, they can’t control what think tanks say and so forth and and and and others. And and so some of that’s inevitable, obviously.

But they but also even if someone character from something to excel something. They give pushback. Now they can sometimes get others outside government to push back and and and and rebut some pieces, but general, one doesn’t one does well, as the impression, they think, look, they’re the war is the war. They’re probably working very hard on it. They’re making decisions on all of them.

Can do a little more in a couple of areas, but, and, but they don’t I don’t know. I mean, this is an honest question. I really don’t know who’s in charge of the public diplomacy side of this? I mean, is there an actual human being at the n s c or state, who gets up every morning and says, okay, what arguments are unfortunately making a little too much headway out there in social media or in op ed pages or in Europe for that matter. That we need to be back, and who can we be back?

And if it’s not, you know, Jake’s husband giving a talk, it can be, you know, getting ten people into the White House to brief them and give them a good high quality, you know, unclassified briefing on what’s happening in the war and then making sure they, you know, helping them get their get the case out. In general, I just feel like there’s been a little less of that. I mean, I’m closer to the Biden administration than I was to the Obama administration. I’m really not making this guy that’s what me and I you know, needing invitation anywhere. But, when we supported when I supported president Obama’s, Afghan surge, I guess it was.

I mean, it was Libya intervention. It was some of the things Libya. Maybe not the most, not the one that start the best, but whatever. In twenty eleven, at the height of the air of spring, they had about fifteen of us into the White House, and we were people who’ve been very of president Obama and strong against borders and people associated with Iraq war, which president Obama wasn’t a big fan of. So it was a little bit, you know, fraught, you might say.

And meeting in the in the rest of our room. But they said, look, we we’re in this thing, you know, you guys are supporting that we’re on the same page mostly on this. And we need to hear the arguments. And if you need any information, here’s the right person to, you know, to email at the NSC, and it was all totally stuff that you and I have done a million times in regards to what government does and and what the other side would does too and fanical and their friendly people and so forth. But I it’s just funny that that’s been I felt like there was more of that there.

It’s certainly more of in the Clinton administration. Even as Clinton was getting impeached, you know? Sandy Burger was having people in and and and we were agreeing that we had to, you know, help in the Balkans and support the efforts in Kosovo and so forth. And I don’t I’ve I look, I’m happy to say it regarding some weather. I’m in the white house, obviously, and you are too.

But but I do feel like there’s been a little bit of, ball being dropped here in terms of doing that and also that across the Atlantic. I mean, that that there’s could be everyone I talked to in Europe that they’re grateful for what the Biden administration’s done. They’re they’re supportive. They’re They’re doing their own thing there. They don’t need to be told what to say.

They they know within in the Czech Republic or in Finland or Lithuania what the arguments are. Believe me. But I don’t get the impression they’re in close contact, especially, or that they’re coordinating the arguments, especially. When there’s a NATO Summit, then there’s kind of a moment of two weeks of frantic activity to make sure everything is set once more or less on the same page. But so I do think on the public, the global society, they could they could do more.

I mean, I think to be fair that by administration’s allies, you know, other policy areas would say the same thing, you know, that, you know, he’s he’s got pretty good economic performance here. After a pandemic and everything else, inflation’s coming down and, like, who’s making that case? You know, I mean, they they prevented a pretty serious banking crisis. Pretty effectively, I’ve gotta say is my sense that I’ve talked to a couple of economists who say this. And, you know, I don’t know.

Does anyone give Biden administration Janet yellen credit for the fact that it looked like we might have a major background and we haven’t, and in fact, you know, the situation’s pretty stable and no one even remembers quite what happened with Valley Bank and First National. It’s an administration. It’s not very good at the making its own case side of things. And they’ve kinda gotten away with it on Ukraine so far, as I say, because Zelensky is so admirable in the Ukrainian. So admirable in Putin is so horrible.

But I I wish we I think we need a little more effort here in the next couple of months and then in the next year.

You know, you mentioned the Europeans. One of the things that, you know, I hear from European colleagues, and it’s begun to pop up a bit in the US press as well. Is there concern about what’s going on in the things we’ve been talking about? The Republican debate, the potential for Trump to be the nominee again and, you know, the the nontrivial possibility that he could actually, you know, win the election. In in twenty four.

And then, you know, what happens to Ukraine policy, you know, then? It’s interesting in that context that you now start it just in the last few days have started to see reports about Europeans looking to try and make long term commitments to the Ukrainians and get a lot, you know, kind of center of gravity inside NATO among European countries to make long term commitments to Ukraine so that Putin can’t just count on, you know, playing, you know, running running that, you know, running things out until the US election in the hope that Trump you know, wins and then, you know, sort of saves him from the kind of, you know, morass he’s gotten himself into.

I mean, the degree to which is on that, I know we have to go in a minute. I mean, degree to which Putin strategy is hang on until Trump might win. Is understated, and we will probably need to say that more often. This is not like an it’s like Putin’s fighting a war, and one of the fifteen things that could happen, this one will be something good for him. Will be the Trump might win in twenty twenty to get nominated first and then win in twenty four.

That’s like the number one thing that will be good for. And so one number one thing he’s counting on. And I think he’s going to desperately hang on until, it’s clear that Trump won’t win or hasn’t won in in November twenty four. That’s his best way out of this. And incidentally, what it says about the possibility, I was talking to someone yesterday who was very involved in some of the stuff in twenty sixteen on Russian What it’s when this much is at stake for what?

For Putin, I mean, it it can make twenty sixteen look like nothing in terms of Russian disinformation and Russian meddling in the election. And, you know, I mean, I because his own regime, maybe his own rule, maybe at stake, almost, on our election. So what does he do? We see what he does in with with domestic opponents and in Europe and elsewhere. We saw what he did in twenty sixteen.

I mean, this is much more, existential crisis for Putin. So, but again, I think focusing a little more people’s attention on the fact that the it’s not just Trump twenty twenty four. It’s sort of an accidental sidebar story. It’s really crucial in terms of the actual fate of Ukraine and it’s certainly in terms of Putin strategy.

Yeah. No. I I agree with that. Now, of course, the one of the major instruments Putin used to interfere in the twenty sixteen election was the internet research agency in Saint Petersburg, several of whose employees were indicted by by Bob Mueller as a result of the Mueller investigation, That property seems to be like, you know, up for up for grabs now among the various retainers, around. Around Putin, with the, you know, the death, this past week of Evgeni, you know, prego vision.

Not clear whether, you know, that instrument will be used or whether there’ll be others, but he’s got others like the GRU that he can use as well. So he’s got a bunch of arrows in his quiver to interfere in our election, and I’m I’m sure he will be doing that. I mean, CNN had a story recently about how the Russians are trying to infiltrate, you know, Russian talking points into western what what used to be called useful idiots I think actually Mona Charen wrote an excellent book some years ago about that needs to be. I’ve joked with Mona that it needs to be updated, you know. I I’ve also said that I thought Vivec Ramaswamy is actually a new category which is useless idiot, but that’s a that’s another story.

You know, I’ve been very critical of the Biden administration as has Elliot on this podcast for being very slow to get certain, systems to the Ukrainian for being dragged in the wake of the Europeans on multiple occasions for getting things to them. I I I do wanna say I, you know, I got the sense from talking to some people inside the Biden administration in the last week. They may be very close, to making a positive decision to give the Ukrainians the m twenty six rocket launched cluster ammunition, which would be launched from High Mars which would extend the the range of the cluster munitions, which the ones that they’ve already gotten have had a a huge effect on the battlefield already in in helping. The Ukrainians push through Russian defenses. Some of that has been visible, in in the area around Rubotinia where where the, Ukrainians have made a a bit of a minor breakthrough through the first line of defense, in recent days.

Attack them. You know, I think, which is the next big thing is still you know, sort of, up in the air. I mean, I I’m sort of reminded. I’m I wonder if you agree, Bill of Churchill’s comment You know, the Biden administration is like his description of the United States of America. It sort of ultimately does the right thing after systematically eliminating every other option.

Yeah. I mean, no, I think, like, it’s well, well said by Joe Trulman and well applied well applied by you. I mean, a little unfair maybe, but but I think certainly the some of these weapon systems they just didn’t do and now they’re doing and there was no price. It turns out there was no reason not to have done it. Three or six and nine months before I had a lot of, you know, unfortunately lives were lost and and time was squandered in not being able to do things.

It does seem like now with the seeming of beginning as a breakthrough in a couple of places in the lines, which certainly be the time to to get both the, I guess, the custom additions that can be launched at a greater distance that you were describing. And then the attack on whichever one says would be very important for for this offensive as well. And, I mean, they really need to go for it. I mean, they’ve all the arguments red lines and stuff seem not to be true. And, I I just can’t see.

We have a lot of the stuff sitting around. Some of the stuff we should have resupplied much. We we should have built much more of over the last year and gotten our defense industrial base going again as you’ve made this audio repeatedly. But in the particular things for not mistaken that we’re talking about, they have we have a lot of it. And and, and the big joke that you’ve made this comment, I think, others Fredkegan and many others.

I mean, what’s kinda crazy about the reluctance to do it is, why do we get all these weapons? We got all these weapons because in the unlikely event, but possible event, that there’d be a huge groundwater in Europe. That’s what these weapons are for. They’re not really very useful. Most of them in the Middle East.

I don’t think And, they’re not, well, in Asia, I don’t think we’re gonna be fighting a ground war with high rises, you know. I, I mean, maybe we will, but it doesn’t sound like that’s terribly likely. So these are for the unlikely event of fighting a big land war in Europe. We’re fighting the largest land war in Europe in eighty years. They’re fighting it.

Yeah. Thank god. We’re not the European Ukraine is to get what are we saving these for? No. Absolutely.

I mean, have them in some garage, you know, in some in some hanger and

Well, they’re gonna sell forty attackers. Gonna they’re gonna sell forty attackers to Morocco. So Yeah. There you go. I mean, no, it’s crazy.

I and it gives away one of the best talking points that they have to push back on this America first, you know, send the money to Hawaii, you know, etcetera instead of Ukraine. You know, for essentially three percent, and this is something Lindsey Graham actually said after coming out of Ukraine recently, for three percent of the defense budget of the United States, which what what we’ve spent so far on this effort. We’ve destroyed fifty percent of Russia’s combat power, according to the British chief of defense testifying in front of the House of Commons Defense Committee. That’s the greatest bargain, you know, since lend lease.

Yeah. No. I know. And and, yeah. And also, if people say, what?

Wait. As many of the fans, they buy all these weapons, AWS. Obviously, it’s not a reason to use them that people are to prove that you’re, you know, need to have a high defense budget, but This is the moment. This is exactly what these weapons are designed for in this kind of land conflict. Hopefully, it’s not gonna happen too many times, you know, in in in our lifetime or even after our lifetime, you know, these things, thank god, these words don’t happen every three years at this scale.

Now it’s happening at scale, and I think this is where the Biden restoration, they of understand. I mean, of course, they kind of understand that they’re not fools and they’re doing a lot of good things. And, the, the, they’re coming to grips so that but I I just feel they haven’t quite internalized sort of that this is not like your typical. We do this here, move this chess piece over here, but gotta be a little careful. But this this is really at a different level and and requires almost a different kind of kind of thinking than the normal you know, diplomatic and political military efforts that that we’ve all engaged in in government and that they’re engaging in, and and which are good.

But but this is a little different.

I agree. As Elliot has said, they think they can titrate out this stuff and calibrate this. And, you know, I I just don’t think you know, war operates on that kind of a, you know, kind of a timetable. Our guest today has been Bill Crystal. Bill, thank you for joining us on, Shield of the Republic.

It’s been great, great avenue. Best of luck to you and Sarah in the efforts for Republicans for for Ukraine. I I encourage our listeners to think about, doing one of the, ads for for you all. I think that would be a great contribution to this, this debate. And, we’ll have to have you back, in a couple of months to take the temperature and see how we’re doing after the Reagan Library debate, we’ll see how much of the spirit of Ronald Reagan is still alive in the contemporary GOP.

Well, let’s let’s hope it’s alive and let’s hope that after, like, if that’s September twenty seventh, then September thirtieth would be the usual time the CR would get passed. So let’s hope that we’re cheerful boot, and we can do it again. Act, I’m gonna remember. Thanks, Eric. It’s been great, because I always talk about it.