Speaker 1: Taxi.
Speaker 2: I'm this is the seventy seven WABC Mini Cast.
Speaker 1: And we're delighted to bring back to the show one
Speaker 1: of the great experts on Europe and other international foreign
Speaker 1: policy topics, Peter Ruff, who's a senior Fellow at the
Speaker 1: Hudson Institute. He's the director of the Center on Europe
Speaker 1: and Eurasia. Also previously served in the White House, and
Speaker 1: a noted commentator and an essayist himself. So let me
Speaker 1: let me just start giving you my thoughts on on
Speaker 1: this and I'll turn it over to Eric and Jesse
Speaker 1: and at this time I'll pick up Peter. I'm very
Speaker 1: concerned about the Russian war against Ukraine, and this all
Speaker 1: started because nobody challenged Russia when they made the move
Speaker 1: previously against Georgia or previously I don't mean george like
Speaker 1: in Atlanta Georgia. I mean Georgia and in Europe the
Speaker 1: move against Georgia and the piece and say, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: what do I know. That's why we have Peter on
Speaker 1: and they pick that up, and they pick up a
Speaker 1: piece of the Ukraine. Now, my view about world affears
Speaker 1: is you cannot reward aggression. You should not be in
Speaker 1: the business of appeasing aggression. This war has not going
Speaker 1: on for years and years and years. The body counts
Speaker 1: on both sides are enormously high. This is a war
Speaker 1: that never should have been fought. People underestimated the pathology
Speaker 1: of mister Putin, and it leads me to the concern
Speaker 1: how does this end? Because I keep rereading that the
Speaker 1: Ukraine is running out of defensive equipment to stop the
Speaker 1: barrage of the attacks against them. And is there a
Speaker 1: view inside of Russia that enough is enough and try
Speaker 1: to push Putin into place to stop this? So those
Speaker 1: are but now think about those questions and I'll turn
Speaker 1: it over to Eric now.
Speaker 2: So Peter, thanks for joining us. It's always great to
Speaker 2: hear your perspective.
Speaker 1: I think you'd be helpful.
Speaker 3: It's good to be on with such republican royalty.
Speaker 2: So thank you.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I'm the House Democrat with shock.
Speaker 2: And you're the most conservative one on the call. Anyway,
Speaker 2: So a lot of focus has been on Iran. We've
Speaker 2: been talking a lot about Iran everywhere we go in
Speaker 2: the you read the paper, on the radio, and news.
Speaker 2: Iran the war that seems to have been forgotten, which
Speaker 2: is of equal importance in my view, is the one
Speaker 2: in Ukraine, because it's actually all part of one war.
Speaker 2: You have the issue of the concerns in Taiwan, but
Speaker 2: Ukraine and Iran can't be separated because China, Russia and
Speaker 2: Iran can't be separated. But can you kind of give
Speaker 2: the audience, our listeners a update as to exactly where
Speaker 2: we are, what's transpired in the last year or so,
Speaker 2: and kind of what you have seen looking forward in
Speaker 2: the future.
Speaker 3: Sure, and I couldn't resist that oxymoron of Republican royalty
Speaker 3: given any consistent with one another. But to return to
Speaker 3: the issue at play, the war in Ukraine right now,
Speaker 3: I think we're really seeing what amounts to two battles
Speaker 3: taking place in a broader war. The first battle is
Speaker 3: what we can basically describe as the land war in
Speaker 3: the eastern part of Ukraine. This is what some of
Speaker 3: your listeners might have heard on TV or radio or
Speaker 3: read of the newspapers as a so called Dombas region
Speaker 3: of eastern Ukraine. It's a short form for the Donsque Basin,
Speaker 3: a blend of the river Donets and the word basin.
Speaker 3: This is a full rich area which powered Russia. Is
Speaker 3: industrialization the nineteenth century, and Vladimir Putin has formerly annexed
Speaker 3: the two states and Ukrainian, you would say, the old
Speaker 3: loss of Donetsk and lu Hansk that make up the Dombas,
Speaker 3: and the Russians have since intervening slowly surptitiously in twenty
Speaker 3: fourteen and then there very aggressively in twenty twenty two
Speaker 3: twenty twenty three, taken all of one of those two states, Luhansk,
Speaker 3: but the second, the state of Dunask, still is significantly
Speaker 3: controlled by the Ukrainians. Not just that, but they have
Speaker 3: their fortress belts established in that state because they've seen
Speaker 3: this coming since twenty fourteen. And other parts of Ukraine
Speaker 3: the defenses who are a little bit more ramshackle and improvised.
Speaker 3: But here there are cities that some of your listeners
Speaker 3: might also have heard of, like Slodyansko, Kramatrsk and any
Speaker 3: of that. Those are very heavily fortified defensive positions and
Speaker 3: the Russians are trying to ram their way forward and
Speaker 3: it's basically stalemated, which shouldn't confuse anyone. The operational tempo
Speaker 3: is still very very high, hundreds of engagements each day,
Speaker 3: and the Russians are losing based on public accounts and
Speaker 3: what our Director of CIA has testified and said publicly
Speaker 3: tens of thousands of troops per month trying to push forward.
Speaker 3: But because of the advances and drone warfare and other
Speaker 3: innovations on the battlefield, the Ukrainians put up a pretty
Speaker 3: formidable defense. And what everyone seems to be an agreement
Speaker 3: on is that the Russians are really going to struggle
Speaker 3: the remainder of this calendar year to make progress and
Speaker 3: to break their way through. But the second battle is
Speaker 3: the battle of the air war. And here again what
Speaker 3: some of your listeners might have seen on social media
Speaker 3: and elsewhere are these spectacular dueling strike campaigns. So on
Speaker 3: the one hand, the Ukrainians have innovative new forms of
Speaker 3: mid range strike where they're taking drones and firing them
Speaker 3: deep into the Russian Federation. They're also working on cruise
Speaker 3: missiles and now even blistic missile systems. The ballistic missiles
Speaker 3: aren't fielded, but they do have cruise missiles and they're
Speaker 3: striking deep into Russia, really downgrading Russian refinery capacity. They've
Speaker 3: also gone after kind of clever targets like what is
Speaker 3: the equivalent of Russia's amazon A delivery system, warehouses, and
Speaker 3: so the average Russia is beginning to feel that, and
Speaker 3: so they've really put a crimp into the Russian economy.
Speaker 3: There have been smoked at times, not often, but at
Speaker 3: times build lilying outside of Saint Petersburg and Moscow. So
Speaker 3: it's undeniable that this war is being brought home to
Speaker 3: roost a bit to the Russian people. But the counter
Speaker 3: to that is the Russians have kept up their rate
Speaker 3: of production of ballistic missiles, their own drone and Pruise
Speaker 3: missile swarms, and they are hammering Ukraine, and in particular
Speaker 3: the hammering Ukraine's big cities, and the Ukrainians have gotten
Speaker 3: pretty adept at taking out Russian drones. But the Ruvio
Speaker 3: is only one answer right now in the world to
Speaker 3: aeroblistic missile attacks, and those are Patriot interceptors which the
Speaker 3: United States produces. And as you just said, Eric, we're
Speaker 3: in the midst of the confrontation with the Uranians, which
Speaker 3: at times has run very hot, tilted into full scale war.
Speaker 3: At other times it's been a sort of a dance.
Speaker 3: But we've run down some of our own magazine levels
Speaker 3: for that. We also have an Indo pay Coom or
Speaker 3: a Payton Command so in charge of the Pacific theater
Speaker 3: that has to plan for contingencies. So we have to
Speaker 3: keep some patriots in reserve there who knows where they're
Speaker 3: on conflict is heading in the coming weeks and months,
Speaker 3: and so we really not pulled back. I think this
Speaker 3: was somewhat foreseeable. But we haven't been able to deliver
Speaker 3: large numbers of patriot interceptors to the Ukrainians, and so
Speaker 3: last night, for example, there was a devastating attack on Kiev,
Speaker 3: and the Ukrainians basically aren't intercepting with stick missiles anymore.
Speaker 3: So the Russian campaign, or I think the Russian calculation
Speaker 3: is we might not be able to plow our way
Speaker 3: through these defensive formations that Ukraine has in the east,
Speaker 3: but winter is just around the corner. The famous General
Speaker 3: Winter Russia's best and most able commander. And if they
Speaker 3: can get to winter and in the winter then really
Speaker 3: go after the critical infrastructure, then they can have a
Speaker 3: replay of last winter, one of the coldest in recent
Speaker 3: history in Ukraine, where they can take out Ukrainian heating
Speaker 3: and basically freeze out the civilian population and forced them
Speaker 3: into a one sided so called peace. Now Ukraine started
Speaker 3: to really distribute generators. They've you know, invested in solar paneling,
Speaker 3: They've tried to decentralized their grid and get ready for this.
Speaker 3: But it's a big concern. And so those are the
Speaker 3: two battles that are being waged. And because neither side,
Speaker 3: both sides have a theory of victory and both sides
Speaker 3: see a dynamic battlefield, Kiev and isn't prepared to give
Speaker 3: the sort of concessions that Moscow demands, and the Russians
Speaker 3: are still asking incredible things of Ukraine. The White House,
Speaker 3: I think, is in broad agreement that what the Russians
Speaker 3: are asking for they haven't even accomplished on the battlefield
Speaker 3: and shouldn't get right now.
Speaker 1: So how does this end?
Speaker 2: I mean, it sounds like you're describing an intractable problem.
Speaker 2: The bottom line for each of the countries is miles
Speaker 2: and miles apart. Basically, Putin wants Ukraine to surrender, and
Speaker 2: Ukraine is demanding that Russia withdraw and they're not going
Speaker 2: to give up territory. Oh, that remains to be seen.
Speaker 2: So the Ukrainians survived last winter, notwithstanding the Russian advantage
Speaker 2: in ballistic missiles.
Speaker 3: So where do we go from here, Well, I'd say
Speaker 3: the Ukrainian play. The Ukrainian calculation is that they can
Speaker 3: begin to put such absorbit and economic costs on Russia
Speaker 3: that the Russians will go for a line of contact agreement,
Speaker 3: which Ukraine is prepared to sign up for. So that means,
Speaker 3: you know, Russian bond auctions are struggling, their economies weakening,
Speaker 3: they have inflationary problems, there's now open infighting between the
Speaker 3: Kremlin and the Central Bank, and there may be manpower issues,
Speaker 3: or at least the Russians will have to go to
Speaker 3: some sort of surreptitious mobilization after the State Duma elections
Speaker 3: that's the Russian parliament next month. And last time the
Speaker 3: Russians went to a mobilization that it really led to
Speaker 3: an exodus of able bodied men into for example, Central Asia.
Speaker 3: So basically, the Ukrainians want to put enough pressure on
Speaker 3: the Russians or the Russians prepared to engage in what
Speaker 3: the Ukrainians would say is a fair and reasonable negotia.
Speaker 3: They're not delusional, they don't think that they're going to
Speaker 3: get Mary Opal or some of these cities that the
Speaker 3: Russians have taken far behind the front lines back anytime soon,
Speaker 3: but they at least want a line of contact. And
Speaker 3: the Russians, meanwhile, thinks that they can put more pressure
Speaker 3: on the Ukrainians and force the Ukrainians to hand over
Speaker 3: areas that are very important for their defenses and guard
Speaker 3: some of their best cities and some of the defenses
Speaker 3: which are really the key to defending across the open
Speaker 3: plains of Ukraine all the way to Kiev. And so,
Speaker 3: because neither side really is prepared to give into the
Speaker 3: other yet we don't have a horizon, or it really
Speaker 3: isn't right for negotiations, is how I would put it.
Speaker 3: You need either one an absolute scalemate where neither side
Speaker 3: sees any dynamism, any potential for progress, or you need
Speaker 3: a one sided situation where there's a breakthrough and you
Speaker 3: basically have terms being dictated. Those are traditionally classicated conditions
Speaker 3: for successful negotiations, and I don't think that's what the
Speaker 3: present yea.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this question, what is it significance
Speaker 1: of the fact that Russia seems to have some sort
Speaker 1: of dependency on the North Koreans in terms of manpower
Speaker 1: and technical support. What does it mean to Putin's regime?
Speaker 1: What does it mean to Europe that you have this
Speaker 1: infiltration of the North Koreans.
Speaker 3: There Well, one difference between Ukraine's partners and allies and
Speaker 3: Russia's partners and allies is that the Europeans are prepared
Speaker 3: to be rather generous and they're support of Ukraine. They
Speaker 3: just put together a ninety billion euro so basically one
Speaker 3: hundred billion dollar loan package which is unlikely to be
Speaker 3: repaid anytime soon to Ukraine. They've emptied out some of
Speaker 3: their own ammunition stores and creating their own vulnerabilities to
Speaker 3: support Ukraine. But they're not prepared to go fight and
Speaker 3: die against Russia and Ukraine, whereas the North Koreans are
Speaker 3: prepared to actively deploy troops into Russia during an earlier
Speaker 3: round of combat. Now they're setting up a ballistic missile
Speaker 3: unit together with the Russians that will fire into into
Speaker 3: key Ukrainian positions. And so the North Koreans have died
Speaker 3: on the battlefield, and I think that's a pretty demonstrable
Speaker 3: and significant difference. Moreover, it has implications for the United
Speaker 3: States because in the early moments of North Korea's first intervention,
Speaker 3: its first round of support for Ukraine. These were like
Speaker 3: North Korean troops running across the open fields and just
Speaker 3: being taken out by drones one by one. They were
Speaker 3: not really ready for warfare of today. They looked much
Speaker 3: more like a North Korean army of the nineteen fifties
Speaker 3: fighting General MacArthur and the United Nations forces on the
Speaker 3: Korean peninsula. But they're learning, and I think this poses
Speaker 3: a real conundrum that raises concerns for South Koreans. It
Speaker 3: raises concern for our defense on the Korean peninsula, and
Speaker 3: it is in the one way street. I mean, the
Speaker 3: North Koreans in return have gotten hard currency, They've gotten
Speaker 3: hard cash, They've probably got gotten upgrades areas of military power.
Speaker 3: So they had a few satellite tests fail, which are
Speaker 3: probably considered to be cover for polistic BISTO program. Then
Speaker 3: after the first round of support for the Russian suddenly
Speaker 3: they had more success than that program. So the assumption
Speaker 3: is that Russian is lending some of its technical expertise
Speaker 3: to the North Koreans. So this is a this is
Speaker 3: a real concern, and I think it speaks to this
Speaker 3: tightening axis of anti American powers in the world, Iran,
Speaker 3: North Korea, Russia and China, and an open wound and battlefield.
Speaker 3: There is the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: So one of the I think it was Dwight Eisenhower.
Speaker 2: One of his great admonitions was if things aren't going well,
Speaker 2: expand the expan the war. So there's been a lot
Speaker 2: of talk, at least I've been reading about. It's a
Speaker 2: lot of speculation that Putin is contemplating expanding the war
Speaker 2: and attacking a NATO nation, either Estonia or Latia seems
Speaker 2: to be at the top of the list to see them.
Speaker 2: Seem if he could break NATO, see if the Americans
Speaker 2: will respond to their Article five obligations or the Europeans
Speaker 2: will respond to an Article five obligations and sent troops
Speaker 2: and confront Russia. Failing that, that's the end of NATO.
Speaker 2: What is your sensus to the likelihood that Putin will
Speaker 2: look to expand the war and draw in NATO.
Speaker 3: Well, my basic assessment has been for several years now
Speaker 3: that the Russian strategic goal is to isolate Ukraine in
Speaker 3: a one to one matchup, where Russia's superior size can
Speaker 3: grind down the Ukrainians and eventually dictate terms. And so
Speaker 3: the saber rattling that we've seen from the Russians at
Speaker 3: the nuclear level where they basically inverted the nuclear paradigm.
Speaker 3: You know, we think of nuclear weapons as the ultimate
Speaker 3: defensive weapon. They've used it to try to coerce the
Speaker 3: Europeans away. They've used hybrid measures. Last night there was
Speaker 3: an action in the Black Sea where the Romanians and
Speaker 3: S sixteen took out a Russian naval drone that was
Speaker 3: getting near the next to a major gas field in
Speaker 3: the Black Sea that the Romanians are keen on developed
Speaker 3: thing that's a hybrid measure as Orislow Funnel, and the
Speaker 3: European Commissioned President turned into a hybrid active hybrid warfare
Speaker 3: that the Russians are conducting. So at the high end nuclear,
Speaker 3: at the low end hybrid. The middle tier, the conventional
Speaker 3: powers is stuck in the Ukraine, but he's trying to
Speaker 3: push the Europeans and the Americans away by coercing, threatening,
Speaker 3: compelling them to leave Ukraine out to dry so it
Speaker 3: can be defeated one on one. But there has been
Speaker 3: a change. I think that's been broadly. I think the
Speaker 3: conventional wisdom which i've mostly shared. I think you're referring
Speaker 3: to was a pretty prominent piece in the Wall Street
Speaker 3: Journal saying that American intelligence agencies may now be shifting
Speaker 3: to say and the Russians could be interested in doing so.
Speaker 3: And really, I think it comes down to a couple
Speaker 3: of pieces. One is, we've drawn down our interceptors for
Speaker 3: the war in Iran. So you could interpret that Wall
Speaker 3: Street Journal piece as our intelligence agencies leaking reports to
Speaker 3: the press so as to continue the drum breed of
Speaker 3: anti Trump news on Operation Epic Fury. But clearly, if
Speaker 3: the Russians calculate that we don't have the munition's magazine
Speaker 3: depth to engage in a major combat operation outside of
Speaker 3: the Middle East at this point, then they might be
Speaker 3: more tempted. Secondly, you know, Putin is paying enormous costs
Speaker 3: for this relatively slender, small sliver of land in eastern Ukraine,
Speaker 3: and he has to justify to his population the cost
Speaker 3: of thirty to forty thousand killed are wounded each month,
Speaker 3: and basically the destruction of the modern Russian economy. He's
Speaker 3: doing that by saying that he's fighting a broader war
Speaker 3: against the West, and so how better to make that
Speaker 3: kind of scene than to take a shot at a
Speaker 3: NATO ally. Third element would be whether or not the
Speaker 3: US is resolved to respond, So it depends on the
Speaker 3: Cumben's calculations there. And then fourth, and this is less discussed.
Speaker 3: Europe is in a dramatic period of rearmament, and you
Speaker 3: know the seasons being too slow and flooding, and they
Speaker 3: have their issues with procurement and all the rest. But
Speaker 3: to put it simply that the Germans are now going
Speaker 3: to be spending more than the French and British combined.
Speaker 3: Chancellor Mertz, the leader of Germany, has said that he
Speaker 3: wants to build the most powerful conventional arm in Europe,
Speaker 3: and so the Russians might calculate that in a sort
Speaker 3: of net assessment. Now is a window and it will
Speaker 3: never get any better, because once all that European defense
Speaker 3: spending comes online, the opportunity to exercise sort of a
Speaker 3: raventious play the Baltic states which used to be part
Speaker 3: of the Soviet Union, will be done. My own personal
Speaker 3: opinion is that the Russians like to probe and test,
Speaker 3: observe and then react, and so this isn't like a
Speaker 3: set Russian calculation or a set Russian game plan. It's
Speaker 3: really going to be observing how the West responds and
Speaker 3: then acting in an opportunity way thereafter. And quite frankly,
Speaker 3: we saw that in Ukraine in the summer of twenty
Speaker 3: twenty one. The Russians deployed huge numbers of forces to
Speaker 3: the Ukrainian border, then left their kit there, but the
Speaker 3: troops themselves withdrew and they observed kind of how the
Speaker 3: West responds to that. Putin calculated that the Biden administration
Speaker 3: of the Europeans weren't serious enough, and then that ultimately,
Speaker 3: I think probably tipped him, along with the disastrous AFGHANICSDAN
Speaker 3: withdrawal and other factors, into going full bore dynamics.
Speaker 1: Read.
Speaker 3: It's a dynamic situation and it really depends also on
Speaker 3: the West as much as it does on what's going
Speaker 3: on in the Kremlin.
Speaker 4: Jesse Peter, thank you for joining us again. It's a
Speaker 4: pleasure to hear you and get that update. I was
Speaker 4: wondering speaking about Europe and the Russian economy that you
Speaker 4: had touched upon.
Speaker 3: Where are we on the update.
Speaker 4: Where there were some elements of the President was actually
Speaker 4: very specifically, very upset about the fact that European countries
Speaker 4: were still actually almost funding the war machine, the Russian
Speaker 4: war machine against Ukraine by still acquiring gasoline, natural gas
Speaker 4: from Russia.
Speaker 3: And that's still going on.
Speaker 4: Or is that purbed as Europe as Europe has been,
Speaker 4: you know, basically going through this era of rearming.
Speaker 3: Well it's a great question. It's supposed to being curbed,
Speaker 3: and it's ongoing in the sense that the Europeans at
Speaker 3: the EU level, So the EU twenty seven countries of
Speaker 3: the European Union made a determination that beginning January one,
Speaker 3: twenty twenty seven, there will be no longer term contracts
Speaker 3: anymore being issued for Russian natural gas, and that's really
Speaker 3: LNG that's coming in through say Belajioum, and in France.
Speaker 3: The Germans claim that they don't draw any more Russian gas,
Speaker 3: but of course some of that LNG's ben tRNS shipped
Speaker 3: through the Batalist countries to the German economy, but it's
Speaker 3: dramatically reduced. The Hungarians were an exception, as were the Slovaks,
Speaker 3: both on oil, which the Europeans no longer take aside
Speaker 3: from those exceptions and on gas. But by large, the
Speaker 3: consensus the major economies is that they need to move
Speaker 3: away from this, I think it's probably acknowledged that, for example,
Speaker 3: the famous North Stream two in North Stream pipeline systems
Speaker 3: which brought gas from Russia to Germany the a Baltic
Speaker 3: Sea pipeline, that that was a mistake, and it's just
Speaker 3: a matter of being able to pivot with out so
Speaker 3: upending the European economies that they basically de industrialize altogether.
Speaker 3: The new major provider of natural gas, in addition to
Speaker 3: the Norwegians in Europe and then a few other like
Speaker 3: the Qataris and the Algerians and others, is really the
Speaker 3: United States. So we've really jumped into the fray. It's
Speaker 3: been good for American export business and it's good for
Speaker 3: the Europeans. It's forges the title link across the Atlantic.
Speaker 3: But basically the calculation is Russian gas. Russian natural gas
Speaker 3: is a problem, and it's being wound down, but we're
Speaker 3: not there altogether, and given the size of the European economy,
Speaker 3: the numbers are still significant. The other thing that I
Speaker 3: would point to that's also problematic is Russian's ability to
Speaker 3: still source Western components for its weapon systems through exporting
Speaker 3: Asian or third country transhipment. And so you have you know,
Speaker 3: the Russian which have a manufacturing base, but not a
Speaker 3: lot of high technology industries being able to get things
Speaker 3: like you know, key components for weapons systems that are
Speaker 3: you know, US or European based companies.
Speaker 1: Well, Peter on behalf of Jesse and Eric and myself.
Speaker 1: I want to thank you very very much.
Speaker 2: I wish we had more time.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, we'll have to you know, apparently no, of course
Speaker 1: you have to come back because apparently Putin is not
Speaker 1: giving up and this.
Speaker 2: Is right, and so the odds are high you're coming back.
Speaker 1: Perhaps absolutely listen, listen, but we bring you back for
Speaker 1: coffee and donuts. You know, after war came came to
Speaker 1: a conclusion. But it looks like we're going to have
Speaker 1: to bring you back to talk about this is ongoing
Speaker 1: war of agression by this pathological dictator who doesn't know
Speaker 1: that enough is enough. And you have to hand it
Speaker 1: to the Olynskin, the Ukrainians. Everybody thought they were going
Speaker 1: to be rolled and rolled quickly, including especially the Russians,
Speaker 1: and they were not rolled, and they weren't rolled quickly,
Speaker 1: and they're still in this. And you have to give
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians credit and their advances in military technology is
Speaker 1: absolutely extraordinary. In many ways, the revolutionary is the nature
Speaker 1: of warfare. So we're going to have you back and
Speaker 1: we deeply appreciate it. Thanks for joining us again, and gentlemen,
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you, Peter. This has left the record,
Speaker 1: show Chairman Jessica see the Republican Party noted attorney, comet
Speaker 1: essayist Eric Lavine. I'm Judge Richard Wamberg. We just had
Speaker 1: Peter Ruff of the Hession Institute's director of the Center
Speaker 1: for Europe and Eurasia. He's a White House person the
Speaker 1: Bush administration. Wonderful guy, brilliant insight, and we're very fortunate
Speaker 1: to have him