Is The U.S. Abandoning Ukraine? David Satter on How the West Should Handle Russia & Putin | Ep. 62 Episode

The war in Ukraine has now lasted over three years, making it the largest European conflict since World War II. But what’s REALLY happening behind the scenes? Investigative journalist, historian, and Russia expert David Satter joins Dr. Bob to break it all down.

David Satter has spent decades uncovering the truth about Russia, from Soviet communism to Putin’s dictatorship. In this episode, he reveals how Russia uses war as a tool for internal control, why Putin underestimated Ukraine, and what Trump’s shifting stance on Ukraine means for the future of global security.

🚨Why does Russia invade its neighbors?
- War isn't just about expansion for Russia—it’s about keeping Putin in power.

🚨Did the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan embolden Putin?
- Five months after Biden’s disastrous retreat, Russia launched its full-scale invasion. Coincidence?

🚨Trump’s Ukraine stance: Deal-making or betrayal?
- From sanctions on Russia to calling Zelensky a dictator, Trump’s Ukraine policy is shifting fast—but why?

🚨The corruption inside Russia’s military
- Russian leaders were promised a quick victory, but three years later, they’re still stuck in the fight.

🚨Can Ukraine actually win?
- As Russia controls 44,000 square miles of Ukraine, is a full military victory still possible?

🚨What happens if the U.S. stops supporting Ukraine?
- Would Ukraine fall? Would NATO collapse? Could China invade Taiwan next?
💬 What do you think? Should the U.S. keep funding Ukraine or pull out? Drop your thoughts in the comments!

📢 Make sure to like, share, and subscribe for more unfiltered analysis on world events.

#ukrainewar #russiaukrainewar #zelensky #zelenskyy #putin #trump  #nato #DavidSatter #ukraineconflict  #politics  #breakingnews #trumpzelensky #Geopolitics

Transcript

So if you appeal to Russian chauvinism, and you convince people that you're gathering
the Russian lands, or you're extending the influence of the Russian world,
or you're protecting against future aggression from the West, they'll believe it. They
will believe it, especially since they don't have alternative sources of official
The mainstream media gives you the impression that there is nothing good about
America. In direct contrast to that, my podcasts will prove, by examples,
that America has always been and still is the land of opportunity for everyone.
Welcome to another episode in the series "Life Lessons with Dr. Bob." My guest today
is David Satter, a renowned journalist, author, and historian with very deep expertise
on Russia and the former Soviet Union. But as you'll learn, like most successful
people, he didn't get to be an expert overnight. David was born in Chicago in 1947
and educated at the University of Chicago and Oxford University, where he was a
Rhodes scholar. He started his career in journalism as a police reporter for the
Chicago Tribune. He then moved to the Financial Times, where, because of both his
journalism skills and his fluency in Russian, he was assigned to be the Times'
Moscow correspondent at the height of Soviet power. After six years In that role,
he joined the Wall Street Journal as their special correspondent on Soviet affairs.
Well that came to an end in September of 2013 when he was expelled from Russia,
allegedly for committing multiple gross violations of Russian migration law.
But according to the most, to the knowledgeable sources, he was expelled because of
his very negative but true revelations about both communism and the Russian
government. David has taught at Johns Hopkins University, the University of Illinois,
and Hillsdale College, and he has held senior research positions at the Hoover
Institution, the Hudson Institute, and the Foreign Policy Research Institute,
where he is currently a senior fellow. He is the author of numerous published
articles on both Russia and the Ukraine, and five books, all with very intriguing
titles, and I'm going to listen now, Age of Delirium, The Decline and Fall of the
Soviet Union, Darkness of Dawn, The Rise of the Russian Criminal State.
It was a long time ago, and it never happened anyways. Russia and its Communist
past. The less you know, the better you sleep. Russia's road to terror and
dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin. And finally, the two volumes set never speak to
strangers. David is highly knowledgeable regarding the history of the Soviet Union
prior to its demise in 1991. But he's not here today to give us a history lesson.
He's here today to discuss current events, in particular the war in Ukraine and
President Trump's attempt to negotiate a peace treaty between the warring parties.
And we are very fortunate to have David Sadder with us today To help unwrap it
David Welcome to the show. Thank you, Dr. Bob Some of my viewers may have an
interest in Russia over the past 40 years How it expanded and became the Soviet
Union and then how it shrunk and became Russia once again But I'm pretty sure that
most of my viewers are far more interested in your thoughts about what's happening
since Russia invaded Ukraine almost exactly three years ago. That war is the largest
European conflict since World War II and presents dangers to far more than just to
the Ukraine.
The U .S. showed terrible weakness when it hastily withdrew from Afghanistan in August
of 2021. Do you think that that had any bearing on Putin's decision to invade
Ukraine in February of 22, just five months later? I think it was one of the
factors that influenced that decision, but the preparations to invade Ukraine began
much earlier, much earlier.
The thing that's the hardest for people in the West to understand is that war for
Russia is an instrument of internal policy. The Russian leaders use war in order to
unite the population around their corrupt leadership.
This was the motivation, actually, for the initial seizure of Crimea and the
invasion of the Eastern Ukraine. And the full -scale invasion, which began in 2022,
was similarly based on the desire to consolidate the power of a small criminal group
in Russia. President Trump repeats very often,
and we heard it again at the Oval Office meeting with Zelensky, that if he had
been president, the war would have never taken place. It's not clear to me what
evidence he has for that, but the preparations began much earlier and were
influenced, in fact, by a policy decision that he made, which was to leave
Afghanistan and to leave our ally in Afghanistan in the lurch. Now,
President Biden completed the withdrawal in the worst possible way, but the
fundamental decision to withdraw and to, in effect, to throw our allies to the
wolves, that was made by Trump. Right. Months earlier, as a matter of fact, years
earlier. Far earlier, because they began negotiating in Doha with,
again, behind the back of the Afghan government, which, by the way, was an elected
government. And the Afghan government had the status of most valued ally short of
NATO. And it's interesting that Ukraine aspired,
at one point, to be given the same status the Afghan government had.
But when they saw the way in which we dealt with the Afghan government, they
realized that that status wouldn't do them any good. So they dropped that particular
demand. You mean Ukraine? Yeah, Ukraine did. Yeah, yeah. Okay. The example,
but even the example of abandoning our allies in Afghanistan and turning the place
over to the Taliban was not decisive. The Russian government understands the mentality
of Russian society, and Russian society is organized not the way Western society is
for the benefit of individuals. It's organized as a movement, and that movement is
easily consolidated around a cause, especially if that cause is identified as a
nationalist cause. So if you appeal to Russian chauvinism and you convince people
that you're gathering the Russian lands or you're extending the influence of the
Russian world or you're defending Russian culture, or you're defending Russian
speakers, or you're protecting against future aggression from the West, they will
believe it, especially since they don't have alternative sources of official
information. And so this was long planned, and especially the events in Belarus where
Alexander Lukashenko was actually defeated in the election, but it falsified the
results and was backed up by Putin. That I think was decisive in convincing them to
go from a partial invasion of Ukraine to the full -scale invasion. So when our
president, President Trump, repeats, as he loves to do, that the war would never
have taken place had he been in office. This is just something he's making up.
Well, he believes that his power of negotiation or threat would stop Russia from
invading. He could have stopped it, but he would have faced the same situation that
Biden faced. To stop it you would have had to declare a no -fly zone That would
have stopped it, but a no -fly zone means what people should understand what that
means That means that if American aircraft are fired upon from Russian territory you
have to take out the The source of the missiles the source of the source of the
missiles would be attacking Russia Which would be in a direct attack attack on
Russia. So now, if Trump would be serving the truth better if he said that had I
been in office, I would have imposed a no -fly zone and there would have been no
invasion.
Of course, even that is impossible to say with 100 sense certainty. But at least
that would, you know, that would make sense. Whereas he's simply saying that, you
know, as, as the Russians have the saying is that they don't do it for your
beautiful eyes. And for his beautiful eyes, they wouldn't have halted an invasion,
which was in the, in the works, actually began in the works while he was in
office. So, and then, of course, he lost the 2020 election,
but
but nonetheless, nonetheless, the this is something that has deep roots and we don't
do ourselves any favors if we underestimate that.
Well, I've read that Putin's military leaders, when the war started, they predicted
an easy victory that it would take perhaps only a month or two to wind down for
them to win. It's been three years. How did they make such a huge miscalculation?
There's a process of internal lying that goes all the way up to the top,
for one thing.
Also, it's a tradition in Russia to underestimate your enemy. Russians have been
underestimating their enemies for a long time. They underestimated their enemy in the
Russo -Japanese War. They underestimated their enemy,
believe it or not, in the Second World War.
They underestimated the Finns in the Russo -Finnish war, they underestimated the
Chechens in the first Chechen war at least.
So for them to underestimate an enemy and to predict an easy victory is not all
that unusual. Plus the fact that the corruption and sclerosis in the Russian military
is not something that Russians are anxious to report up the chain of command.
The system operates on the basis of corruption, so because it's so fundamental to
the way in which the Putin system operates, it creates its line spot.
It's the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. And it would be a
very brave person, indeed, who would dare to say. To point out that the tanks are
falling apart and the planes aren't running. That supplies have been stolen,
that our technology is outdated,
that Soldiers are not prepared well over the past 30 years the u .s.
Applied approximately 120 billion dollars That's more than a tenth of a trillion
dollars of aid to Ukraine Of which 66 billion was dedicated to security and defense
and it's been reported that EU members states collectively Contribute another hundred
contribute another $140 billion. So did Putin's military fail to anticipate that high
level of support, without which Ukraine would have fallen quickly? They may have,
yeah. They may well have underestimated, because they had every reason to think,
as I thought at the time, that Joe Biden, who was adamant in opposing the delivery
of javelin missiles. Opposing the delivery? Yes. Throughout the Obama administration,
the Ukrainians asked for javelin missiles to protect themselves against mass tank
assaults. They didn't have the anti -tank weapons that they And that was one of the
reasons why the Russians were able to take over the territory that they did in the
east of the country before they stabilized the line of contact. It was because they
faced massed tank assaults and that they couldn't stop them.
And they asked for the U .S. to provide the anti -tank weapons, which is what the
javelin is basically, that would enable them to, you know, to, you know,
to, to, to, to, to, why wouldn't we supply those? Those are clearly defensive
weapons. They're not offensive. I think we have to ask Joe Biden and, uh, and
Barack Obama, but the extreme, you know, the extreme timidity, uh,
and the unwillingness to stand, take a stand on principle and say, listen,
you're, you're, we're not, we're not going to, uh, tolerate any more aggression. We
see that right now with Trump as well, by the way, but we can get to that. But I
thought that Biden, given his record, would not respond the way he did.
But I was wrong, and I'm glad I was wrong, and I'm glad that Biden, whatever his
past record, did the right thing by providing Ukraine with the weapons that they
needed to save themselves and they did save themselves. No, but you just said they
wouldn't provide the javelins. No, they didn't provide, this is the Biden, this is
when Biden was vice president. This is not after the, you see,
because we're talking about several different periods here. When Trump became president
and to his great credit in his first term, he price the javelins. That's one of
the reasons why Kiev was saved.
But when Biden was running against Trump,
there was every reason to believe that once, and then he won,
as we know, he became the president. The Russians had every reason to believe that
given his past record, his record when he was vice -president, and the
Attitude of the Obama Administration, that they had nothing to fear from the United
States or the West, that they could just roll over Ukraine. And at first the aid
was rather halting, but in the end it was substantial. Not substantial enough to
help Ukraine win As it could have been I mean there were but we can go into all
those tactics It's some other point in the conversation, but but enough certainly to
helps Ukraine stave off a massive attack so in in Biden's administration did they
did the Biden administration provide The missiles the anti anti -tank weapons they
provided a lot of very effective missiles very effective weapons I mean the a great
deal of the javelins were the missiles that were authorized by by Trump actually and
in that that was a very major thing he brought that up in the recent he He did.
He did. Now as of today, Russian forces occupy approximately 44 ,000 square miles of
Ukrainian territory, roughly equal to the size of the state of Virginia, which is
about 18 % of Ukraine's total land area. Is it possible for Ukraine to regain that
territory, either by negotiation or by military means?
Well, it's possible. It's possible that some of that territory can be regained
militarily.
And it's possible that all of the territory or almost all of the territory can be
regained ultimately through peaceful means if we get a decent settlement now,
because the Russian government is itself very unstable and the regime could undergo
changes. The important thing is not to recognize the annexation of those territories.
I mean, we for many years didn't recognize the annexation of the Baltic Republics.
Eventually,
they became free and independent.
The point I think is, and I think as Zelensky is right here,
that given the present situation, the cost in lives would be such that it does not
pay for any Ukrainian Canadian leaders try to force the issue and to liberate all
of the territory. But they certainly need to protect the part of the country that
is not occupied and to create the conditions to recover the rest of the territory
Or and and there there are various ways this can be done including by Imposing
imposing and maintaining economic sanctions so that it eventually just doesn't become
it becomes too much of it too Too burdensome for Russia to maintain these two
territories that it has done that it is absolutely destroyed Nobody living there
anymore. Well, there are people living there, but the conditions are horrific Now
soon after Trump's inauguration his administration Appeared to be solidly behind
Ukraine For example in late January just last month Trump warned of imposing high
tariffs in additional sanctions on Russia if President accountant, didn't engage in a
deal to end the war. And in mid -February, just a few weeks ago, Vice President
Vance in a Wall Street Journal interview, which published, said that Ukraine must
have sovereign independence, and he went on to say that the U .S. retains the option
of sending U .S. troops to Ukraine if Moscow failed to negotiate in good faith.
But soon after that, the administration's position of support started to wane.
Although Trump proposed that Ukraine would receive additional military aid, there was
a catch. His proposal linked future military support to Ukraine,
providing the U .S. had rights to Ukraine's large deposits of rare earth minerals.
And in making the matter even worse, it appears that Trump believed that the U .S.
should get those mineral rights without any additional payment or conditions, viewing
that the more than 100 billion of financial support that Ukraine received from the U
.S. in the past was a payment for those mineral rights. And even more contentious
was Trump saying on February 18th, following a meeting in Saudi Arabia, words to the
effect that Ukraine started the war. And in a post just one day later, he called
Zelensky a dictator. And five days after that, on February 24th,
under Trump's direction, the U .S. voted with our enemies. We voted with our enemies,
Russia and North Korea. We voted against a United Nations General Assembly resolution
that condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine and called for the immediate withdrawal of
Russian troops. What do you make of all this, David? Ukraine is an ally of the
United States, which has been attacked by Russia, an enemy of the United States.
Why didn't the U .S. vote for the resolution condemning Russia. But I want to hear
your opinion on why it happened and the reason behind Trump's rapid and very
significant change of position on Ukraine.
Well, I mean, first of all, he had been saying,
even before he was selected, or rather before he took office, after he was selected,
before he took office, that he was going to end the war in one day,
that the war was ridiculous. Vance said that he didn't care who won the war. It
didn't matter to him which side prevailed, whether the aggressor prevailed or the
victim seemed to be, he didn't see any issue here.
So there were plenty of statements. And he repeated ad nauseam,
the idea that, well, if I'd been president, the war would have never broken out.
The point now is to end it and end the dying. But there was no mention of the
only condition under which the war could really be ended, which was through the
provision of security guarantees for Ukraine. It was always other people who would do
that rather than the U .S. We would simply reap the benefits,
including a deal for strategic minerals.
My impression is that I've been writing about Russia and the Soviet Union all my
adult life practically. And I've often been profoundly disturbed by the low quality
of the advice given by persons who consider themselves expert.
But I was never in a situation in which the very idea of expert advice was
rejected and people were just saying whatever comes into their heads. And I believe
that's what's happening now. Mood shifts one way, they say one thing, the mood
shifts another way, say something else. I can't, I don't have another explanation for
it. >> Well, I think it couldn't be because of Trump's obsession to make a deal,
to end the war, that he's softening up Zelensky to accept a very bad deal.
Couldn't that be it? He's obsessed with, I gotta make a deal. I'm the deal maker.
I'm the best deal maker in the world. I think he sees the war as a distraction
that his overall goal is to
enrich Americans, which is fine. I'm in favor of that. I think people should be
enriched. But there are other considerations also for a great power. Money is not
the only thing, although it's clearly important. And he harbors vast resentment
against the Ukrainians and against Zelensky for the role that, first of all,
the role that was played in 2016 in which it appears there was some type of
activity on the part of some Ukrainians to
Trump against Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Well, he won. And of course,
the failure of the Ukrainians to cooperate in the investigation of Hunter Biden,
which in turn, mushroomed into Trump's impeachment.
Right. I remember that. So I think that. And then it was obvious during the blow
-up in the White House, that these
resentments are not very far from the surface, when one of the reasons, as J .D.
Vance attacked Zelensky when he said, "We're not going to litigate this in front of
the American people." But in fact, he had made absurd remarks, and
Zelensky was explaining truthfully that it's not so important that getting an
agreement is, and as he's fired is-- - He'll violate it. - Is no good if it isn't
backed by something. - If it isn't backed by something. And this was absolutely
obvious and he cited examples. It was a normal response. But I think
they had set it up to embarrass him. And afterward, of course, Trump said this made
great television. He may have overplayed his hand. He may have, by attempting to,
you know, and there were two against one, of course, shouting at Zelensky. Everything
that Zelensky said was true. Everything that Trump and Vance said was either true or
absurd or both. Or insulting. Or insulting. For example,
to say, why aren't you thanking us? What, you know, you don't demand thanks in a
formal setting like that, like like that. Zelensky has expressed his thanks to the
Americans many times.
It was it was a profoundly disturbing spectacle, to think that people capable of
such really unhinged behavior are now running in the country. >>Toward an ally,
toward an ally. >>Not only toward an ally, the idea that they should be grateful to
us, we should be grateful to them. They're the ones who are losing the blood.
>>They're losing hundreds of people and and there was no sympathy for Zelensky or
the Ukrainian absolutely no sympathy and it came after Zelensky had shown photos of
the atrocities oh I didn't know that yeah he had just gotten done showing was that
in the press conference - yes it was yeah and so yes yes it was before the before
the Bob it was before the before the blow -up. Okay, yeah, but it was still in the
public setting. Oh yes, it was in the Oval Office. He showed him, you know, for,
you know, the victims. Right. And Trump accused him,
at least afterwards, he hates that guy Putin. Well, he should hate the guy Putin.
Well, and more to the, yeah, and also I think the idea that
And he sees that and then he says, you should be grateful to us.
What kind of statement is that? What kind of, and I was very disappointed to see
Marco Rubio's extended defense. Of course, Marco Rubio could be fired tomorrow,
so I mean, he ain't see well -known. - But Lindsey Graham was the same. Senator
Graham was also. Well, I can't account for all of these guys, but it's painful for
me to see this,
you know, complaining that Zelensky isn't groveling.
That's what they were complaining about. Well, of course, you should grovel to us
because we have all the cards. But Zelensky has some cards, too. He has
moral justification and I didn't like the fact that Trump talked about you don't
have the cards. It's like he thinks it's a game. You don't make the analogy.
As Zelensky said, he said I'm not playing cards.
Right.
Frightening.
And Trump referred to the collusion of hoax, which the Democrats foisted on the
country. But that wasn't Zelensky's fault. No, but he said that Putin suffered as a
result. Oh, that was nonsense. How did Putin suffer? Trump suffered from it.
Putin didn't suffer. Putin orchestrated it. He probably had a role in it, Right.
Well, the information came from the FSB. Aha. I see. You know, the things that,
you know, as someone who's dealt with this, you know,
it's unsettling. You can't imagine, Bob,
what it's like to see these arguments back and forth between totally uninformed
people who don't have the intellectual depth to really understand the subject about
which they're opining and don't refuse to recognize that that's their fundamental
responsibility.
But anyway, that's what we've got and we have to do something about it but the the
consequences for the United States now if if it's like we're on a San Diego freeway
at 120 miles an hour for some guy who's you know who just learned to drive well
who we're not only just lead takes his hands off the wheels shouting you know it's
somebody else The car, you know, it's in the middle of traffic, and it's...
Now, if Trump continues in this vein of not supporting Ukraine diplomatically,
for example, in the vote against sanctioning Russia, and if the U .S.
also withholds military aid, will Ukraine be able to continue fighting,
or will it have to settle for a bad deal in which Russia probably retains the land
that it currently occupies? Well, I think that Zelensky has indicated that they're
ready to cease
the fighting along the existing line of contact, more or less,
in return for security guarantees if the as long as they know that the rest of
Ukraine is safe But that's what Trump that's a guarantee that Trump doesn't want to
give So without that Russia will can we'll agree to a ceasefire,
but then it'll advance. Yeah. Well, that's exactly right the the Ukraine can't afford
a ceasefire, because they can't mobilize their society yet again to resist aggression
from a much larger power after they've re -armed, well after that power has re -armed
and after the state of readiness has been lost.
the
and then at the in the the
The meeting in the Oval Office Jade events start shouting while you're impressing
people in the army by force In in Ukraine. I well they have they have to you
know, they're doing the same And does he not think that's happening in Russia? Sure
and they're using North Korean soldiers. - Yeah, it was
painting him as the bad guy. - It was beyond absurd. - Painting him as the bad guy.
- Well, this is it. I mean, the point here was you had on the one side a person
who was speaking the truth, Zolensky. - Yeah. - And you had two people who were
talking nonsense and trying to use various forms of psychological pressure to impose
that nonsense. You haven't thought, you aren't grateful, for example. And you're going
to cause World War III. You're going to cause World War III. Yeah, you're
disrespectful.
All of this in order to conceal the obvious fact that what Zelensky was saying
makes perfect sense. Does Trump's unpredicted and in my view irrational and
detrimental shift away from supporting Ukraine cause concern for our NATO allies?
great, great concern, great concern, because they're the ones who are the most
threatened. If Russia prevails as it seeks to do against Ukraine,
they may end up incorporating part of the Ukrainian army, which is the most battle
-ready army in Europe into their forces.
next the next next step is to threaten NATO. Why do people believe
that we can convince Putin that a country which was not willing to spend money to
defend Ukraine will spend lives to defend Estonia?
We won't be able to convince him. And if there's, if-- - Estonia is a member of
NATO, right? - Yeah, does it mean that the NATO alliance then is going to be a
thing of the past? It could be. We could say, well, you're on your own, folks.
Okay, but then the day will come when we will need allies.
And-- Trump may not believe that, Trump may not believe that. He may not believe
that, he may not understand what it means, the gray zone of war.
Well so far, NATO hasn't been paying its share, right? They're paying more and more.
Now they are. They're paying more. Yes, there was definitely freeloading, there was
definitely. So in that respect,
you know, some of what Trump says is in fact fully justified. Many of these NATO
countries, seeing that their defense was taken care of, used the opportunity to spend
on these profligate social programs. Or the green new deal,
or whatever. Or the greening of their countries. Or the greening of their country.
Things that, in fact, we ended up indirectly subsidizing or even paying for.
So, you know, as far as that goes, I think he was right.
But the idea that we can make NATO membership or our willingness to defend NATO
dependent on money ultimately, you know, he's not, he seems blind to the intangible,
non -material aspect of western cooperation and the ideals and principles that hold
the West together and make it pop. That's not just who's paying for it. It's not
just who's paying for it. What is critical here, what would happen if the U .S.
simply decides to cut off all aid to Ukraine. If the U .S.
says surrender or we cut off all aid, and the Ukrainians say we're not going to
surrender, and we cut off aid.
Well,
that's the end for the U .S. as a moral example to the
allies will that's the collapse of the Western Alliance right and and what will
Saudi Arabia think what'll Israel think what'll South Korea think what Taiwan think
of course all of these all of these things are very important and the fate
of of Ukraine will be terrible and
The anti -western hatred there which you know as a result of such a stab in the
back would be Would be very dangerous Now my worry is if the US pulls back from
confronting Russia from continuing to aid Ukraine Isn't that likely to embolden China
to perhaps make moves against Taiwan, which has very serious implications for our
economy and our military and our country. Yeah, I think it does. And the Taiwanese
certainly agree, because Ukraine has long been a recognized member of the United
Nations. And Russia has repeatedly recognized the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
We're comparing that to Taiwan, which doesn't have representation, I assume, in the
United States. Not only that, but we've officially agreed there's one China.
The protection of Taiwan comes from the fact that we're opposed to it
Russia, China exerting its rights by force.
Now,
but once we, it's clear that we've washed our hands of a country that we was fully
recognized to be independent. How much credibility do we have in simply preventing
China from reuniting with a province that we've already recognized is really theirs.
Yeah. Terrible story. It is terrible. It is terrible.
And although
we have far more economic dependence on Taiwan than we do on Ukraine,
far more. this far more strategic importance to Taiwan than Ukraine appears to have.
>> Ukraine also has strategic importance for us because I think it's not fully
recognized, but if Ukraine becomes false under the control of Russia,
the strategic advantage that Russia will have vis -à -vis such countries as Moldova
and the Baltic Republics will be greatly enhanced.
Here's the thing. Russia is weak. It's corrupt. They are not a match for a NATO
style military. But they have unlimited numbers of lives that they can expend.
And
we might prevail against their human waves, but it would cost us.
After giving up Ukraine, are we going to pay that price to defend a country just
because we've said, "Well, this was NATO. This wasn't." It doesn't sound likely to
me. It doesn't sound likely to me either, and I don't think it will be perceived
as likely
by the Russians.
The conversation that you just watched was recorded less than a day after the
tumultuous meeting at the White House between Zelensky, Trump, and Vance. We've
recorded this update to our conversation because new and very pertinent information
came to light in the past few days. This information markedly changed my view and
maybe other people's view also about the argumentative meeting that happened in the
White House. Was it, as the Democrats claim, an ambush by Trump and Vance?
Or was it a setup by Zelensky, who was urged by the Dems to try to make Trump
and Vance look bad on camera? David, I watched the video of the meeting at the
White House a few times, and frankly, I felt sorry for Zelensky. He was outnumbered
and neither Trump nor Vance seemed to have any compassion for the man whose country
was invaded by Russia and which has lost hundreds of thousands of its citizens in
the past three years of war. But I didn't have all the facts about events that
preceded that meeting. Fill us in.
Well, I, a A couple points, I think, you know, I'm in Washington, but I've been
talking to people also in Kiev and in Moscow.
And the version that is being put out in Washington is by the Trump administration,
by people who are close to Trump, is that you didn't see, you don't know the whole
story. What you saw on camera is not really what happened that,
in fact, Zelensky was trying to change the terms of the agreement.
Now, of course, no one watching on television knows what happened off camera.
I don't know either. And we don't know if their interpretation is correct either.
All I know is what I saw on TV and what I saw, I think fits into a pattern of
events that we see unfolding now. If we look at the last four days,
what do we see? We see the confrontation in the Oval Office. We see the decision
to halt arm shipments to Ukraine, and now the decision to halt intelligence
cooperation with Ukraine, all of which, so if you put those three things together,
what took place in the Oval Office,
what the halt in arm shipments and the halt in intelligence sharing, it looks like
a concerted effort to force Zalensky to accept the terms of a ceasefire that Trump
is trying to Put together urgently When he came you know even before he came into
office. He said that this would be done very very quickly He said that he would
first of all he said that the war would be settled before he was even inaugurated
Then he said it would be done in one day. Well now it's several weeks and months,
but he's in a big hurry. Zelensky can't afford to be in such a hurry because it's
the life of the nation and his own life physically. He could easily be killed under
conditions in which Russia dominates Ukraine. So I think that what we really have in
front of us is a strategy for negotiating, which in my view is flawed.
The idea being that we give all our concessions to Russia. Russia gets a halt in
military assistance to Ukraine,
the embarrassment of or denunciation of Zelensky publicly, And in return,
we're going to ask Putin to give us some kind of an agreement that's going to that
we can say has put an end to the to the to the to the conflict.
Now, in fact, this is the exact opposite of the way that you negotiate with Russia.
And if it if if. - And it's the opposite,
David, one second. And it's the opposite because we've already shown our hand that
we've-- - We've already made our concessions. We've already shown our hand. But it's
interesting that Trump today also showed how to negotiate with Russia. But he
demonstrated it not in relation to Russia, but in relation to Hamas.
He said, you have one week to free the hostages or all hell is going to break
loose. Now that's the way to negotiate with Russia.
If I were advising Trump, what I would tell him is Zelensky is our ally.
Zelensky is not a danger to the United States. Zelensky is fighting our fight.
What you need to do is intimidate Russia, and you can do it.
You tell him he has one week to evacuate Ukrainian territory.
Otherwise, to use his phrase, "All hell will break loose." But you don't believe
that Putin is going to give up the land that they already occupy,
do you? Is that what you think the end result is? He will give up anything that
he is forced to give up. This war will end when the person who started it realizes
that he has more to lose from continuing the war than he does from pursuing it.
And we have historical examples of this. I'll give you one very good example, which
was the First Chechen War. Nobody thought that one million Chechens could defeat the
Russians. But because of their superior military tactics,
they basically encircled Russian forces in the capital city of Grozny,
which is the capital city of Chechnya, and were ready to annihilate them.
And at that point,
President Yeltsin, it was Yeltsin at that time, not only agreed to pull out his
forces from Chechnya, which he said he would never do, but he did it ahead of
time.
I can, Bob, I wonder if I can get your permission to tell you a story.
How do you feel about that? Of course. I think you're the kind of, my view of you
is that you're the kind of person who likes a good story, and I tell you all from
my own life. I was on the train from Moscow to Helsinki in the dark days of the
Soviet Union, carrying a document which was vital to the lives of a group of people
and which I simply could not allow to fall into the hands of the authorities.
So I put it in my jacket pocket because I knew that there was an informal practice
not to search the jackets and the clothes of foreign correspondents. Now,
I don't know if they were tipped off or not, but they came into my compartment at
the border and demanded my jacket. And I told them nothing doing,
I want to call the American Embassy. And they made a gesture as if to spit and
said, "Ha, American embassy." And they said, "Give me the jacket." I said,
"If you want the jacket, you're going to have to take it by force." And they said,
"Oh, all right." And at that point, they gathered in the corridor,
walked down to the end of the corridor, they said, "We'll be back." And, you know,
then for five, ten agonizing minutes I waited there. And finally,
not two border guards, but three came. But this time they were all smiles. And they
said to me, Oh, you wanted to call the American Embassy. And I grasping the
situation said, Yeah, well, maybe that was a little extreme, forgetting the fact that
I threatened to fight it out with them. And they said, Here's Here's your passport.
They didn't even check my bags. So if you stand up to them.
Yes, but I hear you're saying, but David, we've, through the Ukraine's fighting with
our weapons and other weapons supplied by the EU, we've been standing up to Russia
and it's gotten us nowhere. And we've spent, I think it's $120 billion.
So Trump is tired of spending money on this. So what kind of threat can we make?
We've been we've been on Ukraine's side for three years and not getting anywhere.
First of all, Bob, I can't agree that we haven't gotten anywhere. Not a single
major Ukrainian city has been taken. They've the goal was to occupy the entire
country. They have held. OK, OK, I'll take it back. So but still Russia can Russia
is still controlling. I think it turned out to be 18 percent of the Ukraine, 18
about 18 percent. But that that has that that that changes a little bit day by
day. But the point here is that we have not done everything that we could do.
For one thing, the the permission to attack targets inside Russia came at the very
last minute, that should have been the immediate, we put such restrictions on our
arms that Russia was able to mobilize in the areas where they knew they would not
be attacked and use those as staging areas to attack
But the most important thing we can do is drive down the price of oil and That if
if we do that and we impose real sanctions secondary sanctions And we give them
permission to use Tomahawk missiles, you know, we we have all the carts but To put
an end to this and we have to do it. We have to do it because was,
the entire deterrence posture of the United States is going to be threatened.
And better to fight them in Ukraine than to fight them in Estonia or to fight them
elsewhere. And God knows we don't want to give a signal to the Chinese that they
can take Taiwan and that we won't react. Deterrence, this is the thing that people
don't understand. And this is why the withdrawal from Afghanistan was so catastrophic,
that the actions in one part of the world have an effect on what happens everywhere
else.
But you're arguing for strengthening Zelensky or the Ukraine,
I won't make it personal, personal, strengthen the Ukraine, we're doing the exact
opposite. We're doing the exact opposite. Not only were we doing the exact opposite,
we're demoralizing our allies. We're demoralizing the people who are fighting for
their survival. We're undermining faith in the United States as a country with
ideals. And the keystone of our entire structure is our ideals. and we're
jeopardizing our future security and this future security of countries that are
devoted to us and that have been our most loyal allies. - So do you think that
Trump has allowed his personal animosity towards Zelinsky for one reason or another?
He clearly doesn't get along with him. He's allowing that to affect his judgment
regarding how to deal with... I don't know all the details.
There's a lot of scuttlebud here in Washington, but I'll tell you what I'm hearing
from what I hear from both the Republican and Democratic side is that that is
really the reason for the animosity, that, you know,
those, you know, I have a certain authority here, because I was the first person to
point out that the Trump collusion hoax was phony, that the Democrats were providing
false information given to them be, and that they,
and they didn't care how they were wrecking the country. Now, Trump,
this was also interesting in his Oval Office meeting. He said that, that I suffered
and Putin suffered during the Trump collusion hoax. It was a hoax. Yeah,
I heard that. I didn't understand how Putin suffered. Well, how he could say that.
That means he doesn't understand that the hoax came from Russia.
They came from the FSB. When bus feed in 2017,
just to give you a little extra explanation, published the Steele dossier.
Americans were seeing it for the first time, but I was reading something that I had
read for years, for decades. I know, you know, KGB, their language.
I know their tactics. I know the way. They didn't even bother to change it much.
They were so confident they could fool a gullible American public. And so that's why
I wrote in National Review that this is absolute, Steele dossier is absolutely phony.
And then CNN, They did a broadcast in which they say, "Steel dossier partially
confirmed." You have to be a total idiot to say something like that.
Because all of Russian disinformation does contain some truthful information so that
you will believe the false information. Anyway, so you see a country without
intellectual depth, without seriousness in relation to a dangerous country like Russia,
was ready to swallow this hoax. And as you know, we spent three years. And then 51
so -called intelligence agents, when they got the Hunter Biden laptop for career
reasons, and with a complete lack of ethics, insisted that this was Russian
disinformation. So in other words, when they got Russian information, they didn't
understand what it was. And when they got something that was genuine, they called it
Russian disinformation. - Okay, so get back to Ukraine because I understand. - But
let's get back to, so Trump is, was obviously embittered.
And in a way, I don't blame him. been about what this has nothing to do.
Who wouldn't be? Who wouldn't be? And then, you know, so all of this has left it,
but none of it, none of it should be a factor in the Russia -Ukraine situation.
This is clear aggression and acts of mass murder of innocent civilians.
It should never, you know, the, the, the, the, the, it needs,
you know, Trump says that he could have stopped the war. Well, he can stop it now,
but he can't stop it the way he's going about it. He's going to guarantee that
it'll get worse. He can stop it by doing exactly what I said, which is,
you know, making clear, stop it now or all hell will break loose. Now,
we're clearly in the other direction right now. So we're absolutely absolutely.
OK, and to think that my question is going to stop it out of gratitude. Will
England that's will England in France or other countries fill the gap? The the the
gap in in funding and in equipment and in intelligence. Can they fill the gap?
Partially, partially. And here I think Trump has really achieved a great deal.
And we need to give him credit where credit is due, that he has convinced the
allies now that they cannot just take advantage of our defense shield.
They have to contribute. But there are certain things like the Patriot missiles.
You know, There are 6 ,000 satellites that cover Ukraine and that protect Ukraine
against air attack, either by plane or by missile. If those satellites,
if that satellite information is turned off, the whole country is vulnerable.
If they don't, If Ukraine does not have Patriot missiles,
then Kiev can be attacked with Iskandar short -term missiles. The Russians,
the Iskandar can't reach Lviv on the western border.
But
It can they can hit they can hit cave and and so I mean what's happening is the
administration is playing with fire and So look as a linsky is trying to turn this
back around right today Well, yeah, of course today was reported that That he's
prepared to sign the deal as it was and this is this is not the deal for up for
a fire. This is the deal on the minerals. Yeah, yeah, but, you know,
we shouldn't even be talking about that deal because that's not, I mean, I,
yeah, it's great. Let's do a deal. Let's, let's, let's cooperate economically. But
that shouldn't be a condition for, for, for defending a country against aggression.
And see what happened is that so Many of our pseudo -educated people were spouting
so much nonsense that the people who came into the Trump administration said,
"Well, we don't need any expertise," instead of saying, "Well, these are bad people
or these are people who are abusing their position, but of course we need genuine
expertise." They're putting people into office who say that we don't need anything at
all. In fact, if we go back to that confrontation in the Oval Office, there's one
moment when Vance said to Zelensky,
you're dragging people off the streets and sending them to the front lines. That's,
in fact, not true. I mean, they're checking that, you know, everybody has to
register for the draft. The country's been invaded. If you stopped on the street and
you can't show your draft registration, you have to go and get a medical exam and
you have to be registered, that's all. But every once in a while, a policeman
overreacts, somebody has a cell phone, and Russian propaganda is recycling that night
and day, they don't show what they're doing, how they're recruiting murderers and
prisoners in the labor camps and how they're paying enormous amounts of money to
people so that they basically get slaughtered. But this they do put out.
And so Zelensky then said, "Have you ever been to Ukraine?" And he said, "No, but
I've seen pictures." And He said, "Well, you should come to Ukraine." He says,
"No, I'm not going to come because it's a propaganda show." So it's the question
of, "Well, if you've never been to Ukraine, how do you know it's a propaganda
show?" No, he meant by dragging him there, it would be for propaganda purposes.
But you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong. If Americans don't
understand how serious this is. I've seen hundreds of train. They, you know,
they are not, they don't have the time to, to, they do not control visitors like
North Korea. You're free to go anywhere you want. I know this.
He's free to go to, you know, just as I did, he's free to go to the Ukrainian
Catholic University. I spoke there. He's free to go to Kiev -Mahila University. I
spoke there. He's free to go to, you know, he's free to visit the front line
cities. You know, he will talk, you know, they will talk to him because he's vice
president of the United States. But by making a statement like that, he's saying,
you know, and spouting Russian disinformation that he doesn't understand and where
he's not informed. Of course, he's going to provoke Zelensky, who's going to say,
you know, what, what is going on here. And this is not just Vance.
This is, this is Robert Kennedy Jr. This is, you know, other people,
it's Tucker Carlson. In his, it's,
we did, there is a huge Russian disinformation effort working day and night against
the United States and recruiting gullible idiots to repeat all their falsehoods.
And if you see, if you look, if you look, I'm sorry to be rude, but if you look
at Vance, Donald Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson,
I don't know who else, various others, at Robert Kenny, they say the same thing.
It's a script.
They've been provided with a script. And since everyone hates Ukraine because of the
partisan conflict in this country,
people are ready just to read the script. Tucker Carlson is not an expert on
And neither is Donald Trump Jr. No, none of them and you have to be an expert to
really because their propaganda is clever But look Give Trump is do he he knows
that That Russia started the war, right? He knows that and he knows well He that
Russia is an enemy allied with our other enemies of China,
North Korea in Iran, right? He knows that. So, so maybe.
Well, but here's here's the thing. Here's the thing, Bob. There, there's talk that
Trump has in mind trying to align to get to split the alliance between Russia and
China.
And Russia will work full time to make him think that that's possible.
You know, and they say you abandon Ukraine and listen,
we will change our relationship with China. And at the end of the day, we'll find
that it was all empty words and that they you don't believe there or do you
believe that Trump is going to abandon Ukraine do you think that's going to be the
deal that he's going to get with Putin I because you cut off all supplies to
Ukraine and Russia takes over Ukraine it ends the killing
It won't end the killing. It just it will it's just the beginning of the killing
because it'll be a new war
But the do I think that he intends to abandon Ukraine I Hope not,
but everything he does. He's doing is moving gives me Reason to believe that that's
what he and I think what he intends to do is get an agreement that will make him
look good, that will give Russia time to rebuild their military for a new war,
but that will take place after he leaves office.
And I think he will settle not for an agreement, but for the appearance of an
agreement. Well, it'll be a ceasefire, right? It's not going to be a peace
agreement. I can tell you, Ukraine will not agree to that.
What is the future relationship between America and Russia? What do you think that
is? Or what do you think it's going to be? Well, I can tell you what I would
like to see, and then I'll tell you what it looks like.
What I would like to see is America forcing into this aggression.
Yeah, that's not going to happen. That's not going to happen.
Participate in the rebuilding of Ukraine and making it, you know, they have a strong
army which will then be on our side. They have the strongest army in Europe now.
And
Properly trained and oriented toward democracy, they will be a very staunch ally of
the United States in everything that we do. And what I would like to see is as a
result of the defeat of this aggression, the beginning of hope for democracy in
Russia itself, because bear in that's really far off what all right that's what
you'd like to see is that what you that's what i'd like to see now what do i
think i'm going to see right that's the second your second question right yes yes
what i fear is that trump will try to bring overwhelming pressure on ukraine uh to
accept a flawed agreement, which will put Ukraine in danger,
and in the end will not solve the problem. For example, he says, well, if we have
our engineers, our workers, they're digging for minerals,
Russia's not going to attack. Well, Russia wasn't bothered by the fact that they had
to invade through Chernobyl on their way to Kiev. An active nuclear site with all
of the risk of nuclear contamination. So they're going to worry about, they will ask
them to get out of the way, possibly. Or if they say, well, Russia will not invade
if there are European troops there.
That's also not true. It depends on what those troops are instructed to do.
Are they instructed to resist if Russia advances? If so,
Russia won't agree to that kind of a treaty.
I mean, their goal is to
destroy Ukraine. They are ready for the sake of Donald Trump and for his political
situation to disguise their ultimate objective a little bit.
But the fact that, I mean, this is no way to negotiate with Russians by giving
them everything in advance and then, you know, humiliating your ally and threatening
to stab them in the back, and then expect,
"Oh, well, Russia will be grateful. They won't be grateful. They will take everything
that's given and go for more." Okay, David, thank you once again for spending time
with me today to share your insights on this rapidly changing situation.
It is the war in Ukraine.
Thank you, Bob. If you want to learn more about David Satter and his work,
you can go to his website, davidsatter .org, all one word. Additionally,
you can follow him on social media platforms, including X under his handle
@DavidSatter.
If you enjoyed this episode of Life Lessons with Dr. Bob, please subscribe and
you'll be automatically notified of future podcasts in this series.
Thanks so much for listening to another episode of Life Lessons with Dr. Bob. If
you enjoy these interviews with some of today's most influential thought leaders,
please follow and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. And don't forget,
You can also watch each episode on YouTube as well. We'll see you next time.