Bulwark Takes - Europe Will Stand Behind Zelensky, Not Trump (w/ Mark Hertling)

Episode Date: November 21, 2025

Bill Kristol and Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling discuss why the proposed U.S.–Russia “peace plan” would reward Russian aggression, undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, alienate U.S. allies, and the dangerous misunderstanding of Ukraine’s history.

Hi, Bill Crystal here with my colleague, Mark Hurtling, retired Lieutenant General, the U.S. Army, and a very valued bulwark military analyst and our V military analyst of the bulwark. Very high honor. Anyway, we were talking about the news from Ukraine, the news about Ukraine, the Russian-U.S. apparent, I don't know, deal on an apparent, quote, peace plan, which is, I don't know, may apparently being imposed on Ukraine. Tell us about it. followed this so closely. You were in Europe so many years and know the Ukraine situation so well.

So what's up? Well, at first, Bill, you know this, but I'm a bit biased toward Ukraine because I had the opportunity to work with the Ukrainian military for a couple of years and met the individual that literally transformed the army in Ukraine, a colonel general by the name of Hennadai Verobeoff. And I've never told his story before, but General Verobeoff was part of the Soviet Union, part of the Soviet Army for the first 20 years of his life. And then when Ukraine gained their independence, he went back to Ukraine and became a National Guardsman rose all the way up, or their equivalent of the National Guard, rose all the way up to be the chief of their ground forces. The very first stop I made when I was newly installed as the commander

of U.S. Army Europe was to Ukraine. And I had dealt with the Ukrainians in Iraq in 2004, and they were a terrible army. They were crooked. They still had the stench of the Soviet Union on them. But Brobeoff approached me with a list of things that he wanted to help him do. He wanted me to help him do. And what I found out later is he had written a Ph.D. thesis on the transformation of the Ukrainian army to Western approaches. So he gave me this list of saying, hey, I want to.

I want my soldiers to go to your NCO Academy and Grafenvir. I want you to do more training exercises with us. If you can, can you get more Ukrainian colonels into your war college? Because we have a dearth of good leaders at the senior rank. He said a lot of them are all still Soviet leaning. And that's what's corrupting our military. So he went on an anti-corruption campaign. And for several years before the first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, he was doing his best to turn the place around. What I did with him over a couple of years is not only do the training bases and the exchanges and the exercises with their army, but he taught me about the Ukrainian culture. So I bought into what he showed me. And at the same time, Bill, and I've said this before, I was also visiting Russia. And I was comparing the two armies, the Russian army versus the Ukrainian army, the Russian culture and the Ukrainian culture, and it was just, it was night and day. So with that as kind of a prelude, what I'm seeing now, which is really sort of distressing, is, you know, I admire the administration for attempting to bring about the peace

process, to do something that will stop the killing. But if that is the approach, And it's not being done with an understanding of the sovereignty and national territorial integrity of Ukraine and the cultural dynamics of that country. And most importantly, the reflection of what U.S. values are to a partner, then I think we're doing something wrong. And in viewing the elements of this 28-point peace plan that were presented by Secretary Rubio, and Envoy Whitkoff, it just smacks of rewarding Russia for aggression and criminal activities and terrorism and the invasion of another country. And I just don't understand why our administration is putting all the onus on Ukraine to accept a proposal that is deleterious to what the outcome is and what they've suffered over

the last four years as they've fought off the fourth largest army in the world. A friend of mine who knows much more about this than I do says that it's, the headlines are that they have to give back land and they also would, that it's really just a bunch of, honestly, sort of Putin talking points almost. I mean, that they'd have to cut their army. We wouldn't be able to help them. They would, all kinds of things that would, of course, know NATO. So there would be a huge risk in terms of their basic national security, as well as giving back parts of provinces. And then also on the kind of cultural side, which you began with, I was interested that you did. I mean, you know, Russian would have to be recognized as an official

language. The Russian Orthodox Church gets special treatment. I mean, a real attempt to basically lay the groundwork. Do you think this is right? As my friend said, do what Putin has always dreamed of, which is kind of obliterating Ukraine's separate national identity. Well, it's interesting to me. And again, I don't mean to insult the Secretary of State or the, the, the, the, Mr. Whitkoff, but it really appears they have no understanding of the history between Ukraine and Russia. You know, which you just mentioned even the history of the language, of not even being able to speak the Ukrainian language. For about 40 years, that was the case inside of Ukraine. It was like a criminal offense to speak Ukrainian inside of Ukraine. And when you go back to

Anne Applebaum's great book about the red famine, the title of the book, about the 1930s Halamador, where Stalin killed about 30,000 Ukrainian people through starvation. You don't understand the implications and the hatred between these two countries and for Ukraine to fight as well as they have and to be united not only with their army and their government, but also with their people to suffer the things that they've suffered and still want to continue seeking their determination of who they are, it just smacks to me of just craziness that we would be on the side of Putin in this kind of event. And even if you say the 28 points, some of them would be concluded and Russia would get the Donbos, which is two major provinces that they don't have

Obolos, which they don't have right now, and Crimea, you're talking about the potential for another frozen conflict. And in my time in Europe, there were a total of five frozen conflicts. Moldova with Transnistra, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Crimea, and the Donbos, and Georgia. And four of those five are still in place. So what you're saying is Russia will take a bite out of a country which they've done in those, all five of those frozen conflicts, stick around for a while, reboot, regenerate, and then come back and do it again. So it's a continual attrition warfare under the guise of a peace process,

and it's just ludicrous to me that we would be accepting to that. And it seems to be something that we discussed with the Russians, but Ukraine and the Europeans, for that matter, or European allies, who were also Ukraine's allies, had no real part in the discussion. Is that your understanding? That's my understanding. Yeah, this was something.

put together by an envoy from Russia along with Mr. Whitkoff and Secretary Rubio. And Rubio, I saw a statement by him the other day where he said, well, this is just the going in position. Well, it's insulting. It's insulting to Ukraine and it's insulting to the United States if we really understood the history of it. The other concern that I'll state, having spent 12 years of my life in Europe as part of the military, it's how much the Americans underestimate how viscerally our European allies have experienced this war and other wars within the region. It's not in the region for them. It's next door. They see Russians sabotage teams on a daily basis, caught with explosives at power stations. They see Kremlin hackers probing parliaments.

They see criminals and murderers attacking their parliamentarians. And they've lived with this kind of Russian intimidation for decades. And all of our European allies, the 49 countries in Europe, other than Belarus, understand exactly what's going on and they want no part of it. And they can't understand why the United States is not standing up for its values. How dangerous is it that we could muscle Zelensky's into accepting this? Could he accept this? you know, that's a great question. I don't think he will accept this. And he'll get the backing of every single European state to not accept this. But in the interim, we are embarrassing ourselves, not just from the standpoint of not supporting Ukraine. But I think we're furthering furthering the embarrassment of the United States on the European continent and anybody else in the world that sees what we're doing.

I think it's such an important point. I mean, that if you're elsewhere, if you're in Asia, if you're anywhere in the world, it's not as if we're under a huge price. It's not like Vietnam. We're losing thousands of soldiers or spending or Iraq or losing soldiers and spending hundreds of millions, I suppose billions of dollars. What do we do? We're not, Ukraine is, I mean, they're fighting.

They're dying. They're fighting very bravely. We're helping a little bit. But honestly, at this point, it's a rounding error in our overall. You know, I imagine defense budget and so. forth. I mean, I myself would much prefer to see much more aggressive aid for Ukraine, but at least why not just keep the status quo? What's the pressure to do this? I guess I really don't understand it in that respect. What I'll say, too, is it comes along with some other pointed issues that we're

seeing beyond Ukraine. So within the last month, there's been an announcement of taking U.S. forces out of Romania in our forward basin. The Ford Strike Group, carrier strike group, has left the Mediterranean Red Sea area, which is an overwatch of the European continent as well as the Middle East and Africa. A few days ago, the U.S. ambassador to NATO said that we should give up the SAC your position to the Germans. What you see is this constant drip of things that seem to be completely ignoring an alliance that we've had in place for 70 years, which is very strong militarily, politically, and economically. And I can't see the upside of doing any of these things, but especially when you're turning back on a country that wants to be like us,

that wasn't like us before. And is contrary to one of our foes in the region. Oh, very worrisome. But do you feel final question? I mean, you're in touch with a lot of people. Is there a bit of a rebellion against this among people who have supported Ukraine over the last three years, there are quite a lot of people on the Hill and in the foreign policy community, the national security establishment, who must look at this and think, what are we doing? I mean, I'll be honest with you, Bill, that's where I'm also troubled, because we seem to be so intent on focusing on things like true social comments from the president about sedition or the Epstein files or, you know, ice on the streets, that, you know, it's fascinating that for the

first two years of this conflict, everyone was really focused on the courageous fight of the Ukrainians. It's no longer in the headlines. People don't understand why it's important. So even you just doing this interview with me, I think, is going to bring some additional attention to it. But it seems to have fallen off the items of interest for most of the American public. And I'd also include for most of our representatives in Congress who have something to do with making this happen. Well, I hope we do get more attention. As you say, there's important geostrategic implications, but also about American values and

the shape of the world order, not just precise, not that what happens in Europe is awful important to what happens. Ukraine itself isn't very, very important, but it has such broad implications, it seems to me that this path we sort of have embarked on. I suppose it's not too late to turn around, though, perhaps, and the Trump administration has a certain amount of, you know, that they have had other false starts. Maybe people are a little too confident for that reason that this is just another talking point. But if you negotiated with the Russians, it has a little bit of a different status, don't you think?

I mean, it's a little harder to walk this one back, unfortunately. Well, you know, just like many other leaders, Putin is not only a criminal, but he's sometimes very charismatic. And he can sway other authoritarian leaders. I mean, every single president we've had have said, I either see inside their soul or I know what he's thinking, or now we've got Trump who wants to be best friends with him. and they don't understand that you're dealing with a murderer. I mean, he's worse than Epstein. I'll put it that way. He's much worse than Epstein.

So it's just another person you want to collude with to our greater detriment. It's a sobering note to end up, but an important one. And I hope this conversation does. It's been very educational for me. And thank you for really, Mark, for really taking the time to help educate all of us on this challenge we now face. Thanks, Bill. I appreciate you asking about this one. I appreciate it.