Consider This from NPR - Is there a deal to end Russia's war with Ukraine?

Episode Date: February 26, 2025

On Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is scheduled to meet President Donald Trump at the White House.On the agenda — a deal for Ukraine to share its rich natural resources. The Trump administration wants hundreds of billions of dollars of rare earth metals and other critical minerals. Details are thin on what exactly Ukraine would get in exchange. The meeting comes as the world marks three years since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and as Trump promises to bring an end to the war.But bringing an end to the war may not be so simple argues Alexander Vindman.The Ukrainian-born Vindman was the White House staffer and active duty Army officer, who testified against Trump during his first impeachment trial in 2019.Trump fired Vindman not long after. For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Email us at [e-mail]. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

But I think it's to the very much benefit of Russia to make a deal. The deal President Trump is talking about is a deal to end its war with Ukraine. What ultimately becomes of Ukraine, though, may depend on the compromises it's willing to make with the United States. We'll be really partnering with Ukraine in terms of rare earth. We very much need rare earth. The president has his eye on Ukraine's rich natural resources. We don't have that much of it here. We have some, but we don't have that much. We need

a lot more. The Trump administration wants hundreds of billions of dollars of rare earth metals and other critical minerals. Details are thin on what exactly Ukraine would get in exchange. After back and forth, it looks like there's a preliminary deal. Trump spoke Wednesday at the White House. But we've been able to make a deal where we're going to get our money back and we're going to get a lot of money in the future. I think that's appropriate because we have taxpayers that shouldn't be footing the bill.

But will a deal between the U.S. and Ukraine bring about an end to the grinding conflict between Ukraine and Russia? Consider this. It's been three years since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Coming up, we'll hear from Alexander Vindman, who knows both Ukraine and the Trump White House intimately, and who says that ending the war will not be so simple. You're not going to find much of a compromise when both sides feel like they're on the cusp of winning

or holding out or breaking the other side. From NPR, I'm Mary Louise Kelly. This message comes from WISE, the app for doing things in other currencies. Sending or spending money abroad, hidden fees may be taking a cut. With WISE, you can convert between up to 40 currencies at the mid-market exchange rate. Visit WISE.com. TNCs apply. TNCs apply. It's Consider This from NPR. This week, as we mark three years since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, among the

many people offering up ideas for how to end that war is Alexander Venman. Now, a little background here. Venman was born in Ukraine, emigrated to the United States as a child. And if you recognize his name, there's a decent chance that is because of a moment back in 2019, when Vindman, by then a staffer in the Trump White House and an active duty officer in the US Army,

testified in impeachment hearings against his commander in chief. Dad, I'm sitting here today in the U.S. Capitol talking to our elected professionals, talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry.

I will be fine for telling the truth. Well, Trump fired Vindman not long after that. Then Vindman retired from the army, but he has not stopped thinking about the relationship between the country for which he wore a uniform and the country where he was born. His new book is The Folly of Realism, How the West Deceived Itself About itself about Russia and betrayed Ukraine. Alexander Vindman, welcome. Alexander Vindman, welcome.

Thank you for having me back. So the last time you and I spoke was three years ago. It was actually right before Russia invaded. Let's start with the case for hope. Do you find grounds for hope that this year, that 2025 may be the year this war ends? Do you find grounds for hope that this year, that 2025 may be the year this war ends? I don't think so. Not under the approach that the Trump administration is taking. It's an approach that looks to appease Russia in the tradition of 30 plus years of Russia first policy.

And it's one where frankly Russia is not going to be satisfied with the level of appeasement that the Trump administration is offering because the Ukrainians are not willing to capitulate. The prospects look dimmer now than they did before Trump took office. I mentioned your own history, that Trump fired you, that he had you marched out of his White House. For people listening and wondering if you have an axe to grind, do you? I've always been focused on U.S. national security. If you paid attention to any of

my testimony back then or any of the commentary, it's not been about Ukraine. It's not really even been about Trump. I have no warm feelings towards him because he's a danger in my view to the US. But it's more about the professionalism that I've tried to uphold as a career military officer, as a policymaker, and as an academic studying this issue. Well, and what's interesting is that in this latest book, you make the argument that the US and its allies have gotten Ukraine wrong since the collapse of the Soviet Union, like across six US presidential

administrations of both parties. I'm sure there are many moments that stand out, but is there a particular one that if it had been navigated differently might have led us to a very different outcome today? Sure. We should be clear that it wasn't just getting Ukraine wrong, it's getting Russia wrong consistently. With regards to what we could have done to support Ukraine, there were a couple of moments that stand out.

I think in the Orange Revolution in 2004, we did very, very kid glove condemnations of Russia. We should have worn them off and invested in Ukraine. And we didn't do that. There was another turning point in 2014 when it was clear that the Russians were graduating from hybrid warfare to outright military aggression. We could have not... This is when they seized Crimea.

Mm-hmm. Exactly right. We could have not done what we did, which was look to reset, but we could have avoided doing a reset and instead have been quite conditional in our relationship with Russia. Condemnatory when we needed to be, imposing sanctions, helping arm Ukraine so it looks like a harder target. That was another critical turning point. So fast forward to this moment now, here we sit in 2025, with the world as it is, not as we wish it were. What council would you offer your successors at the White House, at the Pentagon, on trying to end this war?

What we should be doing is understanding that we could focus on long-term objectives. We could be focusing on making sure we have strong alliances with NATO, that our support for that collective defense treaty is ironclad. We should be investing in places like Ukraine or Taiwan, other places around the world that look like they could be the targets for the aggression of our adversaries. I guess the pushback to that is that the Biden administration tried that, invested in the relationship with NATO, invested in Ukraine, and here we are with war still raging three years on.

I would say that that's not the case. I think the fact is that the Biden administration also fell afoul of hopes and fears. It just did it in a more kind of traditional vein, the same way that preceding administrations from George H.W. Bush through Clinton, through George Bush, President Obama, all committed the same kind of Russia first mistakes. Now it looks like there's a bit of a stark contrast because Trump has taken such an extreme approach to realism that it looks like the Biden administration did more than they actually did.

The fact is that they also were a day late and a dollar short consistently in providing support to Ukraine. When you argue for investing in Ukraine, is part of that argument more weapons to Ukraine? You make that case in the book. That's an essential nature of bringing the war to a close. The problem to a certain extent is that both sides are relatively imbalanced. The Russians are making tiny incremental gains but suffering enormous losses. They could weather some of those losses because they have a larger population, they have a larger economy, but they can't do that forever. And the Ukrainians are feisty and fiery. They've historically had a higher economy, but they can't do that forever. And the Ukrainians are feisty and fiery. They've

historically had higher morale, performed better on the battlefield, but they have limited human resources. And you're not going to find much of a compromise when both sides feel like they're on the cusp of winning or holding out or breaking the other side. Last thing, do you see any grounds for optimism in the US-Russia relationship? Understanding as you've made clear that you don't agree with the way President Trump is handling it, is it better to be talking than not to be talking? I think it's a useful thing to have some conversations if those conversations are going to yield results.

In this case, what needs to happen is we need to travel the road of folly for a little bit longer where the Trump administration is going to attempt to bring this war to a close, but eventually recognize that there is really no compromising with Putin. And then the question is going to be, do we want Russia to be the winner or do we want the US to be the winner? Does Trump want Putin to be the winner, or does he want to be the winner himself? If he sees no prospect for Russia to compromise, the Russians are going to try to string along these negotiations. They're going to try to play at the fact that they're willing to end the war. But when they don't deliver, that's when there's an opportunity to rebalance and recognize that the support needs to go behind NATO, needs to go behind Ukraine if we want to bring this war to close.

Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. His new book is The Folly of Realism. Alexander Vindman, thank you. Thank you. This episode was produced by Mark Rivers and Alejandra Marquez-Hanse. It was edited by Courtney Dornan and Nadia Lancy. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan. It's Consider This from NPR.

I'm Mary Louise Kelly. This message comes from CBC podcasts. Personally, Toy Soldier tells the story of Alex Curzom, who faced a choice as a child. Be killed or join the killers. His decision saved his life, but erased his identity. Listen now. At Radiolab, we love nothing more than nerding out about science, neuroscience, chemistry. But, but, we do also like to get into other kinds of stories. Stories about policing or politics, country music, hockey, sex of bugs.

Regardless of whether we're looking at science or not science, we bring a rigorous curiosity to get you the answers and hopefully make you see the world anew. Radiolab, adventures on the edge of what we think we know. Wherever you get your podcasts. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to Consider This sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Consider This Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.