Consider This from NPR - Where The Ukraine War Goes Next

Episode Date: January 13, 2023

This is a pivotal moment in the war in Ukraine. Ukrainian forces continue to have the upper hand on the battlefield, but there are real questions about what comes next and what an acceptable end to this war could look like.Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmyrto Kuleba provides his assessment on the state of the war and the path ahead.And former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice argues for a dramatic increase in military aid to Ukraine.In participating regions, you'll also hear a local news segment to help you make sense of what's going on in your community.Email us at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This message comes from Indiana University. Indiana University performs breakthrough research every year, making discoveries that improve human health, combat climate change, and move society forward. More at iu.edu forward. A lot has changed since the first time I spoke to Ukraine's Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba. It was nearly a year ago, late January 2022, in the capital, Kiev. And the big concern at the time was the number of Russian troops massed just across Ukraine's border. It's somewhere in between 100,000 and 130,000.

Between 100,000 and 130,000. And is it still growing? Slowly, but steadily. While the U.S. was warning of an imminent invasion, he projected calm. We in Ukraine do not need to be reminded every day that the war is imminent. We have been living in a state of conflict with Russia since 2014. However, what happens when you start speaking about the war every day and telling the people that this is coming, this is unavoidable, it spreads panic in the society. Of course, just a few weeks later, those Russian troops would pour over the border, kicking off the full-scale war that is still raging today. When I talked with Kaleba this week, he admitted he had misread Russian President Vladimir Putin. By the time he was pulling all this army to the border of Ukraine,

deep inside he made the decision that he was going to invade, and he was setting the stage for this invasion. I wanted to talk to Kolebo right now because we're at another pivotal moment in the conflict. Ukraine held its own against Russia's initial invasion, and Ukrainian forces continue to have the upper hand on the battlefield, at least for the moment. But there are huge questions about what comes next. Consider this. As the war wears on, Ukraine has to decide what will count as victory in this fight. And the U.S. has to decide how long it will support that fight. We'll hear answers from the foreign minister and a former U.S. Secretary of State. From NPR, I'm Mary Louisecom. T's and C's apply.

It's Consider This from NPR. The big battle in Ukraine right now is for a town in the eastern part of the country called Bakhmut and the nearby town of Soledar. There are conflicting claims as to whether Soledar is now under Russian control. That would be a morale boost for Russia, which has been without a major battlefield victory for months. But according to Karolina Hurd, a Russia analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, the real significance is the cost of this advance for Russia. The Ukrainians have very, very successfully pinned Russian forces up against Soledad and Baku for six months and used this to basically just continue pulling Russian troops,

Russian equipment to this area and basically burning through it. When I spoke this week with Dmytro Kaleba, the Ukrainian foreign minister, I asked him how he reads Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategy at this point. I think that Putin doesn't have too many options. In fact, I think he has only one option, but he doesn't want to accept it. And that option is losing the war. Instead, he's throwing more and more resources, most importantly, human resources into the battle, trying to win at any cost. But this is not going to happen. He's not going to win. Let's talk about what winning looks like from your point of view.

I want to get to the diplomacy in a moment, but to stay with the battlefield, what counts as victory for Ukraine as of now? Well, point one is restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. You mean to include Crimea? I have to, you know, I always ask journalists to not ask me about include Crimea. And the reason for that is very simple. Because for us, there is no difference between Crimea and Donbass. There is no difference between Kherson and Simferopol or Yalta cities in Crimea. And when you make this point, including Crimea, you kind of single it out as if it was something special, while it's not.

It's just another part of Ukraine that was stolen by Russia. As simple as that. And yes, we're talking about restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity, including every square inch of our soil. So, point taken. But as you know, the Pentagon here in the U.S. says that's not likely to happen, at least militarily. General Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has said a Ukrainian military victory, if you're defining that as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine,

including Donbass, including Crimea, he says, and I'm quoting, the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high militarily. Yes, I understand that. But we always have to remember that the probability of Ukraine surviving the Russian invasion was even lower. You're saying Ukraine has outperformed all expectations so far. Why not keep going? Ukraine has outperformed even its own expectations. So let's turn to the diplomacy. I saw where recently you talked about how you hope to have a peace summit toward the end of Russia coming to the table with what you have just told me about how you perceive Russia continuing to fight and continuing to attack? Do you see any signs of Russia

being willing to come to the negotiating table? Not at this point. In fact, we see that they are rejecting the peace formula proposed by President Zelensky. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep trying. Russia may like it or may not like it, but it's about building a coalition, a coalition of countries who are willing to seek diplomatic solution along the lines proposed by President Zelensky. Foreign Minister, I want to put to you the same question that I put to you the first time I interviewed you a year ago. I asked you to make the case, why was it including some members of Congress, grow weary of sending so much money to Ukraine when we have so many problems of our own in America. So make the case for why that aid should continue. will prefer to follow the Russian path, to invade, to commit atrocities, to destroy trade. And this is everything that the United States had defended over decades and centuries of its foreign policy. And to be clear, this is however long it takes.

If you and I are having this conversation again in January 2024, the case remains the same? Hopefully not. Hopefully not. Indeed. It's up for the U.S. government and other partners of Ukraine to make their decisions on how long they are going to support us. But we have made our choice. We are going to fight against an invader as long as we can breath. Ukraine's foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba.

The debate among NATO countries about how much and how long to support Ukraine is ongoing. In the U.S., some of the loudest members of the new Republican House majority campaigned on cutting off aid to Ukraine, like Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Under Republicans, not another penny will go to Ukraine. Our country comes first. The new House Speaker, Kevin McCarthy, has said he supports Ukraine, but warned that Republicans would not write a, quote, blank check. But for now, at least the U.S. and other NATO countries have stepped up their military assistance to Ukraine. The U.S., France and Germany have each recently announced they will send armored fighting vehicles to Ukraine.

These are important systems insofar as they allow Ukraine to put infantry soldiers closer to the action in a way that's kind of safe and secure for them. That's Ulrike Franke with the European Council on Foreign Relations. These new deliveries mark a change in the type of military support these countries are willing to provide Ukraine. And there may be more on the way. Poland and the UK have both shown interest in contributing advanced combat tanks. Our partners, they needed some time to come to terms what Ukraine can do, what Ukraine can master, and what Ukraine needs.

Leonid Polyakova is a former deputy defense minister of Ukraine. He says the West has evolved from giving Ukraine the weapons required to not lose to giving it the weapons it needs to win. Major powers supporting Ukraine could have decided that it is in their interest to allow Ukraine to move faster because the longer war goes, the more weapons will be required. So maybe time is a factor now, not only unpredictability of Russia. That lines up with an argument recently put forward in a Washington Post op-ed headlined, Time is not on Ukraine's side. It was written by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Together, they call for a dramatic increase in military aid to Ukraine.

I caught Condoleezza Rice on the phone from her office at Stanford University to ask her about it. So make the case, in a war that has already caused so many casualties, so much suffering, why do you believe the way forward is something that sounds an awful lot like escalation? Well, the escalation of this war is Vladimir Putin's escalation. He continues to use essentially terrorist tactics against the Ukrainian population with the bombing of civilian targets, the infrastructure, the grid. But the fact is, the Ukrainians are fighting, and they're fighting hard, and they're fighting effectively. And we've never done very well when we stood by and waited for the war to come to us.

And so our argument is simply, let's have a sense of urgency about getting everything to the Ukrainians that they need to fight this war on the behalf of people who believe that the international system cannot allow an aggressor to win who simply intended to extinguish its smaller neighbor. Why not, the basic question, but why not try to negotiate a ceasefire? Why isn't that the path forward? Well, first of all, that's going to have to be, and the Biden administration has been absolutely right about this, that's going to have to be a Ukrainian decision. After all that they've suffered, after the war crimes that have been committed, after the destruction of their country, to tell them now, negotiate now, I think would not be morally acceptable.

There will eventually be a ceasefire and a negotiation. Our job as Ukraine's partner in this is to simply help them be in the very best position possible when that negotiation takes place. And that, unfortunately, is not right now. Vladimir Putin, and we're seeing what is going on around Florida, what the Russians seem to be intent on doing is trying to at least secure territory in Donetsk, maybe in Luhansk, because Putin cut off his own off-ramp, Mary Louise. When he decided to annex that territory, when he decided to call it Russia, he now will not negotiate what he has called Russian territory. And so we have to be prepared for the fact that this will probably go on. Is it possible, Secretary Rice, for the U.S. and our NATO allies to do what you're calling for, to dramatically and quickly increase military aid without provoking a direct confrontation with Russia?

Well, the way to not have a direct confrontation with Russia is to make sure that Russia is deterred from perhaps expanding this war into places where we have an Article 5 commitment, like Poland. The way to avoid escalation with Russia is to show Vladimir Putin that he cannot win on the aggression that he has carried out. And we're not talking here about giving the Ukrainians the means to march to Moscow. We're talking about the means to protect, defend, and in fact, take back some of the territory that the Russians have illegally seized and decided to make Russia. Before we hung up, Rice reminded me of the history, that the U.S. has learned the hard way what can happen when attacks on the international order

go unanswered. We just never done very well when we assumed that either these struggles would go away or we would be kept out of them. We did think that in 1914. We did think that in 1941 until Pearl Harbor. We did think that until 2001 when it came to our own shores. And so, yes, it's a heavy burden, but we are the only power that shares the values and the interests of an international system that protects freedom, that protects the weaker from the stronger. And we are not this time being asked to spill American blood to do that. That was Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration. Earlier in this episode, you heard reporting from NPR's Eleanor Beardsley

on NATO weapons deliveries to Ukraine. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Mary Louise Kelly. This message comes from Indiana University. Indiana University is committed to moving the world forward, working to tackle some of society's biggest challenges, IU makes bold investments in the future of bioscience and cybersecurity, cultivates visionary work in the arts and humanities, and prepares students to become global citizens by teaching more languages than any other university in the country. Indiana University. Nine campuses, one purpose. Creating tomorrow, today. More at iu.edu.