Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 5/9/25 Ted Snider on the Difficulties Hindering the Ukraine-Russia Negotiations

Episode Date: May 11, 2025

Ted Snider joins the show and provides an update on where things stand with the negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Snider argues that the Trump administration’s effort to help forge a permanent peace deal is being hampered by unrealistic expectations from both sides and Western European governments pushing to keep the war going.  Discussed on the show: “US Change in Tone May Not be to Ukraine’s Benefit” (Antiwar.com) Ted Snider is a Fellow at The Libertarian Institute. He has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in U.S. foreign policy and history. He is a regular writer for Truthout, MondoWeiss and antiwar.com. To support Ted’s work, you can make a PayPal contribution at [e-mail]. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Incorporated; Moon Does Artisan Coffee; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; Libertas Bella; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott’s interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show. I'm the director of the Libertarian Institute, editorial director of anti-war.com, and author of Provote, how Washington started the new Cold War with Russia and the catastrophe in Ukraine. Sign up for the podcast feed at Scotthorton.org or Scott Horton Show.com. I've got more than 6,000 interviews in the archive. for you there going back to 2003 and follow me on all the video sites and X at Scott Horton show

all right y'all on the line is Ted Snyder he writes for us at the Libertarian Institute that's libertarian institute dot org and at antiwar.com as well and this one is at antiwar dot com U.S. change in tone may not be to Ukraine's benefit and it's about

how difficult it is to end the Ukraine war now that we're in the middle of it despite all of Donald Trump's promises. Seems to me, Ted, like he just was inaugurated right at the wrong time for this particular task, huh? Yeah. I mean, I think that he thought it was going to be easier than it was.

I think that he came in and that the kind of view was that the states could kind of tell Russia and Ukraine, we want a ceasefire. If Ukraine says no, then you cut off military aid. If Russia says no, then you ramp up. weapons to Ukraine. I think part of maybe what they didn't consider other than it wasn't that easy is what do you do if both are reluctant? If both have kind of red lines and you can't, you know, you can't do both at the same time. And that's kind of the situation we're in is that they both had red lines and there's no clear way to do one or the other. And so they're stuck

in this kind of situation where everybody has different goals. I think Trump put forward his sort of final offer and um ukraine has not accepted that final offer and and now they're in a position where they need to decide whether they're going to try to force the two sides to further negotiate that final offer or whether if it's rid of the final offer that means you walk away and and um if you walk away what exactly does that mean does that mean walk away from negotiations and let you know russia and ukraine talk or does it mean literally walk away and not help ukraine train at all, in which case the war goes on. And so it's interesting whether who walking away would help and what walking away really means. Yeah. Well, okay, it's easy to understand Russia's

position, I think, in all of this. Ukraine's is a little more difficult. I mean, obviously they don't want to just give away everything while they still do have a fighting force available here. on the other hand they clearly read the writing on the wall they have their own sources have said they're general in charge of the war well he got fired for it but still a year and a half ago said that yeah you know it's all downhill from here we better figure out a way to negotiate this thing so um i wonder what you think the ukrainians are betting on they're betting that if they don't get a settlement that they can keep america arming them or they're betting that they can even keep fighting without us. They'll just rely on the Germans and they'll still have a year or so worth a fight in them. And so just gamble on that. Or what do you think? Scott, I wish I understood the Ukrainian position and even more,

I wish I understood the European position because the Europeans are opposing the states and pushing Ukraine to go on fighting. And they know full well that Ukraine can't, not even not defeat Russia, Ukraine can't even hold the line without U.S. support. We know that from those kind of New York Times articles where the states revealed just how much they were involved in what Ukraine was doing. One of the sort of unspoken conclusions of that is if the U.S. stops doing it, Ukraine can't do it. So I think as a guess, Scott, I don't like predicting the way Zelensky or Trump are thinking. It's hard to predict.

But the only thing I can imagine is that Ukraine thinks that they still have an ability to kind of move the states into continuing to support them. Because if the talks break down and the war goes on, the deal that Ukraine gets in the end is just going to be worse. It's not even like Ukraine knows that they can't hold the feel, that their own general have said that. I mean, there's been a number of really kind of rational analysis written lately that shows that even though the media in the West isn't talking about Russian advances anymore,

the Russian military is still advancing and they're advancing with such pressure that some analysts think that there could be a complete collapse of the Ukrainian forces in six months to a year and the mainstream media misses this, I think, Scott, because we're so used to measuring things in kind of like a football game,

how many yards did you get? In a war of attrition, it's not about territory. Ukraine knows they can't regain their territory. Zelensky said we don't have the military capacity to take coming. And they know they can't maintain their territory. And Russia is not fighting this war to acquire territory. This is a war of attrition.

This war is being measured in not how much land you eat up, but how much troops and weapons you eat up. And again, according to some really not crazy estimates, it sounds crazy because we're so used to reading what the mainstream media says, but according to some not crazy estimates at all, Ukraine may have lost like three quarters of a million soldiers and there could be another three quarters of a million who are injured so badly that they can't return to the field

so Ukraine could be looking at deaths and serious injuries in the 1.5 million range and aside from the human tragedy of that they can't replace Trump's troops in those numbers so that means the Ukrainian army is shrinking while the Russian army is growing because their losses are much smaller and their capacity to add soldiers is much greater.

So the Ukrainian army is shrinking. They're running out of weapons. It doesn't really matter if the state says they'll come back in supply because they don't really have the weapons to supply. So Ukraine's running out of men. They're running out of weapons. Russia's army is bigger now the beginning of the war. Their weapons generating capacity is bigger.

This is not going the right way for Ukraine. Ukraine is going to lose the war militarily. So Ukraine needs to get to the gun. negotiating table because the deal that they're being offered now, well, not good for them. It's worse than the deal they were offered in Istanbul, the beginning of the war. And the Istanbul deal they were offered is worse than the deal that was available in December 2021 when Russia proposed security guarantees. So this deal is getting worse and worse and worse and worse.

We're not doing Ukraine any favors by encouraging them to go on fighting because they're just going to lose more territory and more land. And in the end, they're still going to sign a deal that bars them from joining NATO, and they're still going to sign a deal that loses some territory, and they're still going to sign a deal that guarantees protection to ethnic Russians. So all that's happening by them going on in war is they're losing more land, they're losing more people, and they're just going to get the same deal. So it's very hard to understand why anybody thinks this is in Ukraine's interest to go on, unless, Scott, we drop that assumption. and we don't assume that this was ever about Ukraine's interest,

but that this was always about American, European, and NATO interests and that they still have goals to pursue. Yeah. Well, hold that thought for a minute. I got what Biden's got, so I'll forget. So you go back to that. But on the territory here, I mean, one thing is the Russians, if they had been just trying to take territory,

it would have been better for the overall situation because they'd have been done, presumably they could have been done, consolidating all of Zabrosha Kursan and Danyetsk right now, where they haven't yet. They own virtually all of Lujansk. But so Trump is saying, hey, let's just call the new border where the lines are now. And then the Russians are saying, no, Ukrainians are going to have to withdraw to the official borders of these four Oblasts, which is just impossible to ask, right? The Ukrainians are not given in on that while they still have troops there.

If the Russians did control that territory already, they'd be in a better position to go along with Donald Trump. They, after all, have a lot to lose here when this seems like their last chance to make friends with an American president and get some sanctions lifted and relations normalized and maybe some new relations, you know, built up before the next guy gets in here. Yeah, I think, I mean, I think there's a lot to say there. I think that Russia's given mixed messages on this so far. I mean, Putin has indicated that they'd be willing to draw the line at the current line of control, whereas Sergei Lavrov has articulated the more maximalist position that we still want all the territory, which is right in what's negotiating, I don't know. I think if Russia had wanted all that territory in the first place,

they would have invaded with a much larger invading force, despite all the Western talk of the full-scale invasion, it wasn't even close to full-scale invasion. They didn't invade with numbers to do that. if they had wanted that land in the first place they would have taken it militarily they didn't want that land in the first place excuse me they wanted ethnic russians to be protected by the minska cords and at the breakdown of the minska cords and the war then if they couldn't protect ethnic russians diplomatically then they were going to protect them by making ethnic russians russians but exactly what russia's line is here we don't know and i think that's something that'll have to come out in negotiations I think there's been some suggestion that Russia's open to wiggle room on that. You're right that Ukraine's never going to concede to giving up more territory than they've lost militarily. And I don't think that the states or anybody's going to try to make them do that.

That's why there's this really sort of confusing de facto de jure, you know, things like that. But that's something that's going to happen negotiating, although some people pointed out, Scott, that really these things are not really determined on the negotiating table. these things really are determined militarily and Ukraine's not going to give up more land than they have to and Russia's going to take what they have and in the end the territory will probably be decided by where they are and that's the other reason why walking away from talks doesn't help Ukraine the longer the war goes on the more of that land that they're going to lose to Russia and as I said if they keep pushing this for even just another six months they might lose it all. So either way you look at it,

the goal here has to be to get to the negotiating table fast. I think it's in Ukraine's interest to do that. And that's why I suggest in this article that this changing tone that the states might walk away from the negotiations, that plays to Russia's hand. That's not in Ukraine's benefit at all. Yeah. All right.

So now you brought up American and NATO designs here, which, come on. They couldn't have been more transparent this whole time that they didn't really give a damn what happened to Ukraine. They didn't think for a minute they were going to help Ukraine take back that territory as Biden admitted in his exit interview with Time magazine. You said anything about retaking territory? I don't know what I'm talking about. And, you know, his other people have said that from his administration. So they knew all along that this was all at Ukraine. training expense, but they thought it was funny to see the Russians replicate their folly in

Afghanistan and trying to tame this Texas-sized country, which would be difficult to do, it cost a lot of money and would be a puric victory at best in the end. And so, and I guess the American people can afford anything. So whatever cost to Russia is a zero-sum game as far as that goes. And the Ukrainians be damned. But I think what, sorry, go ahead. Well, but just what position does that leave the Ukrainians in after the war is over with what they have left? But also, where does that leave Donald Trump when he's trying to negotiate an end of this thing?

But he's picking up where Biden left off, where everything's going the Russians way. And he didn't really have any more cards to play because Biden already played them all as far as sanctions and weapons deliveries go. Yep, yep. And you know, I think the states was very clear from beginning back in the Biden days when Ned Price was the, you know, the spokesman at the State Department. And he was asked really early on whether the U.S. supported negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. And he said that they don't because, and I think this is the most horrible quotation of the whole war when he said they don't because this war is in many ways larger than Russia. It's larger than Ukraine. I mean, it's really clear that this was about, you know, larger American NATO goals. and Ukraine was the tool. It was the instrument that was going to pay. But Scott, like to go to your direct question, I mean, the thing is, even if this is the case that it was the U.S. goal to weaken Russia at Ukraine's expense,

it still favors moving to negotiations quickly because the fact is that not only is Ukraine lost so much land and so many people, and it's really a destroyed state right now, but American goals aren't being achieved by this either, if the goal was to weaken Russia, the American military has briefed the government repeatedly that it's not working. The Russian military is bigger and stronger now. It's bigger in terms of numbers. It's more advanced in terms of weapons. It's more advanced in their capacity to have electronic drones and jamming of electronic jamming of drones. They've had all these years

now to experience the best weapons NATO has to send. And in each case, they've figured out how to get around them. So if the goal was to help Ukraine in any way, that's been a failure. Ukraine is devastated. They're not going to get NATO. They're not going to get anything they wanted. If the goal was to weaken Russia, Russia's stronger. So no matter what your goal was, to help Ukraine or to help NATO, it's going backwards. And the longer the war goes on, the worse it's going to get. So no matter what your motivation, they've got to get to the table and ended. And they've got to be realistic. This is going to end with a deal not too distant from what was available the day one of the war. It is going to end with Ukraine not being a NATO.

Trump's been very clear about that. It is going to end with some loss of territory. It is going to end with protection of ethnic Russians. There do seem to be some things on the table that Russia may be has conceded a little bit. It's not clear that there'll be limitations on the size of the Ukrainian army, or even if there could be now, because Ukraine actually is the capacity to produce a lot of their own stuff. So one of the points I make in the article is not just that it's going to get worse and worse and worse. It's not even clear that the final offer is as bad for Ukraine as some people.

I hate to say that because it's awful. But the deal isn't all for Russia like it's often presented. There are a number of clauses in it that. suggest that there have been some moves towards Ukraine's position. They will be allowed into the European Union. They will be allowed to pursue relations of the West. They may not have to have limits on the size of their military. They are going to get to maintain certain parts of the territory. So it's no matter how you look at it, that things are going to get worse for Ukraine and that it's not as bad a deal as people sometimes say,

and it's certainly not going to get to be a better deal. If they were to take the Trump deal right now, then they would only have to give up the parts they've lost militarily. They would get European Union membership. They would get, you know, a limitless military. Those are a lot of things that Ukraine can walk away from and rebuild. But if they don't get to the negotiating table, there's not going to be a thing to rebuild what role are the british french and germans playing now ted

they're playing a disruptive role scott there and it's an it's an it's an incomprehensible role and i wish that was just i wish that was just because i'm too stupid to understand it but i keep asking people who are 10 times more expert than i am um what europe's goal is and and they all just they're all just baffled they all just shake their heads and and say it's a destructive role um europe UK, but France and Germany, they still seem to be saying don't take the American deal. It's a bad deal. We're going to do everything we can to arm you. Keep fighting.

Europe can't arm Ukraine. Europe doesn't have the soldiers to send. They don't have the weapons of send. They've already shown in the three-year war so far that it has to be the Americans to take the lead, that they're not really willing to put troops on the ground. ground. Why Ukraine is, why Europe is pushing Ukraine to go on fighting with this maybe weird idea that they don't want to suffer this humiliating loss to Russia is beyond me because they're going to suffer a more humiliating loss. This is not going to turn around on the battlefield. And why

Europe keeps pushing Ukraine on the battlefield for some unattainable goal of not letting Russia beat them, all it's doing is letting Russia. beat them worse and as in you and i've talked this a thousand times got since the very first day of the war this is just going to happen at ukraine's expense ukraine's position sorry europe's position is completely incoherent to me hang on just one second for me here you guys i'm so proud to announce the publication of the libertarian institute's 14th book it's israel winner of the 2003 Iraq oil war. Undue influence, deceptions, and the neocon energy agenda by Gary Vogler, former senior oil consultant and deputy senior oil advisor for U.S. forces during Iraq War II.

Remember how I wrote in enough already about how Ahmed Chalabi sold the neoconservatives on a plan to rebuild the old British oil pipeline from Mosul and Kyrkoq Iraq to Haifa Israel, if they would only get the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein for him? and how they bought it because they are as dumb as they are corrupt. Well, Gary was there. As senior civilian consultant to the DoD and Iraqi oil ministry, he had a unique window and experience witnessing the Pentagon Neocons and their machinations on behalf of Israel before and during that war.

And it turns out that even though they did not get their pipeline, as Vogler demonstrates, the neocons and their Lekudnik bosses figured out an effective plan B anyway. You are going to love Israel, winner of the 2003, Iraq Oil War, by Gary Vogler, available everywhere. Check it out, along with our other great books at Libertarian Institute.org slash books. Hey, y'all, let me tell you about Roberts & Roberts, Brokerage, Inc. Nobody trusts the U.S. dollar anymore. Foreign governments are stocking up on gold instead of $100 bills. One, they know they need to, and two, that means you need to, too.

Interest rates are up, but for some reason not much for savings accounts. Park your money there and watch Uncle Joe Biden just counterfeit its value away. You can see how the Fed is afraid to raise rates to beat inflation for fear of popping the current bubbles, at least before the election. So more inflation it will continue to be. Gold is your shield against monetary and price inflation, just like it always has been. Now Tim Fry and the guys over at Roberts are recommending gold over silver, since the world's almost 200 governments are putting their own pressure on the price,

which should help everyone else who make similar calls on their own. Of course, Roberts and Roberts can help you with platinum, palladium, and silver, as well as gold. Don't let the Fed and the war party inflate all your savings away. Look up Roberts and Roberts at rrbi.co. That's rrbi.cow.

Book club on Monday. Gym on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday. Out on the town on Thursday. Quiet night in on Friday. It's good to have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too. Because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers,

you'll know just how healthy they are. Visit Spexsavers.cavers.cai to book your next eye exam. Eye exams provided by independent optometrists. All right. So Donald Trump had two or three of his guys come out and say, yeah, we're ready to walk away from this thing. the other guys aren't serious. How hard of hardball are they really playing there?

Things really are that dire. I don't know. Nobody has said yet we're walking away, but a number of people said that we could and the time is coming. And they came out of flurry, Scott. And I always suspect, I always wonder when, you know, three or four American officials

use the same words within two days of each other. You've just got to think that's not a flu, that that's a plan put out there for a reason, although it's often hard to understand the reason. Yeah, that was a coordinated signal there. That like, hey, that thing the other guy said the other day, yeah, we really meant that because here I'm saying the same thing again, too. Yeah.

So look at the close proximity. On May the 1st, Marco Rubio says that the positions are still far apart. And then he uses these words. He says, we're not going to give up in a sense. We're not going to be ready to help if we can, but we're not going to be sort of taking the lead. The very same day, the State Department spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, uses the same words. We certainly will remain committed to if we can help, right?

There's a certain word, but we're not going to fly around and take the lead. And then the very next day in May 2nd, J.D. Vance tells reporters that it's going to be up to Russia and Ukraine to come to an agreement, that, you know, we've got them talking and now it's really up to them. So you get these three high-level officials in a two-day period saying the same thing. However, Trump has indicated since then that he's still pushing for a hundred-day ceasefire. So whether this is this sort of pattern we've seen in Trump negotiations, whether it's with Ukraine or Iran or Canada or who it's with, this idea that you sort of create maximum terror, don't be clear about what you really want. let the other side sort of spin and terror and being so afraid they might cough up a bigger give than you were asking.

So why see clearly what you want when somebody might offer you more? Is this just another one of those threats that we're just going to walk away and let you kill each other to force them back to the table? Are they serious about walking away? I don't know. I do think that they're getting frustrated and they do seem to see these changes. but with Trump, it's so hard to know what's a negotiating tactic and what's real. I wouldn't want to guess on that because I'm just wrong every time, I guess whether Trump's just threatening or it's real.

But it is a change in tone, and it's designed to elicit something from the other side. And the point I'm trying to make in the articles that whatever it's trying to elicit, it's not going to, again, it's not going to be something that plays in Ukraine's favor. and that's the bottom line to me is that whatever's going on how do you stop this stupid war and how do you stop Ukrainians for being the one to pay the price and if the Trump change in tone

is that we might walk away and let you guys fight it out we've seen for three years now who's going to lose if they fight it out so that change of tone is once again it's just not a favor to the Ukrainian all right now something that I've been And, you know, consider for a long time or it's been at the forefront of consideration for the war all along is assuming the Russians at some point just break the Ukrainian army and can walk to and fro wherever they want around the country and take what they want or face, you know, insurgency but not any, you know, truly organized state force anymore, then are they going to go to Odessa?

Are they going to take it? Are they going to take Archive? Are they going to march all the way to Transnistria, this little strip of Russian-controlled territory on the Moldovan side of the Moldovan-Ukrainian border there? And so there's two questions there, which is what indications has Vladimir Putin made about that? But then also, what about pressure to his right? I know that a couple members of the Duma. that the West never talks about. The Western media always looks at Putin as a sort of monolithic dictator who decides everything

for Russia, and that's not true. It's much more complex than that. And Scott, it's a reality that they really could be facing. As I said, there are analysts and not just one or two. There are really good military analysts who suggest that, you know, within six to 12 months, Russia might have the capacity to walk right across Ukraine if you want. Now, I would argue that Putin has given no signals that that's what he would. wants. That doesn't mean that if Ukraine refuses to say they won't join NATO, and NATO refuses

to say Ukraine can't join NATO, that having the opportunity to walk through, that Putin wouldn't go beyond the things that he signaled. And there are, I think, three factors to look at. One is he's never wanted that. You know, he could have taken all the Donbass before the Minsk Accords, you know, in 2014, and he didn't. He's never wanted that. The second is that you refer to an insurgency, and that's not something Russia wants. I mean, the states has seen firsthand, you know, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria, that really, really big, modern, sophisticated armies can really, really lose to, you know, very rag-tag insurgencies. And Ukraine could mount a very, very sophisticated insurgency. Well, and all their forests and swamps are in the west.

So out in the east of the country, in the steppe and all that, it's much more difficult. But there are trees to hide behind in the north of the country and down in the southwest. Look, I think it's not what Putin wants because he doesn't want the land. He doesn't want the insurgency. But as you said, rightly, Scott, there are pressures on Putin. Putin has faced a lot of anger for not going further before. In the past, when Putin has intervened militarily in countries, he's intervened with very clearly limited and defined goals. And in Georgia, when he stuck to those goals, there was a lot of anger in Russia that he didn't go further and go all the way to the capital when he could have.

When he took Crimea, there was a lot of anger amongst the hardliners in Russia that he didn't go further and take the Donbat. All the Russian Wolfowitz's. you got to go all the way to back i mean to bleasy yeah yeah and and so there there are pressures on putin that that i don't think that it's in the interest of the west to let loose i'm not saying putton would do it i i really don't think putton wants to control or take all of ukraine i think i think all the evidence is that once again he went in with very clearly defined goals and those really clearly defined goals were to work to if if nato wasn't going to agree before the war that they would invite Ukraine, then we'll compel Ukraine to say that they won't seek membership in NATO.

And I think that they were going to get protection for ethnic Russians, either through the Minsk Accords or if the autonomy for the Dombas doesn't work, then we'll protect them by controlling the land ourselves. I don't think he's expressing interest going further. But it's a crazy thing to gamble on to let Ukraine lose the war. First of all, why would the West want to let Ukraine lose the war, right? That's not a Ukraine's interest to get Ukraine completely devastated and to provide the opportunity for Russia to go much further than Russia intended to go. I mean, Putin is still saying, even if you look at Sergei Lavrov's maximum position that we want to control these occupied territories, those are still just those territories.

Why would we want to make the war go further to provoke Russia? Sorry, use that word like your book, but to provoke Russia again. to go further and take even far more than they ever intended. It's still way better to go to the negotiating table now. Draw the line of the line of conflict, because that's never going to change. Ukraine can't get that back. Draw the line of the line of conflict. Stop it now and not open up this whole can of worms of what might Russia do

if the entire Ukraine military collapses and Ukraine's vulnerable. Why would you want to go there instead of ending this now at the negotiating table? the eminently reasonable ted snyder everybody appreciate you ted thank you thanks god all right you guys and sign up at scott horton show dot com to get the audio book of provoked first few sections are up there now and i'm working on the rest scothorton show dot com thanks for listening to scott horton show which can be heard on a ps radio news at scott horton dot org, Scott Horton's show.com, and the Libertarian Institute at libertarian institute.org.