The Daily Signal - #349: After Russia's Act of Aggression, What the View on the Ground Is in Ukraine

Episode Date: November 27, 2018

Why did Russia decide to ratchet up tensions with Ukraine and seize three ships Sunday? Do Ukranians fear their long war with Russia is about to reach a new, more intensive stage? Nolan Peterson, The Daily Signal's foreign correspondent, joins us from Ukraine to share what he's seeing and hearing. Plus: A new survey shows some young adults think President Obama was better than George Washington. We also cover these stories:--Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue his report on the 2016 elections in the near future -- but he’s also now accusing former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort of lying to investigators.--Three American soldiers died Tuesday in Afghanistan, due to a roadside bomb.--President Trump is threatening a 10 percent tariff on iPhones, which are assembled in China.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, November 28th. I'm Kate Trinko. And I'm Daniel Davis. Well, tensions are flaring once again between Russia and Ukraine as the two nations teeter on the edge of war. We'll talk to Daily Signal foreign correspondent Nolan Peterson, who's been covering the conflict there for several years. Plus, which president do you think was more consequential? George Washington or Barack Obama? Well, if you said Washington, you might be depressed by what millennials are saying.

We'll discuss. But first, we'll cover a few of the top headlines. The Department of Homeland Security is pushing back against the media narrative on immigration. In a statement Monday, Secretary Kirsten Nielsen said, The caravan members are predominantly male. It appears in some cases that the limited number of women and children in the caravan are being used by the organizers as human shields when they confront law enforcement. And DHS spokeswoman Katie Waldman asserted that,

there's a marked increase of men coming with minors, and there's been 170 families that weren't, in fact, related to each other. In a statement, Waldman said via the Washington Examiner, in response to the misreporting from multiple outlets, I wanted to highlight the rampant fraud taking place at our southern border. She added, word has gotten out. Over the last two years, we have seen a hundred and ten percent increase in male adults showing up at the border with minors. Well, President Trump has taken heat for the use of tear gas on migrants trying to cross the southern border, but it's worth pointing out that this method is nothing new. As it turns out, customs and border patrol used tear gas dozens of times under the Obama administration,

especially during the latter years. In fiscal year 2012, for example, they used it 26 times, and in 2013, 27 times. Border authorities also used pepper spray quite frequently under the Obama administration 151 times in the year 2013. Last Sunday, tear gas was used to block a mob from busting through parts of the California border. British newspaper The Guardian is reporting that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, the organization behind the Democrat email leaks that dogged the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The two men reportedly met three times in 2013, 2015. and 2016. The Guardian does not name its sources, and on Twitter, WikiLeaks is denying the meetings occurred, stating, remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper's reputation.

WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor's head that Manafort never met Assange. Special counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue his report on the 2016 elections in the near future, but he's also now accusing Paul Manafort of lying to investigators and thereby breaching his plea agreement with federal prosecutors. Manafort had agreed to cooperate with the FBI and its probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election,

but on Monday Mueller's office alleged that he had lied on multiple occasions. Now we don't exactly know what those purported lies were. Mueller says he'll release another document detailing Manafort's lies and crimes at a later date. President Trump had harsh words for Bob Mueller on Twitter saying his phony witch hunt continues. Trump added, Mueller and his gang of angry Dems are only looking at one side, not the other. Wait until it comes out how horribly and viciously they are treating people, ruining lives for them refusing to lie. Mueller is a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue. The fake news media builds Bob Mueller up as a saint, when in actuality he is the exact opposite.

the Senate could soon vote on a bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller. That's according to John Cornyn, the Senate Majority Whip. This would come as Senator Jeff Flake has threatened to vote against any of President Trump's judicial nominees until this bill is brought up for a vote. Flake is the deciding vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is split 11 to 10 between Republicans and Democrats. Cornyn said, quote, we've got some judges on the calendar now that we can pass even if we don't have Senator Flake support, but we can't get them out of the Judiciary Committee. So we're going to be working with Senator Flake to see what he needs in order to lift his hold, end quote. And as a context here,

Jeff Flick is actually leaving Washington in January. He'll be replaced by Democrat Kirsten Cinema. Three American soldiers died to stay in Afghanistan due to a roadside bomb. It is the deadliest attack in Afghanistan this year for the U.S. military. In total, 13 American soldiers, have died in Afghanistan this year, per the New York Times. President Trump is not letting up on tariff threats. In fact, he's threatening new ones. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, the president threatened a 10% tariff on iPhones,

which are assembled in China. The president said, quote, I can make it 10%, and people could stay in that very easily, end quote. On January 1st, the U.S. is already set to raise tariffs on over $200 billion of Chinese goods from 10% up to 25%. On Tuesday, a day after General Motors announced plant closings in North America and said it would cut 14,000 jobs, President Trump tweeted, very disappointed with General Motors and their CEO, Mary Barra, for closing plants in Ohio, Michigan, and Maryland. Nothing being closed in Mexico and China.

The U.S. saved General Motors, and this is the thanks we get. We are now looking at cutting all GM subsidies, including for electric cars. General Motors made a big China bet years ago when they built plants there. And in Mexico, don't think that bet is going to pay off. I am here to protect American workers. Well, up next we'll talk to Nolan Peterson, who's on the ground in Ukraine covering the conflict with Russia. Liberals have pretty much cornered the market on 101-style podcasts that break down tough policy. issues in the news. Until now, did you know that every week Heritage Explains intermingles personal

stories, news clips, and facts from heritage experts to help explain some of today's hardest issues from a conservative perspective. Look for Heritage Explains on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts. So this is a first for the Daily Signal podcast. We're actually going to interview someone who's not in the United States, but abroad, specifically in Ukraine. The Daily Signal's foreign correspondent, Nolan Peterson, has been living in Ukraine and reporting for the Daily Signal for several years on the war going on there between Ukraine and Russia, which are still fighting after Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Nolan, thanks for joining us. Thank you for having me.

Okay, so on Sunday, Russia sees three Ukrainian ships raising tensions considerably. Nolan, what steps did Ukraine take in response? What's the situation now? Well, I'll say that Sunday night was a pretty scary moment. I've been in Ukraine or put in the war for more than four years. And apart from the early days of the war when Russia sent armor and troops across the border into Ukraine, I haven't seen things get this close to a major escalation of the conflict. Like you said in the intro, Ukraine and Russia have been at war.

for more than four and a half years. But on Sunday, what had largely been confined to a land war along a trench line in the Dombas, which is a southeastern territory in Ukraine, it took to the sea. When Russia invaded and seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, Russia gained de facto control over the Kerch Strait, which is the only passageway from the Black Sea into the Sea of Azov. And Ukraine has several very important ports on the Sea of Azov, the city of Mordiupil and Berdianzsk. And so by Russia taking control of the Kerch Strait, and this May, Russia built a bridge over the Kerch Strait.

And after the bridge was completed in May, Russia stepped up its harassment of Ukrainian ships, merchant ships traveling through the strait. And on Sunday that came to a head when three Ukrainian naval vessels were set to pass through the strait. And Ukraine says that the vessels applied with all they complied with all the appropriate rules governing transit through the strait. And Russia first rammed one of the Ukrainian vessels, then blocked the strait. And then later on into the evening, Russian naval forces actually shot at, disabled the three Ukrainian Navy ships, Navy vessels, two of which were artillery vessels, one of which was a raiding tug, tugboat. Russia seized the three craft, took hostage, the 24 sailors, which were on the craft. And going into that night, you know, I think everybody in Ukraine was sort of collectively holding their breath. wondering if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was going to authorize some sort of military response,

which if he had would have probably precipitate and sort of tit for tat back and forth with Russia, which, you know, in the worst case, could have led to a kind of war that we haven't seen in Europe since the 1940s. We're talking about a major land invasion. And so it was a very scary moment. And I think above all, it highlights what I've been saying for years is that when you have an ongoing war between the two largest standing land armies in Europe, which Ukraine and Russia have, it's only a matter of time until some unanticipated event of what I call a Franz Ferdinand scenario could inadvertently launch this conflict into something catastrophic. Nolan Daniel here, you know, we saw that Ukraine then declared martial law and some are wondering, you know, if this is going to escalate. What do things look like right now on the ground? Does it look like both sides are kind of treading carefully or does it look as though things are escalating?

To me, the declaration of martial law was a very prudent, very calculated de-escalatory move by, Poroshenko. It obviously, you know, the word martial law gets a lot of media play because it sounds very drastic. And it is a very drastic step because like I said, after four and a half years of war, Ukraine never declared martial law. This is the first time. And, you know, like earlier in the conflict, there's been tank battles and artillery battles. So the fact that after four and a half years, this is the first time we've seen this step being taken does indicate how dire the crisis was, however, martial law only affects regions inside of Ukraine. So this is not a declaration of war against Russia.

And martial law is only affecting 10 regions of Ukraine, which either border Russia, which border the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea regions, or border the de facto Russian-controlled territory of Transnistria and Moldova. And in those regions, martial law basically increases police power. It's a curtailment of certain civil liberties. It stops political processes, basically for the sake of stopping any mass protests, which could lead to some sort of escalation. In my mind, more importantly than the martial law step is the fact that Ukraine's military now is on full alert. So, you know, that means around the country, you got 24-7 duty operations.

Ukrainian soldiers are carrying firearms 24-7 all leave has been. canceled. You've got the deployment of basically Ukraine's entire naval fleet. You've got air patrols going on with the Air Force. It's this stepped up military alert status,

which concerns me than most, because when you have all these moving military pieces, just the potential for some unanticipated escalation to occur greatly increases. On the Russian side, since 2014, there's

been a buildup of Russian forces along the Ukrainian border. According to both Western and Ukrainian reports, there are 77,000 Russian troops forward deployed along the Ukrainian border, which could rapidly launch a land invasion. Additionally, there's about 40,000 Russian military personnel in Crimea. So, you know, just you have this massive buildup of military power on either side. And I think what we saw on Sunday was just an example of, you know, it's almost like you have two tectonic plates just building pressure to the point where one little rupture can can cause a catastrophe. Well, that's scary to contemplate. Nolan, I know this is going to lead into speculation, but what do you think Russia's endgame is here? What do they gain by, you know, escalating this war

potentially? You know, I mean, it seems like it would obviously, well, it already has. as you know, you and Ambassador Nikki Haley gave a very strong response against this at the UN. Why would they try to anger other countries and do this? Yeah, there's a lot of different theories. I think that's a favorite game of many international affairs. Experts is to try and somehow divine what Russian president Vladimir Putin's endgame is. I think some of the most prevalent lines of thinking are, for one, Putin's popularity ratings have dipped considerably in Russia recently.

And if there's one topic that plays very well to the Russian people, it's the notion that Russia is somehow asserting itself militarily over Ukraine. So this move could be some sort of gambit by Putin to shore up his domestic popularity ratings by creating or manufacturing some sort of escalation in the crisis, which he can come in and resolve. Also, Ukraine is having a presidential election coming up in March. So anything, you know, one of Russia's long-term goals in Ukraine seems to be to simply just disrupt the political process of the Ukrainian state. And so obviously adding instability, this martial law declarations, obviously a curveball for Ukraine as it approaches the presidential election

here in a few months. So perhaps the timing of this event coincides with the upcoming presidential election in Ukraine. There's a G20 summit. So there's endless theories about the kind of pressure Russia is trying to put on Ukraine. You know, it must be said as well that Europe is in also sort of a volatile moment with the Brexit negotiations, French President Manuel Macron is under pressure in France with protests at the moment. Angelo Merkel obviously is under pressure in Germany on many fronts. So Europe politically is rather weak.

So if Putin wanted to either push the envelope, test the waters, perhaps try to gain some sort of territorial advantage in the sea of Azov by sealing off Ukrainian access to the sea. this might be an opportune time to do it. But I think, you know, it seems to me that Russia has a pattern of pushing until somebody pushes back. And so I think in this instance, it's an important moment for both NATO and the United States more specifically to take an assertive stance on this to say that these sorts of overt violations of international law. international law should not go unpunished. Nolan, has there been any firm response at all from either Europe or the United States? Just rhetoric at this point. It must be said that over the course of the war, the U.S. has done a lot.

And under President Trump, the U.S. finally took the step of delivering lethal weapons to U.S. a step that was sort of long, pushed aside by the Obama administration. But specifically with this crisis, at least, you know, from what we see in open source reporting, there could be something going on behind the scenes. One example is there were reports of a U.S. drone over flights of the region as the crisis unfolded in the hours and now the day after.

So I think the United States is providing some sort of support as far as intelligence. But there's been no NATO or U.S. troop deployment or anything like that. I think right now the biggest concern for both the United States and Europe has been to simply try to de-escalate this so it doesn't snowball into something much bigger and much worse. Now, Nolan, you mentioned in your report for the Daily Signal that you've been to do. able to speak to Ukrainian soldiers about this? What's the mood like for them? I think they're frustrated. I think, you know, it's been now since the Minks II ceasefire was signed in February

2015, essentially locked the war in the Dombas along a static trench line. And since February 2015, so going on more than three, you know, more than three. and a half years now. Ukrainian troops have basically been sitting in trenches as target practice for Russian artillery. And I think when we have events like on Sunday, there is, after all these years, sort of a pent-up desire to proactively defend their homeland. But I think, you know, Ukraine's leaders took some prudent steps on Sunday night, which is not to escalate this conflict into a much deadlier confrontation. But I think, you know, for the most part, Ukrainian soldiers are, are, their morale is high. They're very patriotic and they're ready to step up and do what they have to do.

But, yeah, it was certainly a scary time on Sunday night. But, you know, from the soldiers I talked to, they certainly seemed eager and willing to do what to protect their country. All right. Well, Nolan Pearson, we appreciate you calling in at a late hour for you. And as always, we appreciate your in-depth reporting, which our listeners can find at daily signal.com and can also follow Nolan on Twitter at Nolan W. Peterson. Nolan, appreciate it. Thanks. I appreciate you guys having me. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head? Then subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a podcast breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. Well, if you think George Washington was a more important president than Barack Obama, you're in a shrinking group of people. A new survey of U.S. patriotism conducted by the polling firm U.Gov shows some concerning numbers. According to the survey, half of Americans under the age of 21

believe that Barack Obama was a more consequential president than George Washington. But there's more. One in five millennials say the American flag is a sign of intolerance and hatred. Half of all Americans say the country is sexist, and nearly half of all Americans say that it's racist. Another shocking number, 84% of Americans don't know the specific rights listed in the First Amendment. So, Kate, it turns out that it's not just leftist college professors who hold America in contempt. Seems like a surprising chunk of our country now. Well, hopefully the kids will grow out of this. But I was very glad that the study was done.

It was commissioned by the Foundation for Liberty and American Greatness. And I think it does give real cause for concern. And I think, you know, there's been a lot of chatter among conservatives about, you know, our favorite representative elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comparing, you know, what's happening at the border right now to Jews fleeing not to Germany. And I think that, you know, there's just this overall lack of historical depth or knowledge. And I think nothing encapsulates that more. perfectly than thinking that Barack Obama was potentially more important than George Washington.

I mean, you know, you could argue that Barack Obama was a very consequential president. I mean, I would certainly say Obamacare was one of the most important, if disagreeable to me, policies enacted in American history. But I mean, oh my gosh, that just shows no scope at all in your intellectual landscape. Yeah, and I actually think if students knew the history, George Washington, and what he did. Beyond the cherry tree? Right, right, right. His leading the army against the British

and his being president, limiting himself to two terms when he could have been the first king of America. Setting that precedent was huge. I think I'm going to be a little optimistic here and say that it's not for lack of reason. It's just for lack of education, at least for a lot of students.

I think it's just pretty clear that if you're the first president, you set the mold and that makes you like more consequential than pretty much any of your predecessors. Well, it might be lack of education, but if there's no willingness to be reeducated or additionally educated, I don't know how hopeful that is. I mean, they've already gone through school. Right. You know, are in college or have graduated if they went that course. You know, it's interesting because there was a column by David Brooks of the New York Times, I believe it was this week where he sort of argued that there's a huge gap on the left between elders and youngers.

And he said the difference sort of boils down to, I mean, I'm paraphrasing him here, but do you think the system needs to be fixed or do you think the system itself is inherently problematic? And a lot of the younger ones, he said, thinks the system itself is inherently problematic. And I thought when you saw these numbers about, you know, the percentage that thought the country is racist or sexist, that sort of goes to that divine. I think it is very concerning because, you know, no one is, well, very few people, I would assume, are claiming that racism has been totally eradicated in the United States. There's no racist person anywhere in the country or that same with sexism. But I mean, it does show really a lack of critical thinking and a knowledge of foreign affairs if you think the U.S. is racist and sexist. I mean, this is not true to who we are. Yeah. And the kind of

a sad thing here, one of the sad things I think is that holding that revolutionary view that our system is fundamentally corrupted and can't be fixed, that we need something entirely different, that makes you a lot less effective, I think, in actually advancing policy because it's much easier to go into politics and fix something than try to implement something entirely new. I mean, it kind of reminds me of the difference between the French Revolution and the American Revolution. You know, French Revolution was just uprooting everything that came before and trying to institute this new and completely, you know, abstract system that had never existed, which of course led to Napoleon, right? I mean, that when you break with the past and

with tradition, you don't have a lot of the continuity that protects you going forward. Oh, to mention, yeah, all the massacres before. Right, right. And, you know, in America, we were a revolution, but really more of a restoration of English liberty. At least I would argue, I think that's pretty fair to argue. And if you look at everyone who came later in the course of American history, who brought about some of the greatest changes, including Abraham Lincoln with the emancipation proclamation, the Civil War, all the way up to Martin Luther King, they all framed their reforms within the context of America as it was founded. So, Martin Luther King appealing to natural rights cited in the Declaration of Independence.

I think, you know, we need to communicate to young people that our founding past actually has the resources to address a lot of their concerns, and they don't have to look for something completely new in order to find answers. Right. And I would wonder how much do they know about, you know, I guess this goes like to your ignorance point, our founding. I mean, I would say the founding fathers did bring forward. forward something truly revolutionary with the idea of federalism. But they also grappled with,

you know, when you read the federalist papers and stuff, there's such an awareness of human nature, you know, and how do you cope with that on a government system? How do you encourage man's best instincts and how do you check his worst? And that was really, I mean, again, revolutionary. Although I would argue that federalism did exist in other places like Switzerland and Geneva. Which is in Switzerland. Yes. But okay. Well, I'm not an expert on political history. But, you know, anyway, yes, I think there should be a look at our roots. But, you know, I think the other thing, too, that makes this so concerning is, you know, there is no other United States. If the United States loses these principles, there's nowhere to go. And that's sad. And I would hope that people who genuinely hate or dislike or think our system is irredeemable would, you know, I don't know, maybe consider the old celebrity threat of moving to Canada. we lose all of the good things that people on the left take for granted. If you like civil rights, if you like equality before the law, then you need to like the

American system because that is what gave us those things. It took work. It took reforms. It took war at times. But it was within our constitutional system that we were able to achieve those things. And if you suddenly bring in a new system that, frankly, what I hear from the left, I don't I don't hear a lot of respect for the rule of law for equality. I don't hear a lot of respect for equality before law.

I hear you need to believe someone based on their gender rather than what the facts are. Your perspective is worth less if you are of a certain race and male. I don't hear a lot of equality talk, frankly, when it comes to the law. So I think we need to be careful and remember that it's really the American system and the rule of of law that gave us so many of the great things that even people on the left take for granted. Absolutely. Well, we will leave it there for today. Thanks so much for listening to the Daily Signal podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please give us a review or rating in iTunes

to give us any feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow. You've been listening to the Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis, sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans and Thalia Ramprasad. For more information, visitdailysignal.com.