The Daily Signal - Wait, Can Ukraine Win the War Against Russia?

Episode Date: August 22, 2024

It’s been 2 1/2 years since Russia invaded Ukraine. The war has taken an unexpected turn in the past two weeks as Ukrainian troops launched a successful incursion into Russia and have now taken control of over 400 square miles in the Kursk region, which borders Ukraine in southwestern Russia.  After months of gridlock in the fighting, the successful incursion could be a critical turning point in the war. “There's certainly always a chance,” Victoria Coates said when asked if Ukraine can win the war.  Coates, vice president of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation says the question now is, “Has the administration and our major NATO partners been supplying Ukraine in a way to set them up for victory?”  “That's what's not clear to me,” Coates said, answering her own question.  Coates told “The Daily Signal Podcast” she has further concerns over the current silence from the Biden-Harris administration. “I searched,” Coates said, “for any statement from the president, from the vice president, who's now the nominee of the Democrat Party for president, from the secretary of state, from the secretary of defense. Not a peep about the fact that the Ukrainians have done something rather extraordinary and gone into Russian territory.”  Coates joins the show to explain why the Biden administration might be silent on Ukraine’s incursion into Russia and the likelihood of a Ukrainian victory.  Enjoy the show! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Daily Signal podcast for August 22nd. I'm Virginia Allen. Ukrainian troops are not only still within Russia. They're continuing to advance. It's been about two weeks since they launched their incursion into Russian territory. And today we are sitting down with Victoria Cote. She serves as vice president of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. And she provides her insight and expertise on what exactly could be next in the war and if this successful, encouragingistically successful so far, is an indication of whether Ukraine can actually win the war against Russia. We also briefly touch on the latest out of the conflict and war, ongoing war between Israel and Tamas.

Stay tuned for my conversation on all things foreign policy with Victoria Coates next. Today, news you can trust feels like a rarity. That's why the Daily Signal podcast releases a top news edition every weekday at 5 p.m. Whether driving home from work, fixing dinner, or picking the kids up from soccer practice, you can stay informed on the headlines you care about. Every show is quick and succinct, designed to keep you up to speed on the issues that actually matter.

Catch our top news edition right here in your Daily Signal podcast feed every evening. Or listen first thing in the morning before catching the day's interview. And be sure to subscribe. on the Daily Signal podcast so you never miss an episode. Well, I'm so pleased today that we have joined back with us on the show once again is national security expert Victoria Coates.

Victoria serves as the vice president and the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy here at the Heritage Foundation, and she formerly served as a deputy national advisor to former President Donald Trump. Victoria, I want to jump right in here and talk about the latest in Ukraine and Russia. There's been a really interesting evolution of events over the past two weeks where now Ukrainian troops are inside Russia. There's been an incursion into Russia. Explain exactly how they pulled this off. Well, it's good to be with you, as always, Virginia. And I think, you know, this is a fascinating time for the Ukraine war. And the first thing I'll say,

though, is we have heard nothing about this out of the administration. I searched in preparation for this podcast for any statement from the president, from the vice president, who's now, you know, the nominee of the Democrat Party for president from the Secretary of State, from the Secretary of Defense, not a peep about the fact that the Ukrainians have done something rather extraordinary and gone into Russian territory, into the Kyrksk region, which is on the western border of Russia, right up against the eastern border of Ukraine, where the Russians are particularly active. That's where they've taken territory within sovereign Ukrainian boundaries. So they, about two and a half weeks ago, they, you know, started this offensive.

Their mission appears to be to disrupt Russian supply chains. And they're doing a good job of it. They've blown up three key bridges. And, you know, there are a couple of interesting things we can get into. The first is how the Russians respond. Because it's one thing to be blowing up a bunch of things in Ukraine. It's quite another when Russian national. see their things being blown up, obviously, by the Ukrainians on Russian territory. Or even having to flee and evacuate territory. And they have to run from this. And so that word then gets out within Russia. And there's not as much that Vladimir Putin can do to tamp down Russians communicating with each other that he can do to prevent information from getting out of Ukraine.

So that's one really interesting dynamic. Another is, you've given the silence of the Biden-Harris administration, you know, are they being consulted on this? Because for the last two and a half years, one of their key provisions is that American weapons will not be used against Russian targets. Now, you can debate the wisdom of that policy. You know, the Russians haven't been particularly sensitive to Ukrainian borders. So I might not have made that provision, but it was how they responded to criticism that, oh, my gosh, we're going to drift into World War III, is that they would prevent that from happening. But all of their rules keep getting broken. You know, they don't need F-16s. Well, we're going to give them F-16s. They don't need javelins.

Well, we're going to give them javelins. The incremental nature of this makes me think that former President Trump, when he says we are drifting towards World War III, that he may be right. because, you know, it's just not clear why this is a good idea now and it wasn't a good idea a year ago. And if the Ukrainians can be successful here, you know, what is the plan to consolidate that success? And, you know, could it become, you know, the basis for a negotiated conclusion to this war that would have more leverage for the Ukrainians, which is, you know, what we have, as Heritage have been advocating for since the beginning. So, you know, it's a very interesting development on the surface. It is positive, you know, to see the Ukrainians having some battlefield success.

But it does raise a lot of questions. So a lot of time back here. Let's start with the silence from the Biden-Harris administration. Do you think that they're being silent because there are fears of World War III breaking out? And they almost are like, we're going to stay quiet because we don't want to add to the tension? Or are there other reasons? Well, they don't confide in me. So, yeah, it's hard to speculate.

You know, we did have a leaked document this week about Biden ordering a reconfiguration of the U.S. nuclear posture to potentially deal with a coordinated strike by China, North Korea, and Russia, which is a very frightening prospect. So clearly they do have concerns about escalation, but that didn't stop them from saying it was okay for the Ukrainian. to do this with with U.S. weapons. So so that that seems odd. You know, clearly they're all completely distracted by their political chaos that they've experienced over the last month, you know, unprecedented, you know, actions by Fiat to install the vice president as the nominee. And there's been the equally bizarre campaign to prevent her from having any positions on

anything, including Ukraine. You know, you would think enterprising reporters would want to ask her, you know, what do you think about this? And they're not even able to ask her what flavor of ice cream she likes at this point. So we are getting nothing out of them. And, you know, with all of the exposure we have in other areas of the world in the Middle East, obviously, and in the Pacific, who's balancing this strategically becomes the question? and, you know, the president flew off to California. He's on vacation.

You know, is the vice president who's in the middle of her convention making these decisions? Is she the policy driver here? In which case, we don't know what her policy is. You know, it's very, very strange to just get nothing. No John Kirby, no nothing. Blinkins in the Middle East. Right. And who knows?

Nobody knows where the Secretary of Defense is, apparently. but it's, you know, it is a very, very odd scenario. Yeah. How much intelligence is the U.S. providing Ukraine and Ukrainian troops? Because, I mean, again, this is a pretty big feat for them to pull off not only getting into Russia, but they have advanced, I think, the Associated Press, some of their latest numbers where they've taken over 400 miles of territory within Russia. This is a lot of territory.

how are they doing this or are they using U.S. intelligence? I assume yes. You know, we have a lot of surveillance capabilities that they don't have. And that should be part of any effort like this. You know, once the president had made the decision that we were going to arm fund and support the Ukrainian resistance, you know, intelligence sharing is a natural part of that. So one assumes that we are providing. them with the targets, we're providing them with the kind of logistic information that they would need in collaboration with other regional likely NATO allies. That's a pretty streamlined process.

And they're certainly not pulling back. If anything, they're getting a lot in Boulder. We saw early Wednesday morning there was a drone attack where Russian officials said 45 drones. They were shot down over Russian territory. What do we? know, for one, about that drone attack. And what exactly is Ukraine's endgame here? Well, with the drone attack, those are becoming increasingly common. Okay. And, you know, drone warfare is, you know, a new frontier, literally, which all of our sort of adversaries are becoming extremely active in. Good news is we are also active. In this space, the bad news is our drones, while they're capable, tend to be very expensive. The Chinese,

produce, mass-produced cheap drones. And so we can wind up in a situation where it's costing us in terms of a missile or a counter drone, you know, millions of dollars to shoot down a $20,000 drone. And, you know, some of our colleagues here at Heritage, led by E.J. Antony, have been doing some really good work on how much this is really costing us. Because we've been told we're bleeding Russia dry. What may actually be happening is they're bleeding us dry through this, mismatch in weapons. So the drone attack in and of itself is not shocking. We've seen other examples of this. I would want to know a lot more about what the drones are. And in terms of end state, I mean, this goes to the broader silence. You know, this came as a shock to everyone

when they did this. As I said, I would hope that the goal is to get as much leverage as possible before any negotiations would take place. And I think that is a smart thing to do. I mean, that is what we should support. If we're going to support this, don't know that that is happening. And I do think there is also a sort of public relations aspect of this that would be embarrassing to Vladimir Putin.

Yeah. That, you know, he had controlled the narrative for pretty much the whole summer in terms of, you know, the Russians are entrenched. They're starting to retake some more territory. They're having success. That narrative has now been turned on its head. And so how they take advantage of that change.

And finally, for me, it really begs the question of, you know, if they can win this, why did we not support them to win it two and a half years ago? And if you go back and look at all of the statements that I've made, you know, since I've been at even before, but certainly since I've been at Heritage, you've been for a plan to win the war. What is the desired end state? And what does do or do rather favorable terms for the United States and Ukraine look like?

And the most recent, I believe, emergency supplemental had a requirement in it that the administration provide a strategy for Ukraine within a certain set amount of time. Well, they've blown through that deadline. and clearly have no intention of providing any strategy to the Congress or to the American people. And if we are drifting towards a larger conflict, that's really scary. So in your analysis, is it winnable for Ukraine?

Because it feels like we've been in this gridlock for a long time. And now for the first time, there's sort of like a breaking from that gridlock. And we're looking at Ukraine that's now fighting on three funds. In eastern Ukraine, Russia, obviously, fighting also on three funds now. Eastern Ukraine, the Black Sea. and now within Russian territory itself, does Ukraine actually have a chance of winning this thing? Well, I mean, there's certainly always a chance. And the question is, has the administration and our major NATO partners been supplying Ukraine in a way to set them up for victory?

And that's what's not clear to me. For starters, you know, the administration has been so incremental. You don't hear them talking about victory. You hear them talking about as much as it takes for as long as it takes. which sounds to me like a recipe for an endless war. And that never has been their goal, that they've wanted to do enough to prevent the Ukrainians from losing, but never enough to allow them to win.

And I think we also have not had the very tough conversations we need to have with our European partners and allies. I mean, last month we had the NATO summit here in Washington, and everybody just collapsing all over each other, patting themselves on the back for the fact that half of our NATO allies now make their 2% commitment, sort of. I mean, that to me is a failure. I mean, is it better than it was 10 years ago? Yes. But if we have a war raging in Europe and the Europeans, especially the biggest economies in the EU, France, Germany and Italy, are not making

their 2%. So love the Baltics. They're doing a great job. But even if they're at 3 and a half, it's not enough to shift the tide of this war. It means they are responsible nations taking care of their own security, but it's not going to allow the Ukrainians to beat the Russians. So unless and until, given our exposure elsewhere, the Europeans take the lead on this and show a sense of urgency that the bear is at the door, which it is. And it would behoove everyone if Putin didn't do this again.

But the bulk of that burden has to fall. on them. And that should be the whole purpose of having NATO. And the whole purpose of having, you know, U.S., yes, contributions and leadership in NATO, but we can't be the first and last funder of European wars. That's where they have to step up to the plate. And it's been two and a half years and they haven't done it. So yes, Ukraine could win. I don't know that they are being enabled to win. Victoria, I know you have to go here in a second. I want to, while we have you here, just briefly asked for an update on Israel. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken was in Israel earlier this week. He's been in Qatar and Egypt talking about these negotiations. Where does a peace

deal stand? Well, the administration is still flogging the May announcement that the president made about a ceasefire deal, sort of a sequential ceasefire deal, which has been rejected by Hamas at least three times, if not four, but they keep pushing on it. And, you know, it's interesting. There was a leak that the announcement of that ceasefire deal in May that the president originally had been prepared to make a much tougher statement on Israel, on the necessity of Israel, negotiating for a Palestinian state, getting to a ceasefire, stopping their talk of victory, you know, that they needed to end the war now. in language that really echoes some language from Obama in 2013 and his administration. And a lot of these people are serving now. Philip Gordon, Vice President Harris's National Security Advisor, was one of the architects of that on the Obama NSC.

So you're starting to hear these echoes and these leaks that suggest that Harris is going to take a much stronger tone on Thursday against Israel than even Biden has up until now. So on the ceasefire, it looks like Hamas has rejected it again. Hamas is the problem here, obviously. They could have peace tomorrow if they wanted it. They could have not started the war in the first place. You know, if I were doing this, I would signal very strongly to Qatar and Egypt, who are conducting these negotiations because we're asking them to, that what we're negotiating now are peace terms,

that Hamas has lost and they can sue for terms. But we are no longer going to have an ambitial. ceasefire that they won't adhere to anyway because they never do and that will just put Israel back into a vulnerable position and I just closed by saying you know there are still at least five Americans being held hostage in Gaza as we speak we had six bodies discovered this week it is a perilous situation and the Democrats in Chicago have yet to use the word Israel they won't say it they don't won't talk about it and certainly not name name our hostages or any of the others that are still in that cruel captivity. And so that is, you know, that is a huge choice for American voters going into the election of, you know, where do you stand on this issue? And where would you want your next president to stand on it? Because it is a case of black and white hair. Yep. Heritage Foundation National Security expert,

Victoria Coates. Victoria, thank you for your time, as always. My pleasure. Thank you, Virginia. And with that, that's going to do it for today's episode. Thanks so much for joining us here on the Daily Signal podcast. Make sure you hit that subscribe button. That is a huge help to us if you are not already subscribed to the Daily Signal podcast. Not only does it allow you to get all of our latest shows brought right to your phone, a reminder on your phone. It also is a huge help to us as we continue to try to spread the word about the Daily Signal podcast.

And if you think of a friend, a family member who's passionate, about national security, about foreign policy, go ahead and send them today's episode. We would love to be spreading our content to more and more listeners out there who care about these issues that we talk about here on the Daily Signal podcast. We'll see you right back here around 5 p.m. for our top news edition. In the meantime, have a great rest of your Thursday. The Daily Signal podcast is made possible because of listeners like you. Executive producers are Rob Louis and Katrina Trinko.

Hosts are Virginia Allen, Brian Gottstein, Tyler O'Neill, Mary Margaret O'Lohan, and Elizabeth Mitchell. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinie, John Pop, and Joseph von Spakovsky. To learn more or support our work, please visit DailySignal.com.