The NPR Politics Podcast - Israel, Ukraine And The Messes That Await The Next President

Episode Date: September 25, 2024

The most immediate challenge for the next president: the U.S. is both deeply involved in both of these wars but has pretty limited control of what is actually happening on the ground.This episode: political correspondent Susan Davis, national security correspondent Greg Myre and Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman.The podcast is produced by Jeongyoon Han, Casey Morell and Kelli Wessinger. Our editor is Eric McDaniel. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Jacob Risberg, member of the Swedish Parliament, or Riksdag, in Stockholm, Sweden. Right now, I'm on my way to Riksdag, where the King of Sweden will officially open the Riksdag session of 2024-2025. This podcast was recorded at 1.34pm on Wednesday, September 25th. Things may have changed by the time you hear it, but the Swedish Parliament will be in session. Okay, here's the show. I feel like the Swedish parliament probably gets along a lot better than our Congress. I don't know why. I'm guessing that's probably right. But a new NATO member. Oh, and welcome, Ben. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. I'm Tom Bowman. I cover the Pentagon. And I'm Greg Myrie. I'm a national security correspondent. And today, the latest on the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine and the

challenges awaiting the next president, whether it be Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. Greg, the most immediate challenge for the next president is confronting the reality that the U.S. on one hand is both deeply involved in these two conflicts, but on the other hand, has pretty limited control of what is actually happening on the ground in either Israel or Ukraine. That's right, Susan. The Biden administration is supporting Israel and Ukraine with billions of dollars of advanced U.S. weapons. And politically, the administration supports Israel's effort against Hamas and Ukraine's battle against Russia, but the U.S. doesn't have troops on the ground taking part in the fight in either of these places. It doesn't have direct control over decisions by Israel or Ukraine. The U.S. can

advise, suggest, cajole, pressure, but for example, it can impose a ceasefire in either war. And we should note the Biden administration does have policy differences with both Israel and Ukraine. With Israel, a central issue is the large number of Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza. And with Ukraine, it's over how Ukraine uses long range missiles supplied by the U.S. Tom, I think the diplomatic frustrations of the Biden administration have been well documented. And as we've noted, there's no U.S. troops on the ground in these conflicts, which is key. But the Pentagon also plays at least certainly an advisory role here and also supplying weapons to places like Ukraine. And there is frustration at the Pentagon, Susan. Militarily, the U.S. is offering advice. And in both cases, Israel and Ukraine are doing

instead what they think best, both those countries, brushing aside U.S. advice at times. The U.S. is telling Israel, listen, if you want those 60,000, 80,000 residents to return to northern Israel, remember they had to flee because the Iranian-backed Hezbollah was firing rockets and missiles from Lebanon. The best way to do that is through diplomatic means to create some sort of a buffer. But Israel clearly is brushing aside diplomatic means, and they're going to create that buffer through airstrikes. And it also appears, importantly, Israel could soon send in ground troops. Now, with Ukraine, the U.S. is pressing Ukraine to shore up its defenses in the east where Russia is making gains. And I don't believe the U.S. thought the Ukrainians' incursion into Russia, remember the Kursk area, really made much sense strategically. Ukraine has to push Russia back in the east or at the very least not allow more important towns with crossroads that are vital to resupply from being taken by the Russians. That's kind of where we are now.

I do want to talk more about Ukraine, but first let's focus on Israel a little bit more because the conflict there does seem to have escalated in recent days and weeks to include those attacks on Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militia group operating in Lebanon. Greg, is there a risk that this becomes a bigger regional war? Well, yes, the threat is very real. I know this. I've covered two previous Israel-Hezbollah wars, the first in 1996, the second one in 2006. And there are similarities today, this ongoing fire along the Israel-Lebanon border, heightened regional tensions. And just today, Israel's army said troops were preparing

for a possible invasion of southern Lebanon. However, there are also reasons to think that this won't happen. In the two previous wars, Israel thought its ground troops would deliver a very quick and powerful blow to Hezbollah, but that didn't happen. Hezbollah proved much tougher as an adversary than Israel anticipated. They essentially ended both wars in draws. They were followed by periods of quiet, but it didn't resolve anything in the long term. And Hezbollah's rocket and missile arsenal is much larger and more powerful. Again, just today, Hezbollah fired a ballistic missile at Tel Aviv in central Israel on the Mediterranean coast. Israel shot it down, but it's the first time Hezbollah did this, displaying what it has in its arsenal. Gaza, certainly not before our election. Do both of you see that as sort of priority number one for the next president to try to reach some sort of at least short-term peace deal between Israel

and the people of Gaza? Well, I mean, they've been trying to do this really for many, many months. It's not going to happen soon. And it may come to a point where there really is no ceasefire, that it becomes at the point where Israel has done as much as it can to destroy Hamas in Gaza. And then you could see some sort of international focus there. But yeah, it's hard to say at this point whether there'll be any ceasefire at all. And again, if this expands into Lebanon going up to Hezbollah, if Israeli ground troops head in there, then it could be a long-term mess. And that seems to be where this is going at this point, because they've called up some Israeli reserves.

And when you see reserves being called up, you can bet they're going to head into Lebanon. When it comes to foreign policy, obviously, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have very different worldviews. But when it comes to the U.S. alliance with Israel, there does seem to be a lot more cohesion between the two. They both describe themselves as staunch supporters of the state of Israel, that the U.S. will not seek any distance from them, that Israel has a right to defend itself, and that the U.S. government will continue to back up Israel in that fight. I guess the question would be, does it matter all that much between the U.S.-Israel relationship with the outcome of our election if both of the candidates are taking essentially the same position?

Well, I would say, yes, it does matter. I think maybe in the short term, broadly speaking, they'll have a similar policy of strong support for Israel. But over the course of an administration, I think they will take very different positions that will be significant. We've already seen Trump during his time in office. He did things that no U.S. administration had done previously. He moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That stirred a big controversy. He has not criticized Israel's development of West Bank settlements, for example. He had an ambassador that clearly went further in

supporting Israel and Israeli actions in the West Bank than we'd seen previously. So Trump has basically endorsed almost everything Israel has done with very little pushback and has said very little about what he would like to try to do for the Palestinians, if anything. The Biden administration has certainly been criticized for its strong support of Israel not doing enough for the Palestinians or trying to get a ceasefire. Harris has been very much in line with that. She has expressed a little more sympathy for the Palestinian plight and the huge number of civilian casualties they've suffered. So yes, the next administration, I'm sure, will be strongly

supportive of Israel. But in a lot of the specific policies, I think you would see some pretty significant differences. All right, let's take a quick break. And when we get back, we'll talk more about Ukraine. And we're back. And just a quick reminder, be sure to tap the follow button wherever you listen to us to be sure you get notifications every time we have a new episode. And Greg, you just got back from another reporting trip to Ukraine. Is it accurate to describe the situation on the ground there in the fight with Russia? It almost seems like it's just at a stalemate. Well, Susan, it's complicated. Here in Washington,

it does look like a stalemate in many ways. The front line on the main battlefront in eastern Ukraine has changed very little last year or this year. If you look at a big countrywide map of Ukraine, we're not seeing much movement there. It does look like a stalemate. But during my month in Ukraine, I often felt like I was watching three separate wars. The first is on this eastern front. The Russians are putting serious pressure on Ukraine. They keep advancing a mile here, a mile there.

They're taking villages. The Russians simply have the Ukrainians outnumbered and outgunned, and it's not clear how that will stop, even if the Russian advances are small and incremental. Second, the Ukrainians, while I was there, did cross this border into western Russia. They have seized about 500 square miles of Russian territory. In strategic terms, not really that important. This is not a critical area, but it does show the Ukrainians are capable of surprise attacks. They can keep the Russians off balance. Russian leader Vladimir Putin certainly didn't think at

this stage of the war he'd be sending troop reinforcements to retake Russian territory, yet here we are. And the third I'll note quickly is in the Black Sea. Ukraine has no traditional Navy ships in the Black Sea, none, zero, yet it's knocked out about 25 Russian ships and subs in the Black Sea, forced the Russians to retreat. They've done this with long-range missiles and sea drones that they've improvised. They're essentially jet skis packed with explosives that have taken out a lot of Russian ships. So all three developments are taking place at the same time. Tom, I have to first say that whenever I picture you talking to military sources,

in my mind it is always actually like a dark, smoky room filled with military maps and people in uniform. It's like the Hollywood version of it. No, it's usually a bar. That's probably the real-life version of it. Smoky bar. Well, not really a smoky bar. But when you're talking to military officials, people who know how to conduct and win wars or lose them for that matter, does the U.S. military apparatus believe that Ukraine can win this war? And what does a win look like, I guess? You keep hearing that term win, but former Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley said neither side can win. Russia can't take over the entirety of Ukraine.

And Ukraine doesn't have the power to kick all the Russians out. So what's the way ahead? That's a question everyone's been asking. The U.S. wants to strengthen the Ukrainian hand at the negotiating table. But both sides are far from any such negotiations. And I think next year you'll see more, a greater push for talks, maybe first from Europe, because listen, this can't go on forever. The best hope for Ukraine may be taking back a little bit more of the ease that Russia has grabbed, but it's not looking

good for Ukraine there. Now, again, Russia is on the move and there's a concern about taking a major town with crossroads, that would be really hard for the Ukrainians to resupply themselves. If Trump and Harris have some similarities in their worldview with Israel, I think Ukraine is clearly big differences between whether Trump or Harris wins. But we should note that the Trump campaign has sort of articulated an endgame to this, which Trump's running mate J.D. Vance outlined in a recent interview. I'm going to rely on you to explain it because you understand the nuance of it all. It was on a recent podcast. And he said one way ahead would be to create a demilitarized zone in

eastern Ukraine. He doesn't say where. And fortify it so Russia can't attack again. And Ukraine would not join NATO or, he said, any other allied institution. So what does that mean? Like the EU? I mean, he didn't really say. Critics say that's something like Putin would prefer to see. So if Trump gets in, and Trump has said he wants to end this immediately, right, you could see them push that through. And also Trump says he doesn't want to spend tens of billions of dollars more in Ukraine. Sure. I mean, even if it's a Harris administration and she continues the line of the Biden administration, which seems likely, which is the policy she's articulated, she might also run into

some roadblocks. You know, Republicans might control one or both chambers of Congress. The ability to get Congress to go along and keep supplying money is going to be a big question. Absolutely. Right now, there's bipartisan support for Ukraine. But you're right. Depending on what happens with Congress, who controls Congress or both houses or one house, you could. And if Trump basically says to his folks in the Republican Party, don't vote for it, you could see this start to fall apart. Greg, I was thinking about this, that I almost have deja vu to a similar conversation we had last year about Ukraine. Because at this time of year, it's getting colder and colder. Winter changes the things on the ground there. How might that affect the next phase of this war

going forward? Yeah, the winter is a real participant in the war. Ukraine has had to worry about keeping its electricity grid going the past two winters. Now, it's managed to do it, but cumulatively, Russia has really damaged and reduced the amount of power that Ukraine can generate by hitting electrical power plants and substations. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed this issue just this morning at the United Nations when he said Ukraine believes Russia wants to take out three Ukrainian nuclear power plants this winter to further cut the country's power supplies. Russia still occupies one Ukrainian nuclear plant, which is the largest such plant in Europe, so that's not providing power. And Ukraine has been able to repair both

nuclear and traditional power plants to keep electricity flowing, though there are lots of blackouts there in the summer and in the winter. But today it's just producing much less power than at the start of the war a couple years ago. That could be a huge problem this winter. As Ukrainians often note, Russia is not just targeting Ukraine's military. It's also targeting the country's civilians. And Susan, one of the problems is you still don't have enough air defense in Ukraine, not only to protect cities, but also importantly, to protect the energy infrastructure. All right. That is it for us today. We will be back in your feeds tomorrow. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. I'm Tom Bowman. I cover the Pentagon. And I'm Greg Myhre. I'm a

national security correspondent. And thanks for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.