The NPR Politics Podcast - What's Next For U.S. Involvement In Ukraine?

Episode Date: April 28, 2025

Since Russia's large scale invasion began in 2022, the U.S. has provided significant military aid to Ukraine. But Republicans, led by President Trump, are increasingly skeptical of providing more support. What will happen next, and can Ukraine continue fighting if the U.S. removes its assistance? This episode: political correspondents Sarah McCammon and Susan Davis, and national security correspondent Greg Myre.The podcast is produced by Bria Suggs & Kelli Wessinger and edited by Casey Morell. 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

Support for NPR comes from the Psi Sims Foundation since 1985, supporting advances in science, education, and the arts towards a fairer, more just, and civil society. More information is available at PsiSimsFoundation.org. Hi, this is Martin from Mallorca, Spain. I'm about to go to the circus for my seventh birthday. This podcast was recorded at 1 o' 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 28th. Things might have changed by the time you hear this,

but I have just seen somebody get shot out of a cannon for the first time. So much going on in that clip. Wow. What a lovely way to celebrate a birthday. I want to go to Majorca. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, forget the circus, but let's get to Majorca. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Sarah McCammon.

I cover politics. I'm Greg Myrie. I cover national security. And I McCammon. I cover politics. I'm Greg Myhre. I cover national security. And I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. And today on the show, we're taking a look at Russia's war in Ukraine. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump said he could end that war on his first day in office. As he approaches his hundredth day in office, the war continues and the U.S. role in the effort to negotiate peace has shifted. And Greg, that's

where we're going to begin. What's the latest on the war? And most importantly, for the purpose of this conversation, what the US is trying to do to bring an end to it? Yeah, the US is still trying to broker a truce. Trump would like a permanent truce, but they're not having any real success. There's ongoing heavy fighting really in two areas on the front lines in the east of Ukraine and Russia still waging an air campaign striking all over Ukraine. Now there is a new development. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced unilaterally that Russia would observe a ceasefire from May 8th to 10th. This is a three-day period when Russia will be commemorating its victory in

World War II. Now, this is always one of the biggest periods of celebration in Russia, and Putin has elevated World War II commemorations to new heights, and this year it's the 80th anniversary of the war. But Ukraine says it doesn't want a ceasefire just so Russia can have a holiday parade. It says it wants at least a ceasefire for 30 days. And meanwhile, at the White House, press secretary, Carolyn Levitt says Trump was growing increasingly frustrated with leaders in both countries and that he wants a permanent ceasefire, though that seems unlikely.

In many ways, you know, this feels like yet another sign of the way the US role in global affairs is changing, you know, dramatically under President Trump. There was the old longstanding post-World War II international order where the US tried to keep the peace. That seems to be waning. I mean, Greg, just how much have things shifted since Trump took office? Yeah, it's really no exaggeration to say we're seeing what could be a really seismic shift in the US global role. I mean, it dates back to President Harry Truman presiding over the

building of a world order in the wake of World War II, where the US leads it and also pays the largest share of the cost. The United Nations, NATO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and Democratic and Republican presidents have maintained this system for 80 years. They'll grumble occasionally about the cost, but ultimately see it as underpinning the US role as the world's superpower. Now Trump simply sees these as expensive liabilities, not valuable assets, and Ukraine seems to bring three strands of his thinking

together. I think one is that Europe needs to pay for its own security, not the US. This war in Ukraine is Europe's war, and Europe should step up. Two, the US just shouldn't be involved in funding open-ended conflicts around the world, whether it was the wars we were seeing in the Middle East in the past decades, or the Ukraine war in this decade. And then third, Trump has always had a largely positive view of Russia's Vladimir Putin. We've seen this again, generally speaking, in his comments about Russia and his attempts to arrange the ceasefire. He has become a bit more critical of Russia as they maintain this ongoing bombing campaign.

Although it was also notable to me that over the weekend Trump met with Zelensky and Rome, there's that photo of them that was released, and it's just the two of them sitting in a chair in this sort of majestic room. And Trump later suggested on social media that Putin might not want to stop the war, and he even said he could consider new sanctions on Russia, which to me, Greg, was also kind of striking because as as you noted, Trump tends to speak rather positively about Vladimir Putin. And it seemed like some of the harshest commentary we've ever heard from Trump when it comes to Russia, whether or not that actually means anything or has any consequences, it remains to be seen. But also the meeting between Trump and Zelensky this time seemed much more positive.

The readout from both sides was much more working towards progress, which to me was also a very striking change from that disastrous meeting in the Oval Office back in February, which just sort of fell apart into a shouting match. Yeah, I agree on all counts, Sue. You know, at the same time, I mean, while this weekend feels like a bit of a sea change, as you said, Sue, in a lot of ways, the larger trajectory from Trump in particular and the Republican Party

has been a shift, you know, certainly in our lifetimes, in terms of how Republicans regarded Russia. I mean, under Ronald Reagan, Russia was the evil empire. In 2012, Mitt Romney was sharply criticized for saying that Russia was the greatest threat to national security. But, you know, up until recently, at least, we've seen Trump, by and large, direct much of his criticism, up until recently, at least we've seen Trump by and large direct much of his criticism, most of it toward Ukraine. How are Republicans

thinking about this and particularly that relationship to Russia? I mean, this is probably one of the more profound ways that Trump singularly has reshaped the Republican Party. And in some ways, it does sort of fit into his broader America first ideology that the US should just not be as engaged as much around the world. But Trump has just never really viewed Russia as a direct threat to the United States, which is very counter to how the leaders of the Republican Party have viewed Russia basically for generations. And of course, we should note that Russia does actually like to mess with the United States. They have tried to meddle in several of US elections. So Russia certainly does pose a threat to some element of the United States national security. But Trump has also really had this effect of changing minds in the party.

If you look up to Capitol Hill, like the support within the Republican Party for Ukraine has just collapsed. There's no more money coming from Congress to fund this fight. I have talked to a lot of Republicans over the years who will tell you privately that their constituents back home have just soured on the conflict. I also think we cannot discount the role that conservative media has played in shaping that opinion. Very influential figures like Tucker Carlson have spent a ton of their time criticizing that war and saying that the US should not be involved. And the old guard that still exists, you know, the one that comes to mind at the top of that list would be someone like Mitch McConnell, the former Senate leader. And he has said he's going to spend the rest of his time in Congress

trying to support Ukraine. But there's not a lot of people standing behind Mitch McConnell anymore. I mean, the party has really aligned behind Donald Trump, both in how they see US-Russia relations and how little support that they have to back Ukraine in this war. And what about the American public more broadly? I mean, this is just one of those issues, we were talking about Republicans, but this is one of those issues like so many that's very polarized, isn't it? Yeah, I mean, it has certainly become more polarized, but the polarization has come from the shift almost entirely within the Republican Party.

The Pew Research Center put out polling on this in the past couple of weeks, and it shows that support for the conflict falls on more divided partisan lines, but Democrats are much more likely to say they support US intervention. The bigger picture here though is that the vast majority of Americans don't like or trust Vladimir Putin, and the vast majority of Americans still support US support of NATO. But views among Republicans have changed. One data point I'll give you, because I try not to ever do a bunch of numbers when we're talking about polling. But when they asked if Americans viewed Russia as an enemy, a competitor, or a partner, last year 58% of Republicans said they viewed

Russia as an enemy. Today, it's 40%. That's an 18-point shift in just one year. I think that's a pretty dramatic change. And again, Republicans driving that shift. Yes, and there has been also some minor shifts among Democrats, but the big shifts have certainly come from within the Republican Party. Okay, it's time for a quick break. We'll have more in just a moment. Support for NPR comes from the Cy Sims Foundation since 1985, supporting advances in science, education, and the arts towards a fairer, more just, and civil society. More information is available at scysimsfoundation.org.

And we're back. So Greg, something else that has caught my eye in all of these talks is who's sort of front and center leading the negotiations for the U.S.? You know, normally when the U.S. is negotiating with foreign governments, you'd have a cabinet-level official like the Secretary of front and center leading the negotiations for the US. You know, normally when the US is negotiating with foreign governments, you'd have a cabinet level official like the Secretary of State or Defense in charge. But it seems like Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, is nowhere here other than sort of commenting

on the sidelines. I mean, who is leading these negotiations? Yeah, Trump is relied on this special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and I should emphasize, he's Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, not to Russia or Ukraine. Now there is a special envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, but he's been even more invisible than Rubio.

So Witkoff is somebody who had no real diplomatic experience before he joined the Trump administration, but he's a close friend of Trump for decades and from the New York real estate world. So it's very unusual that he's in this role and playing such a prominent role in the Russia-Ukraine talks, he's had four separate trips to Russia and meetings with Putin in recent months. And he's also doing his Middle East job too. The last three Saturdays, he's been trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. He was in Oman for those talks just on Saturday. So that kind

of seems to be his weekend job right now. So it's highly, highly unusual for any diplomat or anyone to have such huge diplomatic portfolios, especially given his limited background in these areas. But Trump obviously likes him, trusts him, and that's why he's relying on him so heavily. Danielle Pletka Greg, I think the nicest thing you could say is that he has a limited background on these issues. I think prior to being tapped in these diplomatic roles, I don't think there's any foreign policy role that Steve Wittkopf has had in his professional career. Greg Foss Yeah. And we've even seen a few

times where they've had to walk back comments, where it seemed that Wittkopf didn't understand the details or the nuances and made some remarks that had to be walked back. I mean, Sue, what do you make of this? It's hard to underscore anymore how important these three jobs essentially that Wittkopf has are. These are crucial, you know, conflicts or challenges that the nation and the world are facing. And he's kind of doing all of it. What do you make of that? And also of, you know, Rubio challenges that the nation and the world are facing. And he's kind of doing all of it.

What do you make of that? And also of, you know, Rubio's more limited role. Yeah, I think the Rubio thing is a bit of a surprise, especially because he certainly does have the experience and the policy understanding to be at the table with all of these negotiations. But I do think sidelined is a fair characterization of it. And when I say surprising, you know, he was confirmed by the Senate unanimously. There was this sort of sense that that was a big show of support and confidence in his ability to do the job. But he isn't the one at the table. And I think that there's no sense that there's any negativity around Rubio, but

rather there's a question about how effective he's ultimately going to be. And look, Rubio is someone and hey, he's not the only Republican whose views have evolved in the era of Donald Trump, but a lot of the positions that he's advocating for now as Secretary of State, particularly on things like the Ukraine-Russia war, in some ways run counter to the positions and views he held as a senator who in his past had a much more robust view of US foreign policy. So I wonder if there's just an element of trust within the inner circle of Donald Trump and that you know Marco Rubio is a former political opponent, he's a former critic, he has come into the fold but he may be not be entirely inside the tent.

Yeah as you talk I'm thinking about those famous images from the White House a couple months ago when Zelensky met with Trump and that you know explosive meeting where Rubio was sitting on the couch and just, you know, I can't read his mind, but he sure looked uncomfortable. So to the extent that we can predict, where do each of you see things going from here? I mean, there are lots of big questions around the U.S. kind of potentially stepping back from the Ukraine-Russia conflict. How likely is Europe to step up and offer more aid to fill in some of these gaps?

Michael O'Brien I think Europe really has gotten the message. The US is not going to play the lead role. Europe is trying to step up and they are announcing more aid packages, but these so far have tended to be one-off arrangements based really on what European countries have and can give. Some artillery guns here, some military vehicles there, certainly helps Ukraine. But what we're not seeing is the large organized effort led by the U.S., which was a sort of this monthly meeting involving 50 countries during the Biden administration.

The U.S. assistance package, which dates to last spring, is running down. No sign that the U.S. will be sending more assistance under the Trump administration. So as a result, I think we are approaching a key moment in the war. We see the ongoing ceasefire efforts, but they don't look terribly promising in terms of a solid long-term arrangements. And so this means Ukraine will be further strained. I don't see a lot of analysts predicting an imminent Ukrainian collapse, but the country is going to be further stretched. Lauren Henry Donald Trump campaigned as someone who could resolve this conflict and resolve it quickly. I think he even said it would never even have started if he was president. So he has

certainly made grand promises here. I think sometimes the upside and the downside of Donald Trump and not having very strict ideology is he is someone who can negotiate deals because he tends to change his mind a lot, right? Like there isn't a lot of red lines for Donald Trump on these types of negotiations. And I think he just wants a win. So what that looks like is really hard to articulate because with the White House, that win is always sort of constantly shifting. But I think it has been a lesson that the idea that Trump could quickly resolve this conflict is not something that's proving itself to be possible. You know, Trump doesn't see Ukraine and the war there as critical to US interests.

So it may not trouble him very much if the US does walk away and it doesn't become a front and center issue here in the US. But there could certainly be long-term ramifications if Trump is somehow seen as the person who lost Ukraine. There was certainly tremendous criticism of Biden when he pulled U.S. forces out of Afghanistan. So there may not be an immediate problem, but there is a suggestion that it would have a long-term problem. And not only in that region, that China looking at Taiwan might have certain thoughts about what this means, about the US unwillingness to engage. So I think it would be hard to judge in the short term. You would need some time to see how this would

affect the overall larger standing of the US role in the world. You know, Sue, the question it raises for me is, Trump makes a lot of promises, right? And this is one of them. But to what extent will he be held accountable if he can't keep this promise? You know, I think that's a good question. And I think you could argue that he will be held accountable because I do think a lot of Americans look at this and it has been defined as this in this country as a proxy war, right? That it's not just about Ukraine and Russia.

The US is supporting Ukraine in this fight because it advances our own national security interests. And it is just hard for me to see a world politically where Russia is ultimately the victor here. If they are somehow seen as a Russian win at the end of the day, that that would not reflect negatively on the US president in some capacity. Russia marching on Europe is not something that I think Americans would improve their view of the president. And look, as we sit here today, Donald Trump's approval rating is sinking fast. He's upside down on almost every issue on his ability to handle issues, on his ability to handle the economy. And if this was perceived as a foreign policy failure, I think it could hurt him much in the way that the withdrawal effort from Afghanistan sort of tanked President Biden's approval rating and he never really recovered from it.

Okay. Well, we're going to leave it there for today. I'm Sarah McCammon. I cover politics. I'm Greg Myrie. I cover national security. And I'm Susan Davis. I also cover politics. And thank you for listening to the NPR comes from the Psi Sims Foundation since 1985, supporting advances in science, education, and the arts towards a fairer, more just, and civil society. More information is available at PsiSimsFoundation.org.