The Paikin Podcast - World on Edge: Will Russia Win the Ukraine War?

Episode Date: December 11, 2025

Paul Grod from the Ukrainian World Congress joins Janice Stein to discuss if there is an end in sight to the Ukraine War, the prospects of a peace deal, how Putin has become stronger since the war began, Trump’s national security plan, how the US has turned its back on Europe, Putin’s messianic vision for the Russian Empire, Witkoff’s “real estate” worldview, and where this all leaves Zelenskyy and Ukraine four years into this illegal and immoral war.Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastX: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.socialEmail us at: [e-mail]

Hi, everybody. Steve Paken here. Remarkably, we are coming up to four years since Russia began dropping bombs on Ukraine in an illegal and immoral attempt to bring that independent country into Putin's geopolitical orbit. On this week's edition of World on Edge, we'll check in on the war to see how the Ukrainian people are doing and whether there's any hope of a just settlement to this awful situation. Putin's war coming right up on the Paken podcast. As always, happy to welcome back, Janice Stein, the founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto. And this week, our special guest, Paul Grodd, he is the 11th chair and president of the Ukrainian World Congress. Paul, it's good to see you. How are you doing these days?

Pleasure to be here, and under those circumstances as well. Obviously, the situation in Ukraine is probably more dire than it has been really since the full-scale invasion. So I'm looking forward to having this discussion with yourself and with Janice. Well, one of the reasons I wanted to have you on is because you mentioned to me, I saw you last week at the Rebuilding Ukraine conference, and you mentioned to me that you would be heading back to Ukraine this week. And I guess I want to know, for starters, what kind of a country you think will be awaiting your arrival. The country that I'm expecting to see here is a country that is a bit confused in terms of what is the future really going to look like for them.

Is this a real peace deal or not? Should they be hopeful and how they should be reacting to this? Are they going to be forced to capitulate to Russia? I suspect that their attitudes were not. going to capitulate i suspect their attitude is going to be we've sacrificed too much and we refuse to live under russia's yoke as as they're trying to do so that's i i'm expecting to see a resilient um a tired but a determined people the 28 piece a 28 point rather peace plan is what you're referring to and we'll of course dive into that in just a moment but janice i want to ask just a very you know just a very basic question why after almost four years is this one war still going on?

I think the simple answer to this is both sides have to, at the same time, see, believe that they have no more to gain on the battlefield. It's not good enough if one does and the other doesn't because the one that doesn't keeps on fighting. Vladimir Putin believes that no matter how high the price is, and he has paid an enormous price for what he's gained on the battlefield, that he still can make gains on the battlefield. His army, as Paul knows, is creeping forward, literally inch by inch, but it is creeping forward, and he believes he will prevail, so Ukraine has the choice.

I agree with a deal that I don't believe any president of Ukraine could agree. agree to. I don't think this is a Zelensky problem. I think no president of Ukraine could survive if they agreed to a deal that is currently on the table that Vladimir Putin would accept, or the war goes on and Putin is comfortable with the war going on. Yeah, let me follow up with Paul on one of the phrases that you said in that answer, which is you said, Putin has sacrificed a lot. And I know his people have sacrificed a lot. I know he's got an obscene amount of casual killed and wounded soldiers. And, but I don't know that he feel, I don't know that he sacrificed a lot.

Paul, what do you think? Look, I don't disagree. I think that he has, as a leader, in fact, he feels more emboldened than ever. He's been able to really strongly get into bed with China more so than they've had in the past. You know, he's built up this access of evil, which, you know, continues to emboldened. him. He has no opposition at home. He continues to, you know, fire hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at Ukraine every night without facing any consequences. And, you know, he feels emboldened. He has really no, there's no levers right now that are being put on him that are going to force him to

the negotiating table. And that's why, quite frankly, I don't believe that there's anything to negotiate here. I think we're negotiating against ourselves. And that Putin has, has really no interest in a peace deal. His ultimate interest is to control Ukraine and to rid Ukraine of Ukrainians. Janice, I do remember hearing the expression many years ago that you cannot underestimate the willingness of the Russian people to suffer in order to advance the aims of their czars or leaders of the Communist Party as it was during the Cold War or whatever. Are we still in that kind of a world right now?

You know, it's interesting you should ask that, Steve, because I was just thinking this morning, if you look back at the last 120 years of Russian history, the only defeats that Russia has ever experienced are far away, right? They lost the war to Japan in 1904. They were defeated in Afghanistan after and lost, really. thousands of soldiers. But whenever there has been a war on what they consider their homeland or adjacent to their homeland, they've absorbed tremendous punishment. World War II is probably the best example. Among the allies at that time, Russia's casualties dwarf anything that the Allies experienced, but they fought back. They have this capacity to

lives a war, but enormous punishment. And that's really what we're seeing here. You know, there are verified stories out of Russia right now that the signing bonus for a soldier who signs up to fight is so large that villages, poorer villages on the periphery in the east of Russia get together and they agree on which young person, young man should go from the village on the understanding when he's killed, usually no more than four months later, the village as a whole shares the signing bonus. Does that not tell you a lot of what you need to know, frankly? And that story, that's not an apocryphal story, village after village after village, has confirmed that this is now going on. Well, I'd add another anecdote to your list, and that would be, Paul, I read something

about this in the New York Times last week, where, for example, soldiers from South Africa are being paid to go to Russia on the promise of doing light duty, not military duty. They are signed up into the armed forces. They start for a brief period of time doing that light duty, and the next thing you know, they're on the front lines, and they are in the thick of it. And, you know, this was not part of the original agreement. It is obvious that Putin doesn't seem to care about killing thousands upon thousands of Ukrainians. Why does he not apparently care about the kind of suffering that his own people are undertaking in this thing? Again, going back to Janice's point, I mean, the Russian people will continue to live in poverty if they feel that the national

pride is being upheld. And that's where Russian disinformation or the information war both internally and externally is so important to Vladimir Putin. That's why he has such a control on opposition. And then so he's clamped down. There is no opposition. He continues to have popular support because he is rewarding the Russian people, both in terms of sense of national pride, but also, as Janice pointed out very rightfully, the pocketbook. And so there is no opposition or very little opposition to the war internally within Russia. And that's why, quite frankly, we talk about, you know, who's to blame. This isn't just Vladimir Putin. It is the Russian people that have not stood up to this genocidal war. And it will continue until there is an economic

collapse and until there is a military defeat. Do you anticipate either of those things happening? Well, just to add to that, Paul, to amplify the, you know, the Russian economy, first year, it looks like no growth, no growth. Before this, for the first, you know, three and a half years of this war, the military spending created inflation and there was growth in the economy, and some people, especially in the large urban centers, were doing very well. this is the first year of no growth and interest rates are rising because they're having trouble controlling inflation so that you know that pocketbook pinch which affects the general population will just now i think begin to have an effect um if it has any effect at all it will just really will russians will just start to feel it the other factor is that many of the Russians who opposed this war and didn't want to fight left.

So we've had a huge exodus from Russia. That occurred in the first 15 months of the war. So the people who are the most mobile, the most educated, the most sophisticated, they are always the people who have the resources to face being a refugee in another country. They have already left. And so the two... Paul, I'm interested in your take. I'm sorry, go ahead.

I'm just going to build on, like the two main levers here for Ukraine and for the West is really, A, the Russian economy, and just to pull on what, or build on what Janice mentioned, is that, you know, sanctions are are biting. They could do a lot more. And they was disappointed to see that Trump didn't follow through with his threat to impose sanctions on Luke Coyle and the Russ Neff, but sanctions are still biting. And also the confiscation of Russia's sovereign wealth fund of some $300 billion, all are very important steps that can and we should continue to keep the pressure on. So the economic pressure certainly is necessary, as well as the second lever is giving Ukraine the weapons it needs in order to be able to defeat Russia.

Let me ask each of you, though. And then Paul, you may be too young to remember this, but Janice and I certainly do. You know, in the 1960s, when the Vietnam War was getting out of control, you could see Lyndon Johnson's presidency slipping away day by day and to the point where he felt so powerless, he'd just declined to stand for re-election. It doesn't feel like that's the case with Putin, that despite how bad this is, Janice, he seems to be politically stronger than ever.

I don't know. Is that your sense? It is. It is. You know, let's look at the difference. the Vietnam War was very, very far away, and Americans couldn't really understand that any meaningful way what it was about, and Linda Johnson couldn't explain it, by the way. And the second big thing, Steve, there was a universal draft in the United States. Every, and you remember the efforts that people made to get themselves draft example. Thousands of kids went to college. Well, some develop bonespurs, if I recall.

Yes, some develop bonespurs, exactly. That might be a reference to the current president. But anyway, moving on. So, you know, in Russia, there still is not a universal draft. There are mobilization calls, but there is not a universal draft. And until and he had, and Putin has not done it for that reason. Because one of the most incendiary things is a universal draft when the public is actually not convinced that a war is necessary, you don't want to send your kid to fight under

those circumstances, especially given the high casualty rate on this front. And Putin, frankly, is a much better communicator to the Russian people than Lyndon Baines Johnson ever was to the American people. He could never explain Vladimir Putin has no trouble, explaining that this is a civilizational moment for the Russian Empire. You know, and Donald Trump believes that as well, believes that story. They both agree on this way. You saw when he issued his national security strategy, Donald Trump. This week, Vladimir Poo was one of the earliest to come out and say, well, this is a great

strategy that the United States is issued. Well, okay, but I would have thought, Paul, that a war that's this unpopular, where so many families across Russia are feeling it because their kids are having their legs blown off. The Globe and Mail did an extraordinary series in the last couple of weeks in which they showed some just heartbreaking pictures of Russian soldiers missing limbs and just awful. The cost to the Russian soldier has been huge in this war. And yet I don't see Putin being any less popular because of it. I need your help, Paul, explaining all that. Well, first off, your reference to Lyndon Johnson, I mean, the United States was and still is a democracy.

Russia is an autocracy and where everything is controlled from the election to the media to opposition. So he is going to remain popular because that is what the information flow into the Russian people is. and there's no independent real media. There is no ability to provide any kind of pushback on Russia's rulers. And so as a result, he runs an autocratic state. And the Globe Mail article, unfortunately, presented the Russians as victims, but they're the ones who are agreeing to invade Ukraine. They are the ones that are committing war crimes.

when they are in Ukraine. I mean, we recall in early in the war when Ukraine freed the territories that were occupied for several weeks, the inhumanity, the war crimes, the tortures, the rapes, the killings, which took place in occupied Ukraine, the looting taking place. I mean, that all is continuing in occupied Ukraine. We've forgotten about that. But that is being perpetrated by Russian soldiers. These are, these are the hundreds of thousands of men and to certain extent, even some women, that are currently the invaders of Ukraine.

And so, quite frankly, I don't have any sympathy for them. And I think that the reality is that most of them are agreeing to and supporting Putin's war on Ukraine. And they have this vision. And one of the things that Putin has been, has been. and touted to say is that, and others like Sidhi Lov have mentioned this, that Putin's advisors are historical figures. You know, they are Ivan the Terrible. They're Catherine the Great. They're Peter the Great. And he models themselves after these Tars. And he tries to explain to his people that the Russian people have a messianic destiny and capturing Ukraine and controlling Ukraine

and making Ukraine part of the greater Russian Empire is part of that messianic vision that Vladimir Putin follows and then unfortunately the majority of Russian support. So let me get you to turn your attention to diplomatic possibilities right now. And we're on a bit of a continuum here. We want to go back and remind everybody,

not that we need reminding, because it was probably the most disgraceful, probably the most disgraceful thing I've ever seen in the Oval Office, which was the humiliation of Volodymyr Zelensky, by Trump, by his vice president, by the others sitting around on that couch. That was some time ago, but we've gone from then to now, where essentially a 28-point plan has been put forward, and I'd like some feedback from the two of you on whether that's

anything real that presents a hopeful conclusion to this thing or something ridiculous or something in between. Janice, you want to start? What hopes do you have for this thing? Not much, in all honesty. I don't think we're anywhere near close to a deal, frankly, despite all that theater that is going on around us. If I'm trying really hard to find some nuggets here, okay, and I'm trying really hard, there are, you know, there are some areas where the distance between Russia and Ukraine

is not as great as it might have been. then six months ago because of our internal dynamics inside Ukraine here. For all that are going on, Vladimir Zelensky is coming off a very tough period where his chief of staff, Andre Yermak, lost his job as a result of allegations. Not that he was personally corrupt, but that he knew about what was going on and didn't act in a preventive way to stop it. And this was a scandal, about $100 million, that went astray. And, you know, over an energy issue, I just put that story together with the Ukrainian

suffering nightly from bombardments that are directed largely at the energy infrastructure. And that's where there really was some popular outrage that began to develop around the lines case. So it's been really, really tough. So where do I see some movement? Well, the original 28-point plan said the Ukrainian army was going to be capped at 600,000. Zelensky came back and said, no, no, 800,000. Well, yes, there's a 25% gap there, but that is a significant narrowing of what existed when they went out of the last time around. The second, and I think Zelensky is well aware of this, is the agreement, is the Russian demand that Ukraine.

Ukraine does not join NATO. Well, most of NATO understands very well that this is not going to happen. The Ukraine will not join, even if it weren't for Russia, any time in the near future. There's a road ahead. And so on those two issues, which are direct, you can imagine some sort of agreement. What's utterly out of the question for any Ukrainian president is this absurd demand that Ukraine give up territory the whole of the Dunbats to Russia even though the Russian Army does not occupy. You know, when you have a ceasefire agreement, you usually stop where the line is.

This is current practice all over the world. To agree in advance, you're going to forfeit territory that the adversary doesn't control. That is a completely unrealistic demand. And, you know, Russia's not backed off that. As long as that demand is on the table, there is no deal. No Ukrainian president could survive. And it wouldn't matter who waited. I know some of the names of the candidates that would love to run in a Ukrainian election right now.

I can't think of a single one that would accept that demand. Paul, the 28-point plan, what say you? So let's back up about 18 months ago when almost 80 countries signed the Swiss peace plan where this was the peace formula that, again, was signed by almost 80 countries. And that included very basic principles like respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty. I mean, there is the United Nations charter that basically rejects territorial. occupation and then so so you know we have to remind ourselves that you know we're we're there's you know there's a fundamental breach of key international rules of order and and and that should not be that should not be rewarded there are a number of european politicians that uh you know responded to

this uh this 28 peace point plan as as essentially this was rewarding uh rewarding uh rewarding russia This was Russia's peace plan. And, you know, Janice, you were in Halifax where there was all that kerfuffle that the U.S. delegation got up and said we received a briefing from Rubio, and then that that wasn't actually the case, that this is actually Russia's peace plan, and that we're just passing it along, and then there was lots of back and forth. I mean, it's clear that this is Russia's 28-point peace plan. And quite frankly, I think it's dead in the water. I don't think it's going to see the light of day. And I think this is really another attempt for Russia to delay. And again, very well-timed.

And what did it accomplish? And Vladimir Putin has never said that he wants a peace deal with Ukraine. So what is this 20-point peace plan done? It's essentially prevented the United States or stopped the United States from imposing very significant sanctions on the two largest. oil companies, Rosneft and Wukoyo. It's caused a real stall in the whole action to confiscate the $300 billion of Russian assets.

And it has actually gotten the whole world thinking, well, maybe we should stop supporting Ukraine and stop giving them more money and more weapons if there's going to be a peace deal. So I mean, this was brilliant on the part of the Kremlin. I mean, they're not committing to anything. They're making Ukraine negotiate against themselves, and arguably their strongest ally, the United States, is pushing them into this peace deal. And look, the Ukrainians can't trust anything that is being put in front of them.

I mean, we know that just 18 months ago, the previous president signed a 10-year defense agreement with Ukraine. And now this president is ripping that up and discounting that. The Ukrainians very well remember the 1994 Budapest Memorand, where Russia and the United States guaranteed Ukraine's security and sovereignty. So quite frankly, the Ukrainians don't believe in these paper security guarantees, and they know that the only way they're going to be able to live at peace is by them having a strong army that is properly armed and is able to defend themselves against Russia because Russia is not going to stop at the territorial concessions

that they're putting into this 28-point peace plan. Janice, I want to ask you about the two men who appear to be at the center of the diplomatic efforts on behalf of the White House. I'm not saying you've got to have 40 years at Foggy Bottom in order to be able to be, in order to accomplish anything in the diplomatic sphere. But the fact is, I think we've got Steve Whitkoff, who's a real estate lawyer, and Jared Kushner, who's the president's son-in-law, Kushner, excuse me, And, you know, well, you tell me, are these two guys capable of finding common ground between these two countries?

Look, Steve, one of the biggest problems in the Trump administration is there's no staff work, right? You've watched governments up close. You understand how important some level of staff work is. That doesn't mean that that political leadership can't go around that staff work. and take walks in the wood and find breakthroughs that senior staff cannot do. But there's simply no staff work, and it happens again and again. There was no staff work in Alaska. It was very little staff work done on the national security strategy.

So in this case, you have three private sector leaders if the private sector exists in Russia, right? You have Steve Whitkoff, who is a real estate guy, literally a real estate guy. And when you have a hammer, everything looks like an ale. This looks like real estate problem to him. Jared Kushner, who comes out of the real estate business and the hedge fund business too. And thinks that way, although probably has more experience at Wickham, but certainly not the kind of detailed diplomatic, experienced backed up by a staff that you would want.

And on the Russian side, you have Tiro Dimitri, who's head of the sovereign wealth fund. So he's also, in a sense, freelancing it in a way that like it or not, somebody like Sergei Lavrov, who's been foreign minister for as long as we can all remember and knows how to use staff. part of what's gone wrong here over and over and over is you have very, very inexperienced people who are at the table because the president trusts them. And that's the only reason they're at the table. And I'm going to say again, diplomats, Matt, I'm going to say,

and you know how often I criticize them, diplomats really matter. They bring fundamental knowledge to the base of the triangle here. there are there there there there there there there there there's no room for them in the trump administration of any no place at all and and let me get polls and just yeah jane this is I mean this is I mean the thing that yeah I think about this and and this is like having having a never another another another chamberlain with personal commercial interests and and and this is the thing that really is not talked about because uh Whitkoff has been doing business with the Russian oligarchs for many, many years. And he is not the appropriate person

to be negotiating a peace deal when it's clear that there are personal commercial interests at stake here. And it's quite obvious just even in terms of what's in these peace deals. I mean, it's all written to provide commercial gain for the United States and ultimately Whitkoff and Trump and his and his friend. You could argue it's the other way. You said Neville Chamberlain, which, you know, Neville Chamberl had a view of the world. He didn't get a right, but you had a view of the world, right?

I think with people like Wickhoff and others, it's the business interests that drive the politics, rather than, it's not the politics driving the business interests. It's the business interest and the business networks. This is the most kleptocratic administrative. we have ever seen in the United States. I think Steve this surpasses the robber barons, frankly. We've never seen anything like this.

It's Whitkoff. It's Whitkoff sons who are running crypto businesses that go to the Gulf. You see them. It's in virtually every issue in which, you know, there's an important diplomatic process. Business interests are primary and a diplomatic process underneath his secondary.

Yeah, the president's team seems to be engorging on emoluments in a way. I think you're right. That is unprecedented. And yet, half the American public certainly doesn't care. And the other half probably feels powerless to do anything about it. So I don't, let me put it this way. Paul, if an American administration were genuinely interested in playing a meaningful, mediating role here, designed to bring this thing to an end,

because enough suffering had been had by the country that was invaded, what should they be doing as opposed to what they are doing? Look, they have to, A, commit to where they stand on the side of the victim or on the side of the aggressor. And here they're standing on the side of the aggressor. And they need to do two things. They need to, number one, ensure that they choke Russia's economy with really important sanctions that,

that they've threatened, but not coming or close to delivering on. And secondly, the confiscation of the Russian sovereign assets. That's number one. And the number two is giving Ukraine the weapons that it needs to be able to defend themselves and to defeat Russia. Let's be clear, the only way that Vladimir Putin is going to stop his imperial ambitions is if he is defeated, if Russia is defeated in Ukraine, which is possible, and there is a regime change, which one has to come after the other. So I'm going to say for the record, I don't like to disagree with Paul, but the possibility of a Russian defeat is fading.

It really is. That's different. And I think it's really important for listeners to understand there's a big difference between saying that it's going to be extraordinarily difficult for Ukraine to defeat the Russian army. There's a huge asymmetry here. Russia's three times the size, you know, and manpower that Ukraine has. That is different from saying that Ukraine faces imminent defeat, which it absolutely does not.

And if you project forward from the Russian performance, which has been inch by inch at a huge cost of men, for Russia to take the rest of the Donbass, which is what Putin is asking for, at the table would take him a year and a half to two more years of fighting, frankly. All right? And I think when you just measure it that way, if you project outward the progress that the Russian army has been able to make,

and their best, the fastest rate of progress has been since this past summer, it would still be two more years of fighting to take the rest of the dawn tax. So we understand why the request for Ukraine To cede in advance that territory is, frankly, not on the table. What does the United States need to do? The United States needs to come forward with a fair proposal, right?

It's not a question of being on one side of the other. You can argue that it is in the interest of Ukraine now to have a ceasefire in place and allow the Ukrainian army some rest, some chance to regroup, some chance to regroup, some chance to reorder. organized. But it would have to be a ceasefire in place. And that's what Zelensky's asked for. It's a ceasefire in place, right? That's what you expect, a disinterested global power to come forward and say the suffering is beyond at this point. Push for a ceasefire in place. Not what they're pushing for now. Paul, I want to circle back to something that I mentioned at the very beginning of our conversation, which is that last week in Toronto, downtown at a hotel, there was a day-long conference

called Rebuild Ukraine in which there were numerous panel discussions, quite a number of subject matter experts in the field talking about various aspects of life in Ukraine right now. And one of the things that emerged from that conference that I was surprised at hearing about was how speaker after speaker described life in vast parts of Ukraine as still somewhat normal. Yes, everybody's exhausted by four years of war, but people still got to get up and go to work every day and get their kids to school and live their lives. And they are. And I guess the question I want to ask you is, can that really be true? Can there really still be normal life in Ukraine after four years of this immoral bombardment by Russia? You know, the thought of having to get up almost every

night and go into the metro or some sort of a bomb shelter, and there are not many in Ukraine. Usually people are forced to go to a local metro station, which are very, very deep and safe from that perspective. It's hard to believe that the Ukrainian people are living through this and very little electricity right now there's uh just speaking to our head of mission in ukraine and there is between 16 to 18 hours of no electricity in the capital city of kaiu every day and that's what they're living living under you know it's it's the attempt here by by putin is to exhaust the people is to force them to flee and that's that's what his it's a really war of of terror going on. That being said, the resiliency is unbelievable. And the people know what they're

fighting for. They know they're fighting for their future, the future of their children, the future of their families. And they're fighting for a better future. They don't want to live under a Russian rule. They want to live under a new Ukraine. And by the way, we talked about the corruption and the most recent sort of scandals. I mean, I think that's a good thing for Ukraine in the sense that they're showing that these institutions that they've fought so hard to protect are actually working, that they're able to go after the most top officials in Ukraine without any retribution. And that is, that is the Ukraine that the Ukrainian people are fighting for, one that will stand up for their dignity. And so, you know, they're going to be resilient. And that's why they're not

going to give up. They're not going to accept capitulation and occupation by Russia. And let's be clear, like even if, and I really do hope there is a ceasefire as soon as possible. But we also have to appreciate that there's another step. Another step is that Russia has no reason to stop. They will continue to wanting to occupy and control Ukraine. And quite frankly, larger parts of Eastern Europe. And that's why the Baltz, the Poles, they're all petrified of what is going to happen if Ukraine falls. Janice, what does history tell us about how much a civilian population can take of this kind of activity

before they surrender, before they've had enough, before they feel they just can't do anymore? You know, look, just to go back to what Paul was describing a moment, just think about night after night after night. You sleep two or three hours, you get up, you go to a shelter, sometimes a block away or two and keep, which is the capital for longer distances in the other cities. And they're four or five hours. And then it's morning. And you're doing this night after night, after night, after night. It's physically exhausting, the lack of sleep. It just is physically exhausting. You compensate to the best that you can. But it's really exhausting. There's no question about it. And then no heat, no electricity. These are really, really, really grim.

frankly. Generally speaking, when a population is under attack like this, Steve, the grit comes out. People's capacity to continue over time is quite remarkable, and we've already seen this in Ukraine. I'm more concerned, really, about the battlefield conditions. which it's hard. It's really hard. And when I see, because I know many Ukrainians, and I'm in regular touch, and you see the kind of grim expressions on their face now because the Russian offensive has picked up rather than diminished.

And that's really, really difficult. Do I think there's any chance that the Ukrainians will capitulate? I don't. I really don't. They've seen, you know, there is, when you live next door to your adversary, let me put it you this way, they've seen their adversary and they've looked the adversary in the face and they know they don't want to live under that kind of system. And when I have conversations with Ukrainians and even some of the people who might know in the anti-corruption agencies who are frankly fearless, just imagine breaking this kind of story in the middle of a war, right, and having the confidence that their institution

will survive, and it did. But when you talk to them about what will happen, they say, look, we're going to fight on. If we have to fight a guerrilla war against occupying forces, we're going to fight on. And this is not a population that is ready to give in. Let's do two more topics here, two more go-rounds just before our time runs out. And that is, I want to talk about Christia Freeland for a second here. Paul, again, at that conference that you and I attended last week, Christian Freeland got kind of a rock star's welcome when she came to give a speech late in the afternoon

at the Rebuild Ukraine conference. And that's all well and good. Look, she had just literally got back from Ukraine. She'd come in from the airport that day, having taken, I guess, a very long flight back and was fighting her own level of fatigue to give that speech, which I got to say, in English, in Ukrainian, in French, and a little German in there, too. That was, as a Canadian political figure goes, that was an impressive feat. Having said that, she's about to undertake a new job.

I know she is the Ukrainian advisor to the current Prime Minister of Canada, but she's about to undertake a new job over in the United Kingdom. And I wonder what the Ukrainian community of Canada's expectations are of her to be able to achieve anything in this role that she's been doing since she stepped down from Cabinet and in the time she has left in it. No, I've known Christia for many years, at least a decade and a half. And, you know, she's, if she's, there's one word to explain or describe her. She's remarkable. Tileless energy, real workforce, great at multitasking. And, you know, she has, she has the future of Ukraine on her mind. And it's something that is part of her, part of her DNA. And I believe that as she will be able to do a double duty as both the special envoy. and also her new role at Oxford,

and I'm sure there'll probably be other things that she'll be doing as well. I mean, that all kind of builds one on the other. I mean, the fact that she has an incredible network that she had before being Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, but it's also built on that where she has a Rolodex that I think very few can match.

And she's going to be using that, and our expectation is, and my many conversations over the last few weeks with her has been around how best to mobilize her capabilities in supporting Ukraine, leveraging her international relationships, helping Ukraine, and also being a, quite frankly, a sober advisor to the current Ukrainian government. And I think that is certainly every government, every president needs people who they can, that will be the truth tellers to them because all too often,

there's a phrase in Ukrainian, which is basically translated into many political advisors around President Zelensky are continuously warming the bath, keeping the water warm around him. And so, you know, she certainly sees herself as playing that role that she can certainly not only support Ukraine, but also give President Zelensky some frank and the government, the prime minister as well of Ukraine, some frank and good advice for how they need to move forward, leveraging her international expertise and experience. Jadis? Look, Chris is very, very committed to Ukraine.

She always has been her mother, went back to Ukraine in the 1990s to work on the Ukrainian constitution when the Soviet Union broke up. So this runs very deep with her. It's close. to her heart, I think. She raised her kids in Ukrainian. The kids were speaking it at home. That's right. That's right. The kids are fluent.

It's so much part of her life and her children and her family's life. I think it's harder to be advisor to the prime minister when you're an ocean away. You don't have the same intimacy, the same access. She'll figure it out. And she will know what she's able to do because I, I think for her that it's very important to be effective in this job. And if she feels her effectiveness is compromised because she's not around. She's not on the spot.

She can't walk into the prime minister's office when she wants to and talk to him in person. If she feels that is any way limiting her effectiveness, she'll be the first one to deal with it. Okay. Let me ask each of you one last question, and that is, I raised this knowing full well that it probably doesn't look good for Ukraine in the way that the world is unfolding. But last week, the American administration essentially unveiled a new national security policy, which is very Orwellian, I think you have to say. Bob Ray, our former UN ambassador, we did a one-on-one interview for this show with him last week. week in which he basically described as George Orwell's divvying up the world. You know, America's going to divvy up its sphere of influence. Russia is going to have its sphere. China's going to have its sphere. And they're going to sort of, they're going to divvy up the world that way.

And where that leaves Ukraine, I just don't know. It certainly doesn't sound like America is all that interested in seeing justice for Ukraine. In which case, Paul, this new national security strategy in which it's sort of each of us for us first. Where does that leave Ukraine? In a very bad spot. And, you know, just to touch on something that Janice mentioned about the attitude on the front lines is, you know, there is this feeling that their closest ally of the United States is turning their back on them, is letting them down. And that certainly is having an impact because Ukrainians always model themselves on the greatest democracies, on

the whole transatlantic alliance around European and North American values. And now they're seeing that those values aren't being held true to heart. And it's certainly very demoralizing for those that are sacrificing. And they believe very sincerely that they're sacrificing not just for themselves, but it's really about a fight for values and the rules-based international order. And everything else that many U.S. administrations have led the Ukrainians and others around the world to believe are real true American values. And they're taking a complete about face to that. And, you know, the Ukrainians are feeling abandoned, quite frankly.

And with this new strategy, I mean, we see that this America first policy, the non-interventionism, you know, that it's all about, it's all about what's in the best interest in the United States. It's very, very troubling. And I mean, I am hoping that the midterm elections may shift that and may bring on a more emboldened Congress that will hopefully be able to to mediate or measure, I should say, some of this, some of this very selfish attitude towards the way the world should be run. And every country is really on their own. And this is going to lead to more of the might as right. And those with power will be able to get what they want. And it's very, very troubling times for not just Ukraine, but frankly, for the entire world.

I'm going to try to end on a little more optimistic note. Because you're reading that strategy, exactly right, you know, three big powers each with their own sphere of influence and you do what we say. But that's not how the Europeans feel about the world. And Europeans provide one asset which is really very, very important for Ukraine, which is money. And they are going to continue to do it and they're going to continue to do it because, as Paul just said, that they really worry about a world where the fighting in Ukraine is over and Vladimir Putin takes arrest and then continues to expand. That is a European nightmare right now. And so I think that the financial support that Europe gives them that Canada gives to Ukraine. There's no way Canada

it backs away from Ukraine. Most of the technical innovation that you need on the battlefield is now coming from inside Ukraine anyway. What they need, I'm going to disagree just a little bit with Paul here is not so much

advanced military equipment. We've been through these arguments, right, for almost four years, and tanks were going to make a difference, and they didn't make a difference. Long-range missiles were going to be the answer, and they didn't, and they weren't. the answer and attack them's were going to be the answer and they weren't frankly drones are making

a difference yeah but they're made inside ukraine they're made inside ukraine frankly and ukraine so what you need um for ukraine to continue to move forward here to be able to sustain this kind of assault what ukraine needs is money um to to sustain the economy of ukraine of ukraine i to sustain the innovation that is going on inside Ukraine. Most of what Ukraine is using on the battlefield right now is Ukrainian-made. Yes, they need interceptors that can take down the missiles that come at them every night. But you know, there aren't any. The United States drew down its stock during the Iran War, you know, Israel War.

Those inter, they ran out of interceptors. So I think that there is a world. for Ukraine in which it survives and continues to develop the capacity inside Ukraine to make the equipment that it needs as long as Europe and Canada continue to stand behind Ukraine. I don't think it ends, even if this, what's the right adjective I'm looking for here, Steve, even if this 19th century imperialist view of the world prevails for the next few years, as Russia, China and the United States look more alike than they look different. If you don't know what we're talking about, go read 1984 by Georgia Orwell.

It's all, unfortunately, unfolding before our eyes here in the 21st century. I want to thank Janice Stein from the Monk School for joining us today on the Pagan podcast. I want to thank Paul Grod, the chair and president of the Ukrainian world Congress for joining us on the podcast. Paul, it's good to see you. And thank you so much, both of you for your contributions to this program. As we'd like to say at the end, if you liked it, tell us, tell a friend, tell family, subscribe to this show, which we've just started. And we're trying to engage on some of the issues of the day. And in the meantime, everybody, peace and love.

Thank you, Stephen. Chad, it's great to see you. Thank you.