Is there a deal to end Russia's war with Ukraine?

Summary

Consider This from NPR: Is There a Deal to End Russia's War with Ukraine? Release Date: February 26, 2025

In this compelling episode of NPR's "Consider This," host Mary Louise Kelly delves into the complex and ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, exploring the possibility of a diplomatic resolution. The discussion features insights from Alexander Vindman, a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel with deep ties to both Ukraine and the Trump White House. Vindman offers a critical perspective on U.S. foreign policy and the challenges of negotiating peace in the current geopolitical landscape.

---

1. Introduction to the Potential Deal

The episode opens with former President Donald Trump advocating for a deal to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. At [00:00], Trump states:

Donald Trump: "But I think it's to the very much benefit of Russia to make a deal."

Mary Louise Kelly sets the stage by explaining that Trump's proposed deal hinges on Ukraine's willingness to make significant compromises with the United States. Trump emphasizes the strategic importance of Ukraine's natural resources, particularly rare earth metals, which are crucial for various industries.

Donald Trump: "We'll be really partnering with Ukraine in terms of rare earth. We very much need rare earth." ([00:18])

Kelly elaborates on the Trump administration's ambition to secure hundreds of billions of dollars in rare earth metals and other critical minerals from Ukraine, though specific details of the deal remain unclear.

At [00:50], Trump adds:

Donald Trump: "But we've been able to make a deal where we're going to get our money back and we're going to get a lot of money in the future. And I think that's appropriate because we have taxpayers that are shouldn't be footing the bill."

This statement underscores the financial dimensions of the proposed agreement, highlighting concerns about taxpayer investment without clear returns.

2. The Complexity of Ending the Conflict

Kelly raises a pivotal question about whether a deal between the U.S. and Ukraine can effectively end the protracted conflict with Russia. She introduces Alexander Vindman, whose extensive experience provides valuable context to this issue.

Mary Louise Kelly: "Consider this. It's been three years since Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine. Coming up, we'll hear from Alexander Vindman, who knows both Ukraine and the Trump White House intimately and who says that ending the war will not be so simple."

Vindman responds with a realist perspective on the improbability of a straightforward compromise:

Alexander Vindman: "You're not going to find much of a compromise when both sides feel like they're on the cusp of winning or holding out or breaking the other side." ([01:26])

3. Alexander Vindman's Background and Perspectives

The episode provides an in-depth look at Vindman's background, highlighting his Ukrainian roots, military service, and his pivotal role during the Trump administration. Vindman, whose testimony in the impeachment hearings elevated his public profile, emphasizes his commitment to U.S. national security over personal grievances.

At [03:01], Kelly introduces Vindman's new book, The Folly of Realism: How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine, setting the stage for a critical discussion.

Alexander Vindman: "Thank you for having me back." ([03:24])

4. Assessing Grounds for Hope in 2025

Kelly first explores whether there is any optimism that 2025 could mark the end of the war. Vindman is skeptical, attributing the dim outlook to the Trump administration's approach, which he characterizes as appeasement towards Russia.

Alexander Vindman: "I don't think so. Not under the approach that the Trump administration's taking. It's an approach that looks to appease Russia in the tradition of 30 plus years of Russia first policy." ([03:42])

He criticizes the administration's perceived leniency, suggesting that Russia remains unsatisfied while Ukraine remains unwilling to capitulate, thereby prolonging the conflict.

5. Historical Missteps in U.S. Policy

Vindman delves into historical U.S. foreign policy failures towards Russia and Ukraine, identifying key moments where different actions might have altered the course of events.

He points to the Orange Revolution in 2004:

Alexander Vindman: "I think in the orange revolution in 2004, we did very, very kid glove condemnations of Russia. We should have worn them off and invested in Ukraine, and we didn't do that." ([05:23])

And the annexation of Crimea in 2014:

Alexander Vindman: "We could have not done what we did, which was look to reset, but we could have avoided doing a reset and instead been quite conditional in our relationship with Russia, condemnatory when we needed to be imposing sanctions, helping arm Ukraine." ([05:56])

These reflections highlight a pattern of insufficient support for Ukraine and inadequate resistance to Russian aggression, which Vindman argues have emboldened Russia's actions.

6. Counsel for Future Policy Makers

Looking ahead, Vindman offers strategic recommendations for U.S. policymakers to effectively counter Russian aggression and support Ukraine.

Alexander Vindman: "What we should be doing is understanding that we could focus on long term objectives. We could be focusing on making sure we have strong alliances with NATO, that our support for that collective defense treaty is ironclad." ([06:31])

He emphasizes the importance of robust alliances, continued investment in Ukraine and potential other targets of aggression like Taiwan, and steadfast support for NATO.

Kelly challenges this approach by noting that similar strategies were employed by the Biden administration without resolving the conflict:

Mary Louise Kelly: "I guess the pushback to that is that the Biden administration tried that, invested in the relationship with NATO, invested in Ukraine, and here we are with war still raging three years on." ([06:55])

Vindman counters by critiquing both Trump and Biden administrations, asserting that both have been insufficient in their support for Ukraine:

Alexander Vindman: "They were day late and a dollar short consistently in providing support to Ukraine." ([07:47])

7. The Role of Military Support in Achieving Peace

Vindman connects the provision of military support to Ukraine with the potential for ending the war, highlighting the asymmetrical strengths of both Russia and Ukraine.

Alexander Vindman: "The Russians are making tiny incremental gains, but suffering enormous losses. They could weather some of those losses because they have a larger population, they have a larger economy, but they can't do that forever." ([07:58])

Conversely, Ukraine's high morale and effective performance are offset by its limited human resources, making a compromise difficult when both nations remain resolute in their positions.

8. Prospects for U.S.-Russia Relations

In discussing the future of U.S.-Russia relations, Vindman underscores the necessity of honest and strategic engagement, cautioning against deceptive negotiations that Russia might exploit.

Alexander Vindman: "They’re going to try to string along these negotiations. They’re going to try to play at the fact that they’re willing to end the war. But when they don’t deliver, that's when there's an opportunity to rebalance and recognize that the support needs to go behind NATO, needs to go behind Ukraine if we want to bring this war." ([08:52])

He advocates for a clear-eyed approach that prioritizes support for NATO and Ukraine over futile compromises with Putin.

9. Conclusion

The episode wraps up with Vindman reaffirming the critical choices facing U.S. policymakers:

Alexander Vindman: "Do we want Russia to be the winner or do we want the US to be the winner?" ([08:52])

Mary Louise Kelly summarizes Vindman's insights and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing the intricate balance between diplomacy, military support, and alliance-building necessary to navigate the conflict's resolution.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Donald Trump ([00:00]): "But I think it's to the very much benefit of Russia to make a deal."
• Mary Louise Kelly ([00:18]): "The president has his eye on Ukraine's rich natural resources."
• Alexander Vindman ([01:26]): "You're not going to find much of a compromise when both sides feel like they're on the cusp of winning or holding out or breaking the other side."
• Alexander Vindman ([03:42]): "I don't think so. Not under the approach that the Trump administration's taking."
• Alexander Vindman ([05:23]): "We should have worn them off and invested in Ukraine, and we didn't do that."
• Alexander Vindman ([07:58]): "The Russians are making tiny incremental gains, but suffering enormous losses."
• Alexander Vindman ([08:52]): "Do we want Russia to be the winner or do we want the US to be the winner?"

---

Production Credits:

• Producers: Mark Rivers and Alejandra Marquez Hanse
• Editors: Courtney Dorning and Nadia Lancy
• Executive Producer: Sami Yenigun

Additional Information: Listeners interested in accessing the podcast without sponsor interruptions can subscribe to "Consider This+" at plus.npr.org. Support for NPR’s journalism is also available through Amazon Music for Prime members.

---

This episode offers a nuanced exploration of the geopolitical tensions surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict, enriched by Alexander Vindman's firsthand experience and critical analysis of past and present U.S. policies. It serves as a valuable resource for understanding the complexities of international diplomacy and the arduous path toward peace.

Transcript

[Donald Trump]

But I think it's to the very much benefit of Russia to make a deal.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

The deal President Trump is talking about is a deal to end its war with Ukraine. What ultimately becomes of Ukraine, though, may depend on the compromises it's willing to make with the United States.

[Donald Trump]

We'll be really partnering with Ukraine in terms of rare earth. We very much need rare earth.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

The president has his eye on Ukraine's rich natural resources.

[Donald Trump]

We don't have that much of it here. We have some, but we don't have that much. We need a lot more.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

The Trump administration wants hundreds of billions of dollars of rare earth metals and other critical minerals. Details are thin on what exactly Ukraine would get in exchange. After back and forth, it looks like there's a preliminary deal. Trump spoke Wednesday at the White House.

[Donald Trump]

But we've been able to make a deal where we're going to get our money back and we're going to get a lot of money in the future. And I think that's appropriate because we have taxpayers that are shouldn't be footing the bill.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

But will a between the US And Ukraine bring about an end to the grinding conflict between Ukraine and Russia? Consider this. It's been three years since Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine. Coming up, we'll hear from Alexander Vindman, who knows both Ukraine and the Trump White House intimately and who says that ending the war will not be so simple.

[Alexander Vindman]

You're not going to find much of a compromise when both sides feel like they're on the cusp of winning or holding out or breaking the other side.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

From npr, I'm Mary Louise Kelly.

[Alexander Vindman]

This message comes from Carvana. Finance your next car the convenient way with customizable, transparent terms all online. Make your budget work for you and swap hassle for convenience with Carvana.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

It's consider this from NPR this week as we mark three years since Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine. Among the many people offering up ideas for how to end that war is Alexander Vindman. Now, a little background here. Vindman was born in Ukraine, emigrated to the United States as a child. And if you recognize his name, there's a decent chance that is because of a moment back in 2016, 2019, when Vindman, by then a staffer in the Trump White House and an active duty officer in the U.S. army, testified in impeachment hearings against his commander in chief.

[Alexander Vindman]

Dad, I'm sitting here today in the US Capitol talking to our elected professionals. Talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave The Soviet Union come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Well, Trump fired Vindman not long after that. Then Vindman retired from the army, but he has not stopped thinking about the relationship between the country for which he wore a uniform and the country where he was born. His new book is the Folly of How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine. Alexander Vindman, welcome.

[Alexander Vindman]

Thank you for having me back.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

So the last time you and I spoke was three years ago. It was actually right before Russia invaded. Let's start with the case for hope. Do you find grounds for hope that this year, that 2025 may be the year this war ends?

[Alexander Vindman]

I don't think so. Not under the approach that the Trump administration's taking. It's an approach that looks to appease Russia in the tradition of 30 plus years of Russia first policy. And it's one where, frankly, Russia is not going to be satisfied with the level of appeasement that the Trump administration is offering because the Ukrainians are not willing to capitulate. The prospects look dimmer now than they did before Trump took office.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

I mentioned your own history, that Trump fired you, that he had you marched out of his White House just for people listening and wondering if you have an ax to grind. Do you?

[Alexander Vindman]

I've always been focused on US national security. If you paid attention to any of my testimony back then or any of the commentary, it's not been about Ukraine. It's not really even been about Trump. I have no warm feelings towards him because he's a danger, in my view, to the U.S. but it's more about the professionalism that I've tried to uphold as a career military officer, as a policymaker and as an academic studying this issue.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Well, and what's interesting is that in this latest book, you make the argument that the US and its allies have gotten Ukraine wrong since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Like across six US Presidential administrations of both parties. I'm sure there are many moments that stand out, but is there a particular one that if it had been navigated differently, might have led us to a very different outcome today?

[Alexander Vindman]

Sure, we should be clear that it wasn't just getting Ukraine wrong, it was getting Russia wrong. Consistently with regards to what we could have done to support Ukraine, there are a couple of moments that stand out. I think in the orange revolution in 2004, we did very, very kid glove condemnations of Russia. We should have worn them off and invested in Ukraine, and we didn't do that. There was another turning point in 2014, when it was clear that the Russians were graduating from hybrid warfare to outright military aggression.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

This is when they seized Crimea.

[Alexander Vindman]

Exactly right. We could have not done what we did, which was look to reset, but we could have avoided doing a reset and instead been quite conditional in our relationship with Russia, condemnatory when we needed to be imposing sanctions, helping arm Ukraine. So it looks like a harder target. That was another critical turning point.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

So fast forward to this moment. Now, here we sit in 2025 with the world as it is, not as we wish it were. What counsel would you offer your successors at the White House, at the Pentagon on trying to end this war?

[Alexander Vindman]

What we should be doing is understanding that we could focus on long term objectives. We could be focusing on making sure we have strong alliances with NATO, that our support for that collective defense treaty is ironclad. We should be investing in places like Ukraine or Taiwan, other places around the world that look like they could be the targets for the aggression of our adversaries.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

I guess the pushback to that is that the Biden administration tried that, invested in the relationship with NATO, invested in Ukraine, and here we are with war still raging three years on.

[Alexander Vindman]

I would say that that's not the case. I think the fact is that the Biden administration also fell afoul of hopes and fears. It just did it in a more kind of traditional vein, the same way that preceding administrations, from George H.W. bush through Clinton, through George Bush, President Obama, all committed the same kind of Russia first mistakes. Now it looks like there's a bit of a stark contrast because Trump is taken such an extreme approach to realism that it looks like the Biden administration did more than they actually did. The fact is that they also were day late and a dollar short consistently in providing support to Ukraine.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

When you argue for investing in Ukraine is part of that argument, more weapons to Ukraine, you make that case in the book.

[Alexander Vindman]

That's an essential nature of bringing the war to a close. The problem to a certain extent, is that both sides are relatively imbalanced. The Russians are making tiny incremental gains, but suffering enormous losses. They could weather some of those losses because they have a larger population, they have a larger economy, but they can't do that forever. And the Ukrainians are feisty and fiery. They've historically had higher morale, performed better on the battlefield, but they have limited human resources. And you're not going to find much of a compromise when both sides feel like they're on the cusp of winning or holding out or breaking the other side.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Last thing, do you see any grounds for optimism in the US Russia relationship, understanding, as you've made clear that you don't agree with the way President Trump is handling it, is it better to be talking than not to be talking?

[Alexander Vindman]

I think it's it's a useful thing to have some conversations if those conversations are going to yield results. In this case, what needs to happen is we need to travel the road of folly for a little bit longer where the Trump administration is going to attempt to bring this war to a close, but eventually recognize that there is really no compromising with Putin. And then the question is going to be do we want Russia to be the winner or do we want the US to be the winner? Does Trump want Putin to be the winner or does he want to be the winner himself if he sees no prospect for Russia to compromise? The Russians are going to try to string along these negotiations. They're going to try to play at the fact that they're willing to end the war. But when they don't deliver, that's when there's an opportunity to rebalance and recognize that the support needs to go behind NATO, needs to go behind Ukraine if we want to bring this water.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Closed retired U.S. army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. His new book is the Folly of Realism. Alexander Vindman, thank you.

[Alexander Vindman]

Thank you.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

This episode was produced by Mark Rivers and Alejandra Marquez Hanse. It was edited by Courtney Dorning and Nadia Lancy. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun. It's considered this from npr. I'm Mary Louise Kelly. It's Oscar season and we watched the nominated movies so you don't have to. We are making some bold predictions for Hollywood's biggest night and we may help you win your Oscars pool. Listen to the Pop Culture Happy Hour podcast from npr. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon prime members can listen to Consider this sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get consider this plus@+npr.org that's plus.npr.org.